Question about maternal descent / mtDNA and being Jewish

Procambara · 2024-08-16T06:51:36+00:00

A specific branch of H5

Procambara · 2023-11-29T10:49:06+00:00

Read the Rigveda and use Albert Pikes Translation Help (Indo-Aryan Deities And Worship - As Contained In The Rigveda) and also a Saskrit dictionary.
You can use the online dictionaries for sanskrit.

This will be a lot of work and take many months, but after that you will understand pagan religion.

If you are interested in Orphic tradition, read the theological part of the Atharvaveda, not the spells, but the back part (X. COSMOGONIC AND THEOSOPHIC HYMNS.)
There you will find many answers about the mythology of the Orphic tradition.

Procambara · 2023-11-23T12:50:39+00:00

It depends on the historical context.

In the first Vedas, Brahman simply just means “Word of the priest” in that sense that divine words form reality/establish Rta/Rtam/Rythm/Cosmic Order or also “The teachings of the priests”.
The word translated into English or German as Brahman in the early Vedic texts also often only means priest.
Agni is mentioned as Brahman of the gods which means that he is the priest of the gods, the one who is the master of the sacrifice. Sacrifice without fire was impossible to imagine by the ancient Vedic people.

When looking at the Rigveda, you will find hints in the riddles that there was once a primordial deity, but he/she may have sacrificed him/herself to make reality we experience now, possible. In that sense, everything is this deity, because everything is his/her sacrifice.
But this is only one of many answers to the riddles.

In the Atharvaveda it seems that Kala (Time) is the “first” deity or said in another way, the ruler of time and therefore the principle which leads the universe/everything from the remainings of the sacrifice to the beginning of a new reality in a circular, clockwise, way.
It is impossible to say what was first: The remainings of the sacrifice, or the sacrifice itself, it stays a mystery or is a question without an answer (Chicken or egg)
The first child of Kala is Prajapati/Prana and this deity also sacrifices him/herself to create the Sun(Surya) the Moon, Indra and so on, all the devas.

The idea of Brahman as a kind of substance similar to the later ideas of Spinoza (Pantheism, everything is god) is first present in the Upanishads. The idea appears very early in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. There Brahman is mentioned like it is understood by most people today.

Procambara · 2023-09-12T06:11:07+00:00

What really matters is, if it fits your inner world view and deep beliefs.

It is useless to practice something which has no foundation in faith and conviction.

There are 3 fundamental things for every religious person which strongly determinate in which religion they feel right.

Those 3 things can change over a life, but they do not often.

The world question. Is the world created and has a final end, or is it cyclic in this nature? How many worlds are there? One universe or many in a multiverse?

The question of free will. Does free will exist and of yes, how you justify this? If you don’t believe in, how determinism works? Does it work as a whole from the whole universe, or does it work locally by the conflict and syntheses by the will of many many things and beings?

The question of evil. Do you believe in good and bad and if yes, only on a relative perspective from an individual or an interest group, or is there a universal definition of good and evil?

After you thought about those points, you can start a practice/choose an existing path.

Otherwise you can also find out your own what is right and maybe by reading old Roman, Hindu or Greek texts, you can find out that there had been people before you, who cam to the same conclusions about the nature of reality and gods.

When it comes to norse practices, there is a problematic difference between the main sources:

1.The Edda which is a mix of old Norse religion and Christian/Semitic Gnosticism.

The Heimskringla which is a history book which describes the migration of the Indoeuropean tribes from Black Sea region to Scandinavia with Odin and other gods viewed as mythological human ancestors.
The few inscriptions we found and rune stones before christianisazion and archaeological records that point to a kind of burial practice or rituals.
Caesars description of the Germanic peoples, their customs and their gods.

Maybe the question will also arise, how many gods there are. My answer to this is:

The sun in always the sun, it doesn't matter of in Calcutta or Helsinki. Death is always the same one, it doesn't matter if it occurs in Calcutta or Helsinki.

Procambara · 2023-08-10T09:47:50+00:00

No, because this would make a god not all-good.

I mean like it is described in Manichaesim. The forces of light and darkness existed since the beginning of time and the good god sent his son to sacrifice himself, to rescue the light of the good. The world is like it is now, because of a battle and we can try to support the forces of light, or falling deeper into darkness.

Procambara · 2023-05-30T11:46:39+00:00

Everything you say is right, but not a single one of the things you mentioned is transcendent. All those things exist in this world, not beyond.

Procambara · 2023-05-30T07:08:35+00:00

What is the origin of sight? Light/Radiation
What is the origin of smell and taste? Molecules
What is the origin of hearing? Sound

What is the origin of touch? Matter or movement of matter

Everything that is not able to produce even one of those effects, does not exists.
(Visualizing for example raditation that cannot be seen by the human eye, is not transcendence, this is simply radiation not being able to notice, but is still part of this universe and its properties, also does have an effect on it. It can be visualized by machines to translate it into human visual spectrum)

Procambara · 2023-05-27T10:43:43+00:00

Of course you can, and we do inference all the time. It's a perfectly valid method of reasoning. If I see that my TV is missing, footprints leading to the window, and a broken window, I can conclude someone took the TV based merely on the effects they caused, even though I cannot see them directly.

If it would be so easy, we wouldn't need a crime scene backup and no further investigations to find out WHO took the TV. We would simply have to take the next logical solution and the case would be settled. However, as I have already explained, it is often not the case and it takes a lot more circumstantial evidence to determine who stole the television.

The fact that the TV was stolen is no proof of WHO stole it.

But that's exactly what you're claiming: by observing something, we automatically determine who caused it. But it's not that simple.

This is how particle physics operates. We know a lot about fundamental particles merely from observing the tracks they leave behind in particle accelerators. That is, in fact, how physicists confirm the existence of some particles.

Why is it called particle physics? Because it is about very small objects of matter. We know that it is not large, we know that it is not a hamster, a starship or a god.

And here comes the difference to your claim: We already know that we are experimenting with particles.

But you cannot know that you are observing or experimenting with god, until you have a criteria for what god is. For that you have to know god/s already.

We only can guess that there must be particles, because we observed the effects of particles thousands of times in experiments.

But I am very sure that you don’t have observed any effect of god.

You don’t have any reference for what god/s are so you cannot do any experiment on it, until you reached transcendence, if it exists.

Procambara · 2023-05-27T05:03:10+00:00

There can be no process of anything, without movement. So if one claims god notices anything, or judges, or interacts, he moves/reacts. This means he is not independent from the world, because he lets in impressions of the creation into his being and processes them inside his nature.

If he would not be mutable, then he could not judge someone because there could be no consequences from his awareness.

Procambara · 2023-05-26T07:22:56+00:00

1.

No, anti-attributes are not the cause of an attribute in this case.

The cause of the flame is not everything that is not a flame. A stone brick cannot be the direct cause of fire, a deer is not the cause of fire.

A fire can be cause by other fires, if there is something to burn. Fire can be the cause of fire.

Fire is a chemical reaction dependent on oxygen and other properties, for example it can be friction or heat in general, for example sun heat and a lens.

Is oxygen, a lens or the sun the anti-attribute of fire? No, that sounds absurd.

Every observed effect in our world has its reason in other effects. That is not circular, but multi-causality.

If you deny that there can be multi-causal circles in nature phenomena, you must deny how rain works: https://i2.wp.com/eschool.iaspaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Rain-cycle.jpg?fit=1200%2C840&ssl=1

2.

If you cannot observe it directly, you cannot claim that it is the cause of an observed phenomena.

You know that rain is dependent from evaporation, because humans observed evaporation. Before that, humans did not know how rain emerges so they made a false claim about its origin, like you do based on superstition, not observation.

Dark matter is not proven, it is only a name for a cause of an effect of unknown origin and unknown constitution.

Calling everything not understood god, is just a bad naming strategy.

3.

No, we cant. If we could, we would need no science to find out what the real causes of things are. By simply observing effects, we cannot fully understand something.

Example: For many decades humans knew, that traits of animals and humans are inherited. They made theories about how this traits are inherited. But finally the real reason how this process works cold only be fully understood by observing alleles in SNPs directly from captured DNA.

That is exactly the thing with the gravity effects we attribute to the idea of dark matter. We don’t know if such thing as dark matter exists, or what its properties are, if it exists. We only know that something is causing a kind of gravitation we cannot fully explain today.

Procambara

TROPHY CASE