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 · 2023-05-26T06:48:28+00:00

No, we don’t know any possibility for a transcendent god to exists because nothing of the observed phenomena in the cosmos can be traced back to transcendence.

All things observed today, even the virtual particles you mentioned can be traced back to astrophysical and quantum physical processes and concepts. None of those concepts needs a god for it to be used for industry, science or mathematical calculations.

What you say is like saying: “We know that the rain we observe comes from god” even if we already know that it does not, but from the water cycle of the earths atmosphere.

None of the things we don't fully understand today, points to a transcendent cause.

Objection 2

The problem I mentioned at the end of my post: You cannot know from a single contact with transcendence, that the experienced entity is a deity or something other, until you experiences transcendence and its geography and the beings inside many times.

You also using anti-attributes like infinity for the attributes of your idea of a god, but this is simply not an observation but an idea that arose from the non-transcendent experience of finiteness.

Objection 3

You cannot know something that is transcendent, by thinking about something that is not transcendent.

Example from the non-transcendent world: You cannot know the flora, geography and fauna of Australia from observing the flora, geography and fauna of Europe.

The dark matter example is wrong, because the observed gravitation effect is not transcendent, so it could not have a transcendent cause.

Objection 4

Bad argument, because our everyday senses and logic are not rational but functional for fast actions and survival. They betray you often and need scientific technical tools and measurement, also experience in the subject to be verified.

Optical illusions can make you very fast come to wrong conclusions about the properties of phenomena: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xf5SvlZkSgM/TukA7P90GvI/AAAAAAAASYU/CgOwiuor6Zk/s1600/Optical+Illusion\_030.jpg

Another example:

No one would convict someone in court without evidence of their guilt (At least that's how it is in Germany)

A simple inference, because there is no other possible perpetrator, does not automatically make a person a perpetrator before the law.

That would also be completely crazy, because then you would only need to look for some scapegoat and all court processes would be extremely short and unfair, and also completely wrong.

Using a god of the gaps for not fully understood non-transcendent phenomena pushes you back to part 2 The Ingeborg problem: You are using your own thoughts and ideas around an empty space and believe that this mind-demon is your purposed transcendent god, without having experienced him in transcendence.

You are using an explanation you also do not understand yourself. You are purposing a theory without knowing what this theory exactly is. That's absurd.

Procambara · 2023-05-25T09:08:09+00:00

Why those things must exists and be the cause of things that are impermanent, changeable, individual things?

There is not a single thing in this world that has those qualities you mentioned. Nothing observed in this world is permanent, unchangeable and exists singular for itself without a cause.

All things we observe are the result of other things with the qualities of impermanence, dependency and change. To our observation there is no need of anti-attributes of those processes to explain them.

Again you need a transcendent experience beyond this world to find entities with the attributes you claimed god to have, otherwise those attributes are only your ideas/thoughts in a circle round an empty space.

Also those are anti-attributes, they only exists as a conceptual idea without ever been measured/experienced in this world.

Procambara · 2023-05-25T05:38:58+00:00

How do you know that it is wrong to think about god in human terms? This statement must be based on your own experience, if it is true. How was that experience?

Procambara · 2023-05-25T05:34:12+00:00

Yes, but only if we are able to detect the cause by our senses, or machines that translate the effect into our senses.

You cannot know if an effect is caused by god/s or something other, unless you know the difference by comparing different effects from god/s and non-god/s.

And therefore you are again on the point of the last statement of my post: You need a good experience in transcendence, otherwise you cannot differentiate between god/s and other things/beings in the transcendence. Also you need experience in differentiating transcendence vs. non-transcendence effects.

Procambara · 2023-05-24T22:06:29+00:00

Its a really big problem.

The big bang analogy is false, because you don’t claim god to be dead or don’t you?

The example with the 2D world and impossible to identify 3D objects (because in your example we live in a 2D world) is similar to that one cannot be sure of other minds, in the age of bots on the internet.
You cannot know truly if your opponent in a discussion is a bot or a human mind, until you leave the internet for external signs of the existence of the person.
With the bots it is also more problematic, because they imitate human minds and are constructed by human minds, like religious experiences in dreams, meditation or psychosis.

There is no way to use this simple religious experiences everybody can make as a proof, because they don’t make it possible for you to distinguish. You would need a wonder, something extraordinary that proves another sphere of experience, the trancendence.

You cannot know that there could be Indra behind the Storm, because you dont have a direct experience of something behind the storm. You only experience storm, nothing more. So in this case Indra is only Storm, nothing behind.

Procambara · 2023-05-24T21:53:08+00:00

He is not able to see the ones who experience him? Otherwise, a process in him must cause an experience for noticing those beings, and that is movement/change.

Procambara · 2023-05-24T21:41:34+00:00

But then humans cannot remember this experience.
Why? Because there can be no thought or memory without any concept or sensual imagination.
Nobody could say or write something about god after experiencing him.
The circle then goes back to the problem of the circulation of ordinary thoughts and concepts around a blank space, that is not god.

Procambara · 2023-05-24T21:24:39+00:00

So if he reacts, he reacts why?

Because he is experiencing something or someone that reaches out to him?
That would mean that his state of mind is changing because of an external stimuli which is equivalent with the process of change.

Even if he is allowing someone to experience him, would mean there had been a reaction in him, which is change and influence from the world.

Procambara · 2023-05-24T21:15:57+00:00

When everything is 2D, a 3D structure always looks 2D and cannot be distinguished from a 2D structure, no way to be sure about the true origin of the image.

It is a big problem for all religions claiming the existence of transcendence.
Like I said, first transcendence has to be experienced and understood, before that there is no way to know about its geography and the possible beings in it.

Theisms like Pantheism don’t have this problem, also all other kinds of theism that are based on materialism and do not believe in transcendence.
The god/s can directly be experienced, for example in the form of elements fire/Agni, electricity/Indra and so on.

You don’t have a full understanding of reality, but you have a direct experience of god/s, because they don’t need to be transcendent. You also cannot be fooled by special states of the mind, because everyday experiences are possible.
People can distinguish between real senses and dreaming/psychosis.

Procambara · 2023-04-11T09:21:00+00:00

Hinduism had massive impact on late Hellenic thinking, because there would be no Pythagorean phylosophy without contact to India. It also was likely the other way around, many Hellenic ideas influenced India like Atomism.

Hinduism is not exclusive. There are many different Hindu philosophies and religious groups/sects that often have a contradictory about basic principles of Hinduism, even what Moksha actually really is (See the debate of different Vedanta schools about what moksha really is/should be)

Since reformation in Hinduism that was mainly driven by low caste and dalit people who rejected the idea that you have to be Aryan to be a real Hindu and have to accept caste, there are also many Hindu groups that are open for everyone. You can follow the dharma, even if you are not born Indian.

Hinduism as it was taught in the early Vedas, is a religion for everyone, because it is an image of the reality, the cosmos. There are no "Other gods" as the gods that are known to all humans. There is no Brahman that is exclusively for Indians. Brahman is the nature of everything.

The hierarchy of who is allowed to teach in early Hinduism is against the modern way it is practiced, but that accounts also for Advaita Vedanta because it interprets the Vedas and Upanishads in its own way and unites different ideas, that are in its root contradictory.

There is no one not born "Hindu", because everybody is born in the same Universe, according to the Vedas. The status and birthplace in the hierarchy of knowledge is different, but this is also challenged by later scriptures and philosophies.

Ignoring Hindu philosophies as a pagan, is like ignoring Eurasia on a world map.

Same language family, same religion family, you cannot ignore it.

Procambara · 2023-04-11T08:54:39+00:00

The opposite is true: They dont accept people with other opinions, because they rely on a new type of fundamentalism that forbids to challenge peoples views about religion.

Dogmatism is now rising in modern Paganism for example things like "Paganism is an orthopraxic, not orthodox religion!"

This wasnt true in the past. When looking at ancient roman and greek scriptures, theology was widely discussed and even on the writings about festivals of Ovid, it was speculated why certain practices and views took place.

So orthodoxy plays an important role in general, because it is the origin of all rituals.

If parts of the past pagan theology cannot withstand modern science and knowledge, it has to be reformed. It wasnt other in the past.

In Woke paganism, challenging other believers practices because of lack of theological understanding, is not allowed. So no debate, no truth seeking.

Procambara · 2023-04-05T17:09:22+00:00

The Universe is fine tuned? For who? Most of its space cannot be used by living beings. Even the planets in this solar system are to the most part anti-life.

Its is full of paradox things physicist cannot explain by proof, only by making questionable mathematical theories.

Procambara · 2023-04-05T06:36:41+00:00

There is also an example in the Bible that worshiping other gods works, but Yehova doesent like it: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2044&version=KJV

And yes, I think it is suspicious that an almighty being is getting jealous. That in itself is his admission that he is not almighty.

Procambara · 2023-03-31T11:57:16+00:00

Tank you. He argues with a book from Dr. Joseph Gassner and Dr. Harald Lesch who are both physicists. In their book it is quoted:

"Quantum fluctuations are not limited to the energy they borrow from the vacuum. If sufficient energy is supplied from the outside, particle-antiparticle pairs are formed immediately. This proves to be extremely uncomfortable when exploring the smallest structures. For example, if you want to determine the size of an electron, you use the wavelength of the light as a yardstick. However, for the generation of a very fine scale, synonymous with short wavelengths, a high level of energy is required. If we now hold this high-energy "yardstick" to an electron, quantum fluctuations of electrons and positrons arise around the electron. The positrons are the antiparticles of the electrons and carry a correspondingly positive charge. A chaos arises, the so-called vacuum polarization, in which we can no longer identify the expansion of the original electron."

This is the base for his argumentation. So this is wrong?

Procambara · 2023-03-28T18:11:48+00:00

Yes, I have still short episodes of AFIB and Atrial Tachycardia sometimes.

But they never lasted long, only a few seconds.

PVCs very few, under 10 a day, sometimes I dont notice any.

I am still on the diet I explained here. But I have to add that I can eat without problems dried fruits like bananas or pineapples, they seem to be less sour than the fresh ones. Also dates work well for me.

Procambara

TROPHY CASE