Messages from the fifth dimension

Those of you familiar with Pink Floyd's song, Comfortably Numb, may not recognize the following line from that song:

"A distant chipmunk on the horizon."

And rightly so. It isn't in there. However, to some, that is the line that immediately follows, "There is no pain, you are receding."

This sort of thing comes from people listening to, but not understanding, the lyrics of a song, poem, or other. It is human nature to try to make sense of what is heard, and it is a well-known scientific fact that, if a person doesn't understand what is said (for example, if their vocabulary doesn't include the word or phrase), they will translate the words into the nearest set of sounds that make sense to them.

Sometimes, the problem is pronounciation, always a problematic thing with rock musicians. For example, for years I thought Creedence Clearwater Revival was singing, "There's a bathroom on the right." (I am not making this up.) I am embarrassed to admit how long it took for me to finally figure out that what they were really singing was "There's a bad moon on the rise." My only excuse is that this is how my mother sang the song, and I didn't think she could be wrong.

At the time, I also didn't know that the name of the song was "Bad Moon." In fact, it was when I first learned that the name of the song was "Bad Moon" that the penny dropped and I realized what they had been singing all along. Until then, I thought "There's a bathroom on the right" was one of those strange, surrealistically random phrases that rock musicians were fond of putting into their songs in that era.

Mishearing song lyrics (and other such things) isn't new, though it has become more popular to codify and collect the mishearings. There is even a term for misheard lyrics: mondegreens. If you Google for the word "mondegreen," you'll find any number of Web sites devoted to the topic (and explaining the origin of the term), though my favorite misheard lyrics site, which you won't find by searching for mondegreen, is http://www.amiright.com/.

While checking out that site, I was relieved to find that I was not the only one who thought that Creedence was singing about a bathroom on the right. Though chipmunk lovers everywhere may be disappointed to learn that that Pink Floyd lyric should be "a distant ship's smoke on the horizon."

Posted by Marina at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

At long last, I am posting part of a dream I had over a year ago that contained, I believe, true information about two kinds of very special tea. These teas can help balance one's emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual selves. The reason I am posting the dream is that, after having the dream, I did research to see if those kinds of teas existed, and I found that one of them did, indeed, exist with the exact name I received in the dream. So here are the significant portions of the dream (there was much, much more to it, but I am only posting the soul of the dream for brevity's sake).

Sunday, August 25, 2002

... As I was gazing up into the evening sky, my brother David and I both saw one or more flying saucers, quite large, circling distantly above the house. We felt no sense of danger—just anticipation.

We watched silently as evening continued to fall and the saucers continued to circle, then finally spoke to each other about what we were seeing. By the time we spoke, evening had fallen completely and we were looking up into the night sky. The saucers were gone. Instead, in the night sky, we saw two beautiful new rings of stars that were quite bright, very close to each other, and were somehow connected to each other. They were slightly to the east of the meridian and zenith of the sky.

I lay on my back with a small hand monocular to see them better, then saw that writing was appearing in the rings. The message had something to do with preparing oneself for the end times. It predicted that there would be four rings of stars total in the sky (these two were the first two), and when all four appeared, that would signal the end of our times as we know it and the start of a new era. There was also the implication that each ring represented a pillar of some sort, with four being the number of completion and totality for whatever they represented. I somehow knew or guessed that the other two would be separate from these two, but also joined to each other, and I speculate that each pair represents the joining of mind and body and of will and emotions.

Excitedly, I called to David to bring me something to write on. At first he brought me a large, round, transparent salmon-pink plastic platter. Distractedly, I told him no, no, I wanted something to write on, and it had to be big—I was thinking of a large, 11x17 sheet of white cardboard. Next he brought me a business card to write on the back of. I resignedly decided to use it because I felt I was running out of time to get the messages, hoping I could at least get the most important part of the message. As I wrote, the amount of the message that I could see got smaller and smaller, until I only saw the amount that I remembered when I woke.

Here is what I remember: I wrote down the names of two kinds of tea to drink. The first one was called Bukka (pronounced boo kaw), but I circled the Buk because the message said that only that part of the name of the tea would be remembered. The second one was called something like Shaksaheavennna (pronounced (shock suh heaven na, and maybe I put one too many "n"s in the name when I woke up and wrote them down, but this is what I wrote down). I circled the Shak because again, that is all that would be remembered of the name of the tea. The remaining two rings would tell of the remaining two kinds of tea to drink.

The information I received about the teas (while still in the dream) is that both go back to Atlantean times and before, and have to do with balancing and restoring one's physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual selves, or the four parts of ourselves that correspond to the four temperaments.

In Atlantean times, everyone knew of these teas. However, no one would want to drink the teas unless they were of a certain level of spiritual advancement. It wasn't that the teas were forbidden to anyone; it was just that the teas would simply not appeal to those souls who were not ready for them.

In the dream, the information about the teas was being given to those who had the interest and the ability to read the messages in the rings of stars, and I was one of them. There was nothing said about not spreading the word about the teas to anyone, for only those who were ready to drink the teas would even be interested in the information. And even if someone pursued the teas who was not ready, they would not be able to benefit from them, for the teas worked on many levels, and much of their operation depended on conscious, aware co-creation with the teas.

Discussion

After I woke up from the dream, I did some research on the teas, with the following results:

Buk Tea

I was not able to find a tea called Buk tea. I did find that there was once a ruler of India familiarly known as Bukka; there is a town named after him and another that was perhaps named after his wife. More here:

http://travel.indiamart.com/andhra-pradesh/anantapur/

Bukka had a brother named Hakka or Harihara:

http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatlkings/hakkabukka/

Bukka is also a Japanese word, though I don't know what it means.

Shak Tea

I had more luck with Shak tea. I found it for sale here:

http://www.kayakalpa.com/MainSite/ShopOnline/ShakTea.asp

It is an Ayurvedic tea, which means that it goes back thousands of years, and I do believe that the ancient, very ancient Indians had contact with Atlanteans.

The ingredients are

• cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum)
• holy basil (Ocimum sanctum)
• brahmi, also known as thyme-leafed gratiola (Bacopa monnieri)
• shankhpushpi (Evolvulus alsinoides)
• bala (Sida cordifolia)
• asparagus (Asparagus Racemosus)
• giant potato root (Pueraria tuberosa; tonic properties)
• Withania somnifera (tonic properties; http://florawww.eeb.uconn.edu/acc_num/199200148.html)
• licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra)
• ginger (Zingiber officinale)
• black pepper (Piper nigrum)
• Indian long pepper (Piper longum)

If some of the above links don't work, for an alternative source of information on a number of these spices and herbs, see Dr. Duke's
Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases

Here's another place that sells something similar, but not identical:

http://www.canadamedexpress.com/detail.aspPRODUCT_ID=METAGME015

Disclaimer

Posted by Marina at 09:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Someone forwarded me an email from MoveOn.org urging everyone to pledge to vote "No" in the recall election. The email calls the recall "an attack on democracy," characterizing it as "crazy" and something that only serves a "lone" congressman and a single actor. (I presume they mean Ahhnold, though Gary Coleman is also running. The comic Leo Gallagher is also on the ballot as well, though I had a hard time finding him there. The ballot is supposed to be in alphabetical order, but somehow everyone whose last name started with a G ended up between Sylvester and Zellhoefer.)

I find this such an egregious attempt at calling black white that I have to speak.

Recalling candidates is one way to redress bad voter choices and questionable political practices. Yes, recalls are sometimes planned even before an election, which is certainly an abuse of the system, but to say that a recall is "anti-democratic," as if somehow voting isn't involved, is a laughably transparent attempt at manipulating people's emotions. I hope people are alert enough to spot the contradictions apparent in this email.

And anyway, supposedly only "40 percent of the 22 million people eligible to vote in last November's statewide election actually cast a ballot." (Statistic taken from here.) Pitiful.

Speaking of the recall, have any of you in California taken a look at your sample ballot yet? I have, and I was quite, quite amused at the occupations of some of the candidates.

Only in America could such people as Larry Flynt, "Publisher" (and we all know what he publishes--materials of quite questionable taste that appeal to the lowest and most prurient interests of adult males....), run for governorship of one of the largest states. And there's more.

How about Michael Jackson, satellite project manager? That sounds quite interesting. At least he has made an attempt at a platform, unlike some of the candidates for whom I couldn't find a Web site.

Then there's Bruce Margolin, marijuana legalization attorney. Although I am totally not a drug user myself, I also have those scary Libertarian ideals that say less government and few laws; make everyone be responsible for themselves; therefore, legalize all drugs but have severe penalties for damaging others while under the influence of same. Not that Bruce gets my vote. Nonetheless, he may attract the marijuana smokers' vote, if they can get motivated enough to get off the couch and actually go do something with their lives. But wait...taking a look at his Web site, I find that he might have something there. He suggests that we "Take California's No.1 cash crop off of the black market and tax the sale and distribution of Marijuana in the state." Good lord! That's actually a great idea! People are selling it anyway. Let's tax it!

Then there's Kurt E. "Tachikaze" Rightmyer, middleweight sumo wrestler. Sumo wrestling is probably good practice for wrestling with the state budget and recalcitrant representatives. I like the suggestion made by one of his fellow sumo wrestlers for determining who is to be our next governor: "... just get it over with and have an eight-round, 256-person tournament (just grab some guys off the streets to fill out the roster if needed) to decide the gubernatorial race. Sure would be even more entertaining than a simple one-ballot vote. And kinda appropriate, too, considering all the folks from the entertainment sector who are running." (Asashosakari, posting to SumoForum.net on this page.)

Here's one who sounds imminently qualified to lead the state: Paul "Chip" Mailander, golf professional. I guess he could take a whack at the state budget and possibly do better than Davis did. Though that isn't saying much! But what was Wan A. Hall, custom denture manufacturer, thinking when he signed up? Google turned up zip on him.

I have to admit that my eyebrows raised a bit at Angelyne, "entertainer," and Mary "Mary Carey" Cook, adult film actress. What Mary has looks all real...every inch of it. And she has a platform too...and I don't mean, um, her chest. Perhaps Mary and Flynt could work something out on a national level—she could run for president and he could be her vice-presidential candidate. Angelyne could be their Secretary of State. Mr. Rightmyer could be in the Department of Defense. But no, darn it, Mary just lost my vote for being anti-gun.

The bottom line is that anyone could and did enter this election. Now THATS democracy for you. And who is to say that any one of the people I mentioned, or the dozens I didn't, wouldn't do a better job than the sorry excuse we have in office right now?

Of course, you WERE planning to vote, right? And did you know that you don't have to vote either "yes" or "no" for the recall, and yet you can still vote for a candidate? (But only one; if you vote for more than one, your vote is invalidated.) Plus there are two measures on the ballot that you might want to take a look at while you are there. So on October7, 2003, what are you going to do? Yes, that's right, you are going to go VOTE!

Posted by Marina at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I received my California special election voter information guide today. It is very interesting to note the wording of the "pro" and "con" arguments for the recall of Governor Gray Davis.

The "pro" reads much like the Declaration of Independence, in that it lists specific, legitimate grievances against Davis.

Davis's response, by contrast, side-steps the indictments by speaking of things that don't matter, such as the cost of the recall to Californians, which is a negligible dip in the bucket compared to the budget. The only acknowledgement he gives at all to the real issues is to say that the recall is "trying to blame one person for all of California's problems." He makes no mention of the 9 BILLION DOLLARS that the energy companies whisked away from California during the so-called energy crisis under Davis's apparently unseeing eye (and under accusations that have yet been laid to rest of him being a participant in the raping of California), or of the oddly-similar 9-BILLION-DOLLAR deficit that California is now experiencing after having been under Davis's questionable guidance. Davis started his governorship with something like a 9 billion dollar SURPLUS. Not only is that money gone, but we are in the hole to the tune of 9 billion more, making a total of 18 BILLION dollars that have vanished from California under Davis's eye.

Yet, instead of responding to these facts and explaining himself, Davis uses inflammatory, emotion-laden words to try to manipulate people into a knee-jerk reaction against the recall.

Don't let him do it. An honest person would refute the charges point-by-point, showing the good things he's done. The fact that Gray Davis isn't able to marshall even one solid argument in his favor, isn't able to point to even one factual, good thing he's done for the state, is truly damning.

Instead, he tries to make you afraid, saying that he is the best choice, not because he is a great governor, but because (ooh! scary!) we don't know who will be our next governor, and it might be someone we don't like. Therefore, in his mind, it would be better to keep him. ("Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"?) Which raises another question: What exactly does Davis mean when he says "voters won't know who the replacement would be when they vote on the recall"? Since when have we EVER known who would be elected? Is Davis trying to tell us that our elections ared all rigged otherwise, but that somehow this one won't be? All the more reasons to vote then, say I, and definitely vote against him if he is involved in any kind of election-rigging scheme.

He also says that the next governor could potentially be elected by 15% of the vote. He doesn't define what he means by "the vote." Does he mean 15% of all potential voters, or only 15% of those actually voting? I would guess the former, since he wasn't specific; it makes his argument sound more drastic. But is it all that drastic, even so? Considering that in the last presidential election, only 17% of those eligible to vote voted for Bush (and another 17% for Gore), what Davis says isn't news; it's normal.

So go read your voter information guide. Think about it. Then be sure to vote. And don't vote out of fear. Vote out of the strength of being informed.

Posted by Marina at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night, I re-read the Declaration of Independence in order to explain it to my host daughter, who is working on some assignments for her US History and US Government classes. This document, for those who may not know, was written by then-members of the British colonies in America to declare independence from British rule and to explain why it was felt necessary to do so.

While explaining the document, I realized that it truly is, as so many have said, a masterpiece of persuasive writing. I didn't used to think so, but then, I had never really read it carefully. I have changed my mind now, and am sharing what I recently discovered so that others may find additional value in this, the founding document of the United States of America.

Today seems an especially good day to do so.

Let's tackle the document in sections.

Title

The first part, the date and title, establish the document in place and time:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

The "unanimous" part of the title is extremely important. Although demanding that it be unanimous or never be passed was a move on the part of a British loyalist to block forever the move toward independence, it was in fact a wise decision. As pointed out so ably in one of my favorite movies, 1776 (a musical, but don't let that put you off; it is extremely accurate and entertaining), had the agreement not been unanimous, had only the majority of the states declared independence, then in the ensuing conflict, friends and relatives would have found themselves on opposite sides, one fighting against the other.

Introduction

The next part is an introduction (most people call this and the next section the preamble).

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Basically, what this paragraph is saying is that, when a group of people want to disconnect from their government so that they can govern themselves in another way, it is important to explain why. There is more there, of course, but I think it is obvious and will leave it to you to enjoy.

Guiding Principles

After the introduction comes a list of guiding principles; truths that would be self-evident to any sane, reasonable, thinking person and that therefore would not need to be argued over or explained.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. __That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, __That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. __Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This can be divided into several very logical sections.

1. The first section is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This section states that all men (people) are created equal, and that there are certain rights that are not granted by any form of government or by any human or earthly power, but that are instead rights that all human beings have by right of being alive. No form of government can take those rights away. Notice that the rights listed are only some of the rights people are endowed with. One of our founding fathers once said that our rights were as "innumerable as the stars." The Bill of Rights was simply written to summarize some of the most important ones, not to be an exhaustive list of our rights, nor even anything close to one.
2. The next part, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," builds upon what was previously said. People create governments to ensure their God-given rights. Such governments obtain "their just powers from the consent of the governed." In other words, the only reason the government has any power is because the people grant it that power. It is important to notice the use of the word "just" here, as it means that only those powers that are just (that is, honorable and fair) are derived from the consent of those governed.
3. Next, this statement follows: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This is saying that when a government is destructive of the rights of the people, then the people have the right to change that government or even to get rid of it entirely, and to create a better one in its place.
4. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This part says that, if one has had a form of government for a long time, it is usually considered better to put up with it, even if bad, if it isn't too bad, rather than to change it, and definitely it is not right to change the government for reasons that are not important or that relate only to something that won't last.
5. However, what if the government is just too terrible to put up with? Then it is the right of the people—even their duty—to get rid of that government and create a new one that protects their rights and freedoms. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
6. In this case, the colonists felt that their form of government (i.e., King George III) had become a despotic tyranny under which they had no safety or rights. The final part of this section says so, and provides an introduction to the next section, which is a list of evidence supporting this tatement. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Facts

After the above paragraph follows a long list of tyrannical actions taken by King George, including the removal of rights that British citizens had. These rights included participating in their own governance, the right to fair trial, the right to pursue murderers and bring them to justice (King George's soldiers, quartered among the colonists, were murdering citizens and were never brought to justice for it), liberty, and so on. King George had acted repeatedly to remove these rights.

I won't repeat the list here, but encourage you to read it carefully. The gist of this section is that it shows King George had become a despot and was treating the colonists in a fashion that no free people should have to endure.

Attempts to Make it Right

Despite all this, the colonists tried to get their grievances redressed within the system, both by appealing to the government and appealing to their friends and relatives among those still living on British soil, all to no avail.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Conclusion and Declaration

The final part (not counting the important 56 signatures) is a declaration based on the foregoing argument. Having said that people have the right to change their government if it infringes badly on their rights (especially to life and liberty), and having said that King George's government was doing so, the colonists then declare that they are free and independent states. Read this part carefully: It is the sum and the meat of the entire Declaration. One part is especially important to note: Each state in the United States is an independent state in exactly the same way that a country is. Each state has its own right to levy war, conclude peace, and so on.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

After that, 56 signatures follow. Remember that at the time, this was considered an act of treason by the British. However, war did not follow; war was already being waged on the colonies, and had been for over a year. British soldiers and mercenaries had already been in colonies, killing citizens, for that long. This document was a response to that undeclared war, and merely brought to a boil what had long been simmering.

Copyright notice: The text of the Declaration was taken from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Web site. You can virtually sign the Declaration at that Web site if you like. You can also find many useful pieces of information there.

Everything I have written about the Declaration here in this article is copyright 2003 by Marina Michaels; I thought it out myself and wrote it in my own original words without referring to any other documents.

Posted by Marina at 08:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Awaking once again from a wonderful dream of a man I have never met (though I know he exists; he's famous), I feel that the following poem conveys something of what I feel.

Better never to have met you
In my dream
Than to wake and reach
For hands that are not there.

—Otomo No Yakamochi

Though I believe that what happens in our dreams is as real or perhaps even more real than this 3D world we call reality; things of the spirit last far longer than things of the flesh. Perhaps someday I will meet him in this world; if not, I have the very real feelings from my dreams to sustain me.

Posted by Marina at 02:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)