lets start from the beginning! (all pun intentional)
there is a dispute between two teachings regarding the flower of life. i have witnessed and experienced the miracle of the flower of life and do so forever more. this debate came up during another conversation at another tribe (vis SunRa), and we want to talk about it! this is a linky situation, so i thought i'd start here since it was during my "dna activation".
so heres the link to the letter of interest.
(i find it interesting that it's a man and a woman)
i seek to ...balance...
anistara*)
Open Letter
from Drunvalo Melchizedek
to Anna Hayes
March 13, 2003
Dear Anna Hayes,
I have posted this one on my web page publicly as you have with your letter. I have no problem with this, and I hope you do not either, since these letters are really not for you or me but for our students.
It is clear that you have introduced to the world a brand of your own science and language. And, of course, people have the right to pursue your understandings wherever they may lead. You and I have responsibilities to those students attracted to our material, and we both must maintain the integrity of our materials and the methods we birthed into the world as we see fit.
I have a responsibility to address the needs of Flower of Life students who seek clarity, specifically from my perspective, on the material you have released to the public in one of your books, which inaccurately describes and misquotes an aspect of my teachings.
This misquote in your book is causing confusion within my students and the general public, and they have asked for clarification. They have asked me to address this misquote and to compare the differences between our two similar but completely different technologies. To do this, I must point out to them the dangers as it has been made clear to me. To do less would be irresponsible. I am sure you are also doing the same with my work from your opinion. As we both have a right to publicize our material, we both have a right to disagree with some of the teachings themselves. This is the nature of our work.
To argue who is right and who is wrong pertaining to cosmic lineages is pointless because in Reality there is no polarity anyway. Fighting over duality just creates more duality, and my purpose is to go beyond polarity. If yours is to debate within polarity, find someone else who believes as you do.
If we remove the polarity elements upon which we disagree concerning the Order of Melchizedek, Archangel Michael, Thoth, etc., which is simply your opinion against mine, then we are left with an issue of Mer-Ka-Ba technique and science that each of us has a deep responsibility to share with our students. So let's examine the science behind the Mer-Ka-Ba, which is essential if any truth is to emerge and this discussion is to actually help anyone. On this subject we differ dramatically.
there is a dispute between two teachings regarding the flower of life. i have witnessed and experienced the miracle of the flower of life and do so forever more. this debate came up during another conversation at another tribe (vis SunRa), and we want to talk about it! this is a linky situation, so i thought i'd start here since it was during my "dna activation".
so heres the link to the letter of interest.
(i find it interesting that it's a man and a woman)
i seek to ...balance...
anistara*)
Open Letter
from Drunvalo Melchizedek
to Anna Hayes
March 13, 2003
Dear Anna Hayes,
I have posted this one on my web page publicly as you have with your letter. I have no problem with this, and I hope you do not either, since these letters are really not for you or me but for our students.
It is clear that you have introduced to the world a brand of your own science and language. And, of course, people have the right to pursue your understandings wherever they may lead. You and I have responsibilities to those students attracted to our material, and we both must maintain the integrity of our materials and the methods we birthed into the world as we see fit.
I have a responsibility to address the needs of Flower of Life students who seek clarity, specifically from my perspective, on the material you have released to the public in one of your books, which inaccurately describes and misquotes an aspect of my teachings.
This misquote in your book is causing confusion within my students and the general public, and they have asked for clarification. They have asked me to address this misquote and to compare the differences between our two similar but completely different technologies. To do this, I must point out to them the dangers as it has been made clear to me. To do less would be irresponsible. I am sure you are also doing the same with my work from your opinion. As we both have a right to publicize our material, we both have a right to disagree with some of the teachings themselves. This is the nature of our work.
To argue who is right and who is wrong pertaining to cosmic lineages is pointless because in Reality there is no polarity anyway. Fighting over duality just creates more duality, and my purpose is to go beyond polarity. If yours is to debate within polarity, find someone else who believes as you do.
If we remove the polarity elements upon which we disagree concerning the Order of Melchizedek, Archangel Michael, Thoth, etc., which is simply your opinion against mine, then we are left with an issue of Mer-Ka-Ba technique and science that each of us has a deep responsibility to share with our students. So let's examine the science behind the Mer-Ka-Ba, which is essential if any truth is to emerge and this discussion is to actually help anyone. On this subject we differ dramatically.
-
hayes vs. drunvalo
Mon, May 16, 2005 - 9:37 PMPertaining to the method of spinning the top and bottom "tetrahedrons" versus spinning the "star-tetrahedrons" and their direction of spin, it is clear that both our materials and methods differ. We are not even close. My intention is not to change you, but to make available to you first hand the clear unblemished version as I learned and taught it because it is misquoted in your book. Even if you do not agree with the technology, I believe that your responsibility is to quote it accurately.
It is in both our best interests to serve our students and the public responsibly and to provide enough information on this critical area and to quote each other accurately if we reference each other's work. Once the student has accurate information, those who are interested can make their own decisions through the guidance of their hearts, minds, and Higher Selves.
If then I have misquoted you, I apologize to you, as it is not my intention to misquote you.
You entertain strong viewpoints, opinions, and reasons as to the purpose of your Mer-Ka-Ba methods, as do I. Neither of us will change the other I feel certain. So let us both work with the fact that we (and our methods) are different, and even though we may think we understand each other's motivations, the truth is we really do not. No person or being can truly understand the heart, soul, or motivation of another! I withdraw any perceived animosity as this does not serve anyone and more importantly it is not my intention. The truth is that if we truly did understand each other, these communications would never even have to be written!
Please use the following information as best as it may serve you. I realize that you may already understand what I am about to share, however I must insure that it is being relayed to you firsthand in a clear and undistorted fashion and that my students and the general public are clear about my instructions of the Order of Melchizedek's Mer-Ka-Ba. In this way, we can avoid any further misquotes or misunderstandings between us.
CLARIFICATION
As it has been taught to me, the version of tetrahedronal spinning you are endorsing is exceptionally dangerous to the students because: If you spin your Mer-Ka-Ba field in the direction that you are endorsing in your book, major spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical distortions can occur in students who practice continuously over a period of several years. Further, the direction of spin of the overall Mer-Ka-Ba field is of paramount importance to the success of creating a living harmonious energy field in and around your body. On this last statement I believe we both agree.
The information I have on this is as follows.
The Melchizedek Order teaches that in the "Second Order" of the possible Mer-Ka-Ba fields there are three sets of Star Tetrahedrons centered on the same axis and the same size, and that one full set (top and bottom) rotates one way and another full set rotates the other direction, and that one full set remains stationary (under most conditions). There is or can be vast amounts of information more, but basically that is the Mer-Ka-Ba in its simplest description. The stationary set is what the other two sets rotate to relatively and represents the physical body. Your reasoning for us having a stationary set, we feel, is simply distorting the truth as we perceive it.
As I understand your instructions, you spin the top tetrahedron in one direction and the bottom tetrahedron in the other. From the Melchizedek tradition, which is on my tapes, this is called the "First Order" or simplest type of Mer-Ka-Ba there is out of over 100,000 orders of Mer-Ka-Bas. This is not wrong to use this "First Order," only it has extreme limitations and it is not appropriate at this time for ascension. Shamans and medicine men and women have been using this system for thousands of years for healing and other reasons. It is nothing new. The problem as I see it is not the system, but the direction of spin. If you were spinning the top and bottom system counter-clockwise, I would not see any harm in your work, only its limitations.
In order to understand the proper direction that a Mer-Ka-Ba should spin, then, we must examine vortex mechanics and then turn our attention to nature for examples.
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Mon, May 16, 2005 - 9:38 PMVORTEX MECHANICS
To enable greater understanding of vortex mechanics and the proper direction of spin involved in creating the Mer-Ka-Ba field we need to understand natural vortex mechanics occurring in nature. Vortexes occurring in nature give us the ability to see what types of vortexes encourage and enhance life and which do not. From this observation a decision can be decisively made as to which way a Mer-Ka-Ba should rotate according to nature. Since the Mer-Ka-Ba is going in both ways at once, the overall direction a Mer-Ka-Ba "rotates" is determined by the stronger or faster direction.
A spinning vortex has two parts, one which generates the vortex or what I will call the creating "source" of the vortex and the other which is the outer appearance of the spiraling arms of energy that extend out from the source. There are other factors to consider, such as where one is viewing the vortex, either the North or South Pole, which will cause the vortex to appear to be rotating in the complete opposite direction. So in examination of a vortex the same pole must be chosen as reference. Also the mathematics behind the vortex, such as Golden Mean or Fibonacci for example, have an effect. A Golden Mean vortex will rotate inward or outward forever, but a Fibonacci vortex will eventually reach zero if moving inward and then rotate outward in the opposite direction forever.
But for this exercise, the only thing that is important is that we keep the same point of view, the north pole (or it could be the south pole if the correction is made, it doesn't matter), and that we understand the difference between the "source" of the vortex and the "spiraling arms" of the vortex.
NATURE AS THE LAW
With this vortex understanding, in order to comprehend Mer-Ka-Ba science and the proper way that a Mer-Ka-Ba field should rotate, one only has to look at nature. Science and all bodies of investigation into the laws of nature in this Universe (and all universes) use nature itself as their ultimate proof. Science tries to duplicate, or parallel nature in discovering and using the laws of nature. Science says: "If it does not function within nature, it is thrown out as useless, dangerous or non-science."
If one uses nature as one's guideline, and chooses, as an example, the vortex of a tornado or hurricane and then views it from the sky (the north pole), one would see the arms rotating in a clock-wise motion. If one were not initiated into vortex mechanics, one could easily believe that the Mer-Ka-Ba should be rotating in a clock-wise motion from watching nature. And this is exactly where many people get confused about what they see in nature and what is used in the Mer-Ka-Ba. But what about the "source" of the vortex? Is it not turning in the other direction?
The Mer-Ka-Ba that the Order of Melchizedek has taught me and continues to teach has a set of tetrahedrons (Star Tetrahedrons) rotating counter-clockwise or to the left at 34 and a set of tetrahedrons (Star Tetrahedron) rotating clockwise or to the right at 21 (in this dimension at this time and space). The difference is 13, which causes the whole Mer-Ka-Ba itself to have a slow rotation Counter-clockwise.
These speed ratios, by the way, are also from nature. Nature uses the Fibonacci series to unfold almost all of its forms, from human to plant life. This series is 0-1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144 etc. It approximates the Golden Mean as the numbers become larger. All counter-rotating fields in nature, such as Sunflowers, pine cones, etc. always use the Fibonacci series to create themselves, and they always use subsequence numbers such as 8 and 13 or 21 and 34 or 89 and 144. Using any other series of numbers to produce Mer-Ka-Ba fields cannot be demonstrated in nature.
So now let's look deeper at vortex mechanics. If you have a water hose in your hand and you turn counter-clockwise or to your left, what will the water look like from above (the north pole)? Even though your physical body is turning counter-clockwise, the water from above will appear to be spiraling clockwise or to the right. (Actually it is only moving radially outward from source - the spiral is an illusion.) In other words, the source of the vortex moves in one direction and the spiraling arms appear to be moving in the other.
So in order to duplicate nature, in the case of the tornado or hurricane, the source (the tetrahedrons) have to move counter-clockwise, and this is exactly what the Order of Melchizedek asks you to do, 34 counter-clockwise, and 21 clockwise giving a 13 counter-clockwise motion of the entire Mer-ka-Ba. (Those numbers pertain to Earth at this time moving into the 4th dimenstion.) The energy fields of the Mer-Ka-Ba do appear to be flowing outward in a clockwise direction (from above the head), but the tetrahedrons, the source, must move counter-clockwise in order to copy nature.
But this is only one example in nature. What about other examples? How about the biggest solid object in our solar system, our sun? The sun itself, the physical part of the solar field, rotates counter-clockwise (like the Melchizedek tetrahedrons) from the North Pole, but the energy coming off the sun will appear to rotate clockwise, just like the tornado or hurricane or the energy field of the Melchizedek Mer-Ka-Ba.
Further, all the planets, including Earth, are rotating on their axis counter-clockwise, as seen from the North Pole, following the same laws of nature, for the Earth, too, is just a large Mer-Ka-Ba field with the same identical geometries as a human being. Venus is almost stopped, but it is still very slowly rotating counter-clockwise. And there is one of the outer planets, I believe it is Pluto, that has been hit out of plane.
Even further, the direction of rotation of all the planets and moons in the disc or plane of the sun, the physical part of the solar system itself, are also rotating around the sun in a counter-clockwise motion as viewed from the North Pole of the sun.
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Mon, May 16, 2005 - 9:38 PMYou can walk through nature and see both kinds of vortexes, big and small, coming out of the ground, if you know how to see them. They are fully documented in science. A good example is in California, called the "Mystery Spot." If the vortex source is counter-clockwise, everything will be more alive than anywhere else around that area, but if it is clockwise, then everything dies, and it becomes a desert or extremely distorted in that vortex. And so if you continue to spin your Mer-Ka-Ba field in a source clockwise direction, eventually, (usually a few years depending on the person), you will find yourself in a life threatening situation, not only physically, but in all possible ways.
This is the Order of Melchizedek's point of view on the direction of the spin of a Mer-Ka-Ba field. In the case of multiple Mer-Ka-Ba fields rotating within each other, always the final addition of all fields must be moving counter-clockwise (as viewed from the north pole) in the whole field.
Further, the final result of the type or "Order," speed ratios, geometry, location of breathing focus within the body's chakra's system, and the location of the body within the time/space/dimension will take the meditator into the level of consciousness (way of interpreting the One Reality) that this Mer-Ka-Ba field predetermines. If a person is simply guessing or experimenting, this will almost certainly be spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically fatal. This is the reason why the guidance of Higher Consciousness is essential in being instructed in the Mer-Ka-Ba science.
I hope this helps you to understand the Mer-Ka-Ba of the Melchizedek Order so that in the future misquotes and misinformation are avoided.
In Love and Service,
Drunvalo Melchizedek
www.fieldwerks.com/myweb/ne...elchi.htm
-
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 1:44 AMThanks much for this thread Anistara,
it really is an excellent and much needed aspect
of our own dawning awareness that we ourselves
are living systems. Hope others can chime in as well...
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 10:24 AM;) oh.. i should mention that that meager 222 dollars was for a THREE DAY WORKSHOP... three days for only 222... plus materials...
there is much much information in hayes work... the threaded story is intriguing and makes alot of sense for some things... but i found (personally) that there is a convolution... like, ummm.... truths are spread thick so one cannot see the bent intent, the lie, which lies hidden from those who do not look very very carefully... know what i mean??
like i said... i totally love the voyager books...
although, being a psy sensitive and something else altogether, i found connecting to the energy she encourages to be of the same stuff... spread truth thick as butter on white bread of convolution... whereas the Mel energy feels more like ripe fruit...
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 6:54 AMI am curious to see what hayes said in her 'book'...
I am also interested to have pointed out to me some distinctions between the two different 'people' behind the techniques...
Upon reading anna hayes' voyager series, i was totally engaged within the material... i gobbled it up... i came into contact with these books after i had the FOL merkaba training...
when i went searching for more material from hayes i discovered that she had started a huge campain to sell her material, meditations, and whatnot... all in book form, on tape, cd, workshops, whatnot... drunvalo's material was instructed person to person through facilitators (regular people like you and me who had been practicing the technique for quite some time and took a facilitator class)... all the material provided to me was included in the meager fee of 222 US dollars... now i dont know exactly how much hayes workshops cost, nor if she is the only one allowed to present workshops on the behalf of the material she is presenting, i stopped searching after i realized she had a glutton of material for sale and saw pictures of her...
now some may say judging a book by its cover is a bad thing to do... but seriously... the cover says alot, just the same as riding in the passenger seat tells one alot about a person simply through how they drive a car...
of course i believe hayes and drunvalo are speaking to two different audiences from two different levels... the more convoluted of the two was the first to create a polarity point as usually is the case...
drunvalo's letter of intent and clarification says wonders of his personal integrity... just the way it is written and the energy signature behind the fabric of threaded words...
call me a nut, but anna hayes wears alot of makeup and wears a ceo type business suit in the pictures i have seen of her... this to me says alot about her insides and intentions....
where drunvalo is working with an energy field consciousness which has been noted as benevolent for thousands upon thousands of years (melchizedekian), hayes is working with what she calls 'extraterrestrial energy' of unknown origin and intent...
i find it funny that when i first borrowed the books to read from my spiritual teacher at the time, she warned me, 'sometime truth is hidden in lies, and lies hidden within piles and piles of truth... be careful that you discern'...
awesome topic anistara*) ! thanks.... -
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 9:22 AMwow SunRa, we're on the same wavelength for sure. i actually was looking for a picture of her last night and stumbled on some other stuff as well that left me with a "what is this saying?" feel to it.
i actually haven't read any of her stuff. i was looking for more info last night and came across a few articals that state her tactic is cult like. now, that may be said for drunvalo as well, but i know full well it's not. i also have no trouble understanding his material. the azurite is technical and wordy and spaceshippy (and i've had my share of contact with those realms, but i wouldn't make a religion out of it).
to be fair, here is her site for anyone who wants to make a balanced judgement on their own:
www.azuritepress.com/asha_aza.htm
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The light of day.
Fri, February 24, 2006 - 4:27 PMThanks for posting this!
I am not pointing any fingers, but I do personally believe that when really pure information or meditations are released into the light of day, that can truly connect one to their Higher Self, that there is a response from those who wish to control and dominate humanity. I think that this response takes the form of misinformation and misrepresentation. I have seen it time and time again.
KInd regards,
Jared
-
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Fri, June 3, 2005 - 1:41 PMHi all, good to have founnd you... So I encountered a similar problem when I first learned the MerKaBa, and I basically trusted my intuition, although it was a bit less than consciously. I was just beginning to explore divinity as a profession(heheh). I found several different teachers of the MerKaba, including Gary Smith as well, and I went with the FOL/Dru teachings without any thought really, after having seen the options I found... This was IMO the 'right' choice for me at the time, tho I must say that I now feel a desire to learn another's method and compare and contrast experientially, and I really do insist that all will go the route they feel the most. It will be huge regardless.
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Fri, June 3, 2005 - 3:07 PMindeed. i believe drunvalo encourages learning other methods, what works for you is best. the conflict above has to do with misquoting and pretty much stating that drunvalo is wrong when in my divine experiences, it wasn't about right or wrong. my experience with the flower just "is". now.
i am greatful to drunny for that opportune time to come to understand the nature of nature, therefore, i rest my thanks on him. but truly, the merkaba tool was quite useful in flight... initiation into the right and left eye of hrus anbd the thrid eye activation was due to my understanding of the breath and speeds or frequencies of rotation. but actually, it all seemed quite silly at the time, and truly beautiful.
bless!
-
-
Re: hayes vs. drunvalo
Sat, July 5, 2008 - 3:22 PMI never practiced the Merkaba meditation because Drunvalo's book contradicts ITSELF!
Unless I have a bizarrely doctored version..
am I hallucinating?
I'm sure that in the first description it says spin one way and in the later, fuller description it says the other.. lol