Topic

Posted by Berry on December 8, 2009 - 12:32pm

Tags:

Mitakuye Oyasin - A Lakota Indian Prayer

There is a simple but profound Lakota prayer: Mitakuye Oyasin.

These two words mean All My Relations or We are All Related.

To pray this prayer is to petition God on behalf of everyone and everything on Earth.

Mitakuye Oyasin honors the sacredness of each person's individual spiritual path, acknowledges the sacredness of all life (human, animal, plant, etc.) and creates an energy of awareness which strengthens not only the person who prays but the entire planet.

Soon after I first learned this prayer, I saw that it represented all that needed to be said. It was a prayer of respect, honor and love for all of mankind, and for the Earth. It was a prayer that said "I wish goodness and peace for all. I would leave no one out. I pray for all." It was a prayer that crossed the barriers of religion and could be prayed by one of any faith. It was a prayer that united, instead of dividing. It was an amazing prayer.

There has been a growing awareness, among those of every major faith, of the common elements within religions. Over the next few years, we will see increasing overlaps of creed and ritual as people of every faith sense a need to embrace new ways of relating, outside the structure of their own faith to embrace the Godness in others, regardless of the differences in dogma or religious law. There will be less and less need to convert or convince and more willingness to learn from one another. A combining of traditions, and a reaching out beyond the boundaries of divided faith, will result in a focus on common truth, tolerance, acceptance, and Oneness.

I'm not sure how long I have known that we are all connected (and that what we do affects those around us as well as people we never meet) but I do recall, very vividly, the moment this awareness made it's way to my conscious mind in a clear statement of purpose. I was watching a music video on MTV. God moves in mysterious ways. The scenes were accompanying a song titled Everybody Hurts, by REM. The camera moves slowly past rows and rows of cars, bumper to bumper, in Los Angeles rush-hour traffic. We (the viewers) are shown the thoughts of the passengers in each car, by way of captioned statements on the screen.

It is painful to watch not just because everyone seems lost in pain, struggle or hopelessness, but because they all seem alone and unaware of the people in other cars. Then, a solitary man steps from his car, closes the door, and begins to walk away. One by one, passenger after passenger follows suit until all the thousands of cars are left vacant. A way of life is abandoned. One by one, we are stepping on the path to a new reality.

Critical Mass has been reached. The hundredth monkey has rinsed his food, and a new core knowledge of Oneness is being born. Aho. Mitakuye Oyasin.

Portions of this article excerpted from Moon Lodge Visions: An Acceleration Handbook.

Mitakuye Oyasin

Berry

Thank you, Berry.

John

If you go to the link at the bottom of that article, there is a link which will provide you with a free copy of the eBook from which it is excerpted.

I have asked for the copy but not yet received it.

L&L

Berry

Hey Berry,

Thats really beautiful and I enjoyed it very much.

When Mary had her troubles recently she spoke of the 100th monkey and critical mass. I was wondering what your ideas are on critical mass?...When I researched the 100th monkey I found it was not real, a scientific study that was manipulated and mis-represented... labelled "new age"......I liked the idea of it but couldn't find anything else ie studies or other examples of it....do you have anything on Critical mass?.....

Jez

Jez, that is the first time I have heard this. I have been aware of the 100th monkey concept for a long time and have read the original information somewhere a great while ago, but I have never heard that it was a fraudulent research and discovery.

Even Ra in the Law of One material discusses the basic concept occuring though they don't mention 100th monkey, but the idea of global coherence of thought and intent is definitely there. David Wilcock speaks of Critical Mass as well. I saw where Elaine Meyers and some others from the "Skeptics Society" were debunking the theory saying there was insufficient evidence to support it. The key word is "skeptic". Ask them if they believe in "God" and they will say show me the proof.

So, like ufos, life after death and esp, we must let our heart speak to us.

Hey Berry,

Nada told me many times..."you have to use all you have got"....I am prone to acting all from the heart, she was saying to me that you have a mind as well.

In essence you could argue that Nazi Germany listened to their hearts and not their heads....that all those who reacted to 911 and terrorism in the perfectly pre programmed fashion, all listen to their hearts/emotions....over their heads. Mass control often feeds off such things.

Like you I come across this "thing" of critical mass often, Fred even speaks of it but when I try to undersdtand it I can find nothing but similar references and am curious where it began, where its origins are...I have seen it connected to the new age movement and read that the concept was born with the 100th monkey....which as I said is a lie....started by the new age people....why did they do that?....

I believe there is plenty of eveidence of UFO's...I have personally had an OBE and been to that place outside of life and death...but with this...my heart says there is something not right...my mind says there is something not right......and when I ask a question you got defensive..?.. threw a "trigger" word at me..."skeptic"....?...fair enough...now I am really curious.....will do some more research on it when I get some time....

Probably am just being skeptical, but then everything is balance and there is nothing wrong with a little "healthy skeptisism"....if there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear....I'll keep looking,

Thanks,

Jez

Funny you should mention the hundredth monkey effect. in the forum post I posted two days ago on Liminal Cosmogeny it gets into the fundamental reason why, but then again it is coming from a mythological construct. I am personally very convinced that James from WingMakers is actually from the Lyricus Teaching Order, and mythology, as stated by them many times, is the way that they have chosen to convey information more as an experience than empirical evidence.

The DNA molecule is said to have the hard wiring we already know about, but also the programmable software capabilities that are just now being discovered, and also an antenna type of capability that would easily explain why the hundredth monkey effect happens quite naturally when the numbers experiencing something hit a critical mass via a large enough broadcasting from the collective DNA antenna.

Also, James mentions much in his interview with Mark Hempel concerning related matters that resonate very strongly with what RA is saying in the Law of One... here is the link to that recent post - it is well worth a read and listen...

EXCERPTS FROM LIMINAL COSMOGONY via WingMakers' Lyricus Teaching Order from the Central Race of the 7th Superuniverse | Gathering Spot

Thanks Chris,

I read that post and will have another look with this in mind....

Here is a link to the 100th Monkey ....http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/HMP.htm#MIRACLE

I'll put his conclusion here....

I must admit sympathy for some of the secondary sources on the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon. This feeling comes from the purpose for which the phenomenon was cited. Ken Keyes's book uses the phenomenon as a theme, but the real topic of the book is nuclear disarmament. Arthur Stein's article and (to a lesser extent) the Hartley film are inspired by Keye's hope that the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon may help may help prevent nuclear war. The message is that "you may be the Hundredth Monkey" whose contribution to the collective consciousness turns the world away from nuclear holocaust. It is hard to find fault in this motive. For these same reasons, one couldn't fault the motives of a child who wrote to Santa Claus requesting world nuclear disarmament as a Christmas present. We can only hope that Santa Claus and the Hundredth Monkey are not our best chances to avoid nuclear war.
Watson's primary concern is not prevention of war but sheer love of the paranormal. His book begins with a description of a child who, before Watson's eyes, and with a "short implosive sound, very soft, like a cork being drawn in the dark," psychically turned a tennis ball inside out - fuzz side in, rubber side out - without loosing air pressure (p.18). Just after the Hundredth Monkey discussion, Watson makes a revealing point. He quotes with approval a statement attributed to Lawrence Blair: "When a myth is shared by a large number of people, it becomes a reality" (p. 148). This sort of relativist epistemology is not unusual in New Age thought. I would express Blair's thought somewhat differently: "Convince enough people of a lie, and it becomes the truth." I suggest that someone who accepts this view of truth is not to be trusted as a source of knowledge. He may, of course, be a marvelous source of fantasy, rumor, and pseudoscientific best-sellers.
I prefer epistemological realism to this sort of relativism. Truth is not dependent on the number of believers or on the frequency of published repetition. My preferred epistemology can be expressed simply: Facts are facts. There is no Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon.

(to top of page)

Follow-up

I began investigating the "Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" in August 1984 with a letter to Lyall Watson, the author of the "phenomenon," addressed in care of his publisher, Simon and Schuster. I asked for more information about the group consciousness of monkeys reported by Watson in Lifetide. Neither this nor a later letter to the publisher has ever received a reply. My study was published in the Summer 1985 Skeptical Inquirer. Boyce Rensberger, a Washington Post science writer, and subsequently a recipient of CSIOCP's 1986 Responsibility in Journalism Award, picked up the story. He also approached Simon and Schuster, who declined to put him in touch with Watson. Rensberger (1985) quoted Watson's editor as saying that Watson "is a distinguished and eminent scholar who, I have to say, does have some weird ideas." No news there.
Watson has now broken the silence. Ted Schultz, an editor for Whole Earth Review, managed to contact him. According to Schultz, Watson was "quite happy to respond to Amundson's analysis of his monkey tale." The response was published, in the Fall 1986 "Fringes of Reason" issue of Whole Earth Review (and reprinted in Schultz 1989). Although he begins with a swipe at "self-appointed committees for the suppression of curiosity," Watson deals "in good humor" with my critique of the Hundredth Monkey. My article was "lucid, amusing, and refreshingly free of the emotional dismissals" that, he says, CSICOP is prone to. I wish I could be proud of this distinction.
Watson continues: "I accept Amundson's analysis of the origin and evolution of the Hundredth Monkey without reservation. It is a metaphor of my own making, based--as he rightly suggests--on very slim evidence and a great deal of hearsay. I have never pretended otherwise. . . . I based none of my conclusions on the five sources Amundson uses to refute me. I was careful to describe the evidence for the phenomenon as strictly anecdotal and included citations in Lifetide, not to validate anything, but in accordance with my usual practice of providing tools, of giving access to useful background information."
It should be remembered that the "five sources" I used to "refute" him were the identical five sources that Watson provides as "tools" and "access" in his original discussion of the phenomenon.
Watson goes on to complain about my conclusion that the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon does not exist. He still thinks the phenomenon is real but admitting that it didn't happen on Koshima. This is like saying that the "Geller Effect" is real, while claiming that Uri Geller himself has no special powers. Well, okay. Show us a real example.
Watson is unhappy about my description of his work as "pseudoscience." He admitted all along, he says, that the Hundredth Monkey story was anecdotal. This is approximately a half truth. Watson did admit in Lifetide that he had to "gather the rest of the story from personal anecdotes and bits of folklore." (This was because, he said, the scientists were afraid to publish the truth "for fear of ridicule.") He then specifically stated that certain crucial details were missing from the scientific reports. He went on to describe the events on Koshima, "improvising" the detail. The miraculous result were stated in two sentences, followed by a citation reference.
The details said by Watson to be missing were not missing. He falsely reported on the scientific evidence available--available, in fact, in his own citations.
Watson responds to my claim that his own documentation refutes him by explaining that his citation references were not meant as documentation at all, but as "tools." (Perhaps being refuted by your own tool is less painful than being refuted by your own documentation.) Here it should be noted that the citations were presented in exactly the format used to provide documentation for factual claims, both in scientific and in informal writing. Lifetide is peppered with raised reference numbers, each following a factual statement made in the text. The Chicago Manual of Style refers to this format as "notes documenting the text, and corresponding to reference numbers in the text." Does Watson anywhere warn us that his citations do not document the text--that they actually contradict the text? Does he warn us that they are merely "tools"? No. We are told only that the raised numbers "refer to numbered items in the bibliography."
As an "eminent scholar" and "holder of degrees in anthropology, ethology, and marine biology" (Whole Earth Review's description), Watson must be assumed to understand the use of scientific citations. The meaning of a reference citation is not something each author simply invents for himself. It does not mean "documentation" for some writers and "tools" for others. Watson uses a format that implies documented support for a factual claim. He now says that he didn't really mean it that way.
I submit that this technique is pseudoscientific in the strictest sense. It falsely presents the appearance of science. Watson could have admitted that he made a mistake in his citations (or that he never read them in the first place). Instead he excuses himself by saying that the references were merely "tools." They just looked like scholarly citations.
Watson owes an apology to the thousands of people who took his claims to be reports of fact, rather than "hearsay" and "anecdotes." None of Watson's published commentators thought he was presenting "hearsay" about potato-washing monkeys. If I made a mistake by taking him seriously, so did everyone else. Let it be known that the hundreds of scientific-looking citations in Watson's books are not intended to support his factual claims. They are "tools." They look, for all the world, like scientific documentation. But it is all an illusion.

Jez

The Concept of Critical mass as I understand it is much like a "titration point" in chemistry. Where one substance is mixing with another unti it reaches a point where it is neither and both at the same time, somewhere between the two, then one more drip of the test tube and it cahnges into the other substance.

Critical Mass as Wilcock et. al. describe it (again this is my own viewpoint on the matter) is very similar. A slow trickle of concious energy which will eventually tip the scales in one direction or another. With chemistry, you can trickle at a set rate and know effectively when the transition might occur based on concentration based equations. With conciousness its a bit trickier to time I reckon, but perhaps the whole 2012 thing is a galactic egg timer, and I also imagine there are trickles of both positive and negative energy pouring into the pot. Once that timer goes off, who knows what will happen. I like to think we will either hit that point, and then all will flip over to the new 'substance' (4th density etc) or perhaps the 'bad stuff' will just precipitate out and sink to the bottom.

Cheers,

Wow, I almost consider that response channelling. Don't know where that came from, besides the bowels of my first year University learnings haha.

Josh

Thanks Josh,

I like that....looking at it chemically, and you describe it well.

What I feel is that with Critical Mass people "imply" that at some point "everything" switches over, at the point of the hundredth monkey...When I look at it I see what you described....that last drop makes it more one than the other, it didn't make every drop just switch over...

The closest example I can find is at a mates place...he has pigeon's, tumblers and rollers...pigeons do some weird things.....you could get them all to land in a ?..hoop... on the ground and they will not leave it.....a new bird will even instinctively copy and join them but if you let one step out it will not take long for another to copy...you don't need many to do this before they ALL abandon it totally....but pigeons have been selectively bred for so long that they aren't totally "natural" anymore...I think it's a learned and bred behaviour.....?...I don't trust the pigeon!...Lol...man has played with it......but they do sort of do it....maybe even on a "paranormal" level.....they are really trippy...

Ok now I am really trippin...I have been chatting up chicks in China...lol....it is sooo interesting!...I talk to people all over the world and none are like these Chinese I have been talking to. Truly segregated and unaware of "the world"...I know there is censorship and I have been wondering if my notes, that go through a translator, are being censored, they must be?.... I don't want to get the girls in trouble but I have been thinking about Tienamin Square and "Tank man".

What I see is that the Chinese people had "changed" they had a new conscousness, it was like a bubble that had been building up pressure for years. What Tank man did was burst the bubble....it allowed the new conscousness to be expressed.....but it did not create anything in China, the people did not change in a moment, it had taken years until it was no longer the few but the many that felt it, believed it...but its birth into the world happened in a bang, in a single moment in time...???

Jez