This week on Fade to Black was all about the Breakaway Civilizations we have had on the earth since time immemorial. These three men are all brilliant and each one presents such excellent research in this field. We do them disservice by trying to weigh one against the other – as if they were not presenting pieces of the same picture. The way we tend to look at information on the subject of UAP/UFO’s is to look for ONE person who is right – a savior of sorts… Truth is malleable.
Truth is a subjective observation of the apprehended idea, recorded from the point of view of a perceiver.
This means that reality and truth are a mobile facile thing, constantly changing for all of us. Only in 3D is there something that could be construed as absolute. Since everything we want is outside of the realm of 3D the term absolute becomes totally meaningless as applied to all our perceptions. We know that even in a shared ET contact event, where we are all looking at the same thing, the message/understanding will have many differences as people.
This week reminded me of this story….
Once upon a time there were three blind men ….
In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. The stories differ primarily in how the elephant’s body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.
In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to “see” the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, the blind men also learn they are all blind. While one’s subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow.
It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one’s subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.
A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant’s body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.
A king explains to them:
All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.
The ancient Jain texts often explain the concepts of anekāntvāda and syādvāda with the parable of the blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth. This parable resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and that truth can be stated in different ways (in Jain beliefs often said to be seven versions). This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvada, or the theory of Manifold Predications.
Two of the many references to this parable are found in Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don’t understand. “Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.” Mallisena also cites the parable when noting the importance of considering all viewpoints in OBTAINING A FULL PICTURE OF REALITY. “It is impossible to properly understand an entity consisting of infinite properties without the method of modal description consisting of all viewpoints, since it will otherwise lead to a situation of seizing mere sprouts (i.e., a superficial, inadequate cognition), on the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.”
A Buddhist version: “Blind monks examining an elephant”, an ukiyo-e print by Hanabusa Itchō (1652–1724).
The Buddha twice uses the simile of blind men led astray. In the Canki Sutta he describes a row of blind men holding on to each other as an example of those who follow an old text that has passed down from generation to generation. In the Udana (68–69) he uses the elephant parable to describe sectarian quarrels. A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.
When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?’
The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephant’s head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).
The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: “Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing…. In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus.” From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant>
So as to who was the best – Corey Goode, Joseph Farrell or Richard Dolan?
Well IMO they all had a piece of the puzzle and each of their stories, whether they agreed with each other or not, make sense when put together. If there is any greater message to convey in the UAP/UFO world, it is this. Think of it as one great garden that when all put together equals food. When growing this garden one must obviously pull the weeds (disinfo), water the plants and tend to the veggies. In the end the whole picture is called food/nourishment. And yes, put together they are excellent – a meal, but they are also good eaten separately. However one cannot survive on one type of food and be healthy. One must consume a variety of nutrients for the body to survive. Remember the discussion about the round file, where if you keep adding info and stirring finally diverse pieces start to fit together in bigger and bigger batches? Here you go…..