Daniel

In my mind, and I will welcome being corrected, the defining characteristic of the shaman is indwelling of spirit. The connection to journeying is that the isolation and diversity of experiences encourages, greatly, the likelihood that the traveler encounters a spirit "like" their own. ( "like" is in quotes because it includes both types of similarity: direct correspondence and inverse complimentary, both ).

I'm not arguing. I'm zooming out. Just like a camera. And I'm increasing the contrast for the purpose of producing clarity. What is the opposite of "Metatron"?

Aha! Thank you. Shamanism is journeying? That's its essential defining characteristic which distinguishes it from other paths? The book about Tibetan shamanism? Were they journeying?

If "Metatron" is a "chariot" and Enoch is driving the chariot, then it's Enoch's inclination, disposition, affinities, and aversions. Metatron doesn't "like" anything. Enoch is remembered not only as the one who "ascended" without experiencing death. ( "Ascended" is in quotes because it's not a literal ascension ). Enoch is remembered in contrast to the others of that age / era. It's this sharp contrast which is producing clarity on the subject matter. It's very much like photography. Increasing contrast results in clarity. Lacking contrast, the image is washed-out. That's the phenomena you were describing before. Metatron could be almost anything, if, simultaneously some concepts are selectively included and some concepts are selectively excluded. But that's not the technique. The technique applies a valence, then includes all, both accepting and rejecting, simultaneously. The valence permits simultaneity in the form of sharp contrast. The sharp contrast requires both extremes. In this way, accepting and rejecting are united, and equivalent.

No. I trust your judgement, but, I'm curious. Why do you think so?

... is knowing when to use it and when to avoid it.

Did you like it?

Selectively combine? Hm. That's not what I had in mind. Accept = All are accepted. Reject = All are rejected. "VS" is an exclusive or. "XOR". The opposite is Not-XOR. It's clearest in Proverbs ( in the original language ). It's also in Gen 1, but, it's a lot less obvious. King Solomon is remembered for many things which are actually only 1 thing. It looks like many, but, it's not. He followed in his father's footsteps. King David is also remembered for many things, which are actually only 1 thing. Many-and-one simultaneously. Question: What is a proverb? Answer: It's one general statement which includes many-many particular examples. Honestly, isn't that what's happening in the DDJ? Because of this, I question the popular ( ? ) theory among many that Jesus had contact with eastern schools of thought. Instead, I think he had a book of King Solomon's proverbs. One can, more or less, do the same thing with either book and produce the same outcome even though the content is very different. I hear you. Understood. Bingo. Ah. Point of clarification: Metatron gets punished by the angels for sitting in the chair of the All-Mighty. Maybe this will help? What if there is a type of angel which is serving the function of a chariot? If so, Enoch is riding in the "chariot" called "Metatron". It's mercavah mysticsm, the oldest of the original and authentic forms of Jewish mysticism. It's the most closely aligned to ... drumroll ... shamanism.

Wind and fire refer to the same vivifying essence? Vivifying? Are you sure? Rev 21:8? For me? Vivifying essence is Nefesh which is in the blood, Lev 17:11. And animals have ruach. That's one of the most important over-looked details in the Noah's ark story. The human soul, according to Hebrew scripture has 5 co-equal, co-existing, aspects, or, faces. nefesh ruach neshama chayyah y'chidah Animals have nefesh, and ruach. The neshama, chayyah, and y'chidah are exclusively human. The neshama is what sinks and rises. In a way, that could be a "water" quality / attribute / aspect. It's in the middle. Heavens <<>> Water <<>> Earth. Also it's the only aspect which possesses the hebrew letter "mem" which is iconography representing a vessel which is actively pouring. And, the neshama was bestowed on humanity in an action which might include moisture. Maybe. I'm not sure. I disagree. The body is not water. That's verse 6. Hebrews 12:29: Our god is a consuming fire. https://biblehub.com/greek/2654.htm That's the opposite of vivifying. But it matches Rev 21:8 and Matthew 3:11. In Rev 21 the fire is the second death for the sinner. In Matthew 3:11 the fire is destroying the sin. In Hebrew, as it exists in the human soul it's called "netzach" which best translates to English as "conquering". In Hebrew, as it exists in the heavens it's called "kahvohd" which translates to "glory".

That' what I was thinking too. But I struggle with the young child as "fire" and I struggle with Laotzi as "fire". And I struggle with Laozi's steed as water, unless it is a water-fall, which is crashing back upwards as it is splashing against the rocks and logs at the bottom of the falls. But the young child's horse is very watery to me. So that part fits.

I'm curious. In the pictures, in your opinion, which one is fire and which one is water?

Wow. I didn't notice that on my own. Thanks.

That one gives a completely different feeling. Where's the sun? Where's the grass? Where's the smile? This picture is mostly empty. The other picture was completely full. This picture is monotone. The other one was colorful. And. It looks like an uncomfortable journey, but at least Laozi is managing OK.

That's the right individual. You're in the right story, at least. For pronunciation, the emphasis is on the middle syllable. y'HOshua. After that, it's a long "u" sound. oo. In english, it's like a shoe.. uh. ...shoe-uh.

Hello. Thank you. Oh wow. OK. It sounds truly awful. If you don't mind, when was this? How old were you when this happened? How old are you now? ~nodding~ yes. yes. Terrible. This was recent? When, if you don't mind? Oh boy.... Yes. I am so so sorry that you are going through this. I understand. I really do. Smart. Makes perfect sense. Right. Yup. ~big-sigh~ Well... I would be frustrated. Right. I would be even more frustrated. Again. I am so sorry you're going through this. ~nods~ maybe. Sure. But that doesn't change the magnitude of the burden. Based on what you've written, it's really impressive what you've accomplished so far. I can try. But I can't say it will be easy for me or quick. I'm working with 3 others currently. It's a process. Each case is different. One of them seems to wrapping up for now. One of them is stable, on the mend, and consistently improving but still needs a lot of help. The third? We're just getting started. And I might have a fourth case. Not sure yet. There is no charge for my services. There will never be any request nor expectation for compensation. Everything I do is strictly pro-bono. I have a job. I don't need the money. My reward is the specific personal satisfaction that comes from helping people when others, for one reason or another, are not. If it were me? I would banish those demons myself. Poof. The hard part comes from preventing them from returning. Relatively speaking, banishing is easy. Preventing the relapse is not. No one that does good work, no. You may get some temporary relief, but, often there are side effects. For that reason, I cannot recommend them. You're very welcome. If you would like to discuss it further, reply here, or send me a private message. I am wishing you love, peace, and support in this endeavor and in all of your pursuits now and in the future. Sincerely, Daniel

Are you sure? Why should I? Why shouldn't I? When I make a pro/con list, I am convinced that I shouldn't.

I love it. ... feels like heaven.

I apologize. I should have used Joshua's hebrew name. Y'hoShua. Literally: "The Lord's Eternal Salvation" Yehoshua is how it is usually transliterated. His name in full ( legal given name, his true name ) is Yehoshua Ben Nuhn L'matay Ephrayim. Not Joshua. Sorry. L'matay Ephrayim is "from the tribe of Ephrayim, Joseph's son from his Egyptian wife, which was adopted and considered one of the progeny of Jacob, of the House of Israel, aka, B'nay Yisrah'ayl"

Yes, and thank you. The ignore feature is not easy to find. I keep forgetting about it. You've inspiring me to search for it.

"Sastun: My apprenticeship with a Maya Healer" - Rosita Arvigo with Nadine Epstein, Harper Publishing.

Me too. Yes. Of course you did. The entire secret is below: every question is an opportunity big questions are big opportunities the biggest question is the biggest opportunity This, naturally, produces 2 questions: What is the biggest question? What is the biggest opportunity? Not factual? Phooey. My friend the 4 year old has been dismissed? May I ask you a question? Please? Question: How does anyone factually describe an immaterial concept? I see that. But that's not all I'm seeing. The word in the verse is Shamayim. That's the plural form. But. It is preceded by a preposition which suggests that it is actually singular. It looks plural, but it's actually singular? Yup. That's Jewish. And then, we can apply the inverse, reflected, nested symmetry... ( singular ( plural ) singular ). Guess where we are in this mini-diagram? We're in the center. We are in a realm of multiplicity which is possessed by a grand never-ending singularity. And that is the correction which Abraham ( at that time Abram ) brings in Gen 14 when he is correcting Malchi-Tzedek.

The same is happening in King Solomon's prayer. However, fair warning? This is not 4 year-old material. This is difficult. The heavens are described, written, poetically. There's symmetry and balance. But it's easier to see it without the vowels. Lacking vowels is how it would if someone is reading the text from a traditional scroll. ... השמים ושמי השמים ... ... Plural <<>> Singular <<>> Plural ... Can you see it? However, it doesn't mean: Plural <<>> Singular <<>> Plural. It means: ( singular ( plural-plural ) singular ). The plural is included within the singular. This is a reflected, inverse, nested symmetry. The nesting is extremely important and yet it is almost always neglected.

Yes and no... It's complicated.

What else could it be? What's the opposite of accept vs reject? What else? Is there another option? Hiding in plain sight? Hmmmmm. This appears to be the super-set. But, it's not. What's missing?

Great question. Moses' disciple, Joshua Ben Nun. ~nods~ The Book of Enoch is difficult. The only extant copy is a translation of a translation twice removed from its author. I've found that learning about Mayan Healers is a great resource for learning about healing from a Shamanic point-of-view. There's a few in Belize which are still practicing in the traditional ways. I have a book ... somewhere. It's wonderful. I'm happy to find the title for you if interested. ~chuckles~ See what I mean?