Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: DNA

  1. #1


    Several years ago I was told that DNA is yin in nature; yang is energy which interacts with it.

    Keeping this point in my mind, I've read about an issues with replicating the cells being mostly related to DNA in which chains are getting smaller and smaller when replication takes place - and the limit as the research revealed was 50 possible replications. When the replication occurs 50 times, it is not possible any more. So it seems like it does not recieve / have enough energy to combine all those atoms. Here the delibarate conscious "spiritual" work comes in of providing necessery energy for the molecules and cells in order to keep their functions intact and in original state. However, while energy is important, and is probably the biggest reason on how to keep body functioning perfectly and unbroken at cellural and atomic level, I don't think energy is the only factor playing role here, yet most important. Keeping the whole organism in such a perfect state takes more than that, on which we can learn from some ancient texts like from Egypt, India or China.

    Did anyone worked on deliberate modification of his or her own DNA - with light (not technology)? Any experiences to share? Life as we know it works thanks to this blueprint (DNA), which is a very special combination of atoms and is in the core of how organism works and how is shaped. This means that working with it directly, rather than indirectly through external manipulation, may result in a direct control over the whole organism at will, including rapid regeneration, producing enzymes etc. With combination of glands and hormons in this way we gain mastery and control over life.

    I am currently researching this subject and wondering to what degree DNA is an intelligent system which interacts - intelligently - with energy as quality, or not and then is more mechanical in nature and as such requires more details to be taken into account when trying to modify it. It's worth to note that DNA changes anyway, e.g. when in an ill state. It is a flexible mechanism. Logical analysis suggests the former, as consciousness plays a big role here. Research in progress.
    Last edited by Antares; 13th January 2020 at 09:39 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Sunny Climes
    Blog Entries

    Re: DNA

    Are you talking about cell apoptosis?
    AD Pedia:

    "Stop acting as if life is a rehearsal" Dr. Wayne Dyer.

  3. #3

    Re: DNA

    No, I don't think so. If you are referring to the number of times of a cell that is possible to divide, it is so called Hayflick limit:

    The main point however is to work with / on DNA. I really do not like the philosophy of modern science providing many overwhelming details without a sensible conclusion of a bigger picture; therefore I rather go with the ancient paradigms where understanding comes from "top to bottom" rather than vice versa - i.e. looking for references and clear relationships, and not mostly with labelling things discovered and isolating them. However, stating this, I do not reject science as such, as it is just another perspective. I think that quitting the assumption that development of understanding the universe / macrocosm and microcosm may go only one way may only result in benefit. It is not just interdisciplinarity between science branches; it is rather meta-interdisciplinarity between paradigms behind the knowledge development approach. This means that whatever science states what cells or atoms do or how a substance reacts to in a changed environment, in the end is not that important, because this is not a complete knowledge, but only a glimpse seen from the material perspective. The influence of energy, and particularly will / consciousness is absent in it. My understanding is that they are missing the essential point here, and as such, science is in most useless in a practical sense for a "spiritual" (so called) person. So it rather gives you explanation why you cannot achieve something because of this and that... and this and that is - again - a superficial, limited understanding of the modern scientific point of view. This in big part refers to modern, western science-based medicine, where people cannot explain and even are not eager to explain so called "miracles", but forcing the pharmacuetical business. I'm saying it because I can see many people today, also from the esoterics fields, looking with a hope into science to help them to justify their personal goals or to bring even a fragile support for their non-scientific desires; but maybe it is better to go the way the ancient people did: they simply explored the universe by themselves. Modern science has a hidden "motivation" behind it: it is technology-driven. And here comes the fundamental conflict between a personal achievement and modern science.

    Instead of asking questions like: "what adding just another atom of carbon to a molecule would change in overall reaction", being then often astonished but also overwhelemed by the observed results, trying to isolate things and simplify the enivornment in which a chemical reaction occurs, in order to decrease a number of variables involved, but not really understanding what happens, I prefer to ask questions like "what is a quality of this or that substance" or "what happens when consciousness and / or energy interacts with it"; I have different motivations and goals therefore than a technologically-driven science, yet I find a scientific research results interesting. After all, we all pay for them.
    Last edited by Antares; 14th January 2020 at 09:20 AM.

  4. #4

    Re: DNA

    To make this explanation short and straightforward, I'd say that it does not matter what medical sciences or science in general tell you what is possible or not, because they are really amusing in making such a bold statements like those (some scientists tend to be more careful in the ultimate statements, however). It does not matter that much if a cell dies and when. What does matter is to make an independent and possibly practical point based on your own understanding of many factors that science does not take into account. This results in being a step or few steps ahead of science and gaining more true, holistic perspective. In fact, most scientists in reality does not understand truly what they are dealing with. They don't see the connections, except those strictly defined and anticipated by the "scientific system". And this really imposes a very tight, limiting framework on what you can gain from an observation of the macro-/micro-cosm. Ancient educated people were scientific as well, but their paradigms were way very much different than those hold by most of modern people. For example, my understanding of DNA is different from what an average scientist thinks of it.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
01 block content This site is under development!
02 Links block
02 block content