In search of (Real/Full/TRUE) OT

[gfyork]

Life Between Lives

That thread took a bit to digest.

I have a thread on Newton here: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252. I think his work is extremely relevant to your quest.

Hubbard's idea of the between-lives area is that it is a sort of hazy limbo, a hiatus between lives (duh), and about the only thing that happens there worth mentioning is the occasional implant from various galactic meanies. Even after rejecting much of what Hubbard wrote, I still thought of the between-lives area as some kind of hazy limbo, and I wasn't too sure about implanters.

I don't actually have a horse in this race, though I do have some preferences. (Later.)

I've run backtrack, including a couple incidents which were -- very odd; but I never actually 'ran in' to the between lives helpers/implanters/whatever.

Enter Michael Newton. There's a lot more data on that thread, and far more in his books than I have touched on there. But he has replaced for me the idea of a hazy limbo was something staggeringly different — life between lives (LBL) is a highly-*structured* area, with the spiritual equivalents of buildings, machinery, classrooms, tutors, recreation areas, work, jobs, goals and purposes etc. Everything I say about his "ideas" comes from his research. His books are about the distilled commonalities from over 7,000 research cases, not his personal ideas of how things might be based on his own personal revelation (or drug-fuelled hallucination like Hubbard). This adds hugely to his credibility, in my opinion.

As it should, I think.

Newton says the absolute minimum time lag between death on Earth and picking up another body on Earth is five Earth years. Absolute minimum. The actual time lag can be tens or even hundreds of years or more.

I'd be interested in hearing whether you, or another, has encountered anyone who claims or has personal experience of a 'between lives' duration of less than five years. You know, like, "I died in 1942. My sister was pregnant at the time and I turned right around and 'picked up' her baby's body."

My viewpoint on immortal life has changed from accepting Hubbard's views to embracing Newton's:

Hubbard: The being (thetan) in this universe is trillions of years old. Between-lives existence (since we started picking up meat bodies) is uninteresting apart from implants. The being started off in "native state" with marvellous OT abilities, but then went downhill, getting more and more degraded, until Shazam! Here's Ronnie! to save the day and recover the state of OT and native state.

Newton: The being (such as would be reading this ESMB message, not every single being) is perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of years old (he's not too definite about it). New beings are "born" on a continuing basis in the spirit world. There is a sort of — I find this highly amusing — spiritual grade chart that everyone in the spirit world is working on, some more industriously than others. The end point is unknown, as at some point beings stop getting reincarnated on Earth and they don't sit in Newton's research room and get interviewed about their "other" life and connections. But progress is marked by, unsurprisingly, improvements in "the virtues" (patience, humility, trust, self-discipline and so on. Wikipedia lists about 150 of them). Oh yes, no implanters.

So the old saying that we are spiritual beings undergoing a human existence is far more accurate than one might have supposed.

Paul

Perhaps I need a few more hours of objectives, maybe a hundred or so. I just really dislike the idea of being that closely manipulated. It's probably why I so eagerly dispensed with the "Big Thetan" myth so popular in this culture. Even if I'm doing poorly, I prefer the idea that I'm, mostly, choosing my own path. (Perhaps that explains why I'm a libertarian, too.) I guess I tend to lean toward Leon's take, not because I have any particular reason to do so; it's just that I'd prefer his take to be true.

Another, mostly subliminal factor, I just didn't like Newton's demeanor in the Video's. (Course, I didn't like Hubbard's, either.) They both reek to me of, "I've got a secret and I ain't tellin'." Withholdy. Of course, I didn't let that little impression keep me from exploring Scientology! For a while. (And actually, I would have been annoyed with someone who actually criticized Ron's videos and said out loud what I also thought but kept well suppressed.)

I will try to find one of Newton's books in the local library; might be that reading them will create a different impression. Perhaps that would also be a more accurate impression.

Best,

G.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I'd be interested in hearing whether you, or another, has encountered anyone who claims or has personal experience of a 'between lives' duration of less than five years. You know, like, "I died in 1942. My sister was pregnant at the time and I turned right around and 'picked up' her baby's body."

I don't see that it would prove anything, considering there are dozens of reincarnated Napoleons, etc. in Scientollyworld.

Perhaps I need a few more hours of objectives, maybe a hundred or so. I just really dislike the idea of being that closely manipulated.

Sorry if I gave that idea. Newton doesn't say it, quite the opposite. There may be suggestions from guides, but if one doesn't follow them there is no penalty, the general idea being to let someone make his own mistakes (or not) if he wants to.

I will try to find one of Newton's books in the local library; might be that reading them will create a different impression. Perhaps that would also be a more accurate impression.

Yeah. I read about 3/4 of the first one (Journey of Souls) free of charge on Google Books.

Paul

 

[gfyork]

I don't see that it would prove anything, considering there are dozens of reincarnated Napoleons, etc. in Scientollyworld.

It wouldn't; thought it would be interesting, though.

Sorry if I gave that idea. Newton doesn't say it, quite the opposite. There may be suggestions from guides, but if one doesn't follow them there is no penalty, the general idea being to let someone make his own mistakes (or not) if he wants to.

Yet -- they seem to be 'in charge' and they're following some kind of script (or intention line) that seemingly I must follow as well.

For instance, what happens if a being, following death, says, "I'd just rather hang out here forever." Ah, I should probably just read some more on this before I attempt to pose any questions.

Yeah. I read about 3/4 of the first one (Journey of Souls) free of charge on Google Books.

Paul

Right. Will have a look.

On a different matter, I've been reading your 'writings' on http://fzglobal.org/writings.htm. Good lord, you've been busy! Damn near as 'overwhelming' as this board itself. Jumped into the BC Checksheet 1; going to 2.

Best,

G.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Ah, I should probably just read some more on this before I attempt to pose any questions.

On a different matter, I've been reading your 'writings' on http://fzglobal.org/writings.htm. Good lord, you've been busy! Damn near as 'overwhelming' as this board itself.

Yeah. I've got much more than that on ESMB too. . And then there's 2400 pages on PaulsRobot. And . . .

It takes a lot of work to get a billion people into session.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

Either or both of you might be interested in Carlos Castaneda's 'The Art of Dreaming'. As usual he's got a somewhat unique take on things, but, much sounds similar. That's not to say that I endorse or recommend his 'take'. I found his whole system disturbingly repugnant. But, beyond his first couple of books that was the case. Still, 'Art of Dreaming' is worth reading.

Zinj

 

[gfyork]

Question

Yeah. I've got much more than that on ESMB too. . And then there's 2400 pages on PaulsRobot. And . . .

It takes a lot of work to get a billion people into session.

Paul

Might be right.

I do mean to try the PaulsRobot stuff soon; is it, uh, costly?

G.

 

[gfyork]

Castaneda

Either or both of you might be interested in Carlos Castaneda's 'The Art of Dreaming'. As usual he's got a somewhat unique take on things, but, much sounds similar. That's not to say that I endorse or recommend his 'take'. I found his whole system disturbingly repugnant. But, beyond his first couple of books that was the case. Still, 'Art of Dreaming' is worth reading.

Zinj

Zinj,

I devoured everything I could get by Castaneda -- back in the day. Circa 70's or 80's, don't recall. It might be that I found it a trifle less 'repugnant' than you; again, perhaps not. It was, though, interesting. "Verrry Interesting."

Does, "The Art of Dreaming," work on it's own or does it rely on the prior material?

Thanks,

G.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Might be right.

I do mean to try the PaulsRobot stuff soon; is it, uh, costly?

G.

Well, you can send me your money and I'll send you the link.

BTW, if you haven't yet watched the Albert Brooks/Meryl Streep comedy "Defending Your Life". If it's not a true story it ought to be.


Mark A. Baker

 

[FoTi]

Might be right.

I do mean to try the PaulsRobot stuff soon; is it, uh, costly?

G.

If you read on the bottom of each of Paul's posts in his sig line.....it says free.

 

[Zinjifar]

Zinj,

I devoured everything I could get by Castaneda -- back in the day. Circa 70's or 80's, don't recall. It might be that I found it a trifle less 'repugnant' than you; again, perhaps not. It was, though, interesting. "Verrry Interesting."

Does, "The Art of Dreaming," work on it's own or does it rely on the prior material?

Thanks,

G.

'The Art of Dreaming' can be a stand alone, if you're at least familiar with stuff up to, say, 'Tales of Power'. And, by repugnant I'm mostly referring to the increasingly vicious and malicious elements that only crept in slowly. For example, 'stealing' the power from your children to 'close your hole' etc. Most of that shows up after Don Juan and Genaro 'cross over'.

Anyway, I do recommend 'Art of Dreaming' alone from any of the later works, but, along with some fascinating concepts, there are some very 'dark' aspects. I brought it up because of your mention of 'guides'.

Also highly recommended, 'Sorcerer's Apprentice' by Amy Wallace, for a credible (to me) look behind the scenes of what increasingly became Carlos' 'cult'. A lot of familiar territory there.

http://www.amazon.com/Sorcerers-App...tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1282198671&sr=1-1

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

If you read on the bottom of each of Paul's posts in his sig line.....it says free.

Free? Well: parts. Ask him. It's not all free. Some of the modules have a cost associated. But it's certainly not expensive.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I do mean to try the PaulsRobot stuff soon; is it, uh, costly?

It's a freemium model. Some of it is free; to access everything I've got currently available costs £10 a month for unlimited 24/7 access.

You might want to grab the zip file in my sig line. It won't be there forever. It's just a collection of web pages, no *.exe program involved.

Paul

 

[gfyork]

I confess: I LOVE romantic comedys.

Well, you can send me your money and I'll send you the link.

BTW, if you haven't yet watched the Albert Brooks/Meryl Streep comedy "Defending Your Life". If it's not a true story it ought to be.


Mark A. Baker

I saw the earlier link here to, "Defending Your Life," thought I recalled the name, followed the link. Watched all 12 'episodes' on YouTube. It took me away from this very important work on EXSCN; but I just thought of it as -- intermission. Good movie!

G.

 

[gfyork]

Thanks

If you read on the bottom of each of Paul's posts in his sig line.....it says free.

Thanks.

I believe I discounted that a little; I have learned over the years that there can be various values of 'free.'

Some months ago, I had a quick look at one of Paul's Robot pages and somehow :confused2: got the (perhaps erroneous) impression that it was 'free to try' but you were invited/expected to pay should you decide to carry on. And I have no idea what I saw that led me to think that. Anyway, thought I'd just hold off until I could continue should I wish.

Professionally, I'm a computer programmer. Was, anyway. I rather admired his ability/willingness to convert various tech, usually applied one on one, to a computer program. It hadn't even occurred to me! Nice 'out of the box' thinking.

Of course, it brought up the question, "How 'necessary' is a live Auditor to the -- process?"

I'll check it out.

G.

 

[gfyork]

Ok. I shoulda read this first.

Free? Well: parts. Ask him. It's not all free. Some of the modules have a cost associated. But it's certainly not expensive.

I believe I need to read all new responses before I begin replying.

Thanks.

G.

 

[gfyork]

Question!

It's a freemium model. Some of it is free; to access everything I've got currently available costs £10 a month for unlimited 24/7 access.

You might want to grab the zip file in my sig line. It won't be there forever. It's just a collection of web pages, no *.exe program involved.

Paul

Paul,

Do you refer to this:
--
2. RAW4 is a PaulsRobot module about the four levels comprising the "parts of Man" according to Barbara Brennan: body, aura, hara level, core star. It facilitates reaching and withdrawing into and from these different parts, with diagrams etc. Free zip file download (plain web pages only, no *.exe program), about 10MB.
--

I haven't even done minimal research on Barbara Brennan at this point; might be interested later, I suppose.

Question 1:
Re. the Robot processing: can it, 'Do the Grades?" As I indicated in an earlier post, I left Scientology before doing anything beyond Grade 0. I've been rather wistful about that.

My 'attention' has nearly always been on OT and is still largely there. However, the 'value' I received from Grade 0 was 'worth' far, far more than Scientology charged. Had I dropped a hundred K on Grade 0, I still would have felt I got my money's worth.

I don't want to introduce a 'hidden standard' here and wouldn't necessarily expect a similar degree of 'result' from those Grades I didn't do. I have no idea how 'evenly' people actually respond. It might be that my response to the remaining Grades would be, "That was -- nice. Can we get on to the good stuff now?"

Perhaps in your career you've noticed that people respond differently to various auditors? I've gotten the impression that this is a matter beyond just 'skill' and 'trs.' Perhaps the whole, "Safe Space" and "Intention" thing; perhaps something else.

Question 2:
What's your take on this? Do you consider the PaulsRobot thing to be just, "better than no auditing" or equivalent to, perhaps even better, than, the best live auditor? (No session flubs?)

Thanks,

G.

 

[Alanzo]

I have a thread on Newton here: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252. I think his work is extremely relevant to your quest.

Hubbard's idea of the between-lives area is that it is a sort of hazy limbo, a hiatus between lives (duh), and about the only thing that happens there worth mentioning is the occasional implant from various galactic meanies. Even after rejecting much of what Hubbard wrote, I still thought of the between-lives area as some kind of hazy limbo, and I wasn't too sure about implanters.

Enter Michael Newton. There's a lot more data on that thread, and far more in his books than I have touched on there. But he has replaced for me the idea of a hazy limbo was something staggeringly different — life between lives (LBL) is a highly-*structured* area, with the spiritual equivalents of buildings, machinery, classrooms, tutors, recreation areas, work, jobs, goals and purposes etc. Everything I say about his "ideas" comes from his research. His books are about the distilled commonalities from over 7,000 research cases, not his personal ideas of how things might be based on his own personal revelation (or drug-fuelled hallucination like Hubbard). This adds hugely to his credibility, in my opinion.

Newton says the absolute minimum time lag between death on Earth and picking up another body on Earth is five Earth years. Absolute minimum. The actual time lag can be tens or even hundreds of years or more.

My viewpoint on immortal life has changed from accepting Hubbard's views to embracing Newton's:

Hubbard: The being (thetan) in this universe is trillions of years old. Between-lives existence (since we started picking up meat bodies) is uninteresting apart from implants. The being started off in "native state" with marvellous OT abilities, but then went downhill, getting more and more degraded, until Shazam! Here's Ronnie! to save the day and recover the state of OT and native state.

Newton: The being (such as would be reading this ESMB message, not every single being) is perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of years old (he's not too definite about it). New beings are "born" on a continuing basis in the spirit world. There is a sort of — I find this highly amusing — spiritual grade chart that everyone in the spirit world is working on, some more industriously than others. The end point is unknown, as at some point beings stop getting reincarnated on Earth and they don't sit in Newton's research room and get interviewed about their "other" life and connections. But progress is marked by, unsurprisingly, improvements in "the virtues" (patience, humility, trust, self-discipline and so on. Wikipedia lists about 150 of them). Oh yes, no implanters.

So the old saying that we are spiritual beings undergoing a human existence is far more accurate than one might have supposed.

Paul

I know that when you read my cut and paste of Book Ten of Plato's Republic, you did not see what I found there: that Newton's ideas about between lives are an almost exact replica of the report of the hero who died for a while on the battlefield and told everyone what he saw there.

But it's there, right down to working on "the virtues" life after life.

Plato's Republic, and much more that Plato and Aristotle wrote, have had tremendous influence on the Christian and even Hebraic view of "heaven", and much of our thinking about what happens after we die in Western Civilization. In fact, these ideas from these Greeks are embedded deeply into our culture, and our psyches, if not our thetans.

Maybe Newton's 7000 subjects are dubbing in what they are "supposed-to" dub in?

Or maybe it's actually true.

I don't know.

But life as a learning laboratory which you come back to for more lessons, again and again, is a good working model for explaining things to mortals who need meaning for life to be worthwhile and not completely fucking absurd. It is productive and positive, and it certainly gives meaning to the bad things in life, as well as the good.

Newton's "reports" are something that, unlike Scientology which is connected to so much else that you do not want, if you CHOOSE to believe them and lay them down as a basis of your worldview, it would be very productive.

Even Nagarjuna (Indian 2nd century Buddhist philosopher) said that "truth" should always contain a positive unifying element, rather than a negative, divisive one.

A lot of smart, hard-working, but ultimately ignorant and very mortal philosophers agree on Newton's view of the between lives area. If these guys, who have spent so much time and energy trying to figure shit out from a limited human point of view, ultimately agree with these basic ideas, then it's certainly better than nothing.

Or Scientology.

You know, sometimes you just gotta say "fuck it!".

So fuck it, I'm in!

 

[nozeno]

So how do you two explain gangsta rap?

 

[gfyork]

My two cents.

So how do you two explain gangsta rap?

As you may have seen, I think very highly of the Comm release I obtained, back in the day, from Grade 0. Very good result; I'm very appreciative.

That said, I definitely prefer to avoid even hearing 'gangsta rap' and have never presumed to 'explain' it. Or just 'rap'.

WAY back, however, I believe I witnessed the very beginning of the 'rap' FAD, coming on. Dear ol' Ed Sullivan, of blessed memory, one of the first 'variety act' shows on TV, presented, probably as comedic relief, a bunch of street urchins, sub-adolescent, who did their more-or-less musical chanting thing. Kinda sweet; kinda funny. Had I only known!

Best,

G.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul,

Do you refer to this:
--
2. RAW4 is a PaulsRobot module about the four levels comprising the "parts of Man" according to Barbara Brennan: body, aura, hara level, core star. It facilitates reaching and withdrawing into and from these different parts, with diagrams etc. Free zip file download (plain web pages only, no *.exe program), about 10MB.
--

Yes.

Sorry, I don't have time to answer the rest right now, but I will answer it later on today (my time, UK).

Paul