paradox
ab intra silentio vera
I would highly recommend this guy.. www.wordsofpeace.com
Thanks, pix. I'll check it out (if I can ever get off this dang board today and get some sleep; mmm, comin' up on 48hrs, doh!).
I would highly recommend this guy.. www.wordsofpeace.com
I thought it was okay, but much preferred the non-scio influenced book by Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying/dp/0712615695. An amazing read, imo.
Berner was an influencer of Scio - not the other way.
[emphasis above added]PART II
Experiencing the Reality of the Mind
Or the Willingness To Be Responsible for the States of Emotion
Assuming that the person may not have achieved liberation through Part I, then proceed as follows. This part of the Guide is important and has much power, and should be carefully and with intention read to the deceased. While in the state of exteriorization from the body, the person, because of not having a body to help him confront, eventually becomes awed, frightened and terrified from the impact of light and sound, and so becomes fatigued. Thus, the person begins to interpose mental image pictures between himself and the incoming light and sound, which are easier to confront. Not being sufficiently inventive, the person brings into play mental image pictures from his past experiences and therefore begins to re-experience his own past. Calling the person by name, clearly and distinctly explain to him as follows:
Not saying it isn't worth reading through. But I certainly would take it with an ample dosage of salt. And recommend anyone interested should procure a copy of the one I referenced for comparison. Or at least go to the Amazon link and read the reviews and short excerpt of the book available. The author being a Tibetan Buddhist. No scio language or terminology. If it makes a difference to you. Would to me, but that's just me. Here's the link again: http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying/dp/0712615695A Modern Day Interpretation Based Upon
The Tibetan Book of the Dead
Your statement:A person who is familiar with this Guide and who is a friend of the deceased would be the best Reader of this Guide to help the newly deceased. However, if there should be no one familiar with this Guide or no friend, any person willing to help the newly decease may do so by reading the Guide with intention. If there is no body, then the bed or the seat to which the deceased has been accustomed should be occupied by the Reader, and he should conceive that the spirit of the deceased is present and listening. If the body is present, the reader should sit to the right of it and read the Guide directly to the spirit of the deceased via his body.
alan said:http://www.charlesberner.org/Tibet_Book_Dead_web.pdf
Joe and the 3 others have been running the following - ....
Advisories noted.
On the table: Knowing that the nature of this hypothetical unit is unknown and is mainly observable mostly when it ceases to have an ill-effect on someone, how can a person justify addressing someone's mental condition with methods meant to deal with it, seeing as how it is only a hypothetical entity?
Whereas, Scientology provided me with a very interesting "western" viewpoint to look at the Vedic philosophy, the Vedic philosophy, in its turn, helped me steer safely through the minefields of Scientology. I was helped tremendously.
Then I came across Idenics, thanks to John and Mike, and something entirely new happened. All my hatred and anger started to melt away.
And now, thanks to Alan, I got a chance to read an interesting interpretation of Tibetan Book of the Dead. I now find my fears melting away. I am experiencing a new high in my sense of freedom.
I am convinced that one's viewpoint matters as much as what is being viewed from that viewpoint. If Hubbard and Scientology is to be blamed then that blame must be shared by the individual viewpoint from which one viewed Scientology..
I have been very lucky in this lifetime in terms of the viewpoints I found myself associated with. Somehow I have been guided safely up till now.
I read Berner's interpretation of the "Book of the Dead" yesterday. That put me in an interesting mood, and I was having my lulz yesterday on this thread, upsetting some people in the wake.
Last night I had a nightmare... a combination of being stuck in a traffic, while in a rush to prepare for an exam which was the next day and there was not enough time. The barriers seem to be overwhelming and failure seemed to be assured.
Then the thought came to me that I am simply wandering around in my mind. I am facing my creations. I asked myself, "Where am I not taking responsibility? What is the most responsible thing to do right at the moment?"
The nightmare was no fun. It was as solid as anything. I could feel the heaviness in my head. Then all of a sudden I started to come up with creative solutions and the masses started to melt.
Now, that Berner's interpretation may be anathema to somebody because of its association to Scientology which, in turn, is associated with some bad experiences. But that person is looking from his viewpoint, and I am looking at the same thing from my viewpoint.
The viewpoint matters.
Probably, my viewpoint does not conjure up all those things that the other viewpoint is conjuring up when looking at that interpretation of the Book of the Dead.
That's the thing about a viewpoint. It limits the view of what one is looking at and it fills any non-viewable parts with one's own imaginings.
The viewpoint has a big hand in creating the impression that one comes away with after viewing something.
I am happy to be what I am, and when I am happy I don't hate anybody or anything.
I am glad that I am happy more often these days.
And I am getting to like you all more and more. That caek is getting to taste moer delicious.
.
Whereas, Scientology provided me with a very interesting "western" viewpoint to look at the Vedic philosophy, the Vedic philosophy, in its turn, helped me steer safely through the minefields of Scientology. I was helped tremendously.
Then I came across Idenics, thanks to John and Mike, and something entirely new happened. All my hatred and anger started to melt away.
And now, thanks to Alan, I got a chance to read an interesting interpretation of Tibetan Book of the Dead. I now find my fears melting away. I am experiencing a new high in my sense of freedom.
I am convinced that one's viewpoint matters as much as what is being viewed from that viewpoint. If Hubbard and Scientology is to be blamed then that blame must be shared by the individual viewpoint from which one viewed Scientology..
I have been very lucky in this lifetime in terms of the viewpoints I found myself associated with. Somehow I have been guided safely up till now.
I read Berner's interpretation of the "Book of the Dead" yesterday. That put me in an interesting mood, and I was having my lulz yesterday on this thread, upsetting some people in the wake.
Last night I had a nightmare... a combination of being stuck in a traffic, while in a rush to prepare for an exam which was the next day and there was not enough time. The barriers seem to be overwhelming and failure seemed to be assured.
Then the thought came to me that I am simply wandering around in my mind. I am facing my creations. I asked myself, "Where am I not taking responsibility? What is the most responsible thing to do right at the moment?"
The nightmare was no fun. It was as solid as anything. I could feel the heaviness in my head. Then all of a sudden I started to come up with creative solutions and the masses started to melt.
Now, that Berner's interpretation may be anathema to somebody because of its association to Scientology which, in turn, is associated with some bad experiences. But that person is looking from his viewpoint, and I am looking at the same thing from my viewpoint.
The viewpoint matters.
Probably, my viewpoint does not conjure up all those things that the other viewpoint is conjuring up when looking at that interpretation of the Book of the Dead.
That's the thing about a viewpoint. It limits the view of what one is looking at and it fills any non-viewable parts with one's own imaginings.
The viewpoint has a big hand in creating the impression that one comes away with after viewing something.
I am happy to be what I am, and when I am happy I don't hate anybody or anything.
I am glad that I am happy more often these days.
And I am getting to like you all more and more. That caek is getting to taste moer delicious.
.
Whereas, Scientology provided me with a very interesting "western" viewpoint to look at the Vedic philosophy, the Vedic philosophy, in its turn, helped me steer safely through the minefields of Scientology. I was helped tremendously.
Then I came across Idenics, thanks to John and Mike, and something entirely new happened. All my hatred and anger started to melt away.
And now, thanks to Alan, I got a chance to read an interesting interpretation of Tibetan Book of the Dead. I now find my fears melting away. I am experiencing a new high in my sense of freedom.
I am convinced that one's viewpoint matters as much as what is being viewed from that viewpoint. If Hubbard and Scientology is to be blamed then that blame must be shared by the individual viewpoint from which one viewed Scientology..
I have been very lucky in this lifetime in terms of the viewpoints I found myself associated with. Somehow I have been guided safely up till now.
I read Berner's interpretation of the "Book of the Dead" yesterday. That put me in an interesting mood, and I was having my lulz yesterday on this thread, upsetting some people in the wake.
Last night I had a nightmare... a combination of being stuck in a traffic, while in a rush to prepare for an exam which was the next day and there was not enough time. The barriers seem to be overwhelming and failure seemed to be assured.
Then the thought came to me that I am simply wandering around in my mind. I am facing my creations. I asked myself, "Where am I not taking responsibility? What is the most responsible thing to do right at the moment?"
The nightmare was no fun. It was as solid as anything. I could feel the heaviness in my head. Then all of a sudden I started to come up with creative solutions and the masses started to melt.
Now, that Berner's interpretation may be anathema to somebody because of its association to Scientology which, in turn, is associated with some bad experiences. But that person is looking from his viewpoint, and I am looking at the same thing from my viewpoint.
The viewpoint matters.
Probably, my viewpoint does not conjure up all those things that the other viewpoint is conjuring up when looking at that interpretation of the Book of the Dead.
That's the thing about a viewpoint. It limits the view of what one is looking at and it fills any non-viewable parts with one's own imaginings.
The viewpoint has a big hand in creating the impression that one comes away with after viewing something.
I am happy to be what I am, and when I am happy I don't hate anybody or anything.
I am glad that I am happy more often these days.
And I am getting to like you all more and more. That caek is getting to taste moer delicious.
.
The TBOTD clearly is to be read by attendance upon, and in the presence of, the physical remains of the loved one(s) if at all possible.
Your statement:
Alan said:Do a search on Charles Berner - I have covered his influence.
Are you trained as a processor?
Alan
Ok, I will. Thanks.
Nope.
Thanks for the info - makes a difference how I communicate to you
Alan said:BTW loved the in-form-ation - it aligned more of the electro/magnetic cosmology - the strings and packets.
I don't think the FZ has much in the way of EO's ordering people to do anything.
Mick is spot on - up to mid 1963 - he took feed-back from all the sessions and auditors and corrected up the procedures to make them more effective.
In 1962 - he would issue a rough outline of the procedure and we would be expected to run it, correct it and improve it - then notify him of the improvements or corrections. He would then issue the improved version - usually after it ran consistenly on most of the pc's.
1965 - he omitted any of those steps and began to issue his own non-tested ideas - with the caveat - if it didn't work. then you did not do it right.
when we stopped the flow of energy in a painful event, we froze that event in both energy and time...a block in our auric field...frozen energy-consciousness...the part of our psyche associated with that event also froze in that moment...remains frozen until we thaw it out...we are full of such blocks...we continually interact with each other from different frozen psychic time blocks...they coagulate together according to like energy, forming a frozen psychic time conglomerate...through healing work, one of the small frozen psychic time blocks is released. The increased energy released into the auric field then, in turn, automatically starts releasing the other, small segments of the time conglomerate because they are of like energy. Going back to Joe's story [an abandonment chain], as each time block is released, he experiences it as if it were happening to him right now. Thus he may be experiencing pain from when he was thirty years old, and as soon as that pain is released, he suddenly finds himself to be ten years old. Soon the ten-year-old becomes a one-year-old...past lives are also held within our frozen psychic time conglomerates. They also attract and connect with each other by similar energy....
Mid-1993...isn't that about the time he abandoned research on Actual GPMs and concentrated on supposed Implant GPMs, after saying that Actual GPMs were thousands of times more important than Implant GPMs?
Paul
He abandoned GPM Tech in June 1964.
Starting in Mid 1962 he was in deep do-do with Mary-Sue for hitting on Briefing Course Students - then later Jan '63, for getting Eunice Ford pregnant - lots of jealousy, massive upsets and hate going on in the background.
Obviously he lost Mary-Sue as his auditor at this time - thus went more and more wierd.
Alan
P&B - with all due respect - this sounds like the usual "justification" that scientologists trot out whenever they have to try and explain the odious practice of disconnection. Every Scientologist who has ever defended disconnection tries to use the "well, if someone is being abused by a family member they should be able to disconnect".
OK, let's examine this. Someone is an SP if they blow from staff - right? So this statement argues that blowing from staff is the moral equivalent of child abuse.
Hmm. Interesting.
The fact that there are circumstances when one person should be sequestered from another does not mean that "disconnection" is valid.
Because disconnection is more than just separation. It s an administrative act enabled TO PROTECT THE ORGANIZATION - not the individual. This is the key point that apologists always seem to miss.
Disconnection is enforced to prevent the member from becoming troublesome to the organization - whether the member cares about that or not.
What is even more ironic is that in those circumstances where children SHOULD have been protected by forcible separation (the Strawn case for example) the CofS did exactly the opposite of what any caring organization would have done - it told the mother to not make waves!!
I'm certainly not trying to justify the Cof$'s policy/practice of disconnection. I agree with you 100%. Especially to the point you made about failure to protect children from abusers - sick.
I simply state that that is a case where getting the hell away from someone is the thing to do. I have no clue what the FZ does or does not do with regards to disconnection - the absolute statement was made that they don't practice family disconnection. It just was a bit too absolute for my liking that's all. So I commented upon it.