What's new

My Dinner With Terril

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
Berner was an influencer of Scio - not the other way.

Hmm. From the Berner writing:

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:
[emphasis above added]

My BS detector is sounding. It's a 1958 imprint. What does it sound like to you? Sounds like a scientologist talking to me. What is your assertion that Berner influenced scn (i.e. Lafayette), and not the other way around, based on?

Would probably run just as well if not a lot better than the OTIII lafayette handed down. :lulz:

The frontispiece also clearly says it's an interpretation "based upon" (not a translation) - I don't know who called it a translation, you or just Vinaire:

A Modern Day Interpretation Based Upon
The Tibetan Book of the Dead
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/0712615695

Personally, I'd take it as a bit of an affront, if not a disservice, to have someone assertedly claim as fact as you so confidently did on the "With Deep Regret...." thread that THIS (whatever blah blah blah) is what a deceased friend or loved one was "now running." Or were you merely stating that it was what YOU were running on him? Or his loved ones were doing the readings? I wasn't clear about that. Seriously, apologies if I've misread what you actually meant. 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.

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.
Your statement:

alan said:
http://www.charlesberner.org/Tibet_Book_Dead_web.pdf

Joe and the 3 others have been running the following - ....
 
Last edited:
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?


First: note that "mental" conditions are often effectively inseparable from "spiritual" conditions. Although many who are enthralled by materialist models of "mental" phenomena often prefer to deny the existence of "spiritual" phenomena altogether.

That stated ... the use of auditing techniques based on an uncertain model can be explained by the following.


A. It is a relatively simple practice capable of getting useful results with regard to increasing personal insights & spiritual awareness.

B. It bears similarities to other traditional spiritual practices which have been used by individuals from diverse world cultures to aid in the personal achievement of insights, awareness, cognitions, etc.: e.g. meditation, confession, prayer, philosophical analysis & discourse, etc.. As such it can be argued that a similar respect should be allowed for the free practice of scientology technology as is generally accorded to these other practices.

C. It is an inherent right of any individual to pursue whatsoever avenue of personal mental/spiritual self-fulfillment he chooses.

D. In the u.s. it is legally arguable that such activities are constitutionally protected under the first amendment: i.e. every resident has the right to engage in such techniques in pursuit of their own spiritual well-being.

E. Any way you look at it, the techniques of auditing essentially amount to individuals exercising their right of privacy to engage in personal conversation. As such, it can not reasonably be prevented. Only a society deeply concerned with controlling the actions of individuals would attempt to do so.


As with other human endeavors, the fact that the "TRUTH" about underlying causes is frequently uncertain, mistaken, or completely unknown does not prevent the evolution of useful technologies which may serve the interests of individuals.

[Both in physics & medicine scientists know a d@mn sight less than is commonly believed about their respective areas of study. That does not prevent practical & useful developments in either engineering or medicine to occur. In both of these examples, however, sometimes the technologies "get it wrong".]


Mark A. Baker
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Vedas, Scientology, Idenics & Tibetan Book of the Dead

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.

.
 

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
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.

.

Thanks for taking the time to write and post this, Vinaire. I enjoyed very much. Good caek for the soul. I apologize for getting a little edgy with you yesterday. Rest has helped restore my normally good-natured detachment. :wink2: I found the information about your dream very interesting. To me, it would be significant in terms of lucidity. I don't know if you are familiar with lucid dreaming but I have felt for some time now that it's an important factor in terms of lucid living. I'm glad Berner's material is proving useful for you.

Now that I've restored my more objective viewpoint I will be giving it a good read as well since I haven't yet completed it; I'm particularly interested in how it compares with Sogyal Rinpoche's material.
 

Pixie

Crusader
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.

.

That was a lovely and interesting write up Vinaire, and more than one line! :omg: Gee whiz!! Your must be very happy!! :happydance: Well I am very glad you are happy Vinaire and you deserve it as you are very generous with us all regarding teaching us Math. Now, I must now catch up with that book of the dead. :kiss:
 

Oneflewover

Patron with Honors
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.

.


Interesting and astute write up, Vinaire. Thanks for sharing it.

I see that too. With the assumption of a viewpoint, comes the potential for a game. sheds some interesting light on the question "where are you coming from?". Answer: My viewpoint.

I'm reminded often of LRH's borrowing from Korzybski or whoever it was who inspired much of the data series. A single viewpoint would have to be single valued logic. "Because I said so..." , "Because God said so..." , "Because LRH said so...".

LRH was bad for trying to enforce the "One correct Viewpoint". His. I never understood more than a small percentage of the Scientology tech until I abandoned it for "other viewpoints". Then as if by magick, I started to see what Scn tech was about.

It may go back to the doctrine of the "datum of comparable Magnitude".

On the one hand LRH said you need a datum of comparable magnitude to really understand something, and then on the other hand, he said there was nothing even close in magnitude to his tech.

Was he really saying there was no hope of understanding Scn tech?

But like you, I find a nice happy place these days where things are in perspective, and I'm not forced to lean heavily in the direction of any particular viewpoint to the exclusion of others.

Very liberating.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
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:

It is easy to spiritually process the TBOTD on someone like Joe - as he had shared his Ascension Experiences with me.

Also Joe was very holographic in his communications - the other 3 were not - but even they are slowly getting released from the incident that occured.

His presence when he is with you is very easy to recognize.

Do a search on Charles Berner - I have covered his influence.

Are you trained as a processor?

Alan
 

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
Thanks for the info - makes a difference how I communicate to you :)

Up to you, Alan, if you wish to adjust your comm. I'm comfortable with the processing slant as well. Granted, I don't have the practical application under my belt but do have years of reading technical issues and the books. Spent many an hour (literally hundreds) tucked away in a corner after org hours reading through the hco mimeo files (at the time, they were complete with all bulletins, pabs, etc) and qual library. Hundreds of hours, best guestimate, on the receiving end (tho' mostly sec check stuff aside from l/r and up to grade 0).

Anyway, I think I can hang with whichever approach you choose.

Alan said:
BTW loved the in-form-ation - it aligned more of the electro/magnetic cosmology - the strings and packets.

You talking about what I posted over on the "Where's your mind?" thread?
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I don't think the FZ has much in the way of EO's ordering people to do anything.

I was double-hatted as the EO when I was at a small FZ group in the winter of 2004/2005. I interviewed and gave ethics programs to two people, and spent a few hours running Exchange by Dynamics on one of them (waste of time). I was genuinely interested in whether following the programs was helpful to the people concerned--it was a technical thing with punishment not being part of it at all. I can't say I noticed a great difference with the two people concerned, though.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
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.

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
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Escalus--I don't know which exact posts to reference, and I'm not going to carefully search through this huge thread to find them. But two points:

1. I'm not a Freezoner, or a Scientologist. My comments are my own views: I don't represent anyone else, and wouldn't consider myself a typical anything except in terms of bodily functions.

2. This is on the subject of where engrams are maybe located. The following quotes are from page 6/7 of the book "Light Emerging" by Barbara Brennan. They are not isolated quotes wholly dissimilar to other material in the book, but I can't quote the whole book. From my understanding of Hubbard's materials, I would say these "frozen psychic time conglomerates" (her words) could be considered to be the same phenomena in action.

I'm just going to quote snippets, but my editing does not change the character of what I am quoting:

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....

I first evaluated the validity of Brennan's work by seeing how it matched up to what Hubbard said. I find I now evaluate Hubbard by what Brennan says. :)

Paul
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
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
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
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

Very interesting. He couldn't conquer his ego and sex urges after all.
I am sure he had lots of justifications to himself.

.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
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.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
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.

Have not seen any disconnection in the FZ.
 
Top