The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Ted]

The Dalai Lama Says...

Dalai Lama: "The simple recognition that everyone else wants to be happy and not to suffer, just as I do, serves as a constant reminder against selfishness and partiality. It reminds us there is little to be gained from being kind and generous while hoping to win something in return. Actions motivated by a desire to earn a good name for ourselves are still selfish, even if they appear to be acts of kindness."


Think about that in relation to "OT."

How much good are you or I willing to do while receiving absolutely no recognition? Hell, I post using my real name. A little bit of recognition, or the slight chance of recognition, is all I need. Yet, it is still selfish.

On the other hand, I give a bit to charity every month. I give money to strangers in need. I give motorist the right of way, usually. And more... All that without any expectation of earning a good name for myself.

Here I am thinking out loud: My wife and I give to the young 'uns without any expectation or desire to earn a good name. Nevertheless, everyone who knows us and our young 'uns will compliment on what fine people they are, each and every one. And their friends compliment them on what fine parents they must have.

Now I am waking up: So, the key word above is "desire." Recognition can come one's way by reason of being alive and participating in the process. To desire is something else.



Thank you for listening.

Oops. That's a desire, a desired audience. Oh, well...

 

[Ted]

Important Message From Former Pharma Rep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmeB6GB25Q&feature=player_embedded

 

[RogerB]

Dalai Lama: "The simple recognition that everyone else wants to be happy and not to suffer, just as I do, serves as a constant reminder against selfishness and partiality. It reminds us there is little to be gained from being kind and generous while hoping to win something in return. Actions motivated by a desire to earn a good name for ourselves are still selfish, even if they appear to be acts of kindness."


Think about that in relation to "OT."

How much good are you or I willing to do while receiving absolutely no recognition? Hell, I post using my real name. A little bit of recognition, or the slight chance of recognition, is all I need. Yet, it is still selfish.

On the other hand, I give a bit to charity every month. I give money to strangers in need. I give motorist the right of way, usually. And more... All that without any expectation of earning a good name for myself.

Here I am thinking out loud: My wife and I give to the young 'uns without any expectation or desire to earn a good name. Nevertheless, everyone who knows us and our young 'uns will compliment on what fine people they are, each and every one. And their friends compliment them on what fine parents they must have.

Now I am waking up: So, the key word above is "desire." Recognition can come one's way by reason of being alive and participating in the process. To desire is something else.



Thank you for listening.

Oops. That's a desire, a desired audience. Oh, well...

That above is very good, Ted.

You've set my mind to rumbling on this . . . . as did TMT with his words regarding "desire for admiration," etc.

As I chew along on this, what I come to thinking is two things:
1) "Desire" can span the scale of emotions, and expresses differently at the top of the scale than at the bottom and,
2) Desire basically puts you into an inflow mode; that is, it is the want to inflow or receive something.

Back around 1963, I had the God Almighty cognition that to truly survive and have winning games one really needed to be operating at a level of Contribution or above on the Havingness Scale.

My cognition, in actuality, was that unless the Beings in the game were contributing to the game, the game would cease to be. It would simply end in the vacuum of no creation.

Interestingly enough, at the time, my attention was very much on the game as being us as "Theta" versus the physical universe of M.E.S.T. This all based on the old "Theta-MEST Theory."

My spiritual perception at the time of the congnition was that unless one contributed to and co-created the MEST Universe, it would simply cease to exist. And along with that cognition there was a sneaking awareness that this was also true of all of the spiritual games we played . . . but, spiritual games were way less real to me than the physical universe at the time

Today, as I chew on this subject, I have the view that the highest level of game playing is that wherein the players co-honor, co-appreciate and co-empower each others' presence and Being because that is the honorable and correct thing to do. And, conversely, to fail to do so very much lessens the game and the power and joy of the players who so fail.

In 1963, the other part of the cognition was that to only be on the inflow (vectors) of desire for recognition, sensations created by others, admiration from others, and such was to fail to co-create and contribute to the game and presence of others and thus lead to the loss of games and a vacuum of existence.

Today I have a rather different view of things compared to my view in 1963. Today I find great joy in the act of honoring others, appreciating their being and empowering their presence. The interesting thing is it is not done for the reason of wanting a return flow . . . it is simply done for the reason that it is right and it is the way to have correct and optimum relationships; but the outcome is almost universally that I get a flow of recognition and appreciation in return, and this co-empowerment between us empowers the realities that make up the game.

And it is a fun game.

Some twenty or thirty years ago I was looking at the notion of what love is. A lot has been written on the subject of course. My conclusion, at the time, was that a key part and action of love is, the creation of survival for another and their co-empowerment in Being, Doing, Having.

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

A learned analysis

It also says, "Think for yourself" on the big plastic sign outside the Org.

"Axiom 31. Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion."

From the December 1951 lecture, 'Cause on All Dynamics':

"What is conscience? It is simply a negating against your own, not somebody else's, causes. If there is such a thing as conscience, it would be that...

"Now, you want to know anytime in your life when you felt guilty... you go back and find the postulate that your are guilty of disobeying...." [and erase that postulate]

And from the PDC lectures of 1952: "Never be the effect of your own cause."

Per Scientology, humans are confined to the limitations imposed on them - by others and by themselves - that require them to "be good," and humans are subject to conscience, and humans are the effect of their own cause, but an "Operating Thetan" would be above these things. It might please him to do "good"; he might have that inclination, but there would no automatic consequence to him for doing "bad."

An "OT" would be above good and evil and other petty human things.

If Scientology is oriented toward anything, it is toward "Survival!" Survival (including pleasure and well being) is "good," and the survival of Scientology is regarded as essential to the survival of everything else; it is also regarded as the only way to become "OT," so an "OT" would be senior to (human) good and evil, but not senior to Scientology - per Scientology.

Of course, since most Scientologists don't quite know what (the secretive and manipulative subject of) Scientology is - except that it's very very important to their "Survival!" - and since Scientology (and its "Grade Chart") does not produce the state of "OT" (beyond self-tickling, feel-good, wishful thinking), "OT" is used mainly as a "dangling carrot." This, while Scientologists exchange their human sense of "good" for a Scientological sense of "good."

I might think that "Mankind is basically good," but I don't believe that Hubbard really thought that "Mankind is basically good." As with anything else in Scientology, if one peels off that layer, one will find something very different behind it.

Veda, your analysis is a pretty thorough look at the subject to hand, actaully a deeper look than I have ever taken. You make some very good points. However, the point I made about having a discussion with Sweetness still stands. The added knowledge and perspective which you introduced into our discussion is useful and helpful but in no way mitigates the point I was trying to make about holding a discussion with Sweetness, now that I fully understand that she never bought into anything Hubbard said.

My only point is that up until her post #5181, I believed that she had accepted many of Hubbard's basic doctrines and I communicated to her without first making sure we agreed on basic definitions and terms. Now that I know that not to be the case, if I do get into a discussion with her, I feel it is necessary for both of us to define our basic terms so that our conversation may have meaning. Many of her beliefs are Mystic beliefs. Most of them I have never heard of and have no idea of what they are all about and really have no desire to want to know or learn anything about them. It makes it difficult to hold a meaningful discussion with her, since when we both refer to something such as "man being basically good", we mean entirely different things. I had assumed that she meant what I meant and proceeded with my discussion with her but she is using the tern in an entirely different sense. That was my only point and though I got a lot out of your sage analysis, it did not change my views on that one point.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Veda's claim about no OT abilities.

Veda, I simply do not agree with your claim above that Scientology does not produce any state of OT per se. I have OT like abilities which Scientology helped me bring to the fore. The Magic Thetan lives in a world of OT like abilities much greater than mine. Face pulled off an OT like ability in cheating death and redeveloping his skills which the medicos told him would never happen.

I have the ability to pick up the thoughts of many if not most people. I learned to do accupressure message from an accupressure therapist and that had not much to do with Scientology. However, I did use the theory in the assists pack, relating as to why touch assists had workability, why contact assists worked and why the body comm process worked. I also picked up some theory from my study of OT III and NOTS relating to living beings beings being present around people's bodies or inhabiting their spaces.

Using my ability to pick up thoughts, plus accupressure tech plus some of Hubbard's theories, I have over the years formed my own healing therapy which only recently I brought out of the moth balls and began using heavily. The results have been just spectacular!! I did two sessions yesterday, one live and one by phone and I solved two enormous problems which two women, who are best friends were having. Both my sessions took 45 minutes. Had they gone to traditional medicine, they would have been prescribed drugs, had they gone to C of S, they might have gotten some help if they had a good C/S and a good auditor and spent $10,000. Probably Carmelo could have handled them, the chances are that Roger could have given them some processes which are likely to have handled them but I was able to do it on both women in in 45 minute sessions I did this for free asking nothing in return.

I have an ability to pick up the thoughts of the person I am working on. They know it and I know it. No naysayer on ESMB can negate that effectively. What is happening is that I find the harmful thought or thoughts which are causing them physical or mental trauma and indicate that to them and get them to talk about it. I then steer the conversation towards getting rid of that thought.

The biggest trouble I am having is that they want me to tell them the answer to their dilemma while I am insisting that they must see it for themselves or they won't receive any benefits. This latter is another Hubbard datum which I subscribe to. One of the girls yesterday got very angry at me for not evaluating for her and giving her the answer and she got into the anger band. She said, "Fuck this, I asked you for some help, and you have my problem all figured and and instead of giving me the answer , you are just fucking around with me and playing games. I don't want to do this anymore." I acted bored and just said, "Yea, well in my technique the person usually gets very angry with me right before they make their final breakthrough and blow their problem. We are right where I want us to be and now you are fucking around, attacking me instead of doing your final steps, well I can end this session off right here or you can do what I tell you and in a matter of minutes your problem will be solved." She said, "Okay, what do you want me to do?" I said in a bored voice, "I want you to imagine in your mind the ending you want to occur between you and your former boyfriend" She asked for some clarification. I said, you have got to have an idea in your mind of how you want to feel when this session is over and how you want him to feel as well. She thought for awhile and said, well I realize that our relationship has to end now, its the best thing for both of us, but I want him to feel cool about it as well and come to the same realization as I did and I don't want to cause him additional pain. I acknowledged that and told her to imagine that the outcome she had just describe was now fact. All of a sudden she shot way up the tone scale. She said, "I see it now, yes, its all resolving for me, its resolvingl. She said, "Oh thank you so much for doing this for me and staying with me when I was attacking and insulting you" You are such a great friend. I asked if there was anything else she wanted to say and she said no and I have this new phrase I use now which is "You did well so enjoy your win, you earned it." She said, the problem I was having is totally gone its just not there anymore. She asked again, do you think my ex boyfriend is as cool with things as I am. I said, "What do you think?" She said she hoped he was but asked me again, Really what do you think? I said, I feel that he is totally cool with this outcome as well (which was true). She asked, "Is that something new you saw or did you see it before?" I said that I only noticed it just after she had her epiphany. She was totally happy and relieved. We agreed to talk the next day and that was that.

A long term problem, handled in a 45 minute session over the phone, done for free to a new friend with nothing asked in return. To me that shows some OT abilities. I would rather be able to do that than knock someone's hat off from 50' away. I can't do the hat knock off trick but I can do the above session so to me, it is an OT ability.
Lakey

 

[Veda]

Stanford Research Institute experimental psychologist Keith Harary, and Russell Targ, a physicist also from Stanford, wrote a book titled 'Mind Race' (as in 'space race'). It contains a section on the exploitation of psychic phenomena, or the promise of psychic phenomena, by cults.

Both were well aware of Scientology, and had worked with Ingo Swann, who did Scientology's "OT levels," and later (after leaving) described them as "disappointing." Swann claims to have been a natural psychic since childhood.

From the book, 'Mind Race':

"You won't find these groups listed under 'cults' in the Yellow pages. For income tax and public relations purposes, most refer to themselves as 'Churches'. But cults differ from traditional churches in several important ways...

"In our society, a person who is beginning to experience emerging psychic abilities, or who is interested in doing so, has almost nowhere to turn for guidance. Anyone with a purely scholarly interest in Psi research can write to various laboratories or read the research reports. But this information probably will not be of much practical personal use...

"This is the dilemma that leads many people to join cults in the first place. By accepting and exploiting psychic phenomena in a society that does not readily accept them, cults have effectively monopolized the subject of psi. They have exploited many people who are interested in learning about the area, and frightened many others away from ever considering the possibility...

"People are often drawn into cults that claim to offer explanations for psychic functioning, but at great personal, emotional, and financial expense to their followers. We think that giving away your mind is too high a price to pay for psychic development...

"For some people, the exposure to the possibility of developing their own psychic potential, which some cults appear to provide, may initially help certain individuals pay attention to areas of their own awareness that they might not otherwise consider exploring.

"But prolonged exposure to any cult's treatment of psychic abilities may seriously restrict the way its initiates view psychic functioning. And it may keep them from fully developing their actual psychic potential...

"Despite claims to the contrary by numerous factions, there is no evidence of an exclusive relationship between psychic functioning and any particular leader, doctrine , or way of life. Scientific evidence does strongly suggest that the ability to function psychically is a genuine human capacity which, for many people, seems to improve with practice."

From the 'Scientology Technical Dictionary', 1975:

"OPERATING THETAN, 1. a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space, and time. 2. willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind, and that would of course be universe. 3. an individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one..."

For a long time, the above is what was sold as "OT 8" - which was also described as "Total Freedom and Total Power" - but that was before the Bait and Switch of the mid/latter 1970s, when "OT 8" (which never actually existed) went from being the final and top ("Total Power!") "OT level," to being the first "OT level."

Almost 60 years ago L. Ron Hubbard wrote boldly and matter-of-factly of "thetans" conquering the "homo saps" of Earth - and many a fixed glare was inspired by his words.

The "Scientology Bridge to Total Freedom and Total Power" has been around for a long time; that "Bridge":

1) was "The only hope for Mankind," and the "closely taped path out of the labyrinth"

2) It justified:

a) Security ("Have you ever had unkind thoughts about LRH?") Checking ("Are you a pervert?")

b) The Children's Security Check, with page after page of questions to be asked of children age 6 - 12, with those after 12 being eligible for adult Security Checking

c) Implantology Mind F__k

d) The Suppressive Person doctrine

e) Disconnection

f) The Fair Game Law

g) Hard Sell

h) Deceit, used in recruiting "Raw Meat"

i) Oily PR tactics, including manipulative use of "ARC," particularly "love bombing" and gushing Affinity, to "handle" people. (This part of Scientology tech is currently "out" in the CofS, along with PR tech.)

j) De facto slave labor

k) Child abuse

l) Fraud

And, now, that the millions have been made, and shipped safely to overseas bank accounts, the founder's name, and his words, carved in steel and buried in vaults, and the monuments to the founder have been built (called Orgs), there are still stray Scientologists wandering about, disoriented and confused.

Be kind to them.

By the way, I not ridiculing the idea of paranormal abilities, telepathy, etc., just the notion that the "Bridge to OT" makes "OTs." (actual "OTs"). It doesn't and hasn't, but - hey - I don't want to burst any one's red balloon, so I don't want to argue about it.

Please note the earlier link to Rosicrucian telepathy, etc. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=430680&postcount=65

 

[Ted]

Good one, Roger!

That above is very good, Ted.

You've set my mind to rumbling on this . . . . as did TMT with his words regarding "desire for admiration," etc.

As I chew along on this, what I come to thinking is two things:
1) "Desire" can span the scale of emotions, and expresses differently at the top of the scale than at the bottom and,
2) Desire basically puts you into an inflow mode; that is, it is the want to inflow or receive something.

Back around 1963, I had the God Almighty cognition that to truly survive and have winning games one really needed to be operating at a level of Contribution or above on the 3) Havingness Scale.

4) My cognition, in actuality, was that unless the Beings in the game were contributing to the game, the game would cease to be. It would simply end in the vacuum of no creation.

5) Interestingly enough, at the time, my attention was very much on the game as being us as "Theta" versus the physical universe of M.E.S.T. This all based on the old "Theta-MEST Theory."

My spiritual perception at the time of the congnition was that unless one contributed to and co-created the MEST Universe, it would simply cease to exist. And along with that cognition there was a sneaking awareness that this was also true of all of the spiritual games we played . . . but, spiritual games were way less real to me than the physical universe at the time

Today, as I chew on this subject, I have the view that the highest level of game playing is that wherein the players co-honor, co-appreciate and co-empower each others' presence and Being because that is the honorable and correct thing to do. And, conversely, to fail to do so very much lessens the game and the power and joy of the players who so fail.

In 1963, the other part of the cognition was that to only be on the inflow (vectors) of desire for recognition, sensations created by others, admiration from others, and such was to fail to co-create and contribute to the game and presence of others and thus lead to the loss of games and a vacuum of existence.

6) Today I have a rather different view of things compared to my view in 1963. Today I find great joy in the act of honoring others, appreciating their being and empowering their presence. The interesting thing is it is not done for the reason of wanting a return flow . . . it is simply done for the reason that it is right and it is the way to have correct and optimum relationships; but the outcome is almost universally that I get a flow of recognition and appreciation in return, and this co-empowerment between us empowers the realities that make up the game.

And it is a fun game.

Some twenty or thirty years ago I was looking at the notion of what love is. A lot has been written on the subject of course. My conclusion, at the time, was that a key part and action of love is, the creation of survival for another and their co-empowerment in Being, Doing, Having.

Rog

Roger, that above is a nice, thoughtful contribution. I have highlighted in red something I will comment on:

1) and 2), I agree. Oh, wait. That puts me on an inflow.

No big deal. I quit being stuck on outflow, outflow, outflow when I got out of scientology-mindset where the only acceptable inflow boiled down to LRH opinion and tech and GI.

3) I still enjoy the scales. I probably use them differently than I did many years ago. They are not the Holy Grails of Truth, but might lead in that direction as good working tools depending on the circumstances applied to.

4) My cognition is that without others and a game, "I" do not exist. That is why I keep mocking up. I am even happy to be just a spectator on some games. I do not have to be totally in charge, or the center of attention.

5) Here's my "cognition" of the moment: Theta-MEST seems to be a big game at first glance. Today I find it to be just another container.

P.S. I have come to hate the word "cognition." It is overused and often used incorrectly by scios.

6) I find this perspective to be very close to pure life force itself: Exercising the Classic Greek and Roman virtues, and any others a being might appreciate, is about the biggest space I can imagine without dropping into the no-space of Static.

The rest of this text is from <http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/seven_virtues.htm>:

When Pope Gregory defined the seven deadly sins that we should avoid, he also included a counter-balancing set of values that we should espouse and adopt. These are:
 
1. Faith is belief in the right things (including the virtues!).
2. Hope is taking a positive future view, that good will prevail.
3. Charity is concern for, and active helping of, others.
4. Fortitude is never giving up.
5. Justice is being fair and equitable with others. 
6. Prudence is care of and moderation with money.
7. Temperance is moderation of needed things and abstinence from things which are not needed.

The first three of these are known as the Spiritual Virtues, whilst the last four are called the Chief or Natural Virtues. The Natural Virtues had already been defined by Greek philosophers, whilst the Spiritual Virtues are a slight variation on St. Paul's trio of Love, Hope and Faith (due to variation in translation from the original: Charity and Love arguably have a high level of overlap).

There are also a number of other sets of virtues, including:

• The Seven Contrary Virtues which are specific opposites to the Seven Deadly Sins: Humility against pride, Kindness against envy, Abstinence against gluttony, Chastity against lust, Patience against anger, Liberality against greed, and Diligence against sloth.

• The Theological Virtues: Love, Hope and Faith, as defined by St. Paul (who placed love as the greatest of them all).

• The four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Courage and Justice.

• The Seven Heavenly Virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, Prudence.

• The Seven Corporal Works of Mercy are a medieval list of things you can do to help others: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, give shelter to strangers, clothe the naked, visit the sick, minister to prisoners, and bury the dead.

• The Seven Bushido Virtues: Right decisions, Valor, Benevolence, Respect, Honesty, Honor, and Loyalty.

So what?
If you follow the virtues, you will be seen as a good person who is to be trusted. If you assume and act as if others follow the virtues, then they are more likely to do so. 

You can also be seen as being bold and daring if you break the virtues. Many modern groups (most notably youth) deliberately form their own identity by going against the values of others, so be aware of the other person's real values.

 

[lkwdblds]

Powerful, Inspiring, Meaningful!

That above is very good, Ted.

You've set my mind to rumbling on this . . . . as did TMT with his words regarding "desire for admiration," etc.

As I chew along on this, what I come to thinking is two things:
1) "Desire" can span the scale of emotions, and expresses differently at the top of the scale than at the bottom and,
2) Desire basically puts you into an inflow mode; that is, it is the want to inflow or receive something.

Back around 1963, I had the God Almighty cognition that to truly survive and have winning games one really needed to be operating at a level of Contribution or above on the Havingness Scale.

My cognition, in actuality, was that unless the Beings in the game were contributing to the game, the game would cease to be. It would simply end in the vacuum of no creation.

Interestingly enough, at the time, my attention was very much on the game as being us as "Theta" versus the physical universe of M.E.S.T. This all based on the old "Theta-MEST Theory."

My spiritual perception at the time of the congnition was that unless one contributed to and co-created the MEST Universe, it would simply cease to exist. And along with that cognition there was a sneaking awareness that this was also true of all of the spiritual games we played . . . but, spiritual games were way less real to me than the physical universe at the time

Today, as I chew on this subject, I have the view that the highest level of game playing is that wherein the players co-honor, co-appreciate and co-empower each others' presence and Being because that is the honorable and correct thing to do. And, conversely, to fail to do so very much lessens the game and the power and joy of the players who so fail.

In 1963, the other part of the cognition was that to only be on the inflow (vectors) of desire for recognition, sensations created by others, admiration from others, and such was to fail to co-create and contribute to the game and presence of others and thus lead to the loss of games and a vacuum of existence.

Today I have a rather different view of things compared to my view in 1963. Today I find great joy in the act of honoring others, appreciating their being and empowering their presence. The interesting thing is it is not done for the reason of wanting a return flow . . . it is simply done for the reason that it is right and it is the way to have correct and optimum relationships; but the outcome is almost universally that I get a flow of recognition and appreciation in return, and this co-empowerment between us empowers the realities that make up the game.

And it is a fun game.

Some twenty or thirty years ago I was looking at the notion of what love is. A lot has been written on the subject of course. My conclusion, at the time, was that a key part and action of love is, the creation of survival for another and their co-empowerment in Being, Doing, Having.

Rog

Roger, thanks for your above post. I find your message powerful, meaningful and inspiring. You summarize one viewpoint of what life is all about and when comparing this to any other viewpoint on the subject which I know of, yours seems to trump them all!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

I am similar to you on this

Dalai Lama: "The simple recognition that everyone else wants to be happy and not to suffer, just as I do, serves as a constant reminder against selfishness and partiality. It reminds us there is little to be gained from being kind and generous while hoping to win something in return. Actions motivated by a desire to earn a good name for ourselves are still selfish, even if they appear to be acts of kindness."


Think about that in relation to "OT."

How much good are you or I willing to do while receiving absolutely no recognition? Hell, I post using my real name. A little bit of recognition, or the slight chance of recognition, is all I need. Yet, it is still selfish.

On the other hand, I give a bit to charity every month. I give money to strangers in need. I give motorist the right of way, usually. And more... All that without any expectation of earning a good name for myself.

Here I am thinking out loud: My wife and I give to the young 'uns without any expectation or desire to earn a good name. Nevertheless, everyone who knows us and our young 'uns will compliment on what fine people they are, each and every one. And their friends compliment them on what fine parents they must have.

Now I am waking up: So, the key word above is "desire." Recognition can come one's way by reason of being alive and participating in the process. To desire is something else.



Thank you for listening.

Oops. That's a desire, a desired audience. Oh, well...

Ted, you and I are pretty close on this regard. I give a lot of things without asking for anything in return. The rasising of children typifies this. Its give, give, give and one is usually more than happy to do so because that is a hat which many of us chose to wear. We had it done for us and there comes a time to reciprocate with one's own kids; plus there are so many indescribably magnificent rewards to contributing to one's kids that any direct exchange is usually not necessary.

HOWEVER, AND THIS IS A BIG HOWEVER! In the case of people in general or in the case of your children, though a return flow is not asked for, it is nevertheless expected!!! If a recipient of your help, or a kid, at some point refuses to honor a request of yours when you finally do need help and ask them for it point blank, this huge sense of BETRAYAL turns on! I have experienced it in myself and seen it in so many many others. The word "ingrate" is often hurled at the kids!

THE HELP SAVINGS ACCOUNT
Those of us who help others a lot without asking for anything in return are sort of building up what we conceive to be a help savings account. Individuals and some theoretical Cosmic Conscience or Diety is supposed be keeping a record of this help and somehow we are supposed to receive a payback at some future date. I have done no survey but I would bet that exceptions to this routine are few and far between.

After years of outflowing, if the expected reciprocation does not take place, talk about a woman scorned, well a Spirit scorned is even more violently upset. God help anyone in our paths if our outflowing ends up being totally for naught and we receive a great big zero in return or perhaps even worse, have a negative occur in return such as the repossession of one's home.

People tend to fall apart and die if their HELP SAVINGS ACCOUNT ultimately does not yield any dividends whatever. They feel the Universe is a heartless and terrible place, they become a total victim and fold up their tents.

Looking at this with regard to OT as you suggest is difficult for me. I kept a HELP SAVINGS ACCOUNT before I knew about OT and did so as well after I had attested to various OT levels. The only difference I see is that the type of particles which an OT puts into his account and expects out of his account are differnt to some degree than those of a non OT.

I know you are suggesting that to be truly OT, you need not expect any in flow in return. Am I right in that presumption? Taking it out to a God figure in the extreme, non Gods both inflow and outflow, God, the creator would by nature be only outflow. There is no true inflow back to God although throughout human history on this planet, gods always demand supplication. Also, seeing His creations do well and themselves create would seem to be an inflow back to a God. In other words enulating God as close a possible would be pleasing for a God figure to observe.

For humans, it seems like we need to engage in both outflow and inflow with outflow being more noble and beneficial. For OT's, I never thought that no inflow should be expected. Perhaps you could say a few more words on that topic.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

[snippage...]

For humans, it seems like we need to engage in both outflow and inflow with outflow being more noble and beneficial. For OT's, I never thought that no inflow should be expected. Perhaps you could say a few more words on that topic.
Lakey

This talk of OT (very OT) is speculative since I am obviously, to me, and apparently, to you, with a computer and body. So I'll just talk about a lesser level of OT. That would be causative, participating human being OT.

To keep a body going, it, and thus you or I, need certain inflows and outflows. That's just the mechanics of it. If I get no money in, I can give no money out. I can be charitable in attitude, but not in substance. None of us can survive for long on imaginary food. My truck will not run at all on imaginary gasoline. The electric company won't accept my positive postulates.

As for the kids, their existence is dependent on both spiritual substance and material substance. As a parent we do not let them forget that. My wife and I let them keep their rooms in whatever condition they choose. We could call that Power of Choice, the spiritual side of existence. When their mess extends to the common areas, we raise all holy hell. That's the material side of existence as it crosses over into the lives of others.

You should have seen them run for cover when I walked into the house and their junk was scattered about.

If I had to live in a trashy house, trashed by the kids, it would have zapped me to a greater or lesser degree. That in turn would feed back to the kids making their own survival lesser.

Did I answer your question?

 

[The Great Zorg]

WTF?

Man, that pussy is a pussy!

 

[The Great Zorg]

Cool beans

Thank YOU, Zorgie!

I feel better all ready!

Namaste.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Me no OT

Lakey,

I don’t see that I pulled off some OT trick and cheated death…I just don’t look at it that way. It was truly a gift, for what reason and why me, I know not why.

Veda’s post re: SRI and “Mind Race” is exactly in concert with several of my “Readers Digest” posts in regards to the who’s and what’s that, in my opinion, “made” White Scientology.

Most folks have “psychic” abilities of one form or another, to one degree or another. Some are more “acute” than others and some of those have tried, are trying, to hone and expand them. The way I see it, most all of us have gifts and part of our path is to give of these gifts to others, and to be accepting and receptive of others giving of their gifts to us.

The Medicos never told me that my recovery was impossible...my Doctors were not expecting the extent and breadth of my recovery and they see it as a “miracle”. What they did do is remain positive with me and work diligently within the framework of all their medical skills and knowledge, step by step, day by day over a period of years. They were steadfast, resourceful and consistent. And, I know for a fact, many of them prayed for me.

El Ron was very concerned about the subject of being “Source”. His version of Scn was all about us being source within a universe of Hisself’s “Source-ness”. In effect, El Ron got us to buy into ourselves as being within his own image and view of “It” all…of being “source” with Hisself as “The Source” and the model of "Source-ness" and the possessor of the Majik "Source Boots".

El Ron spoke and wrote disparagingly about Mystics and Mysticism. In my view that was because Hisself was unable to and/or unwilling to accept and embrace the first predicate of Mysticism that is the key to open an individual’s first Mystical portal:

“This, That and It are all a Collaboration.”

In my view, we are all dealing with and within “energies, forces, influences and confluences thereof” that we don’t fully “see or get” but are, to a greater or lesser degree, aware of and part of.

You have Psychic gifts, Mystic predilections and so does Ted, Roger, Carmelo, Leon, S&L, EP, TMT, Veda, MAB, FoTi and on and on and on with so many others here…that, in part, is why we are all here, together, on this thread.

My recovery was not due to some great “OT Power” that I posses or that is "me". My recovery was a serendipitous "by-product" of acceptance of and surrender to the ebb and flow of “The Collaboration”.

I don’t see myself as having any “OT” abilities…I have gifts, as do we all, and those gifts may be enjoyed or abused…the choice is mine, and yours. The way you enjoy a gift is to share it with others…the way you abuse a gift is to possess it. The way you replenish a gift is to give some away, let it go…the way you squander a gift is to ration it, hoard it. Enjoying a gift replenishes it, refines it. Hoarding a gift squelches it, corrupts it.

I think my comments above are in concert with what Ted and Rog said so well in their recent posts.

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

My recovery was not due to some great “OT Power” that I posses or that is me. My recovery was a serendipitous by-product of acceptance of and surrender to the ebb and flow of “The Collaboration”.

I don’t see myself as having any “OT” abilities…I have gifts, as do we all, and those gifts may be enjoyed or abused…the choice is mine, and yours. The way you enjoy a gift is to share it with others…the way you abuse a gift is to possess it. The way you replenish a gift is to give some away, let it go…the way you squander a gift is to hoard it, ration it.

yep

 

[Ted]

Lakey,

I don’t see that I pulled off some OT trick and cheated death…I just don’t look at it that way. It was truly a gift, for what reason and why me, I know not why.

Veda’s post re: SRI and “Mind Race” is exactly in concert with several of my “Readers Digest” posts in regards to the who’s and what’s that, in my opinion, “made” White Scientology.

Most folks have “psychic” abilities of one form or another, to one degree or another. Some are more “acute” than others and some of those have tried, are trying, to hone and expand them. The way I see it, most all of us have gifts and part of our path is to give of these gifts to others, and to be accepting and receptive of others giving of their gifts to us.

The Medicos never told me that my recovery was impossible...my Doctors were not expecting the extent and breadth of my recovery and they see it as a “miracle”. What they did do is remain positive with me and work diligently within the framework of all their medical skills and knowledge, step by step, day by day over a period of years. They were steadfast, resourceful and consistent. And, I know for a fact, many of them prayed for me.

El Ron was very concerned about the subject of being “Source”. His version of Scn was all about us being source within a universe of Hisself’s “Source-ness”. In effect, El Ron got us to buy into ourselves as being within his own image and view of “It” all…of being “source” with Hisself as “The Source” and the model of "Source-ness" and the possessor of the Majik "Source Boots".

El Ron spoke and wrote disparagingly about Mystics and Mysticism. In my view that was because Hisself was unable to accept and embrace the first predicate of Mysticism that is the key to open an individual’s first Mystical portal:

“This, That and It are all a collaboration.”

In my view, we are all dealing with and within “energies, forces, influences and confluences thereof” that we don’t fully “see or get” but are, to a greater or lesser degree, aware of and part of.

You have Psychic gifts, Mystic predilections and so does Ted, Roger, Carmelo, Leon, S&L, EP, TMT, Veda and on and on and on with so many others here…that, in part, is why we are all here, together, on this thread.

My recovery was not due to some great “OT Power” that I posses or that is me. My recovery was a serendipitous by-product of acceptance of and surrender to the ebb and flow of “The Collaboration”.

I don’t see myself as having any “OT” abilities…I have gifts, as do we all, and those gifts may be enjoyed or abused…the choice is mine, and yours. The way you enjoy a gift is to share it with others…the way you abuse a gift is to possess it. The way you replenish a gift is to give some away, let it go…the way you squander a gift is to ration it, hoard it. Enjoying a gift replenishes it, refines it. Hoarding a gift squelches it, corrupts it.

I think my comments above are in concert with what Ted and Rog said so well in their recent posts.

Face

yep

"Yep" to all the above.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Man, that pussy is a pussy!

The photos that you're commenting on are of LRH in his new body, with a volunteer cat from the audience. He was giving a PE course demonstration of the value of TR 0 and the ARC triangle. He is working a deal to be on Oprah soon. He is anticipating the pleasure of jumping on Oprah's couch.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

To Whom It May Concern

Trader nailed with $172 million bill in back taxes, asks 'What's the IRS?'

BY BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, August 24th 2010, 9:32 PM



Marcos Esparza Bofill was hit with a nasty surprise when he found out he owed the IRS millions in back taxes.

He failed as a day-trader and barely survived in New York on a beer budget, but Marcos Esparza Bofill has been hit with a $172 million tax bill by the IRS.

"Who's the IRS?" Esparza Bofill, a twentysomething Spanish émigré, asked a friend who alerted him to his astronomical back taxes.

Esparza Bofill moved to New York from his native Spain in 2006 to try his hand at day-trading. When he nearly went bust after a year, he moved back home.

"He lost money while he was here. He couldn't afford rent," said friend Adam Baruchowitz of Brooklyn.

Esparza Bofill didn't file an income tax return for the year he was here swapping stocks - and that's leading to big problems with Uncle Sam.

The feds tracked his every trade. But because Esparza Bofill never accounted for his losses or expenses in tax filings, the IRS presumed he made a pure profit - a staggering $500 million in income.

"He definitely wasn't a $500 million-a- year earner," another friend, who asked not to be identified, told the Daily News Tuesday.

"He lives a very modest life," the friend said of Esparza Bofill, whose tastes lean more toward garage music than the symphony. "So just to think that all of a sudden he owes $172million is pretty ridiculous."

A tax-lien notice the IRS sent to Esparza Bofill's old walkup apartment in Alphabet City was posted Tuesday on thesmokinggun.com website.

Esparza Bofill declined to comment Tuesday.

"He doesn't know what's going on, ya know. Like, he's not an American native," said the friend. "So, all of a sudden, the IRS is looking for him, and the first thing he says to me is, 'Who's the IRS?'

"He thought I was joking when I first started talking to him about it," the friend added. "I said, 'No, it's not a joke, man. This is for real.' I'm like, 'Try to Google yourself,' and all of a sudden three blogs popped up."

Manhattan CPA Marc Albaum said Esparza Bofill's problems with the IRS are not unusual. "If you don't file, the IRS assumes that you have 100% profit, that basically it's as if you bought the stock at no cost," Albaum said. "Now, the remedy for this is simply to file. He could wipe out anything he owes," said Albaum.

[email protected]

 

[Blue Spirit]

Solution

Trader nailed with $172 million bill in back taxes, asks 'What's the IRS?'

BY BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, August 24th 2010, 9:32 PM



Marcos Esparza Bofill was hit with a nasty surprise when he found out he owed the IRS millions in back taxes.

He failed as a day-trader and barely survived in New York on a beer budget, but Marcos Esparza Bofill has been hit with a $172 million tax bill by the IRS.

"Who's the IRS?" Esparza Bofill, a twentysomething Spanish émigré, asked a friend who alerted him to his astronomical back taxes.

Esparza Bofill moved to New York from his native Spain in 2006 to try his hand at day-trading. When he nearly went bust after a year, he moved back home.

"He lost money while he was here. He couldn't afford rent," said friend Adam Baruchowitz of Brooklyn.

Esparza Bofill didn't file an income tax return for the year he was here swapping stocks - and that's leading to big problems with Uncle Sam.

The feds tracked his every trade. But because Esparza Bofill never accounted for his losses or expenses in tax filings, the IRS presumed he made a pure profit - a staggering $500 million in income.

"He definitely wasn't a $500 million-a- year earner," another friend, who asked not to be identified, told the Daily News Tuesday.

"He lives a very modest life," the friend said of Esparza Bofill, whose tastes lean more toward garage music than the symphony. "So just to think that all of a sudden he owes $172million is pretty ridiculous."

A tax-lien notice the IRS sent to Esparza Bofill's old walkup apartment in Alphabet City was posted Tuesday on thesmokinggun.com website.

Esparza Bofill declined to comment Tuesday.

"He doesn't know what's going on, ya know. Like, he's not an American native," said the friend. "So, all of a sudden, the IRS is looking for him, and the first thing he says to me is, 'Who's the IRS?'

"He thought I was joking when I first started talking to him about it," the friend added. "I said, 'No, it's not a joke, man. This is for real.' I'm like, 'Try to Google yourself,' and all of a sudden three blogs popped up."

Manhattan CPA Marc Albaum said Esparza Bofill's problems with the IRS are not unusual. "If you don't file, the IRS assumes that you have 100% profit, that basically it's as if you bought the stock at no cost," Albaum said. "Now, the remedy for this is simply to file. He could wipe out anything he owes," said Albaum.

[email protected]

He should go back to Spain and live in a tent on the coast with a surfboard
and grow his own garden.

 

[FoTi]

This is a movie I just finished watching. It's l-o-o-o-n-g. But it's really interesting. It's not the normal story type of movie....it's 16 speakers intertwined throughout the movie talking about their research and findings, so far, and their views on history from 16 billion years ago up until Dec 21, 2012. There's a lot of interesting data in relation to this and I just thought maybe some of you might like to chew on this for a while.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc-55p1Al9k&feature=related

 

[Blue Spirit]

Excellent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmeB6GB25Q&feature=player_embedded

That video is a precise and well spoken piece of truth.
I would like everyone to understand it.
Thank you for posting it.

Drugs scare me.
You should have heard the discussion that TMT and I had with the anesthesiologist before my hernia operation.
She became exasperated, but she did a good job. When I woke up I was quite there with the room. Very small dosages is the trick, carefully administered with good timing.

I use no drugs or alcohol, and only coffee on a long road trip. One cup of cold
coffee will keep me going for longer than I care to drive.