Let's talk about Freezone.

[Ulduz]

Gadfly raised several interesting topics in his last post; I’ll try to address some of them.
Whatever person believes in strongly affects his life, no doubt about that. If someone believes, for whatever reason, that he was abducted by aliens, those memories of abduction, whether they are real or not, will haunt him for the rest of his life. Here I am in total agreement with Gadfly.
The Catholic Church defines several degrees of demonic possession, I do not remember the lowest degrees, but I remember the highest ones. The second highest degree is ability to “talk in tongues”. Well, from my standpoint, a “language” could be nonsensical combination of sounds, so this does not prove anything. The highest degree of demonic possession is ability to levitate. This is something I am willing to accept provided I am presented with a documentary of such levitations. To my knowledge, nothing of that sort has been produced so far, so I withhold my judgment. (The Catholic Church say these things happened during Medieval Times).
It appears that some Sea Org members have heard “evil voices” in their heads telling them that they are in communication with the Devil and revealing the name of Sea Org person who allegedly produced this terrifying telepathic contact. (Evil voices are accompanied by horrific headaches). I spent only 4 months in Sea Org and this shit did not happened to me (probably, 4 months is a short term), so I am not describing my personal experience. But all victims of this telepathic attacks point out to the same group of people whom I dubbed “demons” This does not mean that they are actual demons with horns and hooves; more likely they are a group of telepathists who pretend to be the Devil for the reason unknown to me. I have been practicing Yoga and have certain telepathic abilities as the result of that, so I have no reason to doubt the victims’ stories. Anyway, in a near future I’ll be discussing this topic on this forum board.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes, that's it, though no, I don't think we are projecting "reality". We are projecting what we think reality is in our mind. I don't believe that we create reality with our minds.

When we believe our hallucinations as being real, that's when we get into serious problems. I don't mean to say that no experiences are real, only that our thoughts about those experiences, and the narrative we tell ourselves about them, changes. That change is interesting.

I've maintained, for a very long time, that I'm not at all concerned with the REALITY of what someone recounts in session. If they believe the neighbor molested them at three, that's fine. We'll work with that. Doesn't mean I'm going to go hunting the neighbor at three, afterwards.

The goal of processing, for me, is to have a person be happy and pursuing their goals, not to have them convinced that a memory they dug up was "real". That way lies false memory syndrome and people pretending to be Commodores or Magicians.

Sounds like we're saying the same thing in different ways. You don't like the words hallucination or insanity, apparently, but you seem comfortable with calling our perceptions a joke... In essence, saying the same thing with different words. I call it "layers of delusion", from metapsychology articles. You strip away a delusion, and suddenly think you've found the truth. Later, you find out it was another layer of delusion, and become embittered about the process, and believe that what you think NOW is the truth. Later, you find that was another layer of delusion... etc.

You do this often. In this case, you make it sound like "I have a problem with the word". I have little significance for much of anything. That may seeme unreal or impossible to you, but I have largely stripped away my own little arbitrary world of "meaning". For me, I don't have any concern or feeling or attitude about the words "insanity" and "hallucination". But, I am VERY aware of how various other people have all sorts of differing and unique concepts, attitudes and notions about them. I mainly deal with words and ideas in terms of how OTHERS conceive them to be. I mainly deal with and strive to understand the agreements, views and opinions of others (as the arbitrary mock-ups they usually are and which few notice to be as such). Other than that, my only concern for any idea, model, notion or thought is HOW WELL it explains, defines or "maps" out the thing or event it claims to relate to.

Layers of delusion? I suppose that makes sense. To me, just get rid of ALL of it. Shitcan the whole shebang. Jettison ALL of the delusion - or in other words, get comfortable mocking up no MENTAL RESPONSE UNIVERSE to what you see and experience around you.

I got that you think that reality "exists", all on its own, separate from us, and that mind involves reactions and responses to IT. It doesn't matter though, not really, because once the reality is here, whether you actually created it or not, most people do react and respond to it on a MENTAL THOUGHT level. One can deal with THAT whether one mocked it up or not. Though, I suspect that things can get tricky if in fact, in the end, each of us actually PUTS IT THERE IN ALL REGARDS. But, that is just talking. I truly don't know, but I do know that what you said about projecting what one THINKS is real, and IS the way it works (at least within that realm). So, I can work with that.

I suppose the test would be, does some theory enable a person to address and handle these various phenomena, so that they GO AWAY for the afflicted. Obviously, addressing them within the framework of some limited belief system doesn't seem to often "work" at stopping the events from happening.

I would be curious if you, using YOUR theories and techniques, could and would be able to address and STOP "demonic possession" or "alien abduction" from any longer "victimizing" some person. And, how does THAT experience of abduction or possession differ from a real girl getting really abused sexually, in the real world, as a three-year old?

See, "reality" may not be so solid and fixed as some like to think (as it seems you seem to think). For the people who experience these things, they are JUST AS REAL as the little girl who was molested. I think you do an injustice to these people by implying that what THEY experience is somehow "not real", and that it exists more in their imagination (maybe you don't mean that). The line separating "hard reality" from "soft reality" may NOT be nearly as fixed, and not as "thin", as some might prefer to believe. That is why it is called a zone - as in the "twilight zone" - instead of a line.

 

[Gadfly]

<snip>

The Catholic Church defines several degrees of demonic possession, I do not remember the lowest degrees, but I remember the highest ones. The second highest degree is ability to “talk in tongues”. Well, from my standpoint, a “language” could be nonsensical combination of sounds, so this does not prove anything. The highest degree of demonic possession is ability to levitate.

<snip>

Interestingly, "levitation" has also been a sign of a "true saint". I remember reading reports from Medieval times where it was common in some monastaries for the monks to observe a certain overly-religious, God-loving, and extremely adoring-of-the-divine fellow monk to be lost in complete rapture, often with a bright yellow-white glow around his head or body, floating a few feet or more off of the ground! Ah, the "lightness" attributed to feelings of religious ecstasy! Apparently, it could be a real problem though, especially when the monk suddenly "snapped back to physical reality" (leaving the serene state of "dissociation"), and suddenly fell to the ground - often hurting himself (ouch). There are even claims that some TMers "float" - though they seem more to "bounce".

From Wikipedia on Saints and Levitation:

Saint Francis of Assisi is recorded as having been "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits" (around 1.3 to 1.8 m). St. Alphonsus Liguori, when preaching at Foggia, was lifted before the eyes of the whole congregation several feet from the ground.

Then, it is also found in witchcraft and practices involving the "flip side" of things considered "holy". And, then it also exists in practices further east (granted mainly as stories and legends):

Outside of Christianity, levitation has also been cited. In his book Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahamsa Yogananda discusses Nagendranath Bhaduri, a saint said to levitate in India. The saint had mastered Astanga Yoga and several Yogic techniques including various pranayamas or breathing techniques as mentioned in Patanjali's Yoga Sutra. Yogananda wrote that Nagendranath Bhaduri had performed bhastrika pranayama so strongly that he felt like he was in the middle of a storm and after performing the pranayama, Bhaduri Mahasaya entered into a state of ecstatic calm. The chapter which describes Bhaduri Mahasaya is titled "The Levitating Saint".

But really, in the end, who would actually DESIRE to be able "to levitate"? Um, Scientologists? :confused2:

Them crazy Scientologists. Actually wanting to and working hard to be able to "knock off hats at 50 feet".

Oh, I might add that it seems the underlying commonality to levitation is that ones focus, attention and awareness of "reality" go somewhere else entirely. For all practical purposes, the person is "not here". Some would say that they are no where other than in some delusion. I would say that very possibly that have simply traveled temporarily to another reality, that is JUST as "real as this one". And, when lost somewhere else, the "laws and rules" of "this reality" fade to some degree. Thus - the levitation. But, for the most part, it is NOT under anybody's control. It "happens".

To "go to" or "create an alternative reality" while still associated with a physical body is difficult and requires long practice, development of intense inner concentration, and much practice with controlling ones imagination. This is common for people involved with "magick" or "advanced mental training" as in Hinduism and Buddhism. It involves aspects of the mind that few are aware even exist (and often even deny to exist). Such methods also existed in Christian mysticism (which to me is about the only value of Christianity):

Saint Teresa

The kernel of Teresa's mystical thought throughout all her writings is the ascent of the soul in four stages (The Autobiography Chs. 10-22):

The first, or "mental prayer", is that of devout contemplation or concentration, the withdrawal of the soul from without and specially the devout observance of the passion of Christ and penitence (Autobiography 11.20).

The second is the "prayer of quiet", in which at least the human will is lost in that of God by virtue of a charismatic, supernatural state given of God, while the other faculties, such as memory, reason, and imagination, are not yet secure from worldly distraction. While a partial distraction is due to outer performances such as repetition of prayers and writing down spiritual things, yet the prevailing state is one of quietude (Autobiography 14.1).

The "devotion of union" is not only a supernatural but an essentially ecstatic state. Here there is also an absorption of the reason in God, and only the memory and imagination are left to ramble. This state is characterized by a blissful peace, a sweet slumber of at least the higher soul faculties, a conscious rapture in the love of God.

The fourth is the "devotion of ecstasy or rapture," a passive state, in which the consciousness of being in the body disappears (2 Corinthians 12:2-3). Sense activity ceases; memory and imagination are also absorbed in God or intoxicated. Body and spirit are in the throes of a sweet, happy pain, alternating between a fearful fiery glow, a complete impotence and unconsciousness, and a spell of strangulation, intermitted sometimes by such an ecstatic flight that the body is literally lifted into space. This after half an hour is followed by a reactionary relaxation of a few hours in a swoon-like weakness, attended by a negation of all the faculties in the union with God. From this the subject awakens in tears; it is the climax of mystical experience, productive of the trance. (Indeed, she was said to have been observed levitating during Mass on more than one occasion (The Interior Castle St Teresa Of Avila translated by Mirabai Starr.)

 

[uniquemand]

If such abilities were truly and readily available, who WOULDN'T want them?

 

[uniquemand]

You do this often. In this case, you make it sound like "I have a problem with the word". I have little significance for much of anything. That may seeme unreal or impossible to you, but I have largely stripped away my own little arbitrary world of "meaning". For me, I don't have any concern or feeling or attitude about the words "insanity" and "hallucination". But, I am VERY aware of how various other people have all sorts of differing and unique concepts, attitudes and notions about them. I mainly deal with words and ideas in terms of how OTHERS conceive them to be. I mainly deal with and strive to understand the agreements, views and opinions of others (as the arbitrary mock-ups they usually are and which few notice to be as such). Other than that, my only concern for any idea, model, notion or thought is HOW WELL it explains, defines or "maps" out the thing or event it claims to relate to.

Layers of delusion? I suppose that makes sense. To me, just get rid of ALL of it. Shitcan the whole shebang. Jettison ALL of the delusion - or in other words, get comfortable mocking up no MENTAL RESPONSE UNIVERSE to what you see and experience around you.

I got that you think that reality "exists", all on its own, separate from us, and that mind involves reactions and responses to IT. It doesn't matter though, not really, because once the reality is here, whether you actually created it or not, most people do react and respond to it on a MENTAL THOUGHT level. One can deal with THAT whether one mocked it up or not. Though, I suspect that things can get tricky if in fact, in the end, each of us actually PUTS IT THERE IN ALL REGARDS. But, that is just talking. I truly don't know, but I do know that what you said about projecting what one THINKS is real, and IS the way it works (at least within that realm). So, I can work with that.

I suppose the test would be, does some theory enable a person to address and handle these various phenomena, so that they GO AWAY for the afflicted. Obviously, addressing them within the framework of some limited belief system doesn't seem to often "work" at stopping the events from happening.

I would be curious if you, using YOUR theories and techniques, could and would be able to address and STOP "demonic possession" or "alien abduction" from any longer "victimizing" some person. And, how does THAT experience of abduction or possession differ from a real girl getting really abused sexually, in the real world, as a three-year old?

See, "reality" may not be so solid and fixed as some like to think (as it seems you seem to think). For the people who experience these things, they are JUST AS REAL as the little girl who was molested. I think you do an injustice to these people by implying that what THEY experience is somehow "not real", and that it exists more in their imagination (maybe you don't mean that). The line separating "hard reality" from "soft reality" may NOT be nearly as fixed, and not as "thin", as some might prefer to believe. That is why it is called a zone - as in the "twilight zone" - instead of a line.

Rather than argue my point, I'll just ask you to review this conversation at a later date. See if you still agree with yourself.

I find it very interesting when I realize a few years after I wrote something, how wrong parts of it sound to me, and how obvious some of the things I said are to me now, rather than revelatory.

People who want to feel insulted by things I say will. I very rarely say actually insulting things, or accuse a specific person of something. I'm making a general statement that our viewpoints change, and that the story we told ourselves yesterday may not be the story we tell ourselves tomorrow, or ten years ago, though the events involved are the same.

We fit events into the story we currently want to tell ourselves. These stories are influenced by the stories we hear told around us. That's one reason it's important to choose your people wisely.

 

[Gadfly]

Rather than argue my point, I'll just ask you to review this conversation at a later date. See if you still agree with yourself.

I find it very interesting when I realize a few years after I wrote something, how wrong parts of it sound to me, and how obvious some of the things I said are to me now, rather than revelatory.

People who want to feel insulted by things I say will. I very rarely say actually insulting things, or accuse a specific person of something. I'm making a general statement that our viewpoints change, and that the story we told ourselves yesterday may not be the story we tell ourselves tomorrow, or ten years ago, though the events involved are the same.

We fit events into the story we currently want to tell ourselves. These stories are influenced by the stories we hear told around us. That's one reason it's important to choose your people wisely.

I was not at all "insulted". I don't much do "being offended". :confused2:

But other than that, I agree with everything you just said. There is no doubt that most people see no other option than to choose from the very limited sets of options presented to them by the current reality they find around themselves.

Though, why the need for any story at all? Or, is THAT just another "story"?

 

[Gadfly]

If such abilities were truly and readily available, who WOULDN'T want them?

Me. Or, said more accurately, truly, I have NO DESIRE for such things.

THAT desire is what attracts many morons to Scientology. And, to many other practices.

That desire is what takes MANY aspirants OFF of a decent spiritual path of growth and development.

Such abilities have meaning and value ONLY in a world of competetion where some isolated ego-being imagines that he or she will "do better" than others by having such abilities.

I would say that any person would advance and evolve MUCH faster as a "spiritual being", if he or she would simply discard ALL such desires, and strive to practice these simple things:

Appreciate and love all that is

Let It Be

Path of Non-Resistance

Stop trying to make the world in YOUR (always arbitrary and limited) image or ideal

Of course, any person selling self-help methods to assist a person to "succeed" in the world as we know it will probably not agree. But then, aiming to "succeed in the world" is NOT at all the same goal as "evolving as a spiritual being".

I might be wrong uniquemand, but it seems our disagreement often comes from THAT simple difference in goals.

You just typed it below:

"can then make predictions about the future that help us to thrive, as organisms"

Like so many other self-help systems, Scientology is all about "flourishing and prospering, on Earth, now". THAT is far different than the goals of any form of mysticism or Buddhism, which are very FAR from THAT. What you tend to talk about involves using little bits of ideas from spirituality to enhance life NOW as a human. What I tend to talk about is more of an extreme view as presented by someone like Buddha. Really, Buddha attained his amazing states, supposedly, and to you these are possibly all Buddha's "delusion", while sitting under a tree for many years in a simple robe. He didn't have much to do with "flourishing and prospering" as a human being in some "game of life". Buddha was not at all concerned with making "predictions about the future that can help him thrive, as an organism". THat was NOT at all his area of interest or concern.

He was on a different page completely. Actually, he was not even in the same book; he was in an entirely different library! Don't you ever wonder why so many people place people like Buddha in a position of such great respect and admiration? It is because he was bright enough, and strong enough, and sincere enough to REALLY "push it to the limit" as far as "letting go of all the bullshit" was concerned. Your attitude and approach acts to keep one firmly IN the bullshit. That's okay. You are far from being alone. Just saying.

Different goals. And, while you may imagine that your model and framework of all-that-is INCLUDES and "understands" what Buddha did, I somehow doubt it. Of course, as always, I could be wrong.

 

[uniquemand]

I was not at all "insulted". I don't much do "being offended". :confused2:

But other than that, I agree with everything you just said. There is no doubt that most people see no other option than to choose from the very limited sets of options presented to them by the current reality they find around themselves.

Though, why the need for any story at all? Or, is THAT just another "story"?

I certainly consider myself a victim of this phenomenon as much as anyone else. I am not pretending to having special abilities or powers that grant me special perception.

Why the story? Good question. Perhaps because in storytelling, we learn to use our imagination, and can then make predictions about the future that help us to thrive, as organisms, when they are correct. I like to think we are trying to tell a story that is extremely accurate about the universe. Perhaps by understanding it perfectly, we can learn to step out of it. As in your idea of being trapped in a box, perhaps the universe is such a box. Getting out of it may be a very important evolutionary step, even if we like to come back to it.

Also, storytelling is a community thing. I think we just enjoy it, and love being in communication with each other.

Tell me a story.

 

[Gadfly]

Tell me a story.

I do that, I tell a story, with every word I type.

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . Like so many other self-help systems, Scientology is all about . . . <snip> . . .

But its not a self-help system; Scientology is a religion. Sure, there may be some aspects of Scientology, or any religion for that matter, which can be deemed personally fulfilling or even, I suppose, "self-helpful", but it doesn't detract from the source being a religion.

 

[Ulduz]

I would like to say couple of words about levitation. I saw a documentary featuring Buddhist monks who can levitate. Their levitation time is short, they rise into air for about 5 seconds and then go down. But by doing so they temporarily violate the laws of physics. As the Buddhists, including myself, say -- it’s mind over the matter. Why they do not levitate longer? Because they are just at the beginning of their journey, they need to learn more to develop unusual powers.
Demonic levitation is something else -- people possessed by demons levitate against their will. At this point I do not think such levitations exist; but I’m keeping an open mind and waiting for supporting evidence.

 

[guanoloco]

Demonic possessions are another story, I do not want even go there.

What do your buddhist texts state regarding demonic possession?

 

[Gadfly]

But its not a self-help system; Scientology is a religion. Sure, there may be some aspects of Scientology, or any religion for that matter, which can be deemed personally fulfilling or even, I suppose, "self-helpful", but it doesn't detract from the source being a religion.

No, it is FIRST and FOREMOST a con.

And within THAT framework of understanding, that it is sham designed to trick and fake you, FIRST, it was a "mental therapy" (dianetics). The aspect of "religion" was consciously TACKED ONTO the earlier subject, by Hubbard, intentionally and with the sole purpose to better his ability to protect, defend and expand his enterprize. It was "an enterprize" to Hubbard. He called it a "religion" at some point because it best served his purposes to do so (by a great amount actually).

Others have posted Hubbard's own statements about this (in policy), and others & I have discussed how when we were there, that the notion of it being a "religion" was ridiculous to us. I always listened to what the GO guys told me, and along with what I read and observed, getting Scientology recognized as a religion was VITAL to the tactical strategy of Hubbard to remove as many barriers as possible from the expansion of Scientology. Hubbard WAS being "pan-determined" - he was happily and knowingly manipulating the viewpoints of OTHER people to control and obtain his personal aims and ideals.

All of the information about "the admin scale", goals, purposes, plans, targets, getting things done, and more, have a very simple use for any person, which help to aim towards and reach some goal. MANY self-help subjects involve THAT sort of thing. And it is not the details of the "tech" that matter, but only that the thing you really do by using the "tech" is end up looking at goals, and working towards them, something you probably wouldn't have done or might not have done if you weren't involved with Scientology (or some other New Age topic or person that gets you to look at and work towards goals). That is why very successful people often have "personal coaches", or "life coaches" who help them define goals and stay on focus (among many other things).

Besides only the information on how to achieve goals though, which does also involve important factors like "intention" (but sadly leaves things out like "achieving them with decency and honesty"), then there is information that is supposed to help you to "calm and improve your mind" (auditing). Hubbard's subject thus claims to attack the problems of Man from more than one angle. First, help yourself become stable as a mind and being (auditing), and also 2) provide methods to actually deal with the stuff of real life (some of the green volumes). He did that to "some" degree, and it is NOT all empty and devoid of legitimacy. The problem, of course, is that there was far less of this useful stuff, and he added a great deal of nonsense along with the other stuff. But, it always was "in the framework of it being a con".

Hubbard did some looking around the current "betterment" field, and he decided to use THAT as the basis for his scam. The notion of "betterment", first as "mental betterment", and then later as "spiritual betterment". I suspect that he did some quick research into these areas (eastern philosophy, occult, magick, hypnotism, related topics, self-actualization, self-realization, business success hype, Dale Carnegie, etc.) by fast and superficial reading (he was a "bright" guy with a very sharp intellect - he just REALLY lacked any sense of being another equal member of the human race), then put some things together that he knew could get some people interested in his version of "betterment" (The BIG button), and from there it morphed along the way.

First, it is a scam. Then, second, it functioned/functions as a "self-help" subject that has some validity. Third, it is now also a religion, following the implementation of EXACT Guardian's Office and Sea Org plans to create the "illusion" that Scientology is a religion (phony Sunday services, the good old days when staff HAD to wear "clerical garb" so that the C of S could get tax exemption through recognition as a "religion). But, still with all the trappings of the earlier "get better and become more able" personal achievement vibe. And, now for the last 45 or so years (since the release of KSW) this mixture of "aspects" also contains an extreme amount of nonsense that grossly exaggerates the importance, validity, value, and need for Scientology in the world and universe.

That is how it seems to have unfolded to me at the moment. I could be wrong. Maybe he actually "believed" all he wrote and said, or maybe it is some strange mixture of that, believing what he wrote and said, along with his original aim to "con". Just theorizing. And, it doesn't really matter, because what the Church of Scientology IS, now, in REAL TIME, sucks way more than it doesn't!

 

[Ulduz]

What do your buddhist texts state regarding demonic possession?

The ones that I have say nothing about demonic possessions. Of course, I do not claim that I have all buddhist texts. However, my texts say that the hell does exist, and there are demons in it.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There are some Buddhist texts about hells of Buddhism. I have the impression that not all buddhists believe in them. I am not sure. Is it a faction type thing?

 

[Ulduz]

There are some Buddhist texts about hells of Buddhism. I have the impression that not all buddhists believe in them. I am not sure. Is it a faction type thing?

You are right about that, although this is not fashion thing. There are various buddhist denominations with different views on hell. Personally I would like to see a demon before making final judgment. I studied buddhism because of its philosophy; the ritual is much less important for me.

 

[guanoloco]

If such abilities were truly and readily available, who WOULDN'T want them?

These abilities are the siddhis and are considered by some to be impediments to enlightenment and so shouldn't be sought as a goal in and of themselves.

Reminds me of the reference on past life auditing although very electrifying or what ever the quote is it detracts from Clearing sort of thing.

I've noticed that Scientology pushes this button HARD (pursuit of theta abilities, aka siddhis) and, as such, tends to convince me that it's pseudo-spiritual and actually building up and reinforcing the ego as opposed to enlightenment. Verdict is still out, though.

 

[guanoloco]

There are some Buddhist texts about hells of Buddhism. I have the impression that not all buddhists believe in them. I am not sure. Is it a faction type thing?

I believe it is...although all sects, to my knowledge, acknowledge demons I believe they differ on whether or not possession takes place and then they differ on how it takes place as in an actual entity taking over or merely a person having "bad" thoughts, etc.

The way I understand it Buddha was tempted by a demon similar to Christ being tempted by Satan or what ever.

Whoops!! I just noticed you were talking about "Hells" and I'm talking about demons!!

Sorry about that VC!!

 

[Gadfly]

I believe it is...although all sects, to my knowledge, acknowledge demons I believe they differ on whether or not possession takes place and then they differ on how it takes place as in an actual entity taking over or merely a person having "bad" thoughts, etc.

The way I understand it Buddha was tempted by a demon similar to Christ being tempted by Satan or what ever.

Whoops!! I just noticed you were talking about "Hells" and I'm talking about demons!!

Sorry about that VC!!

No biggie. WHERE do demons come from?

HELL!!!!!!!

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

No biggie. WHERE do demons come from?

They slide off of the tongues of con man, who just so happen to have a means of exorcising them for a fee