Natural Clears

[Smilla]

It mostly has to do with Scientology's placement of *itself* as the sole alternative to 'Man is Meat'. Total rubbish, but you see it being ridden around here too, by people who should know better.

Rejecting Scientology is not the same as rejecting spirituality. In fact, there's not even the kind of dichotomy between science and spirituality that the Cult promotes. Including psychology.

Zinj

I'm still waiting for someone to put a convincing case for Scientology being spiritual. 'You are not your body,' is something that most people feel instinctively. Big deal. Scientology is about as spiritual as Marxism - another atheistic/materialist dogma that would like to take over the world

 

[renegade]

If the O/M sequence was universal, how come a Mafia hit man can have a happy Italian style family life while killing people through the week, for years and years

That's a good question and I've often wondered about that myself. Care to elaborate how that happens? Why do good people pull in bad stuff and people like that (mafia hit man) get away with it? Like dm too.

 

[Smilla]

That's a good question and I've often wondered about that myself. Care to elaborate how that happens? Why do good people pull in bad stuff and people like that (mafia hit man) get away with it? Like dm too.

I've heard nothing set Stalin up for a good nights sleep better than drafting a list of people to execute before he retired for the night. If there is any validity in it, perhaps it is conscience that explains the overt/motivator sequence. Mind you, from what I understand, conscience is not a requirement for Homo Novis.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Incident 1? Let's see. . . .
. . .
I'd give him 3/10.

Paul

Just a quick comment. I'm very pleased with this post. It was the first time I really looked at this and it seems there is some factual basis for Hubbard's Incident 1 inanities after all. At least, to the extent that you consider Newtons research "factual," as I tend to do.

Let's see from what I remember of it anyway:

1. Hubbard Explanation: First incident of the being in the physical universe, although he may have experienced other universes before. (Newton: = first visit from the spirit world)

2. Hubbard date: Roughly 4*10^15 years ago. (Newton: roughly 10^5 ya)

3. Hubbard sequence: Angels, cherubs, trumpet, chariot, snaps, blackness. (Newton: probably angles/cherubs; chariot? trumpet? snaps? blackness, sort of)

4. Hubbard who got it: Everyone in this universe (Newton: same)

5. Hubbard significance: 1st incident on the being's time track, like a basic basic, very important. (Other paradigms: Not so significant, as Dianetic theory on the importance of tracing aberrations way back seems to be misplaced.)

6. Hubbard: EVIL IMPLANTERS at the entrance to the universe! (Newton: Gentle advice from spirit guides before entrance.)

7. Earlier universes? I don't recall (Michael!) Newton saying anything about other universes prior to this current physical one. But since many beings have visited other universes that co-exist with this one before entering this one, those other universes could well be considered earlier universes, at least from the being's viewpoint.

-----

In the same way that the "body thetan" phenomenon does seem to be based on genuine subtle-energy and energy-consciousness phenomena with normal people (although without Hubbard's Big Galactic Meanie Stunt 75 million years ago, and without a personal infestation of thousands of entire dead space aliens, malignant or benign), so Incident 1 would appear to have some factual basis beyond a drink- and drug-sodden view of a Catholic religious festival in 1967 as written here by Dart and Alan.

Paul

 

[Smilla]

Just a quick comment. I'm very pleased with this post. It was the first time I really looked at this and it seems there is some factual basis for Hubbard's Incident 1 inanities after all. At least, to the extent that you consider Newtons research "factual," as I tend to do.

Let's see from what I remember of it anyway:

1. Hubbard Explanation: First incident of the being in the physical universe, although he may have experienced other universes before. (Newton: = first visit from the spirit world)

2. Hubbard date: Roughly 4*10^15 years ago. (Newton: roughly 10^5 ya)

3. Hubbard sequence: Angels, cherubs, trumpet, chariot, snaps, blackness. (Newton: probably angles/cherubs; chariot? trumpet? snaps? blackness, sort of)

4. Hubbard who got it: Everyone in this universe (Newton: same)

5. Hubbard significance: 1st incident on the being's time track, like a basic basic, very important. (Other paradigms: Not so significant, as Dianetic theory on the importance of tracing aberrations way back seems to be misplaced.)

6. Earlier universes? I don't recall (Michael!) Newton saying anything about other universes prior to this current physical one. But since many beings have visited other universes that co-exist with this one before entering this one, those other universes could well be considered earlier universes, at least from the being's viewpoint.
-----

In the same way that the "body thetan" phenomenon does seem to be based on genuine subtle-energy and energy-consciousness phenomena with normal people (although without Hubbard's Big Galactic Meanie Stunt 75 million years ago, and without a personal infestation of thousands of entire dead space aliens, malignant or benign), so Incident 1 would appear to have some factual basis beyond a drink and drug-sodden view of a Catholic religious festival in 1967 as written here by Dart and Alan.

Paul

Fascinating post Paul.

The earlier universes thing might be a misnomer thrown up by me in an earlier post. These universes would not necessarily have time in the way we conceive of it. Would be that time started on arrival here.

1. Being alone in his/her own universe, subject to laws of his/her making.

2. Being creating and uncreating shared universes with others, subject to mutually agreed laws.

3. Being here in this universe, subject to time, with countless others, subject to inumerable confusing laws..

I love your use of the term 'normal people'

 

[Pierrot]

Someone asked how can there be natural clears, and I and a couple of others were answering them.

I have to say, maybe English isn't your original language, but I find your posts almost impossible to understand.

Regards, Allen

Yes, I mainly speak in French which is also not my native language. I know the syntax in my sentences is awfull, and I apologise if that makes reading my posts difficult. However, I'm not sure if you having trouble understanding my post is due to my imperfect writing or to your incomplete understanding of III as a level.

My post raised 2 main points regarding what you wrote: 1. using data above a level of the Grade Chart to explain the level one talks about (here Clear), which technically would be out-tech (if one plays that game, the tech, by its rules) 2. the somewhat bizarre idea of thetans while in this universe not having Inc I.

Regarding 2. I don't know where you got that idea from, but my opinion is it comes from someone who has no clue about OTIII. It's not a problem as far as "case" level is concerned - one can go through III sucessfully without knowing all the ins and outs about it, it was designed by Hubbard that way. From the Tech perspective, and you were giving a technical datum saying that, it's a false datum and shows misunderstanding about III. This is only my opinion, not important, but the fact is you alter a core workable datum as stated by Hubbard of this level

To explain a bit further my earlier post - there are data in III that are core technical data. Hubbard's statement that every being in this universe has an Inc I is such a datum. That's a technical datum, one can have a reality of it (now) and that's Scientology. The narrative in that level is of little importance as far as the story is concerned. He could have written Bugs Bunny as Inc I versus the Simpsons as Inc II, were he a cartoonist, and providing all the "buttons" were in the script the level would have run as well. In the Sixties it's not suprising Hubbard's III story has post Second World war elements, the culture of the Fifites flavours and a taste of the Cold War. Add to it his Sea Org Project he was working on, et voilà, you got the script of Inc II. But that's Para-Scientology, even though there is a collective dramatisation here on Earth one can have a reality upon (or not, lol)

Anyway - one could write a whole thick book about the working principles in III. One of those is (without going into the "heavy" ones) - individuality (IncI) versus collectivity (IncII), as one of the processes Hubbard used was polarities. If you talk about "beings in this universe that have no IncI" do you imply those beings have no individuality? are not recognizable as individuals? one cannot perceive their identity, how they "mock themselves up", as there is no such a mock-up? - a thetan is you before you mocked yourself up... per one of the definitions.

(sorry if too much scientologese annoys some reading this post. I could write it in plain English or French, but that would require more time than I have now. Scientologese is sometimes a shortcut)

So regarding your statement - you could say a Natural Clear has no charge on IncI (while of course having an IncI). That could happen. That might seem like nitpicking, however it's an essential difference. And it's amusing to pick it up (Hi Veda, you know I post sometimes for my self-amusement, lol)

au plaisir,
Pierrot

 

[Smilla]

Yes, I mainly speak in French which is also not my native language. I know the syntax in my sentences is awfull, and I apologise if that makes reading my posts difficult. However, I'm not sure if you having trouble understanding my post is due to my imperfect writing or to your incomplete understanding of III as a level.

My post raised 2 main points regarding what you wrote: 1. using data above a level of the Grade Chart to explain the level one talks about (here Clear), which technically would be out-tech (if one plays that game, the tech, by its rules) 2. the somewhat bizarre idea of thetans while in this universe not having Inc I.

Regarding 2. I don't know where you got that idea from, but my opinion is it comes from someone who has no clue about OTIII. It's not a problem as far as "case" level is concerned - one can go through III sucessfully without knowing all the ins and outs about it, it was designed by Hubbard that way. From the Tech perspective, and you were giving a technical datum saying that, it's a false datum and shows misunderstanding about III. This is only my opinion, not important, but the fact is you alter a core workable datum as stated by Hubbard of this level

To explain a bit further my earlier post - there are data in III that are core technical data. Hubbard's statement that every being in this universe has an Inc I is such a datum. That's a technical datum, one can have a reality of it (now) and that's Scientology. The narrative in that level is of little importance as far as the story is concerned. He could have written Bugs Bunny as Inc I versus the Simpsons as Inc II, were he a cartoonist, and providing all the "buttons" were in the script the level would have run as well. In the Sixties it's not suprising Hubbard's III story has post Second World war elements, the culture of the Fifites flavours and a taste of the Cold War. Add to it his Sea Org Project he was working on, et voilà, you got the script of Inc II. But that's Para-Scientology, even though there is a collective dramatisation here on Earth one can have a reality upon (or not, lol)

Anyway - one could write a whole thick book about the working principles in III. One of those is (without going into the "heavy" ones) - individuality (IncI) versus collectivity (IncII), as one of the processes Hubbard used was polarities. If you talk about "beings in this universe that have no IncI" do you imply those beings have no individuality? are not recognizable as individuals? one cannot perceive their identity, how they "mock themselves up", as there is no such a mock-up? - a thetan is you before you mocked yourself up... per one of the definitions.

(sorry if too much scientologese annoys some reading this post. I could write it in plain English or French, but that would require more time than I have now. Scientologese is sometimes a shortcut)

So regarding your statement - you could say a Natural Clear has no charge on IncI (while of course having an IncI). That could happen. That might seem like nitpicking, however it's an essential difference. And it's amusing to pick it up (Hi Veda, you know I post sometimes for my self-amusement, lol)

au plaisir,
Pierrot

There are other universes. Some people where not here at the time of Inc I. It's simple and easy to understand.

 

[JBTrendy]

Paul on Incident1

Just a quick comment. I'm very pleased with this post. It was the first time I really looked at this and it seems there is some factual basis for Hubbard's Incident 1 inanities after all. At least, to the extent that you consider Newtons research "factual," as I tend to do.

Let's see from what I remember of it anyway:

1. Hubbard Explanation: First incident of the being in the physical universe, although he may have experienced other universes before. (Newton: = first visit from the spirit world)

2. Hubbard date: Roughly 4*10^15 years ago. (Newton: roughly 10^5 ya)

3. Hubbard sequence: Angels, cherubs, trumpet, chariot, snaps, blackness. (Newton: probably angles/cherubs; chariot? trumpet? snaps? blackness, sort of)

4. Hubbard who got it: Everyone in this universe (Newton: same)

5. Hubbard significance: 1st incident on the being's time track, like a basic basic, very important. (Other paradigms: Not so significant, as Dianetic theory on the importance of tracing aberrations way back seems to be misplaced.)

6. Hubbard: EVIL IMPLANTERS at the entrance to the universe! (Newton: Gentle advice from spirit guides before entrance.)

7. Earlier universes? I don't recall (Michael!) Newton saying anything about other universes prior to this current physical one. But since many beings have visited other universes that co-exist with this one before entering this one, those other universes could well be considered earlier universes, at least from the being's viewpoint.

-----

In the same way that the "body thetan" phenomenon does seem to be based on genuine subtle-energy and energy-consciousness phenomena with normal people (although without Hubbard's Big Galactic Meanie Stunt 75 million years ago, and without a personal infestation of thousands of entire dead space aliens, malignant or benign), so Incident 1 would appear to have some factual basis beyond a drink- and drug-sodden view of a Catholic religious festival in 1967 as written here by Dart and Alan.

Paul

Thanks Paul, your post is incredibly genuine at this stage in the game.

Did you see, Cof$ has stolen from me the TrendSetters concept for an ARC program apparently piloted in Passadena Org?

Sorry for bringing this topic seemingly out of context on this thread but this is gross as the so called program has to see with secret investigations to locate any former Church Central File person who had one day purchase a Scientology item.

Here is the link as I'ld really need your input on this if you may.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=437376#post437376

From Smilla,

"Fascinating post Paul.

The earlier universes thing might be a misnomer thrown up by me in an earlier post. These universes would not necessarily have time in the way we conceive of it. Would be that time started on arrival here.

1. Being alone in his/her own universe, subject to laws of his/her making.

2. Being creating and uncreating shared universes with others, subject to mutually agreed laws.

3. Being here in this universe, subject to time, with countless others, subject to inumerable confusing laws..

I love your use of the term 'normal people'
__________________
The way out is the way out. "


Hi Smilla, it was my feist yesterday. La Saint Jean en Français.

Happy to see you opening fields of wisdoms with us.

We are spirits and Scientologists usually know it for fact.

Here the story starts that we call the whole track.

Your observations on the subject are totally valid as far as I'm concerned and it was a real treat to read your post.

Very inspiring.

Thank you both

 

[Pepin]

Fascinating post Paul.

The earlier universes thing might be a misnomer thrown up by me in an earlier post. These universes would not necessarily have time in the way we conceive of it. Would be that time started on arrival here.

I can only speak for me of course.

This is not from any invention or session, but I do recall a time before bodies and doing things. There was a perceived time, but not time like we know it today.
Then, I got invited to engage into the physical universe. It is the only place time exist. It sounded cool. It sounded entertaining.

So I put my head into the realm and took on an avatar (body). then.................forgot I was playing. (whoops)

 

[freethinker]

I discovered I was a Natural Clear when I researched Scientology on the internet.

Suddenly I was no longer concerned about engrams and reactive minds.

 

[Smilla]

Thanks Paul, your post is incredibly genuine at this stage in the game.

Did you see, Cof$ has stolen from me the TrendSetters concept for a pilote ARC program apparently piloted in Passadena Org?

Sorry for bringing this topic seemingly out of context on this thread but this is gross as the so called program has to see with secret investigations to locate any former Church CF Who had one day purchase a Scientology item.

Here is the link as I'ld really need your input on this if you may.

Hi, Smilla this it was my feist yesterday. La Saint Jean en Français.

Happy to see you opening fiels of wisdoms with us.

We are spirits and Scientologists usually know it for fact.

Here the story starts that we call the whole track.

Your observations on the subject are totally valid as far as I'm concerned and it was a real trat to read your post.

Very inspiring. Thank you both

Well thanks to you too

 

[Pepin]

Yes, I mainly speak in French which is also not my native language. I know the syntax in my sentences is awfull, and I apologise if that makes reading my posts difficult. However, I'm not sure if you having trouble understanding my post is due to my imperfect writing or to your incomplete understanding of III as a level.

My post raised 2 main points regarding what you wrote: 1. using data above a level of the Grade Chart to explain the level one talks about (here Clear), which technically would be out-tech (if one plays that game, the tech, by its rules) 2. the somewhat bizarre idea of thetans while in this universe not having Inc I.

Regarding 2. I don't know where you got that idea from, but my opinion is it comes from someone who has no clue about OTIII. It's not a problem as far as "case" level is concerned - one can go through III sucessfully without knowing all the ins and outs about it, it was designed by Hubbard that way. From the Tech perspective, and you were giving a technical datum saying that, it's a false datum and shows misunderstanding about III. This is only my opinion, not important, but the fact is you alter a core workable datum as stated by Hubbard of this level

To explain a bit further my earlier post - there are data in III that are core technical data. Hubbard's statement that every being in this universe has an Inc I is such a datum. That's a technical datum, one can have a reality of it (now) and that's Scientology. The narrative in that level is of little importance as far as the story is concerned. He could have written Bugs Bunny as Inc I versus the Simpsons as Inc II, were he a cartoonist, and providing all the "buttons" were in the script the level would have run as well. In the Sixties it's not suprising Hubbard's III story has post Second World war elements, the culture of the Fifites flavours and a taste of the Cold War. Add to it his Sea Org Project he was working on, et voilà, you got the script of Inc II. But that's Para-Scientology, even though there is a collective dramatisation here on Earth one can have a reality upon (or not, lol)

Anyway - one could write a whole thick book about the working principles in III. One of those is (without going into the "heavy" ones) - individuality (IncI) versus collectivity (IncII), as one of the processes Hubbard used was polarities. If you talk about "beings in this universe that have no IncI" do you imply those beings have no individuality? are not recognizable as individuals? one cannot perceive their identity, how they "mock themselves up", as there is no such a mock-up? - a thetan is you before you mocked yourself up... per one of the definitions.

(sorry if too much scientologese annoys some reading this post. I could write it in plain English or French, but that would require more time than I have now. Scientologese is sometimes a shortcut)

So regarding your statement - you could say a Natural Clear has no charge on IncI (while of course having an IncI). That could happen. That might seem like nitpicking, however it's an essential difference. And it's amusing to pick it up (Hi Veda, you know I post sometimes for my self-amusement, lol)

au plaisir,
Pierrot

Mais Oui!! Well said

 

[Smilla]

I can only speak for me of course.

This is not from any invention or session, but I do recall a time before bodies and doing things. There was a perceived time, but not time like we know it today.
Then, I got invited to engage into the physical universe. It is the only place time exist. It sounded cool. It sounded entertaining.

So I put my head into the realm and took on an avatar (body). then.................forgot I was playing. (whoops)

I came to the same understanding as you.

Because we have always existed, we all pre-date this universe. Time of arrival here varies, and has varying consequences.

 

[JBTrendy]

Salut Pierrot aux Clairs de la Dune.

Yes, I mainly speak in French which is also not my native language. I know the syntax in my sentences is awfull, and I apologise if that makes reading my posts difficult. However, I'm not sure if you having trouble understanding my post is due to my imperfect writing or to your incomplete understanding of III as a level.

My post raised 2 main points regarding what you wrote: 1. using data above a level of the Grade Chart to explain the level one talks about (here Clear), which technically would be out-tech (if one plays that game, the tech, by its rules) 2. the somewhat bizarre idea of thetans while in this universe not having Inc I.

Regarding 2. I don't know where you got that idea from, but my opinion is it comes from someone who has no clue about OTIII. It's not a problem as far as "case" level is concerned - one can go through III sucessfully without knowing all the ins and outs about it, it was designed by Hubbard that way. From the Tech perspective, and you were giving a technical datum saying that, it's a false datum and shows misunderstanding about III. This is only my opinion, not important, but the fact is you alter a core workable datum as stated by Hubbard of this level

To explain a bit further my earlier post - there are data in III that are core technical data. Hubbard's statement that every being in this universe has an Inc I is such a datum. That's a technical datum, one can have a reality of it (now) and that's Scientology. The narrative in that level is of little importance as far as the story is concerned. He could have written Bugs Bunny as Inc I versus the Simpsons as Inc II, were he a cartoonist, and providing all the "buttons" were in the script the level would have run as well. In the Sixties it's not suprising Hubbard's III story has post Second World war elements, the culture of the Fifites flavours and a taste of the Cold War. Add to it his Sea Org Project he was working on, et voilà, you got the script of Inc II. But that's Para-Scientology, even though there is a collective dramatisation here on Earth one can have a reality upon (or not, lol)

Anyway - one could write a whole thick book about the working principles in III. One of those is (without going into the "heavy" ones) - individuality (IncI) versus collectivity (IncII), as one of the processes Hubbard used was polarities. If you talk about "beings in this universe that have no IncI" do you imply those beings have no individuality? are not recognizable as individuals? one cannot perceive their identity, how they "mock themselves up", as there is no such a mock-up? - a thetan is you before you mocked yourself up... per one of the definitions.

(sorry if too much scientologese annoys some reading this post. I could write it in plain English or French, but that would require more time than I have now. Scientologese is sometimes a shortcut)

So regarding your statement - you could say a Natural Clear has no charge on IncI (while of course having an IncI). That could happen. That might seem like nitpicking, however it's an essential difference. And it's amusing to pick it up (Hi Veda, you know I post sometimes for my self-amusement, lol)

au plaisir,
Pierrot

Merci pour ces mots et je t'envoi mon amitié.

Bien à toi

Jean-Baptiste

 

[Panda Termint]

Smilla, As to your question about spirituality in scientology; perhaps it could be described as the "science of achieving spirituality through material means."

I'm not saying that it *does* achieve spirituality, I'm just saying that the above thought seems to me to accurately describe what the CofS is selling.

Your thoughts?

 

[Div6]

Smilla, As to your question about spirituality in scientology; perhaps it could be described as the "science of achieving spirituality through material means."

I'm not saying that it *does* achieve spirituality, I'm just saying that the above thought seems to me to accurately describe what the CofS is selling.

Your thoughts?

You know very well that Scientology was the Science of Knowing how to know.

In this era, its knowing how to know you are broke.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Great. Thanks very much. Interesting that you say this. Maybe it is connected with a fundamental change in the "balance" of those aura layers. I've said before on ESMB how I think that an F/N is reflecting the natural pulsation of the person's energy fields, his aura. This unique needle phenomenon may be showing exactly that change. Or another change. I'll have to figure out how to translate a wholesale release from or erasure of mass into the other paradigm.

Paul

THAT's how I perceived it Paul. I had the continuous foating TA phenomena and the world went un-solid and flimsy for me. I almost got sick as my feet went thru the floor after exam. I was sick with some guilt I couldn't put my finger on..... and keyed in probably the last time I 'arrived' in this timestream as part of a group about 8,000 years ago. I did not know how everything in my world could have changed as radically as it did after that floating TA. I had a radical shift of viewpoint to an exterior one for about a year. How could I own that much guilt while attesting to clear. The guilt was NOT over the attest but the conditions of my 'arrival'. It was my unfortunate experience to get 'arrested' while coming in. The beings aboard the cruiser were taken off, and an entity (or targ?) cemented to them which immobilized.U][/B] There has been a sordid attempt to control these crews with what remnants ridges that can be kept alive, and to use them. Crazy stuff. Keeping off the radar between lives is a practiced effort.
We can get pushed in, or shoved into this universe as a punishment. (The Pilot), or made to go in, or be sent in to this universe all up and down the time track. I wonder if anyone else ever restimulated one of these INT buttons by being programmed for their Clear check.
Paul, regarding what you said about the balance of aura layers, I felt at the time that I was part of this collective aura.... as a human. A group mind (the body and its aspects) was my frame of reference. After the attest my rudiments came in galore but so did the charge of what I was into just BEFORE assuming the guise I now found myself in. I was on too big of a MWH to mention what I was sitting in. I had an unexplained terror of being found out. I've noticed that there is some code of silence amongst those captured in some space opera confrontations. Its an almost hypnotic command/greement to NOT KNOW anything about it.

 

[Hatshepsut]

I dunno who told you what, or if you misunderstood what you were told, but I assure you that OT111 hadn't changed at all since I did it in 1969, and when I was delivering OT111 Reviews at the AO in 1983.

Challenge

I did not know that the OT levels went up to one hundred and eleven. And that coincidentally is also the number of your post on this thread.

 

[Veda]

Each time I mention that Scientology contains some bits and pieces of truth, I'm aware that some will find that to be confirmation that Scientology is true. I try to add enough other information to ensure that does not occur, but I know that, sometimes, it will result in someone having their belief in Scientology further confirmed.

Sometimes all that's required for Scientology to be "true" is for 10%, or even 1%, of Scientology to be "true." Because of the manipulative and covertly controlling nature of Scientology, if it "works" 10%, or even 1%, of the time, that will suffice as confirmation that "Scientology works!"

The other instances of it not "working" are ignored or forgotten.

Much of Scientology's "upper level" material is a reversal of what "auditing" (in a benign sense) is presented - to newbies and "raw meat" - as being. It's the old "bait and switch." (Yes, it also, even then, contains some aspects of actual auditing, and this is the neutral medium through which the "mind f__k" takes place.)

Three years before Dianetics, when Hubbard wrote that his psychology not only predicts emotions, but hypnotizes people, he meant it.

I've expressed the opinion that even the "upper level" parts of Scientology contain some bits and pieces of truth, and IMO, they do. Otherwise, the solvent (truth)/cement (trickery) formula for glue (mind glue in this case) would not be present.

And, apparently, the solvent/glue combination still "works," and once it 'works" on a person, undoing its adhesive effects is sometimes not so easy.

And even explaining it can be difficult.

Here's an earlier thread that presents many views, and covers some of the same territory as this thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1295

And Alan's post re. "Incident One":

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=72944&postcount=3

Plus Alan's and Dart's comments re. the Class 8 course:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177122&postcount=41

 

[Hatshepsut]

nw2934

What I do know is that I could find plenty of involvement personally in Inc 2 and rather a lot of - er - chums - who had a somewhat parallel history - but I could not find any Inc 1 for myself - nor could most of my chums - and the few that could - god knows what they ran - I got no visio feedback or anything like that - they just seemed to go "oh yeah".

Yep. Nobody seems to reminisce about Incident One camaraderie!

ULRC/S

Good, but what's a "minus universe"?

Regards, Allen

I think there have been a lot of encroachments here where the toll wasn't paid or the card punched. My basic feeling was that the whole Greek Mythology thing and the Nephilim and the space opera and the era of magic and magicians was an interference area. Every time I see video shots of Capetown, South Africa I get a visceral jolt. That place at one time 'had no time'. You could move in and out of there between dimensions. There were invisible people moving about in that place. One universe overlapping another. While I do not understand these things, my revivications are often more real than the present.

Smilla

Because we have always existed, we all pre-date this universe. Time of arrival here varies, and has varying consequences.

Yeah that.

JBTrendy

Merci pour ces mots et je t'envoi mon amitié.

Bien à toi

Jean-Baptiste


__________________
From now on just call me Trendy
Honorary LRH Personal Public Relation & Loyal Officer
The 4th Dynamic Auditor formerly known as Jean Tox
JB stands for Jean-Baptiste/John the Baptist in French
Scientology Reformist and Cof$ Renegade since 2002.

You know I am researching something I've gotten into about a mystical group, the Followers of John. They seemed to have been saturated in a Jewish Mysticism which brought about an alchemical rising of all the energy centers of the body, then exit from the world's domains, and then the Aeons above ultimately to re-experience some divine energy.
I remember offhand that the Templars were rumored to be worshipping the head of John the Baptist which they unearthed from the Temple of Solomon. There is a document called the Testament of Solomon. According to this work, in that temple was much commanding of the spirits confined to this world. Also the Templars were tortured for worshipping pagan representatives of causative powers. Now in the Bible there are many Johns. It is not clear at times which is John the Beloved, or John the apostle or John the Baptist. Same goes for the Marys. I believe someone wanted this person's identity muddled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testament_of_Solomon

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2228881/The-Testament-of-Solomon-Revised-English