"The first REAL OT Level" enemy line?

[Veda]

So what is your theory? If we have the wrong answer and you have thr right ones you share with us.


What exactly is man?

Is there an after life?

Are there no spirits?

Is man made of mud and cells?

Are there spirits?

Are we all just peices of meat?

It is well enough to say we are wrong, but why?

What is right?

You say we have the wrong answers.

O.K., tell the right ones.

What is life all about?

Who are we?

Where did we come from?

Why?

Where are we going?

If Alan and I are wrong, why? What is right that proves we are wrong?

Do you also suppose what is true for you is true for all mankind because of general issue bodies?

I look forward to knowing what you know.

I am looking forward to your lessons.

Alan parted ways with (what became) the "tech" after 1964, while you buy the Commodore Hubbard/Xenu package, complete with Hubbard's PR lines about various enemy conspiracies - although you haven't yet commented on Hubbard's assertion that his 2nd wife was a Russian spy.

I think I have more in common with Alan's views than do you, yet I don't flaunt those similarities.

Long before I heard of Scientology I practiced what is usually called "astral travelling," separating the astral body from the physical, and then the more subtle "light body" (an 'aura' with no other form) from the astral. Yet, I don't make "Ten Commandment" type (single sentence) pronouncements about it.

TI, I think you're on a bit of an ego trip, and are very much (happily?) "tangled up in Hubbard," and do hope you make it through the Hubbard "tilt-a-whirl" fun house ride OK.

 

[The Oracle]

Well, then, I guess my next question would be, if you don't know, why do you think people who think they do know, are wrong?

Unless you assume since you don't know, nobody else could know either and they are just pretending to know?

How would you know Alan is wrong? If you don't have a right on the other end that invalidates what he knows?

I mean, we have the Catholics, they know they are going to heaven when they die to sit with God. So, they know Alan is wrong. They know the Buddhists are wrong and everyone that is not Catholic will go to hell, it's written right into the culture, the quals for entering heaven. They also know nobody has reported back to verify this information but at least they know something that makes all other religions invalid. But you never hear someone who visited heaven returning back with a report about it.

Now, here we have a man on this forum who is saying he has experienced a certain thing and he is being called a liar.

I mean, this is just social injustice unless some else can bring forth proof that he is lying.

So, there must be some theory as to why he is not a spirit and operating as one, and that truth would have to be that spirits do not exist.

Well, maybe Alan has found out that he is, and who and what he is, and what he found out is that he is a spirit. And once he came to that conlusion he was operating as a spirit more than something else.

I don't see what is so mysterious and unbelievable about this.

It comes down to do spirits exist or don't they?

Can they know they are spirits?

And this notion of discovery of spirits is ancient ancient pre biblical thought.

If there are not such things as spirits, I am confounded that I have identical twins, genetically identical in every way, and yet, these two children have different personalities, talents, temperments, reactions, goals, likes, dislikes, moods, purposes.

At least one would have to admit there is some suspicious evidence that spirits exist.

And if Hubbard offerred wrong answeres, what are the right ones?

And if you don't know, how can be so sure Hubbard was wrong?

hmmmm?

PS: The good news is, sooner than later this is something you will be forced to know about for yourself, and the evidence will be very clear through personal experience.
Then you can know the truth. And if you find you are a spirit, and you cannot operate, what happens then? But the laws of cause and effect will apply in that mysterious dimension. And if you are not at cause over it, you will be the effect of it. And how would this be impossible to understand or think with?

 

[Dulloldfart]

But you never hear someone who visited heaven returning back with a report about it.

Sorry, TI, couldn't resist. Hubbard wrote such a report.

From HCOB 11 May 1963 HEAVEN: "Yes, I've been to Heaven. And so have you...." There are bits of it online (the bulletin).

Paul

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yes, there are people who believe other people from other religions are going to hell.

Catholics, though, traditionally do not.

Don't know if you've heard of it...but they have a doctrine called Baptism of Desire wherein someone who is not Catholic would still go to "Heaven" because he or she is doing what they think is right and worshipping "God" as best they can in accordance with what they know.

They even ditched the unbaptized babies going to hell idea many decades ago.

C
(Former Catholic, former Third Order Franciscan)

 

[The Oracle]

Sorry, TI, couldn't resist. Hubbard wrote such a report.

From HCOB 11 May 1963 HEAVEN: "Yes, I've been to Heaven. And so have you...." There are bits of it online (the bulletin).

Paul

Laugh out loud!

Good point!

Guess there are plenty of people that have been to that "heaven".

It's just not the one descibed by the Catholic Church. I was talking about their heaven. No suffering, napping in Gods lap, eternal peace, etc etc.
Only some pure grade heroin is going to take one into that experience. And the drop back to earth is mighty harsh.

The point is, is that how can you say, I don't know the right answers but I know yours are wrong, especially when other's have found them to be right?

At best one can say, "this is not true for me, and I don't know what is if I don't have the right answers yet".

 

[Zinjifar]

Alan parted ways with (what became) the "tech" after 1964, while you buy the Commodore Hubbard/Xenu package, complete with Hubbard's PR lines about various enemy conspiracies - although you haven't yet commented on Hubbard's assertion that his 2nd wife was a Russian spy.

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'parting ways with The Tech', but, as far as I know, Alan was still in VGS (very good standing) until the late 70s.

Zinj

 

[The Oracle]

Veda wrote: "TI, I think you're on a bit of an ego trip, and are very much (happily?) "tangled up in Hubbard," and do hope you make it through the Hubbard "tilt-a-whirl" fun house ride OK".


Who were you trying to suppress before me?

 

[The Oracle]

Yes, there are people who believe other people from other religions are going to hell.

Catholics, though, traditionally do not.

Don't know if you've heard of it...but they have a doctrine called Baptism of Desire wherein someone who is not Catholic would still go to "Heaven" because he or she is doing what they think is right and worshipping "God" as best they can in accordance with what they know.

They even ditched the unbaptized babies going to hell idea many decades ago.

C
(Former Catholic, former Third Order Franciscan)

I suppose there has been some reformation since the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Zinjifar]

I suppose there has been some reformation since the Spanish Inquisition.

Most of the things that people 'know' about Roman Catholic 'theology' or 'dogma' are less than accurate; partially because RC itself is offered on a 'gradient'.

But, even at its *lowest* level, Catholic dogma is not 'secret'; merely diluted for the people who *want* a guy with a long beard and angels with horns in heaven.

That is *not* RC Theology; it's a 'descripion' offered to children and those not needing better answers.

There are *better* answers, but, they're probably not what you would want to read, since your 'purpose' seems to be to 'justify' Scientology's abysmal record by 'comparing' it with something more substantial.

If you really *care* about Roman Catholic belief, you might read some Teilhard de Chardin and compare it to the 'Apostle's Creed' as a bare minimum 'required agreement list'.

I haven't been a Roman Catholic for decades; not because I found transubstantiation or miracles or virgin birth 'unbelievable', but, because I rejected 'Papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals'.

The 'heaven' you think you know as RC dogma, isn't. Nor is the 'hell'.

Most likely, very little of what you know about Roman Catholicism is, but, much like a Scientology Critic who would 'damn' Scientology for its ridiculous 'Xenu' story, you *prefer* it that way.

I damn Scientology for Scientology. Xenu is only interesting because, both Hubbard *and* His 'Church' need to commit criminal acts to *hide* it.

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Nobody escapes the Spanish Inquistion- HAHAHAHA! (Monty Python)

 

[Zinjifar]

Nobody escapes the Spanish Inquistion- HAHAHAHA! (Monty Python)

It's 'expects'; not 'escapes'

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

Zinj

 

[spbill]

Just to help you out, Roland, I made up such a list two or three years ago, not especially a Scn list. Suggested additions are welcome.
l

Thanks for the link Paul. I'd like to point out that merely achieving "at cause over mental mest on the first dynamic" would be enough to make it easy for a Being to "decide" he could do all the OT tricks and it would be true for him.
Not true in objective reality however, although Hubbard's EP of OT clearly states "subjective and objective". For the record: I don't think many, if any,
have even achieved first dynamic clear using Scientology tech. We do see a vastly-increased tendency to postulate things without reservation or self doubt. That's downright dangerous where sanity is concerned.
Bill

 

[Zinjifar]

Thanks for the link Paul. I'd like to point out that merely achieving "at cause over mental mest on the first dynamic" would be enough to make it easy for a Being to "decide" he could do all the OT tricks and it would be true for him.
Not true in objective reality however, although Hubbard's EP of OT clearly states "subjective and objective". For the record: I don't think many, if any,
have even achieved first dynamic clear using Scientology tech. We do see a vastly-increased tendency to postulate things without reservation or self doubt. That's downright dangerous where sanity is concerned.
Bill

Especially for people who think that dancing the Macarena across 6 lanes of Freeway might be 'very OT!'

Or write checks based on their 'postulated' balance...

Zinj

 

[spbill]

Its quite easy to know when one is exterior or not. Many people can do this including those on OCMB per a thread some time back.

I think we need to take a look at our definition of knowing. I grew up understanding it to mean: to know the truth. That implies there must be
some mechanism in the human mind which raises doubts or signals uncertainty whenever there is something we believe we "know" but which in fact is untrue. About the only things I can know with complete certainty are those things I have created myself. I always take "knowledge" of external things (facts, etc) with a grain of salt because it is so obvious to me how easy it is to be mistaken about such things. Even my own perceptions can sometimes be completely off the mark, but I am gradually getting better at taking responsibility for my own role in their origination. The gradient on that is to acknowledge the contribution of one's own interpretation to what is perceived. Lots of people apparently fail to adequately distinguish between
direct knowledge of something they're creating ("first dynamic" in the jargon) and indirect or inferred knowledge about everything else. It's easy to assume our internal "certainty of knowledge" can be extended to external things and other beings' creations. Quite a big mistake. Obviously we don't understand everything about the physical universe - we cannot yet cure cancer for example. But still we have acceptable theories which sometimes pass for the complete truth. Humans have erroneously believed they had the right understanding of things for a very long time now. The next generation often shows the previous generation's "truths" were only approximations or worse, outright lies! Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to a discourse on differentiating between knowing something and knowing about something. I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Bill

 

[Zinjifar]

I think we need to take a look at our definition of knowing. I grew up understanding it to mean: to know the truth. That implies there must be
some mechanism in the human mind which raises doubts or signals uncertainty whenever there is something we believe we "know" but which in fact is untrue. About the only things I can know with complete certainty are those things I have created myself. I always take "knowledge" of external things (facts, etc) with a grain of salt because it is so obvious to me how easy it is to be mistaken about such things. Even my own perceptions can sometimes be completely off the mark, but I am gradually getting better at taking responsibility for my own role in their origination. The gradient on that is to acknowledge the contribution of one's own interpretation to what is perceived. Lots of people apparently fail to adequately distinguish between
direct knowledge of something they're creating ("first dynamic" in the jargon) and indirect or inferred knowledge about everything else. It's easy to assume our internal "certainty of knowledge" can be extended to external things and other beings' creations. Quite a big mistake. Obviously we don't understand everything about the physical universe - we cannot yet cure cancer for example. But still we have acceptable theories which sometimes pass for the complete truth. Humans have erroneously believed they had the right understanding of things for a very long time now. The next generation often shows the previous generation's "truths" were only approximations or worse, outright lies! Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to a discourse on differentiating between knowing something and knowing about something. I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Bill

One of the most enlightening things I ever heard was that almost *every* element in our 'meat bodies' (beyond the basic hydrogen and, to an extent, oxygen) is the *direct product of a Supernova*.

It's the only way elements beyond iron are created.

I don't need the 'past lives'. I could dream those up in my sleep

But, my *MEST* is itself the product of a supernova.

Spiritually? Time is itself a limited view of eternity.

Eternity is *NOW*

Why would I need a 'past life'?

No, Illlusioness... man is not 'mud and cells'. He's wonder and miracles and supernovas and timelessness.

Zinj

 

[spbill]

Well, then, I guess my next question would be, if you don't know, why do you think people who think they do know, are wrong?
[..]
And if Hubbard offerred wrong answeres, what are the right ones?
[..]
And if you don't know, how can be so sure Hubbard was wrong?

Speaking for myself TI, I *don't* know that Hubbard was wrong, and I don't believe any of the critics here claim to know with complete certainty that he was wrong. We are entitled to our own opinions though. When evaluating the opinions of others we have to make assumptions in order to assess the probability they might be on to something useful. I view the world through my own understanding of the way things are or appear to be and I assume others do likewise. Maybe someone out there has a direct line to the ultimate truth and doesn't need to evaluate things. If I put myself in His place for a moment, I would want to communicate this important data to my fellow Beings. I would demonstrate, show, explain, etc, especially with the knowledge that if people thought I was a raving madman they'd be less likely to receive my knowledge easily.

It's ridiculous to require that someone have the "right" answers as a condition for being willing to consider his objections to others' answers. That is akin to substituting authority for reasonableness as the only qualification for accepting some one else's belief or opinion as one's own. Personally, I like to think we all rub our ideas against those of other members of the human race in order to get feedback and the advantage of "other-viewpointness" when it comes to refining, improving, honing the quality of our opinions. It's usually easier to knock a theory down than to come up with a good one in the first place. That is being helpful, not hurtful. By the way, I have found it useful to run a whole lot of help bracket stuff over the years. Don't know if they still do that much today. A lot of Scientology tech is useful when it comes to getting rid of stupidities and preconceptions, I won't deny it. Nor will I fall into the trap of assuming that because *something* works in Scientology it all must be valid and correct.

Bill

 

[Alan]

Alan may very well have convinced himself he is exterior 24/7 - but as he says himself: "The truth is what it is - not what you want it to be."

Bill

What's to be convinced about?

When I am exterior - I am!

When I'm not exterior - I'm not!

The quality varies......

Alan

 

[Zinjifar]

What's to be convinced about?

When I am exterior - I am!

When I'm not exterior - I'm not!

The quality varies......

Alan

Jesus said, 'It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kindom of God'

Why?

Because, while everyone can achieve happiness, a rich man will attempt to *force* reality to give him the 'happiness' *All The Time*.

I suspect that, spiritually, a *single glimpse of heaven* is all that's required.

Time doesn't really exist.

Those who attempt to *force* eternity into timelessness are doomed to hell

Who needs past lives? Who needs future lives?

Time is not real.

Once is enough. This is heaven

Your heaven is the *best* you've ever experienced
Your hell is your attempts to recreate it

Zinj

 

[spbill]

What's to be convinced about?

When I am exterior - I am!

When I'm not exterior - I'm not!

The quality varies......

One issue is what exactly is meant by being exterior. When you are exterior, can you perceive the MEST world directly? Can you move about in space and time effortlessly? What I'm getting at here is this: Hubbard made some pretty far-fetched claims about which many critics have serious doubts. I think it's important to make the distinction between believing you are able to view things other than via your body's senses and actually being able to do so in an objective, verifiable-by-anyone way. How can you know whether your OT abilities are real or delusional without seeking confirmation from other *independent* Beings? Why not verify objectively? In a reply to Roland you implied that you liked having your illusions. One must wonder if that is the reason. Surely holding on to wrong data is not a good survival tactic! Can you suggest a way in which we could all reach agreement on what this OT ability really is?
Bill

 

[The Oracle]

"Jesus said, 'It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kindom of God'

He was obviously looking for donations.