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

[SweetnessandLight]

Call me a Rebel!

Guess I land in the Renegade Camp?:confused2:
Thanks, Purple, glad to know you missed the worst of it all!

 

[lkwdblds]

Comments about a great post

I thought my opinion was pretty clear.

Who brags a lot?

Insecure people seeking approbation.

Did his most recent high profile brag give him permission to do so?

Nol

What category would a high school braggart have been in?

An insecure bully? But Carmelo, what about "look, don't listen" I mean the guy has the stats to back up all of his claims. He is being attacked by both C of $ and by a lot of Freezone people and bragging about how great he is seems to be his reponse. Braggarts in general don't have his kind of qualifications and stats. I don't disagree with your conclusions but am just thinking out load.
Lakey,

When you were in high school a decade before me, things were very different. The pill had not been released. The chances of a girl getting pregnant were huge. So many girls, older than me, got pregnant and went to Tijuana, Nogales, etc. for abortions. Some more than once. Others had babies in their teens. It was hormones gone wild.

The Ls, to me, are like hormones gone wild. The results are big blow outs. But the real crucial question is : DID YOUR LIFE CHANGE GREATLY FOR THE BETTER AFTER the Ls?"

I paid $22,000 for L11 and L12 and only got L11 because my set ups ran over.
That was in 1977 with Alex Siberski as my auditor. The next year they called me back and gave me L11 again for free because Siberski had been declared. I ran the same rundown with two different auditors and the reads and items taken up were all different, which makes sense because the first items should no longer read. I don't remeber much but I made no major changes on any dynamic after runing L11. I had some blowdowns and F/N's and felt good about it both times but I don't remember any major cogs or major changes in my case. Well I take that back, I think I was unstuck from some masses and electronic incidents and my space was noticeably cleaner. There was less background noise going on in my mind and more stillness with me being somewhat more there. It was worth doing, but I did not get that big a rush from it. Power and Power Plus produced huge rushes and feelings of euphoria but those were just key outs and the state was not permanent. I was like sort of taking a test drive of the the OT levels.

A lot of people got hooked on that big blow out EP effect. That's OK, but coke, grass, espresso, and wine are a heck of a lot cheaper.

As an old stick in the mud (read this as curmudgeon), tell me how much your abilities to interact with people, your abilities to get things done, your abilities to handle more of your dynamics (that's those other seven) were before and after the Ls.

Again, I only received L 11 and there was no perceptible gains to me on any dynamic except more stillness and less background noise in my space.

Personally, I'm more interested in the success stories that are six months after the auditing. The ones where the person details how their actual day to day life has changed.

Co$ success stories are all about how great I feel right this second after my last session, and I want to get out of here (Flag, Freewinds, etc) and go home without any more poking around for more money to be spent.

Very good point! I do not believe I ever saw somebody walk in 6 months after a service and voluntarily write a success story saying that their wins were stable and even expanding. All success stories I ever read were taken right after the auditing or at completing the course. One could take success stories at a Billy Graham crusade right after the people come up to the altar and accept Jesus Christ as their savior. They would write incredible success stories, 100% of the time. Six months later, many of them would have returned to their old habits and old problems. Possibly 22% of them would still be raving about the wins.

The good auditors recognize that the PC needs or wants help for a certain area (anything from asthma to work related issues). The PC gets processes based on what they are sitting in.

The cookie cutter auditing that the church promotes is "You need this"- It is upside down.

Another good point. One size fits all might not be a valid concept for spriritual healing and expansion. Ron compensates for this somewhat by the process of listing and nulling which leads to tailor made programs for each individual. I take it, you still feel it is still cookie cutter even with listing to find out what to run?

I got into scientology to help people. I didn't get in to get something fixed for myself (the ruin). But, on the PC side, I was complaining about (what turned out to be) GPMs. The lower level auditing was OK. I got exterior, da da da, but what I wanted handled, I finally found in the blackand white LRH grade six solo course movie. He described to a T what I was looking at, was bothering me, and that I wanted handled. Grade 6 and Clear changed my life forever. I would have gladly paid hundreds of times more for the results of grade six and Clear, if I had known the effects of those levels. It was truly a good ROI (Return On Investment).

You are so able! Me and most people came in to handle their ruin. If you came in without a ruin found to help others that would indicate that you are a special type of person and this has proved to be the case.

Alan Walter has processes that handle what bothered me, that had I gone to his center(s) thirty years after my brush with Scientology, complaining of what I complained about, they would have cleaned me up on the spot.

That is the difference between auditing the person in front of you and auditing the grade chart.

Of course, you can squeeze a lot more money out of the suckers by auditing the grade chart.

Alan had a little bit of PT Barnum in him from what I've heard but apparently no where near the amount that Ron had.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Some Question on TR 0

I got a PM suggesting I should stick my nose in on this

I was away on business last week for several days, and got way behind in my reading

So here are a few quick comments.

On TR0 versus Presence:

I was going to get into this on the thread I started under the title "Screwy Tech."

TR0 is named "Confronting," which is unfortunate; that and the fact that the instructions tell you the following:



You clever folks can check out the rest of the instructions as covered in the "TRAINING STRESS." Clearly written in the instruction is to "be three feet in front of the preclear."

If one goes to a dictionary for the definition of "confront" we find it is not a very friendly way to relate to people Check it out!

Also note that "CONFRONT" is at 2.0 on the "Reality Scale" which is also the level of Antagonism!

So, the whole basis of TR0, Confronting, as trained and practiced is that of drilling the student to be separate to, opposite, and to "confront" using nothing else but auditing and the ability to be "there" (three feet in front of the PC) and confront.

This at a minimum breeds and reinforces separateness and fixes the student in and at a low mood level relationship.

Compare this to ACW "Presence Process."

Firstly, one defines and obtains a clear understanding of what presence means and is. In essence, it is defined (in the materials as well as in dictionaries) as meaning being here, now. Though there are some other wonderful meaning of the word that also apply.

So, having defined what the word presence means, the student is simply asked/told to "Be here."

This opens up a whole panoply of expansion and mood up-lifting opportunities.

Rather than staying separate and at a rather low mood, the student can rise to his optimum in emotional relationship and also up to being at one with the coach. This, of course, is the ultimate of "presence, here, now" and of a loving relationship in which one can fully and perfectly duplicate the emanations/communications of another

It is a process that can and does restore to the individual the ultimate of his power of presence and volition in that respect. That is, the ability to choose to be present with at the level optimum for any circumstance.



On the issue of having been stuck with connections or relationships (as was mentioned in the context of taking too long to leave or having not been able to leave due to considered allegiance) . . . this little tech point might help.

Recall your original postulate/decision to join and the reasons why you considered it was "survival" to do so. Blow/erase that consideration, (and the consequences of the decision might also need to be addressed) and the whole thing will evaporate.

AS to "the Ranch," well Alan had always said that the best way to learn (auditing) was to have the guy or gal do some of it, some very easy, basic foolproof stuff; and then to give some of the explanation/theory of what it was all about. That way the student had something to relate the theory to.

And the processes used as the clients first actions at the ranch are so simple, and marvelously effective, that wins all around are routine.

Indeed, one of my favorite actions when working with former Scn trained (TR'ed to death) auditors is to take them through the exercise above vis a vis the nonsense of TR0 and why it has screwed people up.

Once they understand the notion that totally, wholly, fully being present with another would/could be being at one with them at where they are, I give them the command: "As a spiritual Being, be present."

Note that "as a spiritual Being" touch.

Try it

There is a guy on this board for whom I ran that command at the ranch with the result of his "zorch" being blown

And with this handling I have totally salvaged the cases of former Scio folks that were screwed up. One guy went exterior and totally, wholly present during TR0 . . . that was the bad news . . . the church turned that into a problem, telling him he couldn't do anything more of processing or training until he had an "out-int" handling for $x$x$x$xxx, which in his younger years he did not have. That was the end of his Scn career Talk about dull stupid tech!!!

At the ranch we would have ack'ed the huge win and done the "Celebration of Wins Handling" . . . (I mentioned this R/D at the end of my FZ presentation in Pasadena) . . . so as to put the regained ability under the full knowing control of the guy!

That's it for now . . . I'm off to handle other traffic

RogerB

Roger - Great having you appear on this thread. It's always a joy and priviledge to read your posts. I had two questions on TR 0, the first of which concerns the definition of the word confront. As I recall from the bulletin, LRH used the synonym "to face" and that is the way I always did the drill, just to be there and face the other person. Of course, I knew of the other meanings of the word which all include a significant degree of hostility and challenge. I looked up the word just now and was surprised to read that nearly all the definitions include a hostile, bold and challenging emphasis on the facing which is done. Only one definition said merely to "go face to face with" and even that one added, "usually in a hostile manner".

Using the dictionary definition of the word would definitely lead to some terrible auditing and in using the TR's in life, the dictionary definition would lead mainly to bullying and fights. The current management of the church, led by DM, seems to be using the dictionary definition for everyday conversation because much of the communication I hear coming from them is hostile and challenging. I wonder if they are also using that sense of the word in training auditors.

Whenever I did the drill, I tried only to just face the other person and be there without doing anything else. This always seemed to get a good result. When spot checked on the words, and asked the definition of confront, I usually said it meant to face and was never flunked for that.

The second point of my question has to do with you talking about the word confront causing a separation between the student and the coach, the auditor and the pc or between two individuals in general conversation. For auditing, I had always thought that this was the natural and preferred relationshiip between an auditor and a preclear. For the auditor and the preclear to be greater than the preclear's bank there had to be a separation otherwise you would have, two auditors are greater than the pc's bank which doesn't make sense.

If the auditor and the preclear were at one with one another, wouldn't that be something like Mesmerism tried to achieve back in the 18th and 19th centuries where the operator tried to transfer his good conditions to the subject and allowed the subject's bad conditions to be transferred to the operator and then out through the operator and into the ground?

If you could, I would like to have those two points clarified further in response to my quesions above.
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

What is a "Big Being"?

I would say a being's size is determined by how many other beings are connected to him / her.

When John said that they were more popular than Jesus. We all know who John is.

John is / was a big being, so were the other three.

When another John, went Clear, he related hearing all these voices saying "Don't betray us." You only had to see him with a huge auditorium full of people to see how connected he was to everyone. Love was a big thing with him. Again, you know which John I'm talking about.

If I say Hitler, we all know who that schmuck was.

I'd say he was a big being. He connected, not too nicely with the world's people, but connect he did.

As I've gotten auditing, I've become more open and accepting of others. I am no longer the petty little shit I was for a time.

There's more, but not now. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

 

[lkwdblds]

I would say a being's size is determined by how many other beings are connected to him / her.

When John said that they were more popular than Jesus. We all know who John is.

John is / was a big being, so were the other three.

When another John, went Clear, he related hearing all these voices saying "Don't betray us." You only had to see him with a huge auditorium full of people to see how connected he was to everyone. Love was a big thing with him. Again, you know which John I'm talking about.

If I say Hitler, we all know who that schmuck was.

I'd say he was a big being. He connected, not too nicely with the world's people, but connect he did.

As I've gotten auditing, I've become more open and accepting of others. I am no longer the petty little shit I was for a time.

There's more, but not now. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

Carmelo, I agree with what you say but have some additional thoughts on the subject. I think the elements of being a big being are:
1. Having a large endowment of elan vital or theta or life force.
2. One has to do something which benefits one or more of the dynamics, and benefits it greatly usually despite fierce opposition which has to be overcome.
Other considerations would be:
a. The number and the quality of the people one was connected to
b. The big being being in the right place
c. The big being living at the right time.

You can not have a theoretical big being, A person has to prove through doingness that he or she is a big being.

There are two different categories of Big Beings. One would be a Universal Big Being. No matter what country he lived in or what time period he or she lived in, they would rise to greatness and help their fellow man to gain new freedoms and reach new heights.

The second type of Big Being is created by having lived at a particular place at a particular moment of history.

I am going to leave it at that for tonight and take this up some more tomorrow.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

I would say a being's size is determined by how many other beings are connected to him / her.

When John said that they were more popular than Jesus. We all know who John is.

John is / was a big being, so were the other three.

When another John, went Clear, he related hearing all these voices saying "Don't betray us." You only had to see him with a huge auditorium full of people to see how connected he was to everyone. Love was a big thing with him. Again, you know which John I'm talking about.

If I say Hitler, we all know who that schmuck was.

I am not sure if he was a Big Being or merely had a Big Bank! He did not have a great mind as far as I can see. Mainly, his OT like skills were as an orator and motivational public speaker. He also had a keen sense for economics. He could analyze a failing economy and quickly make the correct moves to revitalize it to highest evers. His tone level around 1.5 found a nice match with the populace of post World War I Germany and so he was able to rally the people behind him as their savior. One thing that made him easier to defeat was that he was at 1.5 and never fought at 1.1, as Stalin did. I believe a 1.5 is much easier to defeat than a 1.1. Certainly he connected very well with his people and took his program a very long way, even where it seemed like victory was inevitable before his bank took over and threw away all the gains he had made. Normally, this kind of performance would indicate he was a big being but I am not sure. One major non big being characteristic was that he totally dismissed the skill and determination of his opponents. Another tip off that he wasn't that big is he was always picking wrong "Why's". His assignment of race as the primary ingredient to decide a person's worth is completely bogus. Still, he went so far, just missed complete world domination, it is easy for someone to label him a big being just for achieving that.

I'd say he was a big being. He connected, not too nicely with the world's people, but connect he did.

As I've gotten auditing, I've become more open and accepting of others. I am no longer the petty little shit I was for a time.

There's more, but not now. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

Hitler's example points out that some big beings can pursue causes that lead to the destruction of huge numbers of people, including the destruction of their societies and their countries. There are other notable examples in history, perhaps Napoleon and Alexander the Great, not to mention Stalin. LRH was absolutely a big being and somewhere along the line he seems to have gone to the "dark side of the Force". I want to take this topic up further but it might be more appropriate to start a new thread than hold a complete discussion of it here. Let's face it, it is a little off topic for this thread but that did not stop us when we did our restaurant and entertainment reviews. Do some of you have an opiniion on this? If so, please voice it. I one of you starts the new thread yourself, than that will settle the issue immediately.
Lakey

 

[Ted]

Carmelo, I agree with what you say but have some additional thoughts on the subject. I think the elements of being a big being are:
1. Having a large endowment of elan vital or theta or life force.
2. One has to do something which benefits one or more of the dynamics, and benefits it greatly usually despite fierce opposition which has to be overcome.
Other co considerations would be:
a. The number and the quality of the people one was connected to
b. The big being being in the right place
c. The big being living at the right time.

You can not have a theoretical big being, A person has to prove through doingness that he or she is a big being.

There are two different categories of Big Beings. One would be a Universal Big Being. No matter what country he lived in or what time period he or she lived in, they would rise to greatness and help their fellow man to gain new freedoms and reach new heights.

The second type of Big Being is created by having lived at a particular place at a particular moment of history.

I am going to leave it at that for tonight and take this up some more tomorrow.
Lakey

All this defining of "big being" borders on the imposition of hidden standards.

Every being is a big being. This is the only way to receive anyone arriving for help.

 

[Ted]

I would say a being's size is determined by how many other beings are connected to him / her.

When John said that they were more popular than Jesus. We all know who John is.

John is / was a big being, so were the other three.

When another John, went Clear, he related hearing all these voices saying "Don't betray us." You only had to see him with a huge auditorium full of people to see how connected he was to everyone. Love was a big thing with him. Again, you know which John I'm talking about.

If I say Hitler, we all know who that schmuck was.

I'd say he was a big being. He connected, not too nicely with the world's people, but connect he did.

As I've gotten auditing, I've become more open and accepting of others. I am no longer the petty little shit I was for a time.

There's more, but not now. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

My present state of awareness is that I do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation.

Not existing is Hell.

Co-creating is Heavenly.

Laughing at one's foibles is a healthy practice; laughing over one's royal f'ups makes one invincible.

This is not standard scientology--whatever that is.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

My present state of awareness is that I do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation.

Not existing is Hell.

Co-creating is Heavenly.

Laughing at one's foibles is a healthy practice; laughing over one's royal f'ups makes one invincible.

This is not standard scientology--whatever that is.

I think I've joined the church of Tedology

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Testing the waters, and, thanks Dart, they're just fine; altho where I'm at just now it's frozen over = time to ice skate then.

Ditto on everything re processors. I especially liked someone's reference to Journeymen and agree wholeheartedly. Much like the idea of the Waterman regarding surfers and bodyboarders = surfing to their heart's content, not just doing it to boost their egos or show off or pick up a purse full of money.

Yawn, still jet laggy but sooo happy to be hanging out with family.

Blessings be.

God, "Waterman"-- I had forgotten that word. Thank you Hawaii.

It was "Eddie would go" waves last week. 25 feet where it's usually calm.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Lakey wrote:

"Yes, you are right! For guys we used the baseball analogy; getting to 1st base meant things went well, the guy held hands with his date and maybe kissed just by smooching with the lips. 2nd base meant heavy "French" kissing and getting to feel the girl's breasts. 3rd base meant reaching each other's genitals with the boy usually getting jacked off by the girl. Hitting a home run, well, we know what that meant.

In many cases, the guy never thought about how the girl viewed things. He just knew that she seemed to like it as much as he did and guys really viewed the whole thing as a conquest. Guys did not have to confront what their partners actual emotions and feelings were, at least not in the initial stages."


It was a little different after the pill. Depending where someone was on the learning curve. Today's normal actions sexting, dildos, vibrators, butt plugs, make the 60s look tame and puritanical.

 

[lkwdblds]

Comments of Big Being and Tedology

My present state of awareness is that I do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation.

Not existing is Hell.

Co-creating is Heavenly.

Laughing at one's foibles is a healthy practice; laughing over one's royal f'ups makes one invincible.

This is not standard scientology--whatever that is.

Ted, I appreciate your comments on Big Beings plus your above incites which Carmelo has labled "Tedology"

On the Big Being issue, I feel that since a lot of people such as Sweetness and Light are throwing the term around and ascribing it to people who have helped her on ESMB and on this particular thread, it is reasonable to define the term so that everyone is comparing apples to apples.

I see your point in calling every being a big being and perhaps, latently each one of us is or has the potential to be a big being or once was. I do not know for sure, my ability to "look" does not currently extend that far. In the meantime, like with all words or terms which we use in our everday speech, it seems logical to me to define the term.

An example is to do what Ghandi did for the country of India in the 1940's. India had perhaps 600 million people at that time and I believe that Ghandi was probably the only person among them who could have obtained India's freedom from the British Empire.

Another example: Abraham Lincoln was president at the time of the Civil War and through his efforts the Union was saved and slavery was abolished in the USA. I ask you Ted, do you think that if Jimmy Carter was president at that time or for that matter Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover, do you think the same results would have been obtained? I'll tell you here and now that I do not believe for one minute that either of those 3 weak presidents could have achieved the result Lincoln did. On the other hand I believe Teddy Roosevelt, a very strong President would have achieved it, so might John F. Kennedy or Robert F Kennedy but not Teddy Kennedy. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, for defining a term, "Big Being", to represent the qualities certain very capable people who achieved great deeds possess or possessed.

As to "Tedology", I think those are some of the most brilliant words I have ever read. They are inspiring, their meaning is clear and some profound thoughts are condensed into three short lines. If you were holding classes and presented Tedology in your promo piece, I would be there attending on opening day!! (assuming I didn't have to fly to Australia}
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

On being a BIG BEing

I would say a being's size is determined by how many other beings are connected to him / her.

When John said that they were more popular than Jesus. We all know who John is.

John is / was a big being, so were the other three.

When another John, went Clear, he related hearing all these voices saying "Don't betray us." You only had to see him with a huge auditorium full of people to see how connected he was to everyone. Love was a big thing with him. Again, you know which John I'm talking about.

If I say Hitler, we all know who that schmuck was.

I'd say he was a big being. He connected, not too nicely with the world's people, but connect he did.

As I've gotten auditing, I've become more open and accepting of others. I am no longer the petty little shit I was for a time.

There's more, but not now. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

I just want to say that I feel quite fortunate that I know about the two Johns to whom Carmelo is referring here! Baby Boomers rule!

Possibly, how many other beings you can effect or influence (for good or ill) is a workable definition of being a big being? :confused2: It works for me, but I think, to be a REALLY BIG Being, you have to be a force for good in the lives of others. Ron's name is not going to go down in history as anything other that MUD, just like Hitler.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Sweet...Tedology!

Aw, Ted! Big hug to you for your nice Tedology*, and for being such a lovely squirrel! Who cares if it's standard Scientology or not. Does it work for you and others? Is it true in your life? That's what counts!

Good elucidation of your current beliefs and practices. Sounds very Zen to me!

*Great coining of a new word, Lakey!

 

[Ted]

Ted, I appreciate your comments on Big Beings plus your above incites which Carmelo has labled "Tedology"

[1.] On the Big Being issue, I feel that since a lot of people such as Sweetness and Light are throwing the term around and ascribing it to people who have helped her on ESMB and on this particular thread, it is reasonable to define the term so that everyone is comparing apples to apples.

[2.] I see your point in calling every being a big being and perhaps, latently each one of us is or has the potential to be a big being or once was. I do not know for sure, my ability to "look" does not currently extend that far. In the meantime, like with all words or terms which we use in our everday speech, it seems logical to me to define the term.

[3.] An example is to do what Ghandi did for the country of India in the 1940's. India had perhaps 600 million people at that time and I believe that Ghandi was probably the only person among them who could have obtained India's freedom from the British Empire.

Another example: Abraham Lincoln was president at the time of the Civil War and through his efforts the Union was saved and slavery was abolished in the USA. I ask you Ted, do you think that if Jimmy Carter was president at that time or for that matter Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover, do you think the same results would have been obtained? I'll tell you here and now that I do not believe for one minute that either of those 3 weak presidents could have achieved the result Lincoln did. On the other hand I believe Teddy Roosevelt, a very strong President would have achieved it, so might John F. Kennedy or Robert F Kennedy but not Teddy Kennedy. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, for defining a term, "Big Being", to represent the qualities certain very capable people who achieved great deeds possess or possessed.

As to "Tedology", I think those are some of the most brilliant words I have ever read. They are inspiring, their meaning is clear and some profound thoughts are condensed into thre short lines. If you were holding classes and presented Tedology in your promo piece, I would be there attending on opening day!!
Lakey

1) No offense to S&L as I know exactly what is meant by the statement.

It takes one to know one, even if only one of the two is aware of "bigness" in the other.

I am only pointing out a "big being" to one is not necessarily perceived as a "big being" to all. The moment a definition is tossed out as a reference, the being gets defined. Definitions are limitations. Can you process without imposing limitations? I can.

My attention goes to another thread about the CoS enemies list. What an asinine thing for a church to do, particularly one that boasts of its ability to help mankind beyond anyone's wildest dreams. This publication is a glorious self-condemnation.

The CoS enemies list contains some very "big beings" according to my perceptions. Some of my friends and associates who I have looked up to the most are on that list. At the same time, there are likely more than a few people on the list whose square cases simply got ground up in the round, cookie-cutter system. And, a small percentage who were actual criminals. But, being a criminal is no guarantee that a person would appear on the list. Reports of CoS protecting rapists, incest practitioners, gun runners, possibly murders, and so on, these people are not on the list, if reports circulating on the net are accurate.

I have had that "big being" BS run on me during reg cycles. It is an appeal to the ego. It is bait in a trap.

2) How would you define the term if a particular being was huge in honesty, love, compassion, truth, granting of beingness to another, and many other qualities of LIFE that do not necessarily appear in the physical universe. Perhaps an old guy mowing his lawn is all of those things and much more, but all some people see is an old guy mowing the lawn.

3) We can only speculate as to what other presidents and leaders might have accomplished if they were thrust into historical events. I tend to agree with you as to the effectiveness of Carter, Hoover, and Coolidge. I put Obama in that group of limp-dicks. He is going to be the worst of all. He is, very much, a product of his times. Perhaps we can meet up in one-hundred years, have a beer or two, and discuss today's events with the advantage of rear-view mirrors. I hope I am wrong about that.

As to Gandhi, Lincoln, and others, I tend to think the events would have brought forth someone else to fill the void had they not existed. No doubt these beings had the potential to be great. Had they been born into other times that greatness might never have manifest. We'll never know.

 

[RogerB]

My present state of awareness is that I do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation.

Not existing is Hell.

Co-creating is Heavenly.

Laughing at one's foibles is a healthy practice; laughing over one's royal f'ups makes one invincible.

This is not standard scientology--whatever that is.

At the risk of a faux paw . . . I am thinking and typing here with a skin full of mulled wine. . . . hey it's pissing with snow outside, and one of the things I learned while skiing the Swiss Alps in my more active younger days was that a good mug of mulled wine works wonders on cold toes!

Ted, I would invite you to re-inspect this statement of yours above : "My present state of awareness is that I do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation."

I too have collided with that phenomena, but in due course found it to be an apparancy after further processing.

Personally, I found it was not that I "do not exist in the absence of contacts, people, places, things, other beings to perceive and experience co-creation" but that the perception and experience attendant to and a part of such relationship and exchange between Beings is absent. And this, of course, can be a colossal loss and feeling of absence.

Indeed, it can be of such an unpleasant magnitude as to induce fear and the want to oneself depart such a circumstance.

However, there is a remedy It can be reversed, and one's volition and power of presence and certainty of one's own Being can be restored in the face of such.

First is to articulate the exact sensation.

Two gradients of processes of it apply.

One is the original "Formula Ten" circa 1959 . . .
Today the process command/question is: "From where could a spiritual Being experience (named Sensation)?" to a win/cog, then, "From where could a spiritual Being create (named Sensation)?" to a win/cog.

If that is too steep a gradient:
"What part of (named sensation) are you willing to experience?" to a win then, "What part of (named sensation) would you rather not experience?" to a win. This based on the old alternate "confront" process.
Then run the same process questions for "Create." (Willing to create/rather not create.)

This restores the ability to "feel alone," or "feel the absence" without any hassle and to remain fully aware of one's true presence even in the face of the absence of others

Taken to its ultimate, you can restore yourself as a knowing source of your condition of existence . . . and not be unduly affected by others' naughtiness (or absence).

OK . . . seems I managed this . . . back to the warmed, wonderfully spiced wine!

RogerB

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Cold toes, warm heart!

Roger- being a Big Spiritual Being, are you creating warm toes on a cold snowy day?

Just had to say it! Love you lots!!!

Is there ever really any absence of contact with others, with the energies of the universe, even in thought? I feel pretty connected to an endless Universal network of some sort, don't you?

That would be my respectful question for Ted. In my experience, no. But everyone's experience and awareness is different, and isn't that a fun thing?!

Look, we're all Spiritual Beings, whether we see ourselves that way, understand it or have any personal reality on it or not. Some of us are just more awake or aware than others of our space and purpose in the Universe. I say be as Big as you can at any given moment!

If you don't feel big, expand and enlarge your perceptions and considerations.

You are what you say (and think, and feel) that you are. I say, BE BIG!
Be a big, loving, shining, truthful, wise, strong Spiritual being...name it and claim it for yourself...it's called self empowerment!

No certs needed! Honestly!

Ted said: "How would you define the term if a particular being was huge in honesty, love, compassion, truth, granting of beingness to another, and many other qualities of LIFE that do not necessarily appear in the physical universe. Perhaps an old guy mowing his lawn is all of those things and much more, but all some people see is an old guy mowing the lawn."

Only one blind to Spiritual perception would miss those qualities in anyone they encountered who truly possessed them, no matter when, where or how. Increase your ability to see, to perceive those qualities, and you will find your life peopled with Big Spiritual Beings!

 

[lkwdblds]

Good post

1) No offense to S&L as I know exactly what is meant by the statement.

It takes one to know one, even if only one of the two is aware of "bigness" in the other.

I am only pointing out a "big being" to one is not necessarily perceived as a "big being" to all. The moment a definition is tossed out as a reference, the being gets defined. Definitions are limitations. Can you process without imposing limitations? I can.

My attention goes to another thread about the CoS enemies list. What an asinine thing for a church to do, particularly one that boasts of its ability to help mankind beyond anyone's wildest dreams. This publication is a glorious self-condemnation.

The CoS enemies list contains some very "big beings" according to my perceptions. Some of my friends and associates who I have looked up to the most are on that list. At the same time, there are likely more than a few people on the list whose square cases simply got ground up in the round, cookie-cutter system. And, a small percentage who were actual criminals. But, being a criminal is no guarantee that a person would appear on the list. Reports of CoS protecting rapists, incest practitioners, gun runners, possibly murders, and so on, these people are not on the list, if reports circulating on the net are accurate.

I have had that "big being" BS run on me during reg cycles. It is an appeal to the ego. It is bait in a trap.

2) How would you define the term if a particular being was huge in honesty, love, compassion, truth, granting of beingness to another, and many other qualities of LIFE that do not necessarily appear in the physical universe. Perhaps an old guy mowing his lawn is all of those things and much more, but all some people see is an old guy mowing the lawn.

3) We can only speculate as to what other presidents and leaders might have accomplished if they were thrust into historical events. I tend to agree with you as to the effectiveness of Carter, Hoover, and Coolidge. I put Obama in that group of limp-dicks. He is going to be the worst of all. He is, very much, a product of his times. Perhaps we can meet up in one-hundred years, have a beer or two, and discuss today's events with the advantage of rear-view mirrors. I hope I am wrong about that.

As to Gandhi, Lincoln, and others, I tend to think the events would have brought forth someone else to fill the void had they not existed. No doubt these beings had the potential to be great. Had they been born into other times that greatness might never have manifest. We'll never know.

There is nothing in your post which I disagree with! You have won me over. By the way, I mentioned that virtuous man mowing his lawn which you describe above just a couple of posts back when I first took up "big being". I described him as a "great" being but he could be big or small as to theta endowment. Did you ever read "The Razor's Edge" by W. Somerset Maugham. It was a classic recommended to me back in 1966 and its lead character, "Larry" is portrayed as one of the wisest men in the world and an enormously big being and he ends up taking a job as a cab driver in New York City in total anonymity at the close of the book. That image of Larry, one of the most enlightened beings on Earth, driving his cab, has never left my mind.
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Chop wood and carry water...

It has been said:

What do you do before enlightenment? Chop wood and carry water.

What do you do after enlightenment? Chop wood and carry water.

Lakey's last post has great resonance of truth and meaning for me.

And I'm just a lowly pre-clear!

 

[lkwdblds]

I beg to differ with you!

It has been said:

What do you do before enlightenment? Chop wood and carry water.

What do you do after enlightenment? Chop wood and carry water.

Lakey's last post has great resonance of truth and meaning for me.

And I'm just a lowly pre-clear!

I bet to differ with you, S & L, you are a Big Being, even if you are not aware of it, but I believe you are aware of it, right??
Lakey