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

[lkwdblds]

I went to your link

This is my latest view of the universe:

The Philosophical Beginning of Universe

To understand it fully it may be necessary to view other posts under the category "philosophy." To get to them simply click on "Philosophy" under CATEGORIES in the left column.

It is interesting that my view keeps on changing.

.

I went to your link and did a quick read (also, I left a comment in response to one of your viewers comments about space).

I found your last sentence most interesting, namely, "Spiritual and Physical are aspects of the same system." This concept was kicked around on your Oh!God! thread as well. Nexus100 is a staunch advocate of this as I recall.

When you expand on that last sentence, I think there is an enormous amount of widsom that may spin off from that analysis. Society in general seems to have comparmented spiritual phenomena and physical phenomena into separate compartments and things have been taught that way for two millenia or so on Earth.

That artificial breakdown must come down so we can move on to the next step of greater knowledge as a culture. Even in the Universities, you see and hear more about Science and Religion combining into one large study and it is now very obvious that the time is ripe for Science and Religion to merge.
Lakey

 

[Vinaire]

Good post, Lakey.

I agree that thinking is for the most part not the way to do it, though your final answer must also be logical to an analytical mind. I'm referring here to the way Dennis Stephens sorted out the Goals material - it had to be done analytically since it was not in the bank - only the wrong answers were in the bank, not the right ones.

I tend to do my session work at 2.00a.m. and I just locate an area of interest and pervade it as fully as can be and it opens up and I get all sorts of information. Then I cogitate and inspect that info to see if it makes sense to me ans only then do I tentatively incorporate it into my view of things.

The following is my current view. It may change as I look more deeply.

The basis of logic is consistency. There can be many different logical systems. They are logical because they are consistent within themselves.

When one is looking, the most visible things are the inconsistencies. As one one continues to look at inconsistencies, they open up to provide views that may lead toward a reduction of that inconsistency and, therefore, toward greater simplicity.

Thinking is an activity separate from and, maybe, parallel to looking. Thinking has to do with associating thoughts to come up with new thoughts. The purpose of thinking seems "to determine where to look." Thinking only provides an approximation and points to some possibility. But it takes actual looking to fully grasp what is there.

Thinking, thus, assists looking. The ultimate awareness comes from looking and not from thinking.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I went to your link and did a quick read (also, I left a comment in response to one of your viewers comments about space).

I found your last sentence most interesting, namely, "Spiritual and Physical are aspects of the same system." This concept was kicked around on your Oh!God! thread as well. Nexus100 is a staunch advocate of this as I recall.

When you expand on that last sentence, I think there is an enormous amount of widsom that may spin off from that analysis. Society in general seems to have comparmented spiritual phenomena and physical phenomena into separate compartments and things have been taught that way for two millenia or so on Earth.

That artificial breakdown must come down so we can move on to the next step of greater knowledge as a culture. Even in the Universities, you see and hear more about Science and Religion combining into one large study and it is now very obvious that the time is ripe for Science and Religion to merge.
Lakey

It is an understanding I got from Buddhism that nothing is permanent... neither what we consider physical, nor what we consider spirtual. Intuitively, we tend to consider something deep within us as permanent, and it comes as a shock to be told by Buddha that even the soul cannot be looked upon as permanent as it is only a construct or appearance.

I have to agree that Buddha's logic lends to a greater consistency. Thus, I have given up the idea that physical comes from spiritual and not the other way around. A more consistent view seems to be that both "spiritual" and "physical' are aspects of the same system.

.

 

[lkwdblds]

very good insight

It is an understanding I got from Buddhism that nothing is permanent... neither what we consider physical, nor what we consider spirtual. Intuitively, we tend to consider something deep within us as permanent, and it comes as a shock to be told by Buddha that even the soul cannot be looked upon as permanent as it is only a construct or appearance.

I have to agree that Buddha's logic lends to a greater consistency. Thus, I have given up the idea that physical comes from spiritual and not the other way around. A more consistent view seems to be that both "spiritual" and "physical' are aspects of the same system.

.

I like your insight from Buddha. I don't fully grasp what you are saying yet but I'm am going to work with it some more to gain further understanding.

In the meantime, I can't help but comment about your thread, "Criticising (not bashing) Scientology". What is going on there? Are you conducting an experiment to see how much bashing people will do?

Nobody on the thread has any agreement with what you are saying, even down to the definition of the most basic words. Very little if any dialogue has taken place there in 57 pages of text. Veda and I both made sensible comments which were ignored by the viewers of the board. I believe you know what your are doing. Is there any chance of letting me know what it is you are trying to accomplish by runing a thread of that nature? My curiousity is really piqued.
Lakey

 

[Vinaire]

I like your insight from Buddha. I don't fully grasp what you are saying yet but I'm am going to work with it some more to gain further understanding.

In the meantime, I can't help but comment about your thread, "Criticising (not bashing) Scientology". What is going on there? Are you conducting an experiment to see how much bashing people will do?

Nobody on the thread has any agreement with what you are saying, even down to the definition of the most basic words. Very little if any dialogue has taken place there in 57 pages of text. Veda and I both made sensible comments which were ignored by the viewers of the board. I believe you know what your are doing. Is there any chance of letting me know what it is you are trying to accomplish by runing a thread of that nature? My curiousity is really piqued.
Lakey

Well, that thread started out innocently based on the premise that bashers are looking for relief and more bashing is not going to provide that relief but actual LOOKING may.

Well that didn't work out. It seems that bashers like to bash. It seems like drug addiction. Drugs provide temporary relief, but then to get the same relief one ends up taking more and more drugs. Similarly, it seems that bashing provides some form of temporary relief, but then to get the same relief one ends up bashing more and more.

Within the thread I felt like bashing the bashers and examine the outcome of that. There seemed to be a part of my identity that wanted to bash too, and I wanted to test the limits. Well, the more I bashed the more bashing I got in return. I started to feel unhappy. I realized that these bashers are actually very unhappy (like any addict). At least I was aware enough to withdraw myself from this cycle of bashing. But I find bashers on that thread to be stuck in that cycle like addicts.

You may call it experiment but it was just an experienece I wanted to have. I wanted to run out that part of my identity that wanted to bash. Time will tell how successful I have been in running it out.

More and more bashing tends to lead toward fatigue. It is not a happy state to be in. I think after a while ESMB may feel fatigued about its bashing of Scientology. You can't keep on coming with new ground for bashing. It just ends up as a circuit.

It is interesting to observe how hardened the viewpoints of bashers become as one bashes them in return.

Bahers are essentially looking through a filter that is made of their unresolved experiences with Scientology. Unless they start becoming aware of that filter and start looking at that filter itself, there is no relief for them. Ultimately, they will get fatiqued and quiet down, but still with no relief.

What I wanted to do initially was to help bring some relief to bashers, and offered LOOKING as a solution. But that didn't work out because what I was recommending appeared to them as "Scientology," and it ended up strengthening their filters more.

So, I am back to the drawing board.

.

 

[Terril park]

Some pictures from my trip to India

Me and travelling companion in our van destined for the scrapyard, which
with much work from me took us to Afghanistan.

One of the minor mishaps when driving onto the hard shoulder
it ......wasn't that hard.

One of the more spectacular events of the trip
which I have no photo's of was our traversal of Iran's biggest Desert,
" The Great Salt Desert" which we traversed in one night. As we'd "economised " by not buying maps, we didn't know we were going to be travelling through a desert or that several people die their each year.



At one point I was sleeping in the back of the van when there was a
big bump, and I looked through the windscreen to see a sheet of water
splashing into the sky. We'd run into a mini pond, or giant puddle 2 feet
deep. Fortunately the only transport these roads were suitable for, a big
truck, came along and pushed us out. I took over driving. We were
travelling in big muddy ruts left by such trucks, and the fastest I could go
was 45 MPH [ insane for the conditions!] where I'd be turning the steering wheel wildly side to side just to keep in a straight line and not be pushed of the road by the big ruts.

You can see how young and stupid we were.

Here is me in the center of the picture next to our small malaysian friend
who we met at the border town of Herat. Later he had wooden blocks
strapped to his feet strapped to his feet so he could reach the pedals for his turn at driving

Our first stop with friends in Holland.

Here is the " Saint", Protima Bedi. She may well one day be accorded that well deserved status.

She majored at this time in doing all the things a well brought up Indian girl wouldn't be seen dead doing, but probably wanted to. I very briefly met her maybe 12 years later in London where she gave a dance performance.
She was surrounded by hordes of teenage indian girls desparate for autographs ect.

At this time, apart from " streaking "across Juhu beach, the most fashionable area of Bombay, she was in an open marriage, smoked and drank whisky had numerous lovers and was married to a Bollywood star.

Then one day she was trying to find a nightclub, and by mistake entered
a concert of dance arranged by one of India's great dance Guru's of the Odissi
style. She begged him to take her on as a student, and he relented.
Unusually she was in her twenties at the time which is way older than dancers
usually start training.

Then some years later she begged, borrowed, used all her influence to get some land in south india and built a place to train dancers, and also grew the food to support them. This academy still exists, and gives tuition free to outstanding pupils of all 7 major indian schools of classicical dance. Guru's
from all styles go there to teach.

She became a "sanyasin" a sort of Monk or Nun who renounces material
possesions, and sex.

I googled her some years ago and was sad to find she and several others
on a pilgramage were killed in a mudslide around 1998.

She is one of the greatest persons I've ever known.

One other story, I travelled to Bombay from Goa together with a swedish girl, and met Protima on the boat. One day her and Protima were travelling in a womans only railway carriage, and there was a sick little 8 year old boy their. An orphan who lived by shining shoes. She asked what was wrong, and he told her he was sick and that it happened every year and then he got better. She took him home, gave him clothes and medicine and he stayed till
he got better. She told him to return if he was ever sick again. She did
this sort of thing on a regular basis.

 

[AnonKat]

Some pictures from my trip to India

Me and travelling companion in our van destined for the scrapyard, which
with much work from me took us to Afghanistan.

One of the minor mishaps when driving onto the hard shoulder
it ......wasn't that hard.

One of the more spectacular events of the trip
which I have no photo's of was our traversal of Iran's biggest Desert,
" The Great Salt Desert" which we traversed in one night. As we'd "economised " by not buying maps, we didn't know we were going to be travelling through a desert or that several people die their each year.



At one point I was sleeping in the back of the van when there was a
big bump, and I looked through the windscreen to see a sheet of water
splashing into the sky. We'd run into a mini pond, or giant puddle 2 feet
deep. Fortunately the only transport these roads were suitable for, a big
truck, came along and pushed us out. I took over driving. We were
travelling in big muddy ruts left by such trucks, and the fastest I could go
was 45 MPH [ insane for the conditions!] where I'd be turning the steering wheel wildly side to side just to keep in a straight line and not be pushed of the road by the big ruts.

You can see how young and stupid we were.

Here is me in the center of the picture next to our small malaysian friend
who we met at the border town of Herat. Later he had wooden blocks
strapped to his feet strapped to his feet so he could reach the pedals for his turn at driving

Our first stop with friends in Holland.

Here is the " Saint", Protima Bedi. She may well one day be accorded that well deserved status.

She majored at this time in doing all the things a well brought up Indian girl wouldn't be seen dead doing, but probably wanted to. I very briefly met her maybe 12 years later in London where she gave a dance performance.
She was surrounded by hordes of teenage indian girls desparate for autographs ect.

At this time, apart from " streaking "across Juhu beach, the most fashionable area of Bombay, she was in an open marriage, smoked and drank whisky had numerous lovers and was married to a Bollywood star.

Then one day she was trying to find a nightclub, and by mistake entered
a concert of dance arranged by one of India's great dance Guru's of the Odissi
style. She begged him to take her on as a student, and he relented.
Unusually she was in her twenties at the time which is way older than dancers
usually start training.

Then some years later she begged, borrowed, used all her influence to get some land in south india and built a place to train dancers, and also grew the food to support them. This academy still exists, and gives tuition free to outstanding pupils of all 7 major indian schools of classicical dance. Guru's
from all styles go there to teach.

She became a "sanyasin" a sort of Monk or Nun who renounces material
possesions, and sex.

I googled her some years ago and was sad to find she and several others
on a pilgramage were killed in a mudslide around 1998.

She is one of the greatest persons I've ever known.

One other story, I travelled to Bombay from Goa together with a swedish girl, and met Protima on the boat. One day her and Protima were travelling in a womans only railway carriage, and there was a sick little 8 year old boy their. An orphan who lived by shining shoes. She asked what was wrong, and he told her he was sick and that it happened every year and then he got better. She took him home, gave him clothes and medicine and he stayed till
he got better. She told him to return if he was ever sick again. She did
this sort of thing on a regular basis.

LOVE IT ! Such bold actions and sheer optimism. Beautiful people you have met and thanks for broadening my knowledge in general.

Little pieces of history told by the adventurer himself.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

and now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27A14S2MdjI

 

[lkwdblds]

Thanks!

Well, that thread started out innocently based on the premise that bashers are looking for relief and more bashing is not going to provide that relief but actual LOOKING may.

Well that didn't work out. It seems that bashers like to bash. It seems like drug addiction. Drugs provide temporary relief, but then to get the same relief one ends up taking more and more drugs. Similarly, it seems that bashing provides some form of temporary relief, but then to get the same relief one ends up bashing more and more.

Within the thread I felt like bashing the bashers and examine the outcome of that. There seemed to be a part of my identity that wanted to bash too, and I wanted to test the limits. Well, the more I bashed the more bashing I got in return. I started to feel unhappy. I realized that these bashers are actually very unhappy (like any addict). At least I was aware enough to withdraw myself from this cycle of bashing. But I find bashers on that thread to be stuck in that cycle like addicts.

You may call it experiment but it was just an experienece I wanted to have. I wanted to run out that part of my identity that wanted to bash. Time will tell how successful I have been in running it out.

More and more bashing tends to lead toward fatigue. It is not a happy state to be in. I think after a while ESMB may feel fatigued about its bashing of Scientology. You can't keep on coming with new ground for bashing. It just ends up as a circuit.

It is interesting to observe how hardened the viewpoints of bashers become as one bashes them in return.

Bahers are essentially looking through a filter that is made of their unresolved experiences with Scientology. Unless they start becoming aware of that filter and start looking at that filter itself, there is no relief for them. Ultimately, they will get fatiqued and quiet down, but still with no relief.

What I wanted to do initially was to help bring some relief to bashers, and offered LOOKING as a solution. But that didn't work out because what I was recommending appeared to them as "Scientology," and it ended up strengthening their filters more.

So, I am back to the drawing board.

.

Vin, I knew there was some method to your perceived "madness" which was not really madness at all. You were going for some goal or understanding but I could not figure out what it could be. Thanks for clearing it up so thoroughly.

Its very helpful to me, when I encounter bashing and illogical responses to posts, I did not have the tech on what was going on but just knew that it was futile to continue. I would employ a 3 strikes and you are out rule. I would debate a basher twice and if they bashed harder, I would just announce that I am ending the debate and giving them the last word and then I would wish them the best and put them on "ignore". I have only done that twice but both experiences achieved the desired result.

Earlier on a recent thread, the OP demanded that someone give an instance where a reader was helped by Scientology and they would point out the my fallacies in my claim. I wrote a true anecdote saying that I benefitted from TR 2 on my first communications course. I said that by just acknowledging at work, everyone started telling me their whole life story and that as a result I was able to date some very attractive young ladies which previously would not date me. Also, my closing ratio on my sales at work markedly improved. The bashers came after me in full force, telling me that I was delusional, that Scientology did not help me but I say it did so for various other reasons than the truth, that whatever help Scientology gave me, I could have gotten that help cheaper from many other sources, etc.

I told the bashers, I lived my life and went through all these experiences and I assure you guys that these things happened exactly as stated and that TR 2 did actually help me enormously. They still insisted it not only did not help me but actually harmed me. I took offence stating that they did not know me, never met me, never spoke to me and yet they claim to know more about my life than I know myself, from having lived it. They rejected that argument as well and bashed even harder with degrading remarks, four letter words and slurs against my character.

At that point, I woulnd up affairs with all the bashers but one particularly odious one I placed on "ignore."

It is frightening that we share the planet with these guys and their ability to look is so miniscule as to be nearly totally missing. Many of them are even claiming to be scientists, engineers and/or scholars. This is an unpleasant state of affairs, to be on the planet and on ESMB with this class of individual. Thank goodness that so far, none of them have been attracted to this thread!
Lakey

 

[Vinaire]

Bashers seem to behave ok, and even jocular, if one goes along with them. But if one diagrees with them then all hell breaks loose.

There is no tolerance of opposing viewpoints in their hearts.

.

 

[Leon]

Vin, there was a post of yours that I was looking for the other day and couldn't find. Something you once said that sort of bothered me at the time but it took a good six months before I suddenly twigged on what it was. So maybe if I lay it out here as I recall it you can correct me, etc, if I had it wrong.

You were talking/writing about Brahma and Nirvana and how the easterners go about attaining it. I think that's what it was about. Anyway, you spoke of the guys recognising that they were not anything they could be aware of - neti, neti, neti - not this, not that - and that in this way they would eventually have tossed off everything they were noty and end up as just being themselves.

I my have got it wrong but that is the essence of what I think you wrote.

Now, one thing that has always made me dubious of the eastern path is that it seemed to end up with such low havingness and doingness in its devotees. Spirit is life and greater spirituality should mean a greater sability to live life, and not a reduced existence eked out on a montaintop and begging for food from strangers. This is one of the things which attracted me to Scientology - at last here was a spiritual path that wanted its members to live the good life.

So then, the "neti, neti, neti" approach seems to me is 180 degrees wrong. One should approach the universe with a different approach.

Some years ago - about 6 - I went over the Scio dictionary and re-wrote my own one. Many of the definitions in the Tech Dict were for me quite inadequate and so I re-wrote it, pretty much on the basis I described above - I pervade the area and "become" the concept and then verbalise it. So for example the word Logic was used in a few posts above - what is Logic? Well I found a meaning that works for me. here it is from my dictionary:

Logic is an exact synonym for Sanity; it is the ability to exactly identify linked Causes and Effects in a given universe. In the Mest universe it is the ability to exactly identify linked Causes and Effects in Space in the past, the present and the future. In a universe of mathematics it would manifest differently but the linked causes and Effects would still be there. Illogic and Insanity are the inability to do the above.

That's just an aside. More to the point is my definition of Havingness: The feeling of validity and “hereness” one gets when one’s postulates are seen to be effective. One of the most important concepts in Scientology. It could be simply defined as ARC with the environment. It is what comes after Beingness and Doingness, both of which lead to an outreach into the environment in some way.

More precisely, havingness is the willingness and ability to reach into a mass, or space, or energy, or time, or significance, - pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards it, coupled with the willingness and ability to not reach into a mass or space or energy or time, pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards if one so chooses. Both have to be present, as well as the freedom to self-determinedly choose between them.

Havingness is an exact synonym for Intelligence. People who do well in IQ tests are willing to reach, duplicate, participate and so on, in the little puzzles they give you to solve on those tests. A person with a high havingness in any given area, be it rocket science or rugby, will manifest a high degree of intelligence and competence in that area.


So the opposite of neti, neti, neti, is increased havingness. To the extent of being able to be all of the universe, own it all, have it all, and so on. Only by embracing it and accepting it fully - including particularly the avoided and detested parts of it, does one become free of it. This is straight Scientology, and far from Scio being in some alignment with the Buddhist approach, it is in fact its total diametric opposite.

Your comments?

 

[Leon]

Later I will reply to your Philosophical beginings of the Universe, which also contains an error in my opinion.

 

[FoTi]

Bashers seem to behave ok,and even jocular, if one goes along with them. But if one diagrees with them then all hell breaks loose.

There is no tolerance of opposing viewpoints in their hearts .

.

You don't agree with me?

 

[Vinaire]

You don't agree with me?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Vin, there was a post of yours that I was looking for the other day and couldn't find. Something you once said that sort of bothered me at the time but it took a good six months before I suddenly twigged on what it was. So maybe if I lay it out here as I recall it you can correct me, etc, if I had it wrong.

You were talking/writing about Brahma and Nirvana and how the easterners go about attaining it. I think that's what it was about. Anyway, you spoke of the guys recognising that they were not anything they could be aware of - neti, neti, neti - not this, not that - and that in this way they would eventually have tossed off everything they were noty and end up as just being themselves.

I my have got it wrong but that is the essence of what I think you wrote.

Now, one thing that has always made me dubious of the eastern path is that it seemed to end up with such low havingness and doingness in its devotees. Spirit is life and greater spirituality should mean a greater sability to live life, and not a reduced existence eked out on a montaintop and begging for food from strangers. This is one of the things which attracted me to Scientology - at last here was a spiritual path that wanted its members to live the good life.

So then, the "neti, neti, neti" approach seems to me is 180 degrees wrong. One should approach the universe with a different approach.

Some years ago - about 6 - I went over the Scio dictionary and re-wrote my own one. Many of the definitions in the Tech Dict were for me quite inadequate and so I re-wrote it, pretty much on the basis I described above - I pervade the area and "become" the concept and then verbalise it. So for example the word Logic was used in a few posts above - what is Logic? Well I found a meaning that works for me. here it is from my dictionary:

Logic is an exact synonym for Sanity; it is the ability to exactly identify linked Causes and Effects in a given universe. In the Mest universe it is the ability to exactly identify linked Causes and Effects in Space in the past, the present and the future. In a universe of mathematics it would manifest differently but the linked causes and Effects would still be there. Illogic and Insanity are the inability to do the above.

That's just an aside. More to the point is my definition of Havingness: The feeling of validity and “hereness” one gets when one’s postulates are seen to be effective. One of the most important concepts in Scientology. It could be simply defined as ARC with the environment. It is what comes after Beingness and Doingness, both of which lead to an outreach into the environment in some way.

More precisely, havingness is the willingness and ability to reach into a mass, or space, or energy, or time, or significance, - pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards it, coupled with the willingness and ability to not reach into a mass or space or energy or time, pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards if one so chooses. Both have to be present, as well as the freedom to self-determinedly choose between them.

Havingness is an exact synonym for Intelligence. People who do well in IQ tests are willing to reach, duplicate, participate and so on, in the little puzzles they give you to solve on those tests. A person with a high havingness in any given area, be it rocket science or rugby, will manifest a high degree of intelligence and competence in that area.


So the opposite of neti, neti, neti, is increased havingness. To the extent of being able to be all of the universe, own it all, have it all, and so on. Only by embracing it and accepting it fully - including particularly the avoided and detested parts of it, does one become free of it. This is straight Scientology, and far from Scio being in some alignment with the Buddhist approach, it is in fact its total diametric opposite.

Your comments?

Let me first say that my viewpoint has changed considerably since I wrote the post that you are referring to. So I shall address your point from the viewpoint I now have.

I no longer think in terms of "easterners" and "westerners" just as I no longer think in terms of "spiritual" and "physical." My thinking is more in terms of the whole system. There has been a lot of give and take between East and West. Both sides have their strong points. There is definitely a difference in the thoughts that evolved in the East and those that evolved in the west; but they both are part of the same system.

I see "neti, neti" as a process to recognize the identification one is making with one's considerations. When one makes that recognition, the identification goes away and one's viewpoint is less restricted to that degree.

The point I am making is that one is not as-ising what is out there. One is simply as-ising the identification with what is out there. Thus, the havingness increases with this process. It does not decrease.

More later...

.

 

[me myself & i]

Let me first say that my viewpoint has changed considerably since I wrote the post that you are referring to. So I shall address your point from the viewpoint I now have...

The point I am making is that one is not as-ising what is out there. One is simply as-ising the identification with what is out there.
More later...

.

Dimes to donuts says if you can find your way to substituting the word I for the word One above, your intellectual honesty would be admired round the whole world. Ok, so maybe not round the whole world, but certainly round the whole world of ESMB. Ok, so maybe not round the whole world of ESMB, but at least around the freezone section of the whole world of ESMB.

just sayin...

mm&i

 

[lkwdblds]

The guy who played Hitler really had that role down pat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27A14S2MdjI

Wow, the actor playing Hitler really had that role down pat!! If you were Hitler's C/S what actions would you have ordered run on him! Those subtitles were hilarious.

I never saw anything near that violent take place in the Sea Org but I wouldn't be surprised if things worse than that occurred at Int Base (Threre is no record of Hitler ever striking a German soldier or Officer for example).

The females, in uniforms, listening in dismay out in the hallway reminded me a little of the Sea Org as well as all the spiffy uniforms of different types being worn by the Nazi officers, representing the German Army, Navy, Airforce, SS and so forth.

The movie with the Scientology sub titles pokes fun at this dramatization but we should remember the terrible suffering, death and destruction taking place at the time this enactment was actually taking place. One good thing was that about 1 week after the actual occurance of this movie scene, the German forces laid down their arms and surrendered.
Lakey
P.S. - I wanted to thank Terril for his extremely interesting pictorial essay of his travels in India. It was a refreshing change to be treated to the post.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Vin, I knew there was some method to your perceived "madness" which was not really madness at all. You were going for some goal or understanding but I could not figure out what it could be. Thanks for clearing it up so thoroughly.

Its very helpful to me, when I encounter bashing and illogical responses to posts, I did not have the tech on what was going on but just knew that it was futile to continue. I would employ a 3 strikes and you are out rule. I would debate a basher twice and if they bashed harder, I would just announce that I am ending the debate and giving them the last word and then I would wish them the best and put them on "ignore". I have only done that twice but both experiences achieved the desired result.

Earlier on a recent thread, the OP demanded that someone give an instance where a reader was helped by Scientology and they would point out the my fallacies in my claim. I wrote a true anecdote saying that I benefitted from TR 2 on my first communications course. I said that by just acknowledging at work, everyone started telling me their whole life story and that as a result I was able to date some very attractive young ladies which previously would not date me. Also, my closing ratio on my sales at work markedly improved. The bashers came after me in full force, telling me that I was delusional, that Scientology did not help me but I say it did so for various other reasons than the truth, that whatever help Scientology gave me, I could have gotten that help cheaper from many other sources, etc.

I told the bashers, I lived my life and went through all these experiences and I assure you guys that these things happened exactly as stated and that TR 2 did actually help me enormously. They still insisted it not only did not help me but actually harmed me. I took offence stating that they did not know me, never met me, never spoke to me and yet they claim to know more about my life than I know myself, from having lived it. They rejected that argument as well and bashed even harder with degrading remarks, four letter words and slurs against my character.

At that point, I woulnd up affairs with all the bashers but one particularly odious one I placed on "ignore."

It is frightening that we share the planet with these guys and their ability to look is so miniscule as to be nearly totally missing. Many of them are even claiming to be scientists, engineers and/or scholars. This is an unpleasant state of affairs, to be on the planet and on ESMB with this class of individual. Thank goodness that so far, none of them have been attracted to this thread!
Lakey

I won't stay and mess up your thread lkwdblds, but I will tell you how surprising (to me) the above paragraph is.

I am not easily shocked but this post and that specific paragraph has shocked me.

I had no idea you felt this way and I wonder why you choose to post on ESMB when you have such disdain for it.

 

[Leon]

I see "neti, neti" as a recognition of the identification one is making with one's considerations. When one makes that recognition, the identification goes away and one's viewpoint is less restricted to that degree.

The point I am making is that one is not as-ising what is out there. One is simply as-ising the identification with what is out there. Thus, the havingness increases with this process. It does not decrease.

More later...

.

One has to be willing and able to totally BE everything that is "out there", pervade it, participate in its beingness, become it fully and then grow beyond it by expanding even further. The moment you make an "I am not that" decision you abandon your responsibility for it and your havingness will drop.

 

[Ted]

Run Out / Run In

Many years ago, long before any participation in dianetics or scientology on my part, I had purchased some books to familiarize myself with the subjects. Several of those books, Problems of Work, New Slant On Life, and Fundamentals of Thought I obtained in paperback. I have since lost the copies. I recall reading a line or two where the author used a metaphor of someone such as an evangilist directing a person's attention to god in the sky whilst putting a hand in that person's pocket to relieve him of it contents. It was one of those things that resonated with me as I have seen it happen. I have since searched for that statement in the books I have, but remain unable to locate it.

Now it could have been that Hubbard did not write that. I was reading other things at the time. It could be one of those potentially incendiary statements that have been purged from the scriptures -- like the man was creatively writing away and up pops one of his own overts.

Nevertheless, the idea sticks with me.

The focus of auditing, including much of its marketing, is running things out. That's the metaphor. That's the magician (auditor) directing your attention (to the sky) with a hand in your pocket (bank). I am left wondering what gets run in.

One observation is that a little bit of auditing often begets additional need for auditing. You will hear the registrars and tech personnel say that "Your next level is keying in," "Clears are at risk," and so on. A flow 1 can stimulate the need for a flow 2. This is all positioned as necessary to clearing the bank.

That was the preamble. Here is the issue: People who are susceptible to being authoritarian or know-best or bigoted, are aided and abetted by certain auditing commands/questions.

Here is an example: From where could you communicate to a (butcher, baker, candlestick maker)? No problem. An individual can answer that with a degree of conviction and certainty.

From where could a (butcher, baker, candlestick maker) communicate to you? Or ... communicate to others?

Here's the beef: If the pc is inclined to granting of beingness, granting life and self-determinism to others, granting power of choice, and so on, there's limited liability. But note, it is a supposition when, where, how others might communicate. The appropriate auditing question would be, "From where do you suppose a (butcher, baker, candlestick maker) might communicate to you?"

Additionally, there are processes where flow 0 makes little or no sense. There are processes where flow 0 would be best and in support of the other commands of a process if it were run first. "If you were a (butcher, baker, candlestick maker) from where might you communicate?" Affinity being the opening corner of the ARC triangle, this F-0 process would best come first.

Having seen many people attest to Grade 0 who could not communicate per the EP of the Grade, the word "could" is apt to make a liar of a person when placed in a real life situation. "Might" is a better choice as it provokes possibility thinking and action without making a person wrong if he chooses not to or is afraid to communicate when the life situation arises.

There are other finer points to discuss re: running something in while running something out. Thought I'd take some flak on this one first.