The Second Coming of LRH

[Mark A. Baker]

So what then is the connection Mark? between the Being (the thetan?) that had been Ron Hubbard and, well, Ron Hubbard himself?

It's the difference between a "human being" and a "spiritual being". Human denotes a specific "composite". It has specific attributes associated with times, places & cultures and other factors. Such evocations of human individuality serve simultaneously as limits upon the capabilities & expressions of spirit. This is a principle generally recognized and expressed in a variety of spiritual traditions. It partly explains the sense of freedom and joy which often manifests during episodes of spiritual release.

If an analogy would help, think of an artist creating different expressive works. Perhaps different paintings from the same artist from different stylistic periods of his career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso-suzanne_bloch.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PicassoGuernica.jpg


L.Ron Hubbard was a creation of his times, events, & culture. He ceased to exist and those conditions no longer apply. Any further works by the "artist" will be reflective of different circumstances.


Mark A. Baker

 

[me myself & i]

It's the difference between a "human being" and a "spiritual being". Human denotes a specific "composite". It has specific attributes associated with times, places & cultures and other factors. Such evocations of human individuality serve simultaneously as limits upon the capabilities & expressions of spirit. This is a principle generally recognized and expressed in a variety of spiritual traditions. It partly explains the sense of freedom and joy which often manifests during episodes of spiritual release.

If an analogy would help, think of an artist creating different expressive works. Perhaps different paintings from the same artist from different stylistic periods of his career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso-suzanne_bloch.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PicassoGuernica.jpg


L.Ron Hubbard was a creation of his times, events, & culture. He ceased to exist and those conditions no longer apply. Any further works by the "artist" will be reflective of different circumstances.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you. That was quite nicely expressed Mark.

The problem I sense I have with your words has to do with the problem I had with Ron (and his speech). Which I realize is unfair to both you and to myself. For Ron is gone.

I am left to wonder: if a devil created a heaven on earth would I allow my children to enter into it?

And truth be known, I don't know (just yet).

Would you?

Your ability to distinguish between the creator of a thing and the thing itself is beyond mine. Which is why I tend to wrestle with myself when it comes to such profound issues as we discuss here. Calling you to the mat. So to speak. With me.

At best I can only say I believe Love is the Underlying Force of it all, and of Us all. And take refuge in that. For the time being.

On the left I see Goodness & on the right I see Truth. Yet in the middle I seem to be have been born spiritually blind. Which blindness is a deep spiritual wound, for me.

If there is a wedding on earth between these two Spiritual Giants of the Humanity of Being, I seem to have been uninvited to the reception.

Perhaps it was a mere oversight in regard to the guest list.

Perhaps not.

Lol.

Thanks again Mark.

Love,

mm&i

 

[Hatshepsut]

I think LRH is even benevolent towards Miscavige. After all Miscavige pretty well keeps the show running. Miscavige is too nervous though. Otherwise he is a devout Hubbardian who makes the best out of what Hubbard left and Hubbard wanted. I think he maybe even treats him like a son since many of LRH's children were such Scientology-failures. I think also that LRH has not many good feelings towards MSH. Instead he would still favour Barbara Kaye.

LRH probably doesn't like the FZ since the FZ is not on the Org Board and LRH wants a castle not some far away villages. I guess it has something to do with the org board being a manifestation of the "inner thetan structure" where you can have automaticities and liberties but could exhibit control whenever needed (= comb through and weed out). Has something to do with orgs representing OTs (= knowing and willing alignment and the possibility to return from fun/useless play whenever one wants).

Moreover he probably doesn't like some weirdos in the FZ.

Having said that: LRH probably doesn't like the discrepancy between the concentration on the new beautiful buildings and the lack of concentration on beautiful auditing. Shining buildings without shining PCs are like shining shoes for robots.

You are very good at assigning attributes.

 

[Hatshepsut]

The human being L.Ron Hubbard died. He is dead. If the being who previously created that identity returns in human form in the present or future, he will create a new and different identity. It will have a different body with different physical capabilities. This will include changes to the bodies neurological & hormonal systems both of which strongly affect development & behavior.

Similarly the being would have a completely different family, culture, and educational exposure. It won't be born & raised in the early 20th century u.s.. It won't experience the many different life events and social relationships that served as "formative experiences" for the previous identity. Such influences strongly affect the development of life long attitudes and characteristics. Much of the mentality of a person is determined by their cultural & educational background. The immediacy of such factors makes their effect most prominent. Any personality characteristics present in an individual stemming from "past life influences" tend to be subtler and less pronounced.

Were the being who had been "LRH" to return in another life, he would have very little obviously in common with "Ron", either physically or mentally.


Mark A. Baker

I have experienced what you are saying here Mark.

 

[Hatshepsut]

The statement is pretty simple. I state that LRH 2 would be 80%+ of LRH 1 (with the 20% being mainly his missing dark features) while you maybe state that LRH 2 is 10%+ of LRH 1.

Or how much % do you think is left of "ROne"?

So we're breaking down Ron algebraically? I say he will be following the same line plot for why he created a self to enter into this universe in the first place. I think it is natural to create new goals to escape old goals. To carry you away from them so you can destimulate. To me this means he will prpbably create an identitiy different enough to prevent aspects of the old persona from breaching into his 'new' one. There is an integrity to every new 'assumption'. It should be unviolated. The third right of the being in this universe.. next to the right to one's own self-determinism and the right to leave the game.

 

[Veda]

"I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last 80 trillion years."

L. Ron Hubbard, 'Mission into Time'

 

[knn]

"I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last 80 trillion years."

Hey, don't miss the whole quote:

I'm not in a position at the present moment to give you a complete history of it but I know quite a bit about it. I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last 80 trillion years. The small details of it like what I ate for breakfast two trillion years ago are liable to go astray here and there, but otherwise it's no mystery to me.
​

and from the lecture "Auditing Comm Cycles" 06 aug 1963:

Now, I'll give you an idea - an idea of this. For instance, I know - I know where I was and who I was, and know with good certainty, who I was and where I was in the last eighty trillion years. See, I know that; that's not much of an argument with me. But the small details of that are liable to go fritter-fritter here and there. You know, what did I have for breakfast two trillion years ago? No. Nix, man. Nah. Did I even eat, you see? That sort of thing is getting pretty dim.
​

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Your ability to distinguish between the creator of a thing and the thing itself is beyond mine. Which is why I tend to wrestle with myself when it comes to such profound issues as we discuss here. Calling you to the mat. So to speak. With me.

Try listening to the music of Richard Wagner. A genuinely disgusting human being who is responsible for some of the most sublime music in the western idiom. Or, study the calculus, principle life work of Isacc Newton, notorious religious bigot and mathematical genius. Or Augustus Caesar, opportunist extraordinaire and founder of the Pax Romanum, the international state of relative peace & order which culminated in the unification & expansion of those western values from which modern liberal democracies stem.

No one I've ever met was "perfectly good" and many of the apparently "bad people" nonetheless were able to create marvels of ingenuity & spirit.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

If you stopped PR-ing for just one day, would your head explode?

 

[Leon]

The human being L.Ron Hubbard died. He is dead. If the being who previously created that identity returns in human form in the present or future, he will create a new and different identity. It will have a different body with different physical capabilities. This will include changes to the bodies neurological & hormonal systems both of which strongly affect development & behavior.

Similarly the being would have a completely different family, culture, and educational exposure. It won't be born & raised in the early 20th century u.s.. It won't experience the many different life events and social relationships that served as "formative experiences" for the previous identity. Such influences strongly affect the development of life long attitudes and characteristics. Much of the mentality of a person is determined by their cultural & educational background. The immediacy of such factors makes their effect most prominent. Any personality characteristics present in an individual stemming from "past life influences" tend to be subtler and less pronounced.

Were the being who had been "LRH" to return in another life, he would have very little obviously in common with "Ron", either physically or mentally.


Mark A. Baker

This is all complete assumption. Your opinion, acceptable as such but no more than that.

The guy is free to do as he likes. The least we can do is to let him. Give him the space to sort his own shit out.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This is all complete assumption. Your opinion, acceptable as such but no more than that.

Hubbard is dead, Leon. Even the church admits that. The certificate was issued, the body evidently cremated. Fini.

Next time, if there is to be a next time, "he" won't be "Hubbard". "He" may well not even be a "he".

You are free to hold what beliefs you hold to be dear.

Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Then Hubbard's accounts of having full memory, and the attainment of his own knowing immortality, are fraudulent.

Scientology's 'bait and switch' is supposed to occur, mainly, behind closed doors. How long do you think you can get away with it on ESMB? Do you think that you are *that* slick?

 

[Zinjifar]

But, for someone who is a 'Hubbardite', hearing the 'Old Man' calmly announce that *He* remembers 80 trillion years of past lives reinforces his own delusions.

'How can you doubt your past lives? Ron proved they're true!'

Zinj

 

[Leon]

Hubbard is dead, Leon. Even the church admits that. The certificate was issued, the body evidently cremated. Fini.

Next time, if there is to be a next time, "he" won't be "Hubbard". "He" may well not even be a "he".

You are free to hold what beliefs you hold to be dear.

Mark A. Baker

I think your post manifests more beliefs being held onto than mine does. Of course he's dead. That's why I suggest letting go of the entire idea of who/what/when/how he is "being" now and in the future. Let "him" be/do/have as "he" wishes without all of our speculation.

 

[Veda]

Looking at standard "Church" of Scientology presentations, meant for "wogs," and for "raw meat," the line is usually "Mr. Hubbard, after completing his research, his work done, departed this life in January 1986."

The "Ron is dead" statement most often appears, sometimes out of exasperation, in attempts to shut down ("critical") discussions of "Ron." "Hey, he's dead!"

However, do Scientologists believe that "Ron is dead"?

In January 1986, Scientologists were told that Ron had "causatively discarded the body because it had become an impediment to his research," etc. He certainly wasn't "dead," except as a body.

Did the Scientology insiders believe this? Apparently not - at least not the "causatively discarded" part. Robert Vaughn Young, after leaving Scientology, provided an account of this, and the discussions re. "What to tell the rank and file about LRH?" Young also told of his amazement at watching the rank and file accept - with apparent enthusiasm - the fabrication of "causatively discarded," blah blah, "research," etc.

So, the Scientology insiders believed one thing; the rank and file were told (and believed, apparently) another thing; and the outsiders - the "wogs" - were told yet another thing.

This tends to create an air of tension.

For example, a Scientologist going on about the wonders of "Scientology tech," and "Clear" and "OT," and recommending enthusiastically the Scientology "Bridge," if asked annoying questions about Hubbard, might blurt out, "Hey, he's dead!"

"Huh? Sure he's dead physically, but what about the 'Bridge', shouldn't Ron be an Operating Thetan?"

And then, typically - especially from a Scientology PR person or sales person - there follows an assortment of rationalizations and double-talk that would make your head spin.

It's not easy being a Scientologist these days.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Hey, don't miss the whole quote:

I'm not in a position at the present moment to give you a complete history of it but I know quite a bit about it. I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last 80 trillion years. The small details of it like what I ate for breakfast two trillion years ago are liable to go astray here and there, but otherwise it's no mystery to me.
​

and from the lecture "Auditing Comm Cycles" 06 aug 1963:

Now, I'll give you an idea - an idea of this. For instance, I know - I know where I was and who I was, and know with good certainty, who I was and where I was in the last eighty trillion years. See, I know that; that's not much of an argument with me. But the small details of that are liable to go fritter-fritter here and there. You know, what did I have for breakfast two trillion years ago? No. Nix, man. Nah. Did I even eat, you see? That sort of thing is getting pretty dim.
​

Oh see, there he goes again! Its always this same approximate date with him. Of course he's likely referring to the 'fact' that he is the immortal ELRON... Galactic Commander.... as this is his stable unchanging identity. The prior confusion to that stable datum must've been immense.

 

[NeXTep]

Hubbard is dead, Leon. Even the church admits that. The certificate was issued, the body evidently cremated. Fini.

Next time, if there is to be a next time, "he" won't be "Hubbard". "He" may well not even be a "he".

You are free to hold what beliefs you hold to be dear.

Mark A. Baker

I agree with you on this. Though have no proof that it must be so, but to me it would be the only sensible solution to be able to experience a new lifetime without a previous one dragging you down. In any case I also believe that your real spiritual awareness level is probably the only "thing" you can carry forward to your next existence.