Theory of Everything
ho...@lightlink.com
THEORY OF EVERYTHING
Here is one possible way to derive a theory of
everything.
Define Justice.
Consider that Justice reigns at all times.
Explain why things are the way they are from the above two items.
The above is a non trivial game, not to be played by
fools and idiots.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon Nov 20 23:44:12 EST 2006
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore402.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRWKEHD4RxM7qO/z1AQH5cAH/Uy5RGDHLZiaIk3sLc7/EwnUszPTfIDSF
IlJfnI5KXCtC7bpSA2Pq4IANdJLSiXl2h6Czb+j/tIH8DYJxR/4O/w==
=3MLz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mearvk
mover. This, I think, is impossible. One would have to exist before the
prime movement. This is a contradiction of definition.
Mearv
Homer Wilson Smith
Well in theory one does exist prior to the prime movement because
each of us is a facet of the primer mover. God is a multi I-am being,
each I-am'er is an incarnated or not incarnated being.
My suggestion indicates that perhaps what keeps time going for
the being is an upset with things as they are, specifically an
Injustice of magnitude.
Thus by studying the nature of 'injustice', one might be able to
blow one's considerations on the matter, and thus exit one's
compulsive involvement in time.
Homer
>Mearv
--
Homer Wilson Smith
>I can see it now-------
>The Church Of Figgurring It Outness
Figure figure is question asking, usually self answering
questions.
Homer
mearvk
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> mearvk (mea...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >A theory of everything would require an understanding of the prime
> >mover. This, I think, is impossible. One would have to exist before the
> >prime movement. This is a contradiction of definition.
>
> Well in theory one does exist prior to the prime movement because
> each of us is a facet of the primer mover. God is a multi I-am being,
> each I-am'er is an incarnated or not incarnated being.
>
> My suggestion indicates that perhaps what keeps time going for
> the being is an upset with things as they are, specifically an
> Injustice of magnitude.
>
> Thus by studying the nature of 'injustice', one might be able to
> blow one's considerations on the matter, and thus exit one's
> compulsive involvement in time.
>
> Homer
The thing about each of us being a part of God is that in a state of
perfection (before prime movement) nothing has been created yet. While
I agree that each of us has this infinite potential there is an
immediate problem (of magnitude) when one tries to explain something
from total nothing and vice versa.
While I think you are generally correct in saying that justice is a
major button for most thetans I do not think that it is the most
general of buttons. Resistance of an isness gets you a more solid
isness, right? LRH went over this but I'll just say that what you
resist you get. So finding the most basic button on resistance would be
the thing you are after. In my experience I would conclude that thetans
are most scared of their own beingness (motionless, nothingess). That
is my idea of a the basic on the chain of resistance.
You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
Conceive a static.
Tolerance of nothing.
Tolerance of no games.
Tolerance of no time.
Tolerance of no postulates.
Tolerance of no space.
Tolerance of no energy.
The idea of injustice would quickly run out. If one could tolerate
native state then an injustice of any magnitude would be also very
tolerable. LRH went the other way on this: give them havingness so they
don't get scared of their native state. I think either way would work
though.
Mearv
mearvk
Frontier guy wrote:
> mearvk wrote:
>
> >
> > You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
> >
> > Conceive a static.
> > Tolerance of nothing.
> > Tolerance of no games.
> > Tolerance of no time.
> > Tolerance of no postulates.
> > Tolerance of no space.
> > Tolerance of no energy.
>
I'd just ask for questions which ask the PC to tolerate the qualities
of a static.
What could you do without?
What could you be farther away from?
What would you be willing to as-is?
What matter/energy/space/time would you be willing to as-is?
A command like "Give me something important" would as-is the reasons
for playing the game of life, in the direction of nothingness. "Give me
a time you were responsible" would as-is the responsibility off a
thetan and move him back to native state.
Of course sitting completely still is also a native-state tolerance
process. But basically the as-isness of isness is of course nothing. So
there can be no theory of everything since everything is a lie and a
total all-encompassing perfectly accurate theory of everything would
have to acknowledge this. You see how this would be a problem? A theory
itself is a thing and therefore would have to be imperfect. A thetan
that KNOWS, IS. It doesn't DO anything it just IS. There is no universe
to contemplate as it is before the prime movement. It (the thetan) is
outside of time.
mearvk
Pip
> Of course sitting completely still is also a native-state tolerance
> process. But basically the as-isness of isness is of course nothing. So
> there can be no theory of everything since everything is a lie and a
> total all-encompassing perfectly accurate theory of everything would
> have to acknowledge this. You see how this would be a problem? A theory
> itself is a thing and therefore would have to be imperfect. A thetan
> that KNOWS, IS. It doesn't DO anything it just IS. There is no universe
> to contemplate as it is before the prime movement. It (the thetan) is
> outside of time.
>
> mearvk
Well said. Experience of consciouness itself (call it truth, God,
existence or native state) is a non-verbal knowing and is not-a-thing.
It is transcendental. Until one can get that, one will be trapped in
trying to explain the universe in terms of itself, while it arises from
something beyond itself. All words about native state must treat it as a
thing, which it is not, so all one can really do is point to it, hint at
it, or imply it, like the Zen masters do. The prime mover is a prime
illusionist who first mocks up the dreamer (separate illusionary ego
viewpoint, I, me, mine, etc) and then the dream. The illusion is the
lie, the injustice, because it is not "right". And the illusion
contains all the dualities.
> You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
I believe this is unnecessary. What is intolerable on this road is the
fear of loss. Native state is not something to tolerate, it's who you
really are. When you look into the question of who you are it's the
million tons of other garbage that comes up that's hard to tolerate.
Pip
--
"I aim to misbehave"
ted_c...@hotmail.com
> Frontier guy wrote:
> > mearvk wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
> > >
> > > Conceive a static.
> > > Tolerance of nothing.
> > > Tolerance of no games.
> > > Tolerance of no time.
> > > Tolerance of no postulates.
> > > Tolerance of no space.
> > > Tolerance of no energy.
> >
> > What method of running would one use?
>
> I'd just ask for questions which ask the PC to tolerate the qualities
> of a static.
>
> What could you do without?
> What could you be farther away from?
> What would you be willing to as-is?
> What matter/energy/space/time would you be willing to as-is?
Looks like there's another theoretician among us. You aren't much of an
auditor are you?
"Conceive a Static" is close to but not the same as, "Think about a
thetan." Static is the default position that pc's sometimes go to on
their own. It is unauditable. Your suggestions are either reverse
processing (Black Scientology) or an attempt to audit a no-games
condition.
>
> A command like "Give me something important" would as-is the reasons
> for playing the game of life, in the direction of nothingness. "Give me
> a time you were responsible" would as-is the responsibility off a
> thetan and move him back to native state.
Just get some Grades processing from someone that knows what they are
doing.
>
> Of course sitting completely still is also a native-state tolerance
> process. But basically the as-isness of isness is of course nothing. So
> there can be no theory of everything since everything is a lie and a
> total all-encompassing perfectly accurate theory of everything would
> have to acknowledge this. You see how this would be a problem? A theory
> itself is a thing and therefore would have to be imperfect. A thetan
> that KNOWS, IS. It doesn't DO anything it just IS. There is no universe
> to contemplate as it is before the prime movement. It (the thetan) is
> outside of time.
>
> mearvk
Knowing is a have.
A Static that Knows is not a Static at all; it is Static "Plus" and, in
Scientology, this is called a thetan.
--
Ted
Michael
<ted_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hp8ozl.18dvgvr1qfbuniN%ted_c...@hotmail.com...
Thanks for that Ted.
Mike
mearvk
Pip,
I was happy to read your first paragraph. :-) Sometimes I feel like I'm
the only one who gets this. About your second paragraph: basically
native state is all about loss. If one really did become a doingless
thetan then the thetan would have no way to start doing again (having
lost his awareness). Thus native state would be the greatest loss
imaginable - the loss of the ability to create. Do you follow? But even
more simply, native state is a havingnessless state of being. Thus
tolerance of native-state processes are the highest harmonic on
havingness processes.
mearvk
muldoon
ted_c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> mearvk <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frontier guy wrote:
> > > mearvk wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
> > > >
> > > > Conceive a static.
> > > > Tolerance of nothing.
> > > > Tolerance of no games.
> > > > Tolerance of no time.
> > > > Tolerance of no postulates.
> > > > Tolerance of no space.
> > > > Tolerance of no energy.
> > >
> > > What method of running would one use?
> >
> > I'd just ask for questions which ask the PC to tolerate the qualities
> > of a static.
> >
> > What could you do without?
> > What could you be farther away from?
> > What would you be willing to as-is?
> > What matter/energy/space/time would you be willing to as-is?
>
>
> Looks like there's another theoretician among us. You aren't much of an
> auditor are you?
>
Mearvk is running some sort of lame C of $ "probe the squirrels"
program; he isn't likely to respond when "he" doesn't think something
can be used to forward whatever it is happens to be the objective of
the program.
> "Conceive a Static" is close to but not the same as, "Think about a
> thetan." Static is the default position that pc's sometimes go to on
> their own. It is unauditable. Your suggestions are either reverse
> processing (Black Scientology) or an attempt to audit a no-games
> condition.
>
>
> >
> > A command like "Give me something important" would as-is the reasons
> > for playing the game of life, in the direction of nothingness. "Give me
> > a time you were responsible" would as-is the responsibility off a
> > thetan and move him back to native state.
>
>
> Just get some Grades processing from someone that knows what they are
> doing.
>
He'll need to exit the Destructive Cult which calls itself "the Church
of Scientology" first.
>
> >
> > Of course sitting completely still is also a native-state tolerance
> > process. But basically the as-isness of isness is of course nothing. So
> > there can be no theory of everything since everything is a lie and a
> > total all-encompassing perfectly accurate theory of everything would
> > have to acknowledge this. You see how this would be a problem? A theory
> > itself is a thing and therefore would have to be imperfect. A thetan
> > that KNOWS, IS. It doesn't DO anything it just IS. There is no universe
> > to contemplate as it is before the prime movement. It (the thetan) is
> > outside of time.
> >
> > mearvk
>
>
> Knowing is a have.
>
> A Static that Knows is not a Static at all; it is Static "Plus" and, in
> Scientology, this is called a thetan.
>
> --
> Ted
Hey, Mearvk, is Alex giving you this stuff?
And do you ever think you'll be able to handle things as his
replacement, as the*one* "reasonable member of the Church of
Scientology" on a.c.t., and on a.r.s. ?
Looks doubtful.
Homer Wilson Smith
>> What could you do without?
>> What could you be farther away from?
>> What would you be willing to as-is?
>> What matter/energy/space/time would you be willing to as-is?
>"Conceive a Static" is close to but not the same as, "Think about a
>thetan." Static is the default position that pc's sometimes go to on
>their own. It is unauditable. Your suggestions are either reverse
>processing (Black Scientology) or an attempt to audit a no-games
>condition.
I would have to agree. I would at least run them as dicoms,
something, nothing. But nothing alone is terrible, destroys
havingness. The only way out is in, as coming in puts you out,
so "how could you come in will?" put a being out faster than
"how could you go out?"
Conceive a static.
Conceive a kinetic.
Bare minimum.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>I was happy to read your first paragraph. :-) Sometimes I feel like I'm
>the only one who gets this. About your second paragraph: basically
>native state is all about loss. If one really did become a doingless
>thetan then the thetan would have no way to start doing again (having
>lost his awareness). Thus native state would be the greatest loss
>imaginable - the loss of the ability to create.
You seem to have native state mocked up as something undesirable.
Cessation of creation doesn't mean cessation of ability to start
creating again.
Unimpingable Sleep is not death forever.
The egocentric concept of causation, that the thetan thinks first
what it is going to create and then creates it, is way down tone
scale. Its a lie anyhow, as what starts the thetan thinking about
what it will create?
Same for native state, native state is quite capable of a prime
postulate which is 'I am awake, I can choose to remain awake, I can
choose to choose, and I can choose to choose more.'
That the thetan didn't choose to become awake before becoming
awake, merely means that the thetan's concept of being cause is
usurpal. He is thinking he is cause and forgetting that something
is causing him to cause.
If being awake or anything created is undesirable for him,
then he can veto it instantly after the fact. He can even set
a 'time to sleep' for himself, sort of an alarm clock to wake
himself up once he enters native state. Its all kind of
automatic up there, no upsets about it at all. "I am now going
to rest until I am rested, then the first interesting call to arms
wakes me up, and not a cotton picking second before."
Do you follow? But even
>more simply, native state is a havingnessless state of being. Thus
>tolerance of native-state processes are the highest harmonic on
>havingness processes.
Actually native state is a state of no need to have, thus
absolute havingness. If there is no need, there is no loss.
Loss of need and not having, is gain and the ultimate have.
Homer
>mearvk
Homer Wilson Smith
in this posting Brian. These are high crimes on this list unless
you have clear cut evidence that this guy is a Churchie on a mission
from OPs.
Homer
muldoon (bria...@dslextreme.com) wrote:
>ted_c...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> mearvk <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Frontier guy wrote:
>> > > mearvk wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Conceive a static.
>> > > > Tolerance of nothing.
>> > > > Tolerance of no games.
>> > > > Tolerance of no time.
>> > > > Tolerance of no postulates.
>> > > > Tolerance of no space.
>> > > > Tolerance of no energy.
>> > >
>> > > What method of running would one use?
>> >
>> > I'd just ask for questions which ask the PC to tolerate the qualities
>> > of a static.
>> >
>> > What could you do without?
>> > What could you be farther away from?
>> > What would you be willing to as-is?
>> > What matter/energy/space/time would you be willing to as-is?
>>
>>
>> Looks like there's another theoretician among us. You aren't much of an
>> auditor are you?
>>
>Mearvk is running some sort of lame C of $ "probe the squirrels"
>program; he isn't likely to respond when "he" doesn't think something
>can be used to forward whatever it is happens to be the objective of
>the program.
>> "Conceive a Static" is close to but not the same as, "Think about a
>> thetan." Static is the default position that pc's sometimes go to on
>> their own. It is unauditable. Your suggestions are either reverse
>> processing (Black Scientology) or an attempt to audit a no-games
>> condition.
>>
>>
>> >
>Looks doubtful.
mearvk
If you run something and nothing as a dichotomy I can tell you this,
you are Q&A'ing with lies (isness). And as-isness would suggest this to
be an infinitely long road. Why, if you please, should the road out be
anything more complicated than the resumption of native state?
mearvk
myself, do not have it considered to be something undesirable, quite to
the contrary.
Partial cessation of creation does not mean the inability to restart
creation. Total cessation of creation does mean the inability to
restart creation. I think we fundamentally disagree here.
Unimpingable sleep is death forever if you yourself cannot impinge upon
it. :-)
I agree, the ego-centric notion of causation is a lie. But so is all
causation (all creation is a lie), so why distinguish? :-)
Native state, in my book, is not capable of a prime postulate. The
first postulate has to be some harmonic on "I AM NOT" or I guess you
could just call that Action. But what caused the native state thetan
(doing nothing) to cause? I just don't see how this is possible. He is
outside of time and the realm of causation, he isn't aware of things or
even himself, yet he can create? I don't see it.
On your last point I think you are correct if you define havingness as
quality of reach and not matter. However keep in mind that havingness,
in any form, would not exist in any form, in native state.
Loss of need and not having, is gain and the ultimate have.
Agreed, but why don't we simplify that and say "Be"?
Mearvk
muldoon
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> A lot of attribution of intention and assignment of identity
> in this posting Brian. These are high crimes on this list unless
> you have clear cut evidence that this guy is a Churchie on a mission
> from OPs.
>
> Homer
>
-snip-
Homer, your silly "high crimes" are a hoot.
Homer Wilson Smith
>"how could you go out?"
Typos corrected.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>If you run something and nothing as a dichotomy I can tell you this,
>you are Q&A'ing with lies (isness). And as-isness would suggest this to
>be an infinitely long road. Why, if you please, should the road out be
>anything more complicated than the resumption of native state?
Why should going free be anything more complicated than being
free?
So we have a one shot process
"Be free!"
The practical answer to your question is that the being has no
concept of what native state is, namely something that manifests once
in a while. He has no idea why or under what motivations, or what
mechanisms the being gets things to persist.
Most beings want out because they are upset with being in, and
with themselves for having come in. Thus they want an out that would
never come in again. That isn't available.
Thus one needs to duplicate the motivation of coming in, and the
mechanism of persistence in order to relieve oneself of one's
condition.
One must leave with affinity for having been in.
It has to have been worthwhile so there is no lingering resent
ment.
One can not just figure out a condition and walk away from it
without high appreciation for ludicrous demise, humor in otherwords.
Charge as-ises by reversing from sorrow to laughter.
At the bottom of the tone scale, beings cry themselves to sleep.
At the top they laugh themselves to sleep. That's native state.
One doesn't just lave the charge behind and jump to native state.
Now mind you, if you can get a being to go native with a single
command, 'go native dude', then by all means do so. Anything else
would be unethical.
But most people are convulsively trying to get out on zillion
year old dramatizations to get out that merely stick themselves here.
They can't understand the out that would come in, they don't believe
in it, they don't WANT to believe in it, cuz if they came in once,
they might come in again, so they are fundamentally opposed to your
efforts to get them to return to original state of willingness and
appreciation for coming in.
Its those dramatizations that get in the way of 'Be free!',
because they alter it into trying to get out forever and never coming
back and never having chosen to come in, in the first place, and not
taking with them the high appreication of the art work involved in the
present mess they are trying to get out of. "What art?"
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>Native state, at least conceptually, to many, is undesirable. I,
>myself, do not have it considered to be something undesirable, quite to
>the contrary.
>Partial cessation of creation does not mean the inability to restart
>creation. Total cessation of creation does mean the inability to
>restart creation. I think we fundamentally disagree here.
Yep you are holding on....
>Unimpingable sleep is death forever if you yourself cannot impinge upon
>it. :-)
>I agree, the ego-centric notion of causation is a lie. But so is all
>causation (all creation is a lie), so why distinguish? :-)
Because native state WILL manifest once more. Holding onto present
manifestation less you never be able to manifest again, sticks you in
this manifestation forever as long as you hold on.
>Native state, in my book, is not capable of a prime postulate. The
>first postulate has to be some harmonic on "I AM NOT" or I guess you
>could just call that Action. But what caused the native state thetan
>(doing nothing) to cause? I just don't see how this is possible. He is
>outside of time and the realm of causation, he isn't aware of things or
>even himself, yet he can create? I don't see it.
Native state is cause. The static is cause. The thetan is viewport
for that causation into the kinetic world.
The static causes through the thetan into the kinetic world.
Yes the static can and will manifest a thetan anytime the
thetan wants :) There is a harmony of intent, purpose and mechanism
between the static and the native state thetan such that the thetan
is quite happy with the arrangement.
The truely native state thetan wakes up periodically, randomly,
just like we do during the night, and considers whether it wants to
get up or not. If not it goes right back to bed. Or it can get up
for a short moment and leave a sign on its door inviting game playes
to wake it up when they need game players. That's like a please
disturb sign on the door of a motel.
>On your last point I think you are correct if you define havingness as
>quality of reach and not matter. However keep in mind that havingness,
>in any form, would not exist in any form, in native state.
So?
Matter is persistence of lies and loss, there is no havingness
in matter at all, just apparent substitutes for the peace that passeth
all understanding.
>Loss of need and not having, is gain and the ultimate have.
>Agreed, but why don't we simplify that and say "Be"?
Be is manifestation.
Native state is no manifestation.
The being is, but not being.
Homer
>Mearvk
Homer Wilson Smith
Pip
>
> So we have a one shot process
>
> "Be free!"
>
I hear a lot of these: "let it go", don't dwell on the past", "Just be
yourself", "don't let it bother you", "be three feet back of your head"
etc. If we could do any of these, would we have to be reminded? As if
someone could hypnotize us or tone-40-command us and we just would.
> One must leave with affinity for having been in.
Well, so much for R2-45.
H said in a tape once that the ultimate process might be "who are you"
(said with exaggerated dramatic intensity). I believe this works and
can be run solo! It's called Zen Buddhism. But it takes a while. I do
it every day.
Pip
- that is its nature. It cannot NOT know itself. It cannot sleep. It is
perfect. It does not exist as it IS existence ie all "things' have
native state as their source and foundation just as a dream has the
dreamer's mind as source and foundation. It does not have to have any
source and was not "caused" by anything. It is eternal because it does
not exist as a series of pictures like chronological time does.
"Eternal" is a "time bound" concept. NS is the source of the illusion
of time and lies outside of time.
NS is transcendent to all things, all mental states, and all experience.
How it can create, know, and do anything is a mystery to all but
itself and probably cannot be explained in words or concepts and
certainly not by someone who does not have direct knowing of NS by being
free of all illusions and delusions. NS is non-verbal and
non-conceptual. It can never be adequately defined or described but can
only be pointed at or implied, as Zen masters do. It is not
"nothingness" but is not any "thing". True nothingness cannot be
conceived of but by trying to do so, one might realize Native State.
NS cannot have delusions or illusions, cannot fall into a dwindling
spiral, and cannot be affected in any way. But miracle of all miracles
it can create viewpoints which have the ILLUSION that they are
individual viewpoints, separate from NS and each other. And it can then
create for these viewpoints the illusion of "things" ie objects separate
from oneself, in other words, the external world and an unending variety
of experiences. This is an illusion and can only be an illusion because
NOTHING CAN BE except native state. In Zen it is said that all things
are void. This is seeing through the illusion. It doesn't make sense to
us because we are IN the illusion. We are deceived, we buy it. Why?
Why is there anything, not to mention suffering? Games of course.
Homer said: At the top they laugh themselves to sleep. That's native
state.
In almost every ZEN enlightenment story I have read there was a period
of prolonged and intense laughter.
Pip
PS: Native State is present in everyone at all times as your very
consciousness and I believe it can be realized through proper attention,
eg Zen. However I've been assigned to work on the less direct approach
of resolving the OBSTACLES to self knowledge aka cleaning up the mess.
--
"I aim to misbehave"
"All things are void"
"Who are you?"
mearvk
non-action. It requires zero knowledge and effort. Even saying "Be free
little thetan" implies that there are barriers which, in fact, there
are not.
I think all beings would scream in horror at the idea of an 'out' that
has no 'back in'. Look at that carefully. That *is* native state.
Everything else is Q&A'ing with complexity (lies). Duplicating
affinity, motivations or anything else is just complexity and untruth.
Native state isn't about laughing or any other action. It's total
Being. Just being, zero complexity. The charge you talk about is a lie.
Having to consider it before attaining native state is a
non-duplication of native state. It's just a clever via you keep
putting up.
Considering that there is a via to native state is unethical. Native
state is a 'vialess' transition. One simply assumes unthinkingness.
While I agree with most of your logic (what I think you are saying),
remember that native state is beyond all considerations and thus any
subset of considerations (like dramatizations or charge).
mearvk
mearvk
vote yourself out of reality (native state) there is no door back in.
So, yes, of course thetans hold on to the game. Some process like
"waste yourself as Source" would be interesting to run.
Native state is outside of creation and therefore things like time and
cause.
My own personal experience simply disagrees with your conclusion that
native state permits a door 'back in'.
I don't distinguish between 'real' and pseudo native state thetans. You
are either native state or not. I am talking about absolutes when I
talk about native state.
Not real sure what you mean by:
Be is manifestation.
Native state is no manifestation.
The being is, but not being.
mearvk
ro...@adore.lightlink.com
>H said in a tape once that the ultimate process might be "who are you"
>(said with exaggerated dramatic intensity). I believe this works and
>can be run solo! It's called Zen Buddhism. But it takes a while. I do
>it every day.
Who are you.
What are you.
How many are you.
Terrible Trio II
Homer
>Pip
>--
>"I aim to misbehave"
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Sat Nov 25 18:41:29 EST 2006
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore405.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRWjUqT4RxM7qO/z1AQEONAH/c7zRKoBdv3zdOcvAtqRpy1gpb8Xvpnsc
V2jDShKeruf/idiSoliX4u9oPBxLZGlrSySh5Brz/eH37ye70v83wA==
=RhZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Homer Wilson Smith
Native state is existence, but only the manifesting part is
consciousness.
Cycles of manifestation and non manifestation follow the reach
and withdrawal from eternity into time and back again.
All consciousness-of is manifestation.
Hubbard's take 10 minutes of nothing meant just that,
NOTHING. Not infinite consciousness, that's not nothing you see?
Sleeeeeeep.......
Homer
>Pip
>--
>"I aim to misbehave"
>"All things are void"
>"Who are you?"
--
ro...@adore.lightlink.com
mearvk (mea...@gmail.com) wrote:
>Native state isn't about laughing or any other action. It's total
>Being. Just being, zero complexity. The charge you talk about is a lie.
Correct.
>Having to consider it before attaining native state is a
>non-duplication of native state. It's just a clever via you keep
>putting up.
Uh well, so much for Scientology. Hubbard said one could not
just change one's mind about postulates, one had to review them and
as-isness them, returning each one to native state.
Maybe that was just a gradient, but native state is not an
as-isness of a lie, it is the result of the as-isness of the lie.
The persisting isness is a creation between native state and the
being, and he can't just bypass that isness and go directly to native
state, without getting the as-isness of the isness.
Once the as-isnes vanishes then native state is resumed.
Native state -> created as-isness -> alter-isness -> isness.
One can't just go back to native state and leave the isness
to be, the being must as-isness the persisting object in order
for it to vanish.
Othewise once he comes back out of native state, all his isnesses
will still be there.
Hubbard called that kind of operation 'up the pole'.
Now maybe some can audit 'Return to Native State!' but I would
bet good money this would be unworkable on the vast majority of your
pc's no matter how much you word cleared the command.
Return to static.
Return to kinetic.
Return to non manifestation.
Return to manifestation.
Now that I could handle.
On the way back in he would start to as-is all the crap
he left in place on the way out.
>Considering that there is a via to native state is unethical. Native
>state is a 'vialess' transition. One simply assumes unthinkingness.
Never work without operating the opposite flow.
Assume a thinkingness.
Assume unthinkingness.
Present theory tells me that assume a thinkingness will work
better because the guy has to be the unthinkingness to create the
thinkingness.
But every inflow demands an outflow, and every outflow demands an
inflow, thus running assume an unthinkingness for a while will create
a screaming need to create a thinkingness, and visa versa. Once the
guy has the flow going both ways at 200 amps, then perhaps he can let
go of the dichotomy and end up in peace.
Yes the above are mechanics, if you can bypass mechanics in your
journey of going free all the more power to you.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Sat Nov 25 18:58:46 EST 2006
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore406.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRWjYtj4RxM7qO/z1AQGRTgH/XoaW5zWOdfT4YVw/p8nnemq2ZW3aVVPW
DeGg9QSHU3DXMwDMd4LRxbiK654d+YFffJHIi/Sr3w6rQYxEQg2y2g==
=x3PR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ro...@adore.lightlink.com
mearvk (mea...@gmail.com) wrote:
>Funny, I see it as you hanging on. Look, here's the thing: once you
>vote yourself out of reality (native state) there is no door back in.
Then how did we come in, in the first place?
Always been in? Holding onto the same original game forever and
ever?
>So, yes, of course thetans hold on to the game. Some process
like >"waste yourself as Source" would be interesting to run.
>Native state is outside of creation and therefore things like
time and >cause.
>My own personal experience simply disagrees with your conclusion
that >native state permits a door 'back in'.
You never let go, how can you tell?
Certainly you would never come back into THIS game.
Take some absolute nothing, cease the worry about what bad
consequences will happen if you let go of staying in time.
Native state has no worries, and is quite capable of prime
postulates. Curiousus would call them quantum fluctuations.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Sat Nov 25 19:01:51 EST 2006
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore407.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRWjZbz4RxM7qO/z1AQF8WgH/UGHx3mmNMXQVUl00NJCsY11cL3diEi5X
Vc8qUmwerc4dOB1h9w14lR0hual91bNDpGUK/GAErvSGo+6NjdRTxw==
=ZyNT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pip
> On forever is hell forever.
Forever is a "consciousness-of" phenomenon. There are heavens and there
are hells. But there is also the idea that ALL existence apart from the
enlightened state is entrapment in hell. Good always cycles back to
bad, pleasure to pain, heaven to hell ... who needs it. Is this what
you're saying?
Pip
Homer Wilson Smith
>Forever is a "consciousness-of" phenomenon. There are heavens and there
>are hells. But there is also the idea that ALL existence apart from the
>enlightened state is entrapment in hell. Good always cycles back to
>bad, pleasure to pain, heaven to hell ... who needs it. Is this what
>you're saying?
No, you are talking about one kind of ON cycling to another
kind of ON.
I am talking about ON cycling to OFF.
Homer
>Pip
--
Michael
"Pip" <pip...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:916ah.4044$wc5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Is this a case of I'm buggered if I do and I'm buggered if I don't?
On the one hand I am a super duper thetan with command over any physical
illusion on the other I am going to have a good sleep forever.
I don't know wether to take up knitting or sharpen my sword, which is it?
Mike
mearvk
Michael
"Michael" <micke...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XZdah.7021$k74....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
up, sit down watch the telly, don't rock the boat.
This seems to be a planet of spirit killers.
I am off to sharpen my sword I reckon I can get in a load more rape, pillage
and plunder before the game is through.
:)
Mike
mearvk
order to attain native state, you will not attain native state. Native
state *is* itself as-isness. There is no lie, you see? Only truth...
The as-isness of isness is simply that it isn't. :-) So any via to
native state acknowledges a lie and therefore simply will not work. You
arrive when you arrive and lies are an infinite detour.
I think you haven't quite got the same idea about native state as Pip
and I have. Consider carefully what I've written above, will you?
mearvk
mearvk
happened per the definition of truth.
Yes, if one assumes on is in the game. It, per my current thinking,
must have been the same game forever. If one stepped outside of the
game then one would never be able to re-enter and so my viewpoint would
not be able to be invalidated.
Completely letting go is both the easiest and hardest thing a being can
'do'. To give up one's viewpoint is quite scary.
When you say 'Native state has no worries, and is quite capable of
prime postulates.' I wonder if you know what you are talking about.
Native state is outside of time, outside of postulates and outside of
awareness. To me, that pretty much says native state is not capable of
postulates.
mearvk
muldoon
Yea, get it together will ya?
Here's Mearvk, a member of the 'Church' of Scientology in good
standing, and an associate of none other than the dear departed "Alex,"
whom we dearly miss, and Mearvk has come here to provide some guidance
for you wayward squirrels.
C'mon! He's *only* trying to help.
:^P
CB Willis
mearvk (mea...@gmail.com) wrote:
>A theory of everything would require an understanding of the prime
>mover. This, I think, is impossible. One would have to exist before the
>prime movement. This is a contradiction of definition.
>Mearv
You're assuming a prime mover. Which may or may not be the case.
One can act as-if without existing before a prime mover.
Carol
CB Willis
>You'd just run tolerance of native state processes.
>Conceive a static.
>Tolerance of nothing.
>Tolerance of no games.
>Tolerance of no time.
>Tolerance of no postulates.
>Tolerance of no space.
>Tolerance of no energy.
I find this unrunnable, a non-starter, a road that goes nowhere.
This definition in terms of what something isn't is also unworkable and a
mind trap. Goes in circles and sticks one in duality with attendant
negation.
>The idea of injustice would quickly run out.
Not necessarily.
>If one could tolerate
>native state then an injustice of any magnitude would be also very
>tolerable. LRH went the other way on this: give them havingness so they
>don't get scared of their native state. I think either way would work
>though.
>Mearv
Native state is beyond tolerable/intolerable. Also nothing to be afraid
of. If someone is afraid, it's not of native state per se.
Carol
mearvk
these processes don't bite sit still on your bed and don't think - for
a weekend. I'd be very suprised if you made it longer than eight hours.
I see no problem with definining native state as 'no thing' and running
it as such. In fact all havingness processes are, in fact, tolerance of
native state processes run the other way around.
While you are correct about the circularity of the above viewpoint. You
will find that I am quite aware of it per my other postings. Perhaps
you are not aware that *any* process run by *any* auditor will leave
the auditee with attendant isness?
Injustice is a scarcity game. Run out the fundamental of the game
(scarcity) and you run out all dependent games. I think this is pretty
solid ground. If one were sufficiently creative any injustice could be
instantly unmocked. A little lower down we would have thetans able to
tolerate injustices of any magnitude. Lower down the thetan would be
shorter on games and might decide to keep injustices around for a game.
Fundamentally though, a thetan in native state (or a close facsimile),
with its attendant abilities, would probably not be playing the game of
justice/injustice.
mearvk
mearvk
mearvk
'As-if ' is an approximation and, as such, not an actual contradiction.
mearvk