Ron Hubbard re-wrote Aleister Crowley's "Naples Arrangement" into the 1952 "Factors," and morphed "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" into "Affinity, Reality, Communication."
Muldoon
Reality, Being," became "Affinity, Reality, Communication."
They appear in Aleister Crowley's "Naples Arrangement" - which
described the step by step development of the phenomenal universe, as
manifest in the microcosm of the individual mind.
"Ananda, Chit, Sat" are a "three foldness" or triangle that exists
throughout existence, repeating at various levels of manifestation.
Crowley borrowed heavily from earlier sources, and was deeply
influenced by his own experiences as a child, the defining one being
his hatred for his Christian Fundamentalist mother, and her apparent
dislike for him, who she, according to Crowley's accounts, would call
that "little beast."
Crowley, of course, would later refer to himself as the "Beast 666."
Of all the students of his writings, by far the most successful was L.
Ron Hubbard.
Hubbard combined his knowledge of Crowley's "Magick" with an
understanding of Alfred Korzybski's 'General Semantics', the pre-1950
methodology of hypnotherapy, and his years long study of techniques of
manipulation, domination, and psychological warfare.
Hubbard was also a natural psychologist, and a prolific innovator.
a...@123.net
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
I hardly think that Crowley's use of 3 sub concepts as a unified concept
indicates Hubbard "re wrote".
Also I take Crowleys "Deomonic" or dark side personification of himself
as more a repudiation of the mores and strictures of his time than a
call to evil.
His persona was allegory...Life as art....an invitation to view things
from a different perspective....and rub a few pompous noses in shit!
Holy cow! now Im an apologist for satanism!
:)
a...@123.net
A thourough examination of "the Dark Side" can facilitate knowing the
"light/good" side, it provides contrast....
Intellegence is both being able to see similarities AND differences
Hubbard credits Crowley and Jesus in the Dianetics book.....being well
read is not an indication of belief...
I'm not advocating practicing evil....but knowledge of something is not
of its self bad
In article <1127570817.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
a...@123.net
oh well suckerd again...
bb
Below just one URL on this issue. Crowley was no dummy.
LRH made these issues accessible to those who could read.
See the poetic factors. Brilliance manifest.
http://jktarot.com/naples.html
bb
Muldoon
Thanks for the interesting URL.
Another noteworthy parallel is Hubbard's re-invention of the old
mystical Tetragrammaton as his "Four Conditions of Existence."
And there's much more.
Unfortunately, all of this was used as "bait on the hook" for Hubbard's
ego and power trip - An ego and power trip which utilized interesting
ideas, and sometimes potentially beneficial techniques, as _part_ of
the "window dressing."
The "confidential" portion of the "suitable guise" or "window dressing"
can be found in the secret "upper levels." This is where - for many -
the hook is embedded for the rest of their lives. Being told the
contents of ones own mind, and set-up so as to have a "win" in the
process, is a nasty trick.
And then there's the Sea Org which uses a different, cruder, approach.
Behind the entirety of the wordy and thick veneer of what most think of
as the "tech," is what the Scientology operation is really about. This
aspect of Scientology is to be publicly denied or downplayed. Some
peripheral "paying public," inevitably, will manage to coast along
oblivious to much of it. However, this aspect of the subject infuses
and dominates the over-all subject, and the same people who ignore it
will be influenced by it, sometimes tragically.
This is why knowing, and understanding, the "dark side" is important,
and why just knowing, or recognizing, the "good stuff" is not enough.
Phil Scott
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1127682475.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Very well stated.. the nexus of the trap.
Phil Scott
>
Muldoon
Another parallel - of sort - involves the area of "exteriorization."
There is a gradient approach in traditional Magic - and Crowley's
"Magick" - which involves first separating the astral body+being from
the physical body; then, once stable, exteriorizing from that astral
body into what is sometimes called the "body of light." The "body of
light," ideally, can be in any location, at will, without having to
cumbersomely travel there.
As for the landscapes of the astral plane, they are described as being
of a degree of density "not like material things - they are not like
mental pictures - they seem to lie between the two." (Between mental
picture degree of density and the material degree of density.) Exterior
perception of the the material plane is acknowledged, yet seems to take
a secondary role to perception, and control, of experiences on planes
of a more rarefied nature.
Muldoon
> a secondary role to perception, and control, of experiences on planes
> of a more rarefied nature.
An interesting occurrence for those inclined to "astral walking" is the
act of re-entering the physical body with the astral body. During a
brief interval of time, when the being, plus (aura) "body of light,"
plus "astral body" is "snapping into" (like two train cars coupling)
the physical body, there can be a vivid awareness of both astral and
physical bodies, resulting in the strange visual and tactile experience
of "having four arms." (Two astral arms corresponding with, but at
slightly different angles than, the two physical arms.)
Were the beings depicted (mostly in Hinduism) as having four or more
arms, simply cognizant of existing on two or more planes? Or was that
what the painters/sculptors of such images were attempting to convey?
Muldoon
Regarding perception while out of the body:
The old idea is that the "astral body" provided - literally - a set of
eyeballs for perception. Moving to a more rarefied state, the person
exited the astral body, and entered a more subtle spherical "body."
This was not done out of a compulsion to have a "body," but as a kind
of projected grid through which to perceive the environment - a kind of
lens.
I was impressed, years ago, with a series of paintings, by a "psychic,"
done while allegedly out-of-body, which featured a curved (lens like)
pattern of lines. The impression was that this person was not
perceiving (in this case the physical universe) from a "point," but
from - or through - a self-projected "curved lens." This allowed for
stability in being out-of body, and allowed for ease of perception.
In my opinion, the subject of "exteriorization" in "Scientology"
features - predictably - a tangle of gimmickry, manipulation,
over-simplification, desire to discredit "earlier practices," and
unscrupulous marketing.
There are some who believe that Scientology had achieved a level of
operational "OT" in the 1970s, but evidence indicates otherwise. Ron
Hubbard did not use "OT" abilities in his extensive spying network, and
mocked the idea of doing so.
There were some individuals who did have "psychical" sensitivities and
abilities, who also were involved in Scientology, but there have always
been such people, and their capabilities were their own and were, at
best, revived by association with the better aspects of Scientology. It
is noteworthy, that continued association with the subject often
resulted in a loss, or diminishing, of such "psychical" capabilities.
Zinj
bria...@dslextreme.com says...
<snip>
> Regarding perception while out of the body:
>
> The old idea is that the "astral body" provided - literally - a set of
> eyeballs for perception. Moving to a more rarefied state, the person
> exited the astral body, and entered a more subtle spherical "body."
> This was not done out of a compulsion to have a "body," but as a kind
> of projected grid through which to perceive the environment - a kind of
> lens.
>
> I was impressed, years ago, with a series of paintings, by a "psychic,"
> done while allegedly out-of-body, which featured a curved (lens like)
> pattern of lines. The impression was that this person was not
> perceiving (in this case the physical universe) from a "point," but
> from - or through - a self-projected "curved lens." This allowed for
> stability in being out-of body, and allowed for ease of perception.e
I agree with some of your comments, and at least *think* I disagree with
others, but this snippet reminds me overwhelmingly of a 'cog' I had
years back.
Contrary to popular misconception, LSD alone seldom involves
hallucinations, although it does usually include highly saturarated
colors (and the known 'trails' etc.) Another 'aspect' is a visual
perception of a far 'larger' and more vibrant world.
Ignoring for the moment such distractions as burning giraffes or melting
watches, Dali's landscapes *in realism* closely resemble LSD perception.
Years after first experiencing such visual changes I think I found at
least part of the reason for the overwhelming visual experience,
although I'm still not certain whether the physical function is the
cause or the effect.
As is well known, pupil dilation is an almost direct measure of
'interest', and, on LSD, the pupils are *always* dilated beyond the
'normal' for any given circumstance.
Which jibes well with the LSD experience, where the mundane becomes the
profound.
*However*, pupil dilation also results in a very real optical effect, in
that the viewing angle becomes wider and more shperical.
Like a fish eye :)
Which is why I commented
Zinj
--
Villains! I say to you now! Knock off all that Evil!
- The Tick
Phil Scott
A lot of the bogus RV comes from guys like me that can
easily decide to 'see' a tree stump on the old homestead and
instantly get a great picture of it...then they can 'go' and
see their old school etc...and look at that.. or as Hubbard
did be on Mars or Venus and see all those train stations and
heliports, cows and shopping malls... and assume that this its
acsurate live visual.
The same guy can't see a playing card tacked to the back of
his head.
So what is it? Its memory, mental pictures recalled, dreamed
up or fabricated mixed with live real time sense of the
location and less dense constructs ... there is plenty of
evidence that goes on routinely... all life forms operate
across a much broader spread of senses and communications than
the 5 we recognise.
One time at a donut shop on vine street in LA just south of
Hollywood blvd. late. I walked in and was talking with the
girl selling the donuts and said 'I bet I can tell you where
you grew up'...she said OK tell me... I said "it was an old
house in Kansas, no lawn, no fence, paint all peeled off, grey
bare wood. square house, roof pitched on all sides, sitting
on a high foundation, 4 or 5 steps up to the back door, no
overhang, two clothes lines in the back yard, mostly dirt with
holes the dog dug... various kids toys laying around... flat
in all directions... a few trees in the distance, no other
houses around"
She said..'that wasn't it ! ' (she was all enthused that I had
missed) ... then she said with a little distain.. ' that was
just the back yard'... she could also have been smoking me.
How much of that was sensed and how much was typical of a lot
of houses in the midwest that I guessed ...only the shadow
knows.
In auditing people I had often seen a mental image of the
thing they were about to say but had not said yet...a boat or
whatever..other auditors have said that happens a lot...I
think its common.
So in the case of this girl I could have easily been looking
at her own mental pictures... and not been on the scene at
all.
I think thats also common.
One time when I was in LA I accidently trapped a ferril cat in
my apartment...it panic'd, ran around the rooms and high up on
the walls etc trying to escape..it ran into the bathroom and
jumped in the toilet and the lid came down on its head.. then
it jumped out of there and ran over to me and crouched looked
up at me with fierce intent...it projected a mental picture of
huge vicious cat at me, just the face and teeth... (or I
mocked one up) whatever...but I actually think the cat did it.
I let him out.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
>
a...@123.net
"Phil Scott" <phil...@philscott.net> wrote:
> A lot of the bogus RV comes from guys like me that can
> easily decide to 'see' a tree stump on the old homestead and
> instantly get a great picture of it...then they can 'go' and
> see their old school etc...and look at that.. or as Hubbard
> did be on Mars or Venus and see all those train stations and
> heliports, cows and shopping malls... and assume that this its
> acsurate live visual.
>
> The same guy can't see a playing card tacked to the back of
> his head.
>
> So what is it? Its memory, mental pictures recalled, dreamed
> up or fabricated mixed with live real time sense of the
> location and less dense constructs ... there is plenty of
> evidence that goes on routinely... all life forms operate
> across a much broader spread of senses and communications than
> the 5 we recognise.
>
The protocal used nowdays for Remote Viewing had the viewer use only a
number for the target and their perceptions are recorded.
They have no other clue than the number what it is they are to view.
They arent told "go see the russian nuclear plant" , they are just
handed a string of numbers, and they dont corresponde to lat and long!
Muldoon
The "paranormal" is, inevitably, a mixture of illumination and
illusion.
Added to this, as a source of confusion, is the Scientology cult's
exploitation of the area, and of human nature, most notably the
negative quality of gullibility - but, also, the positive quality of
curiosity.
To make matters even more confusing, there has been, for years, a
PR/Propaganda policy of attempting to position some Scientology
"critics" as obnoxious smirking "hyper-skeptics." These cult-encouraged
"hyper-skeptics" are supposed to regard with extreme ridicule anyone
who expresses a curiosity about such "taboo" subjects as:
1) Life in outer space
2) Out-of-Body experience
3) Telepathy
4) Past Life recall
5) Clairvoyance of any kind, premonition, etc.
6) Interest in alternative healing methods of any kind
7) Any curiosity about anything outside the realm of the conventional
established scientific community.
The Scientology cult uses this "PR positioning" selectively on specific
"publics" - most notably college students.
The idea is to position Scientology as an "adventure into unexplored
regions." Thus, its "critics" would be anti-adventure and
anti-exploration.
Other "publics," of course, are subjected to different approaches. For
example, in another situation, "belief in the human soul" might be
emphasized, while all the above unusual items would be ignored. (The
"critic" in this case would resemble the "anti-religious bigot"
caricature which is, currently, the number one emotional "push button"
of Scientology's PR/Propaganda efforts.)
Or, in yet another situation, the "secular," "scholarly," and
"scientific" aspect would be emphasized. (The counter point to this
would be the classic image of the "kook.")
And it goes on.
A seemingly discouraging scene: Corrupt government officials, the
"sleep-walking masses," and those attempting to "wake up" too often
becoming prey for confidence men.
Yet one has no choice but to keep moving forward. The wheel is turning
with or without ones consent. Better to be a few steps ahead of it,
than to be dragged behind it.
The good news is that, rumor is, the universe looks much bigger, and
more intimidating, from the inside, than from the outside.
a...@123.net
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
You belittle Scientology yet seem to believe it has great influence.
I dont understand what personal connection you have with Scientology
that keeps you so attached to it.
Maybe its that you think disconnection is wrong?
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> You belittle Scientology yet seem to believe it has great influence.
There is a difference between 'great influence' and 'too much
influence'. While Scientology consistently exaggerates its influence
and strives to expand it into and over all fields of human endeavor, its
actual influence is only in the minds of believing Scientologists.
For everyone else, where non-Scientologists are even aware of
Scientology, and in direct relationship to how extensive that awareness,
the predominant view is that, while Scientology's influence is tiny,
*any* influence is 'too much'.
> I dont understand what personal connection you have with Scientology
> that keeps you so attached to it.
Wherever Scientology impinges on society, its influence is negative,
detrimental and dire. Recognizing and resisting that influence is *not*
'attachment' to Scientology, but opposition.
If Scientology was satisfied to limit its dire influence to those
already captive it would face far less opposition.
But then, it wouldn't be Hubbard's Scientology now, would it? :)
> Maybe its that you think disconnection is wrong?
There's little question that mandated and enforced 'Disconnetion' as
practiced by the 'Church' of Scientology is at least *one* of its
damnable influences. That's not the same as a 'personal decision' to
disconnect, as far as that's a reality in Scientology's rigigly enforced
'groupthink', but even here, a 'philosophy' which prescribes such a
tactic in dealing with opposition or disagreement is less than benign.
But, in *any* case, 'Disconnection' is only *one* of a whole pallet of
deplorable aspects of Scientology as envisioned and implemented by
Hubbard *and* His 'Church'. Others are 'Fair Game', 'Acceptable Truth'
and 'Keeping Scientology Working' as a whole.
a...@123.net
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well!
smack me down!
Question still remains, as to what started Muldoon on his path to
vanquish Hubbardism.
Phil Scott
.
an astute analysis Muldie... issues completely unaddressed
until now. Not bad. And your remark about the view from
outside the construct? is of course...the way one resolves
it with no problem at all.
Phil Scott
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1128760091....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Well!
>
> smack me down!
>
> Question still remains, as to what started Muldoon on his path to
> vanquish Hubbardism.
Aw c'mon 'abc' (if that is your real name :)
I doubt seriously that anything I might say would 'smack you down'.
And, it wasn't even the intent. The reason I went to great lengths to
answer, even if I'm not Muldoon, don't know Muldoon, probably don't
universally agree with Muldoon, is that your style of 'have you stopped
beating your wife yet' interrogation is both completely standard in the
'Church'/Scientology 'handling' arsenal and best answered at length, and
with care paid to the details.
After all, the 'handling' is merely a fairly transparent attempt to
'recurve' the discussion to Muldoon himself and his 'upset' with
Scientology, as if no *sane* opposition, disagreement or criticism could
possibly be based on reality and real objections, rather than some petty
'upset'.
In fact, the attempted 'recurving' itself is pretty 1.1 on the scale.
But hey... reverse processes are prescribed when dealing with 'enemies'
are'nt they :)
Muldoon
Recommended reading for those interested in examining further one of
Ron Hubbard's main sources of inspiration:
'Eight Lectures on Yoga' by Aleister Crowley.
May provide additional insight into the derivation of what
Scientologists know as the "Four Conditions of Existence," and "The
Factors."
It should be noted that none of this was original with Crowley, but his
presentation of these very old ideas was helpful to Ron Hubbard - as a
major information source - as he lectured to his awed followers.
Crowley, responding to a challenge to describe the doctrine of Yoga in
"the fewest possible words" summarizes: "Sit still. Stop thinking." He
then adds two more steps, supposedly transcending Yoga, yet completing
the process of the "Great Work": "Shut up. Get out!"
Phil Scott
'Shutting up and getting out' is what Lao Tsu did. A smart
man.
That is appropriate only after one sees the futility in
staying around and jabbering. A person sees that after a
time of trying to enlighten others.. he sees the counter
productivity of that for others and himself also..
. enlightenment at the threshold is an inside job as you know
also I am sure.
However... there is an adjunct path ...it can be on this
above mentioned path or parallel to it.
that entails the excercise of coping with the insanity of
others, as a way of seeing more of your own insanity and as a
way of becoming rational enough not to be influenced by it
oneself.
Don Juan was on that path, he said he picked solid as a rock
basket cases for apprentices for what it would do for
him...not the apprentice. It was his own path. In having
to become 'exterior' enough to cope with the insane apprentice
he himself advanced.
As for myself, I lacked the skills, insight, range,
intellectual capacity, and ability to fathom the completely
pedantic... it was a constant stumbling block for me.
By engaging others, I have gained skills and insights into
those areas, and debugged my own interlocks with that... and
as it has worked out, the brain/ insightability machinery was
more than rusty in many aspects... and not only rusty but
corrupted to the core.
It has been running to these brick walls that it has been
forced to uncorrupt to the degree that it has. (and lest some
idiot remarks, the spirit also.. the mind..all that..its
interactive.)
all these essays and screeds I produce have helped to reverse
the trend...thats was not just a good thing...but probably
vital in my case.
Lately there is good news.
In 1996 when I was at Texas Instruments on contract I had
written a series of equations and begun a proof on the issue
of what field thought travels/propagates in.
to begin I ran Einstiens equation
E=mc2 from two opposing vectors in its various algebraic
forms, and including the aspects of Force and loss of lateral
inertia as a mass is accelerated... a mass accelerated from
its origin towards and into a black hole, with the rotational
conservation of energy forces seen inside the black hole...
and I ran the same equation sets looking at the phenomena
from the viewpoint of the black hole.. both times in
incriments with time, mass. and the mass x acceleration
changing.. etc. These two sets of equation matrix don't
reconcile unless you insert a constant .... that I chose to
call a graviton field... completely rigid to thought, yet
fluid as water is to a wave and also integral to the wave, for
larger wave/particles such as photons.
then the equations reconciled.
I had written that up as maybe a half done proof, then lost
the notes. And I had been trying to reconstruct that ever
since with no success.
This AM I awoke, after some consideration the night before and
wrote 8 pages towards a proof on the nature, size, mass and
origins of the 'graviton'... even to the ends of factoring its
prime constituents.
Not bad for 64.
I saw the movie 'proof' last night... very interesting and
true, the female lead played by Gwenith Paltrow.. about a
famous mathematician who had changed the world of mathematics
twice before the age of 22... and his two daughters...
The word in academia was that you come up with something
before age 26 or forget it...brain ossification sets in.
So here I am, rather completely ossified still in some
aspects... 50 years past my prime. I think I can present a
proof for the existence of the graviton, and describe its
mass, charge, diameter and density before I die. I think I
can factor it today...and from those factors prove the
particle.
...that happened by various means..keeping the brain stressed
through its ossification and lately de-ossification stage...
a big part of what de-ossifys the brain is seeing what
factors tend to put it into gridlock, lies for instance, and
the insular viewpoint..etc..other factors. Biological factors
as I have been posting on for a while with the amyloids and Dr
Pendrose....
thats what I had been able to fathom in posting these NG's
and coping with responses over the last 13 years or so....I
had to deconstruct to regain fluidity.... fixed arguements
will not prevail on USENET...only rational fluidity will
prevail. So it appears that is why I had not booked for the
hills earlier...I needed the fluidity. I needed to be able to
see past fixed structures and insular viewpoints of all sorts.
It was like learning about pain and blood by beating ones
thumb with a framing hammer for years.
Derivation.
It can be seen from Einsteins E=mc2 equation and from work
prior by Maxwell in 1864 that mass itself was the core element
in an electromagnetic field, no mass, no field. And .... it
was discovered and proven then that the speed of
electromagnitism was the square of the speed of light.
http://history.hyperjeff.net/electromagnetism.html
Einstein imo simply intuited that 'big E' was the product of
mass and and its energetic product, which he chose not to
represent as magnetism but in terms of light. .. because
everyone could see light I suppose... and of course now proven
by recent nuclear weapons yield experiements..and along with
it many others things become clear... and more recently he
has been proven right on the fact of the mass of a photon and
its attraction by heavier masses in space.
Advances beyond that. 'disproving' some aspects...and
asserting others, but themselves still not proven indicate
that electromagnetism and light are not the utlimate prime
factors.. these people have still not come up with a unified
field theory.
I consider the graviton to be a prime factor in that.
the string theorists noticing the apparent microcosmic and
macrocosmic nature (simultaneously) of these strings
mathematically have suggested themselves the probability of
the graviton but so far have no faintest way to describe
it...and have not to date commented on its dual nature, rigid
and limitlessly fluid or what gravitational effects actually
are.
(consideration of air as it flows through a venturi, and the
presure on a side port will demonstrate how a lateral vacuum
is created by accelerating mass in a singular direction)..
looking that over it becomes possible to fathom gravity.
These do not understand the nature of of the graviton
itself...thats because they have factored it yet. To factor
the graviton one must step outside of the material construct.
Then, from there, the graviton factors...and that factoring
describes the experimental proof protocol.
Phil Scott
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1129365964.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Muldoon
The mystical "Tree of Life" is usually represented as three "pillars,"
with key points of the "pillars" cross-connecting.
Various outlooks or "systems," such as traditional Chinese cosmology,
have correspondences with this "Tree."
This is also true with most of Scientology's scales, which, after all,
were largely derived from Hubbard's own study of this same "Tree," and
of related "scales" earlier developed by others.
An improved understanding (and critiquing) of Hubbard's (distinctly
"linear" and non "3 dimensional") system of scales will usually result.
It may be helpful to study a visual (non verbal) depiction of the
"Tree." One rendition is a painting by Patricia Waldygo, titled,
simply, 'The Kabbalistic Tree of Life'. Prints may still be available
from Weiser's Books, York Beach, Maine.
Muldoon
One text, which explores the topic of the "Tree of Life," is titled
'The Middle Pillar', and was written in 1938 by Israel Regardie.
'The Middle Pillar' was an early attempt by Regardie to relate and
reconcile the ideas and techniques of contemporary Western Psychology
with earlier psychological and spiritual disciplines.
Regardie observed:
"What modern psychology has quite possibly accomplished is an advance
over the efforts of our predecessors in the way of a cathartic
technique. Moreover, because of modern devices, the methods of
analytical psychology have been brought nearer to the understanding and
convenience of the ordinary man on the street. In the past, the
techniques of attainment, Mysticism, Magic, and Yoga, or by whatever
name such systems were denoted, were always several removes from the
ken of the average individual...
"Analysis is the logical precursor of spiritual attainment and magical
experiment. It should comprise definitely the first stage of spiritual
training...
"One of the greatest obstacles to success in Magic (or other spiritual
disciplines), to any kind of worthwhile result in the mystical
sciences, is that the emotional system of its average student is
hopelessly clogged with adolescent and infantile predilections which
have not been recognized as such...
"By associating Magic (and related disciplines) with analysis, we
should be able to avoid the pitfalls into which our predecessors fell
headlong. The production of genius - more specifically a religious and
mystical type of genius - ever the goal of Magic, should be more within
our grasp than ever before...
"These ideas are mentioned not because a systematic union of Magic and
Psychology will be here presented, but in the hope that this effort
will spur some psychologist acquainted with magical and mystical
techniques to attempt such a task...
"By endeavoring to extend the horizon of consciousness, to enlarge the
field of awareness so as to embrace what previously was unconscious, is
obviously a logical method. To become aware of all our actions, our
thoughts and emotions, and unsuspected motives, to regard them in their
true light... The more of this suppressed and forgotten material...
that can be raised to the clear light of day, by exactly so much do we
awake from that inert stupor into which we have in the past been
plunged."
rolan...@hotmail.com
I read it many years ago.
I think the Tree of Life had no "paths" on it originally. It is a
diagram that got taken over by these occultist nutcases and they added
significances to it. They even assigned Tarot cards to the paths but
the Tarot pack is just playing cards for playing the game Tarot. I've
seen the game played in bars in Lille in northern France.
These occultists can't make anything go bump in the night in the same
way that an OTs body thetans will never push a ping-pong ball for them.
What they have in common with each other is an urgent need for ECT to
reboot their brains back to sanity.
McDermott
<rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131460213.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The Tree of Life is similar to the description of the dynamics as given by
people like the Pilot. There are eight levels when you put in one which I
think
is normally not shown.
rolan...@hotmail.com
The original Tree of Life diagram was globes on a tree. The globes were
the celestial bodies. The ground was the Earth. The celestial bodies
were higher the further they were from Earth. The Moon was the lowest
(because it is closest to Earth). It's just a representation of the
celestial objects and as we know, they got it completely wrong.
Rogers. D.Scn.
>> > Muldoon wrote:
>> > > "Ananda, Chit, Sat," or "Bliss, Knowledge, Being," also known as
>> > > "Joy,
>> > > Reality, Being," became "Affinity, Reality, Communication."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's at times like this that I appreciate how wise I was to killfile
Muldoon.
"Bliss-Knowledge-Being" became ARC, eh?
No Muldoon, it was "E-mc2" that became ARC.
No, wait, it was "eggs-flour-water" that became ARC.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> The Tree of Life is similar to the description of the dynamics as given by
> people like the Pilot. There are eight levels when you put in one which I
> think
> is normally not shown.
Whoever gave you this was pulling your leg, McDermott.
Absolutes are (normally) unobtainable, but... the Kabalistic Tree of Life is
absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, dissimilar to any concept of the 8
Dynamics in Scientology.
Les.
Muldoon
Your argument is with Hubbard, not with me, but, of course, that has
not yet occurred to you.
Muldoon
This is in response to an inquiry by Marco.
Aleister Crowley's "Naples Arrangement" can be found in the book '777',
under the section titled "Various Arrangements." A further discussion
of it can be found in 'The Book of Thoth'.
Another Crowley text is 'Magick Without Tears', with attention to the
chapter 'The Universe: 0 = 2 equation'.
As for "Sat, Chit, Ananda" - Crowley incorporated these into his
"Naples Arrangement" and in doing so mixed Eastern (Yoga/Hinduism) with
Western (Magic/Kabbalah).
Hubbard copied this, and one finds "ARC" placed roughly in the same
position in his "Factors" as was "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" in Crowley's
"Naples Arrangement."
And as for "KRC" ?
Hubbard had to come up with something to rhyme with his "ARC" when he
copied Crowley's motto: "Love is the Law; Love under Will."
And thus we have "ARC over KRC" as in the Scientology symbol, the "S
with the Double Triangle."
Also: The text 'Yoga', by Ernest Wood, may be helpful in understanding
"Sat, Chit, Ananda" as reflecting the "triple nature of being."
Although most often identified with the "Absolute," this "triple
nature" is recurring throughout existence.
A word of caution. Hubbard and Crowley are worthy of study, but it is
highly unwise to select either as one's spiritual guide or teacher.
Hope this helps.
Muldoon
Typo correction: That's "KRC _over_ ARC," as in "Will" over "Love."
Crowley's description of what he meant by "love" resemble Hubbard's
description of "ARC."
ted_c...@hotmail.com
> Typo correction: That's "KRC _over_ ARC," as in "Will" over "Love."
That man-made heirarchy justifies covert hostility and duplicity, i.e.
says one thing and does another, uses communication to manipulate, lacks
fidelity and integrity.
KRC over ARC does not jibe with the Axioms.
But what do I know? I am at Level 3 Damnation based on Dante's Inferno.
Here, take the test: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
LOL
--
Ted
Ralph Hilton
<1h66j7r.mcxhtx1xviw3mN%ted_c...@hotmail.com>, :
You must be a very evil being. I was only banished to the 2nd level of hell. From the
description it does seem preferable to all that luvy duvy harp playing and hymn singing
that goes on up there.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.ralphhilton.org
C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net
bb
ted_c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> But what do I know? I am at Level 3 Damnation based on Dante's Inferno.
>
> Here, take the test: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
> LOL
>
>
> --
> Ted
Seems there is no theoretical good result.
But I got one. :)
Second level of hell, " Lustfull". Trapped with Cleopatra
and Helen of Troy.
Damn me! Guess there is a god. :))
bb
Nick Warren
> Seems there is no theoretical good result.
>
> But I got one. :)
>
> Second level of hell, " Lustfull". Trapped with Cleopatra
> and Helen of Troy.
>
> Damn me! Guess there is a god. :))
>
> bb
Ah, all you lot are still in heaven. I got level 6.
Nick
Muldoon
Ralph's pervasive URL advertisements, like a form of venereal disease,
finally made it to this thread.
Muldoon
ted_c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > Typo correction: That's "KRC _over_ ARC," as in "Will" over "Love."
>
>
> That man-made heirarchy justifies covert hostility and duplicity, i.e.
> says one thing and does another, uses communication to manipulate, lacks
> fidelity and integrity.
-snip-
> Ted
An earlier posting on ACT, 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia' ("Batra"),
contains a follow up discussion of the "KRC/ARC," or "Will/Love"
issue.
Ted's observations hit the target square in the center.
Muldoon
> with the Double Triangle."
>
> Also: The text 'Yoga', by Ernest Wood, may be helpful in understanding
> "Sat, Chit, Ananda" as reflecting the "triple nature of being."
> Although most often identified with the "Absolute," this "triple
> nature" is recurring throughout existence.
>
> A word of caution. Hubbard and Crowley are worthy of study, but it is
> highly unwise to select either as one's spiritual guide or teacher.
>
> Hope this helps.
There have been requests for a kind of "recommended reading list"
regarding two areas: 1) Earlier sources (pre-1949) for the subject and
operation of "Scientology," 2) A compilation of items to be found in
the non-publicized strata of the subject.
The first will be added to this thread, and the latter will be appended
to the posting by Heidrun Beer, which is a snippet (#2) of an earlier
posting titled, 'I won't be overwhelmed - I promise."
Those newly exiting Scientology are fortunate to have, for
consultation, a number of books, written pre-Internet, and also the
vast resources of the Internet itself. What is to be provided here are
mainly key words, titles, and "arrows pointing in directions."
In the case of the Forums ARS and ACT: taken together, they present an
inkling of what would constitute a stereoscopic (3 dimensional)
perspective. This is a perspective I heartily recommend anyone working
toward achieving. And there are many resources available to aid those
interested in doing so.
The pattern of singular outlooks, divergent and exclusionary, manifests
in myriad ways throughout literature, the Internet, and human
relations. This is inevitable, and undoubtedly preferable, at least in
the short term. In the longer term, however, this tendency can lead to
stagnation or worse.
While existing in mythology, the cyclops, in reality, is quite extinct.
In cooperation with this subtle hint from nature, the "recommended
reading list" will follow shortly.
Muldoon
Looking over this thread, the names, subjects, titles that may be
helpful are scattered through out. A few more are here provided:
For googling on the Net:
1938 Skipper letter.
Hubbard, Affirmations.
Text: 'Jefferson and/or Mussolini' by Ezra Pound
'Babalon Working' (Brings up Jack Parsons' material)
Abreaction; also Abreactive.
Richard Semon. ('Mnemic Psychology')
'L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?' Chapter titled 'Origins of
Dianetics'.
Alfred Korzybski.
That's a beginning.
Will take up the rest (post 1949) in 'I will not be overwhelmed - I
promise #2', retitled: 'Hubbard's Hidden Data Line'.
Kevin Brady
One can always contact the publishers of the Golden Dawn's materials and
buy their books. That's a good start. Hume, Korzybski, Freud, Jung,
lots of others. Also, the publishers of Robert Anton Wilson's books
have their finger on the pulse, as well. New Falcon, I think is the
name of that publisher.
Rogers. D.Scn.
before.
Meanwhile:
"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> One can always contact the publishers of the Golden Dawn's materials and
> buy their books. That's a good start. Hume, Korzybski, Freud, Jung, lots
> of others. Also, the publishers of Robert Anton Wilson's books have their
> finger on the pulse, as well. New Falcon, I think is the name of that
> publisher.
Sure, maybe people should go ahead, at a risk of consuming precious time
that could fuel more fruitful gain, and study up on that stuff.
But, two things. Muldoon is a suppressive loon and just makes this stuff up
out of delusional chaff. And, second, you sure will NOT find any basic bit
of Scientology tech in any of those works above.
Oh, basic point. The whole and entire reason L. Ron Hubbard was
successful - in an area where no-one else had been - was BECAUSE he
CLEAN-SLATED the entire thing and started off afresh.
Not only did he NOT adopt or assume any of the "opinions" or "guesses" of
prior authors, it would've been an impossible task anyway. For every idea
presented there was, at least, one completely opposite opinion, several
false opinions, and hundreds of different and misleading opinions. It would
have been a futile quest had he even tried it thataway. Which is why he
concluded he'd better clean-slate and start afresh.
Les.
Kevin Brady
> I have Muldoon killfiled, but remember this bit of nonsense from him from
> before.
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>One can always contact the publishers of the Golden Dawn's materials and
>>buy their books. That's a good start. Hume, Korzybski, Freud, Jung, lots
>>of others. Also, the publishers of Robert Anton Wilson's books have their
>>finger on the pulse, as well. New Falcon, I think is the name of that
>>publisher.
>
>
> Sure, maybe people should go ahead, at a risk of consuming precious time
> that could fuel more fruitful gain, and study up on that stuff.
So, you are biased against people learning from multiple sources. Just
as Hubbard wanted.
> But, two things. Muldoon is a suppressive loon and just makes this stuff up
> out of delusional chaff.
That's not been my determination.
> And, second, you sure will NOT find any basic bit
> of Scientology tech in any of those works above.
That's also not been my determination.
> Oh, basic point. The whole and entire reason L. Ron Hubbard was
> successful - in an area where no-one else had been - was BECAUSE he
> CLEAN-SLATED the entire thing and started off afresh.
LOL. Bolt from the Blue, right? I guess that justifies not looking,
since you have his explanation.
> Not only did he NOT adopt or assume any of the "opinions" or "guesses" of
> prior authors, it would've been an impossible task anyway.
That's not what Hubbard said, early on. He claimed his subject was an
evolution, not a revolution. Hubbard stood on the shoulders of giants.
He was a fantastic synthesizer of effective views and processes, and
very creative at generating new and effective processes and logic from
that synthesis. But he didn't do it on his own. Assertions to the
contrast are just cultic hero-worship.
> For every idea
> presented there was, at least, one completely opposite opinion, several
> false opinions, and hundreds of different and misleading opinions. It would
> have been a futile quest had he even tried it thataway. Which is why he
> concluded he'd better clean-slate and start afresh.
Yes, one has to have stable data to organize a confusion. His stable
data was Freud's abreaction. Around this he organized everything else,
informed by Crowley's "Do what thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law."
That's fine. He did an excellent job. It just didn't go quite the
way the PR machine he created spun it. It seems sad to me that you
don't see this.
I think it's fine for you or anyone else to train in scientology, and
only scientology, because an auditor trained that way will be capable of
helping people achieve very high states of awareness and fulfillment.
I just think you need to recognize that the games condition that exists
between scientologists and psychiatry/psychology is based on falsehood
and lack of understanding Scientology's actual philosophical roots.
Scientology is a child of that thought system. A child that rejected
it's parent. A child that had much for it's parent to learn from. But
that parent had other children. And those children are not the enemies
of scientology unless you make them that way.
KGB
Rogers. D.Scn.
>>>One can always contact the publishers of the Golden Dawn's materials and
>>>buy their books. That's a good start. Hume, Korzybski, Freud, Jung,
>>>lots of others. Also, the publishers of Robert Anton Wilson's books have
>>>their finger on the pulse, as well. New Falcon, I think is the name of
>>>that publisher.
> Rogers. D.Scn. wrote:
>> Sure, maybe people should go ahead, at a risk of consuming precious time
>> that could fuel more fruitful gain, and study up on that stuff.
Kevin responded:
> So, you are biased against people learning from multiple sources. Just as
> Hubbard wanted.
I have read the Golden Dawn. Have you, Kevin? I have read Crowley's works.
Have you, Kevin?
That Muldoon can be delusional enough to insist that "Bliss, knowledge and
being" was morphed into ARC, well, shoot, might as well be equally
ridiculous and claim, "Flour, water and yeast" was morphed into ARC.
It's an asinine comment by somebody who is clueless, apparently, about what
the initials "A-R-C" stand for.
Well, I deem it worse than asinine, I deem it a suppressive mis-direction.
> > And, second, you sure will NOT find any basic bit
>> of Scientology tech in any of those works above.
> That's also not been my determination.
So, here we go again. How convenient to make such an assertion without
posing a single example. Make me have to ask, eh?
I am increasingly of the persuasion that, like the founders of Psychiatry
and Psychology, you, Kevin, have endeavored to at least master the art of
BLUFF.
Les.
Muldoon
That's fine Les, thank you for your input.
Kevin Brady
> "Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>One can always contact the publishers of the Golden Dawn's materials and
>>>>buy their books. That's a good start. Hume, Korzybski, Freud, Jung,
>>>>lots of others. Also, the publishers of Robert Anton Wilson's books have
>>>>their finger on the pulse, as well. New Falcon, I think is the name of
>>>>that publisher.
>
>
>>Rogers. D.Scn. wrote:
>
>
>>>Sure, maybe people should go ahead, at a risk of consuming precious time
>>>that could fuel more fruitful gain, and study up on that stuff.
>
>
> Kevin responded:
>
>
>>So, you are biased against people learning from multiple sources. Just as
>>Hubbard wanted.
>
>
> I have read the Golden Dawn. Have you, Kevin?
No- it didn't interest me. I am not now, and never was, interested in
magical powers and spells, focusing the will, etc. I'm interested in
clearing away charge. Abilities regained from that are wonderful, and
I'm happy to be involved in that, but I'm not after a particular
ability, I'm after the charge that represses it. It's not my agenda
that the pc is going to fulfill, it's his own, once the charge is gone.
> I have read Crowley's works.
> Have you, Kevin?
Several, not all. I found him largely referencing a lot of other work
that I was not interested in reading. Again, he was interested in
abilities gained, rather than what was preventing them from manifesting
in the first place. He suffered from bypassed charge, as a result.
> That Muldoon can be delusional enough to insist that "Bliss, knowledge and
> being" was morphed into ARC, well, shoot, might as well be equally
> ridiculous and claim, "Flour, water and yeast" was morphed into ARC.
Are you talking to me, or Muldoon?
> It's an asinine comment by somebody who is clueless, apparently, about what
> the initials "A-R-C" stand for.
Good use of ARC to make your point.
> Well, I deem it worse than asinine, I deem it a suppressive mis-direction.
That's fine. Hope it helps you in your processing.
>>>And, second, you sure will NOT find any basic bit
>>>of Scientology tech in any of those works above.
>
>
>>That's also not been my determination.
>
>
> So, here we go again. How convenient to make such an assertion without
> posing a single example. Make me have to ask, eh?
>
> I am increasingly of the persuasion that, like the founders of Psychiatry
> and Psychology, you, Kevin, have endeavored to at least master the art of
> BLUFF.
>
> Les.
Yes, you are free to make that determination. It shows how good you are
at the art of hiding your head in the ground when people show you the
sources Hubbard used, and then claiming they haven't showed you.
KGB
>
>