-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO ACCEPT OR TO RESIGN?
Below is a very difficult posting on the subject of acceptance as a
method of vanishment. It came about during discussions, more like fire
fights, between myself and Allan Hacker, Speaker for Acceptance Services,
Inc. an off shoot of clearing.
It is similar to 'you get what you resist', and Hubbard's 'as you
can accept and be content with things as they are, they won't exsit,
that is absolute' - PXL
One's personal experience of acceptance is that acceptance does NOT
in general cause vanishment, and thus the wars with Hacker and others on
the matter were full of unacceptance on the matter of the efficacy of
acceptance.
To make things worse acceptance has a lower harmonic at
resignation, thus sometimes people talk about how acceptance is low
tone, and a bad sign or indicator of a person's case condition, even
Hubbard who insisted that high tone people DON'T merely accept their
environment, but act to change it.
Thus we have a clarification which goes like this:
Acceptence is acceptance with expectation of vanishment.
Resignation is acceptance with expectation of persistence.
It is EXPECTATION that is causal therefore and determines what
happens, not acceptance or resignation per se which are results.
But we still have the problem that if you want to get rid of
something, surely you aren't accepting it completely, or you wouldn't
be interested in getting rid of it. This results in a 'jerk', meaning
if you want to change something you can't, and if you don't want
to change something its going to change away on you anyhow.
If you like it, it will vanish on you, if you don't like it,
you are stuck with it, unless you can force yourself to like it etc.
The issue is wondering why we created it in the first place,
absent awareness of willingness and aesthetic motivation to
create something we wouldn't like a moment after it is created,
we remain fully not liking it, and thus can't vanish it.
But recovery of the willingness and motivation to put it there in
the first place and then forget we did so and why, immediately puts us
putting it there again and appreciating as a form of ludicrous demise
(since we put it there :) ) And thus we can just as easily let go of it.
If we consider we are not or did not or would not put it there,
then clearly we have nothing to do with it being there, thus we
can't just let go of it and it will vanish, as something ELSE
is putting it there. Thus we try to create something MORE ELSE to
induce the other ELSE to stop creating if for us. Since there
IS no other else creating it, this never works and we get stuck
with it.
But what are we stuck with? SOMETHING WE DID NOT PUT THERE, OR DID
BUT NOW ARE REGRETTING SO *NOW* WE ARE NOT PUTTING IT THERE!
Well if we aren't putting there, who or what is, and what
are you going to do about it (create something more.)
You can see that if the only way to vanish something is to be
putting it there and then cease putting it there, all this other
irresponsibility for its existence right now is just going to make it
persist harder.
Surely we understand that if we want to get rid of something we
have to be putting it there first, thus wanting to get rid of smomething
prepostulates that you have it, and this creates a feedback trap of
having the thing first by mere conception, and then trying to get rid of
it by postulating something MORE.
Got a bug? Don't like the bug? Make some bug spray!
Wrongo!
We deal with this by understanding that feedback loop, and showing
at least that the way to get rid of something is NOT to create something
MORE, you can't get rid of A by creating B.
Thus any effort to deal with a persistence by throwing mass or
effort or even concentration at it, or efforts to duplicate it etc will
invoke the trap and you won't succeed.
If you don't want something to persist, stop putting it there.
If you are putting it there, you will never get rid of it by
putting something MORE there to get rid of the first thing, and now
worse you are postulating a causal relation between the second thing you
put there as the vanquisher of the first thing.
I can't kill the bug I made, but the bug spray that I made can!
That's total insanity of causation.
We still have to deal with the problem of convulsive or compulsive
putting it theres, to really handle the compulsion you will have to put
the compulsion there too!
But there are so many layers of putting things there on top of
putting things there, to stop us from putting things there, that pretty
soon the mountain PUTS US THERE, and stomps us out of existence!
So you have to put THAT there. "Whoa, you mean I can do that, put
a mountain there, that will put me there, and then stomp me out of
existence, by putting MORE stuff there on me?"
Look around you at the physical universe, who or what is putting
who or what where?
Lower tone in the world of flows, acceptance is very related to
flinch and cringe, which are NON acceptance of a flow coming in, or
going out or cross wise, and which flinch or cringe enturbulate the flow
and make it very hard to confront it and let it be enough so it will
FLOW and run out.
Imagine being in a huge smooth flowing river, flowing around you
smooth as silk. Then stick your hands out and try to stop the flow,
what will happen? The water will enturbulate and YOU will get washed
away in the turbulance.
Enturbulated flows are the cause of pain, and thus flinch and
cringe ABOUT pain, CREATE pain and thus for sure are a feed back trap.
Certainly doubt about being able to easily confront something bad
leads directly to protective finch and cringe and thus create the
overwhelming pain they are intended to protect against.
For sure one finds that various bank flows turn to pleasure once
one tends to dive into them rather than flinch or cringe and trying to
run away. One has to try it to see it, and that's a real barrier to
learning it is true. The "gotta know before you go" crowd are kind of
doomed on this one.
AS are the prove it cases.
You see the door is stuck closed, you shut it for a good reason, 10
hurricanes are going on outside.
You try to open the door and it won't budge.
I say, push it closed again, and it will open.
Well it took you forever to push it closed so it would stay closed
on its own. Whew! What a relief! You see?
So now I am telling you to push on it again and it will open?
You say 'Prove it!'.
I say "Do it, you will see for yourself."
When it comes to your own hurricanes and how to turn them on again
and let them run out for good, telling you that Goober did the 'push it
again' trick and it worked for him, will not wash very well with you.
You are totally alone with your as-isness of your condition,
no one can prove squat to you, as you aren't sure others eexist
at all, let alone have confronted anything.
If someone else had confronted this thing you are scared of, YOU
wouldn't be having such a hard time of it, because you are all one on
the flip side of your soul, so you KNOW that if its still there to be
confronted, NO ONE else has!
Thus you are alone with your devils and the hells you and
they occupy.
But even real nasty anger, fear and sorrow flows turn to pleasure
and beauty if one even lets up a little at the flinch and cringe and
'accepts' them, meaning receives them, at their full intensity. This is
a matter of smooth controlled effort to open the lip but not let it fly
off from pressure, and relaxing a bit to let the stuff out, rather than
a total philosophical total acceptance of loss and suffering which
doesn't happen until one can create suffering and loss freely.
That brings us to the core of the matter, all ugly is created from
a viewpoint of beauty, humor and class.
Excaliper and Grand Design.
Excaliper means without measure, worth beyond measure.
Your existence, a masterpiece of disharmony and harmony, dischord
and resolve.
With continued contact with the source point (self) and motivation
(art) of the creation of bad things, the suffering is acceptable because
its enjoyable. But once one drops down into apparencies are reality,
then awareness of source point and motivation is lost, and thus
suffering becomes simply and only suffering, and that is no longer
acceptable.
Above apparencies are reality the beauty of consciousness
surpasses anything that might displayed in consciousness.
Imagine the most horrific war scence painted on the finest
gold and silk lace.
THE FABRIC or canvas of creation is more beautiful than
anything that could be painted on it, and thus any ugly or
suffering that is painted on it, fades in the light of the
fabric of the painting.
No one is looking at the depiction, everyone is enjoying the fabric
too much.
But put such a painting on old dirty paper, and boy will the
dipiction of misery hit home.
There is no higher beauty to assuage it or ameliorate it, let alone
adorne the suffering with purpose and motivation in the grand tapestry
of things.
The way to get someone to really buy into the depiction of
suffering and misery is to paint it on a fabric so abominable that the
ugly of the *FABRIC* pulls the ugly of the depiction on the fabric down
to unconfrontable ugliness.
Once one loses sight of the ART to the suffering, the pleasure of
suffering is lost and so one is left suffering without reason to
continue it.
This is where mere 'acceptance' does not vanish things and becomes
eventually resignation to having a mirgraine for the rest of your life
or being in solitary confinement in a universe of quadzillions of beings
you can no longer see or communicate with.
Your prison cell is MADE of life, God incarnate, and you think its
made of cold dead stone that doesn't give a damn and wouldn't be aware
of it, if it did.
The only way to be alone inside of time, is to be 100 percent non
telepathic or only telepathic to negative beings.
So the kind of acceptance that causes vanishment is the state with
slightly more awareness and hope of artistic resolve, slightly less
flinch and cringe, and more willingness to look and experience the
suffering to its fullest.
CONSCIOUSNESS begins to light up again, and what's going on
in consciousness, death and damnation mostly, begins to become
irrelevant, or actually add to the beauty once the lies, illogics
and jokes of ludicrous demise become apparent.
First it GLOWS then it BLOWS.
Sometimes it takes an almost suicidal intent to experience the
sorrow so loud and so hard it kills you finally and for ever more, and
in surprise you find love, light and pleasure waves where you were just
sure you were going to find crushing loss, injustice and hatred for the
cosmic all forever for free.
This is a kind of waking up, you LEARN that if you dive into the
pit of fear, it turns to pleasure, then you start layer after layer
running them out by appling the rules of cringlessness and
flinchlessness that you have gleaned. Each win leads to the next level
of terror and horror until you pass those exams too.
Really its about pulling a higher view point of you putting it
there along with the complete while in which the experience exists.
Spanning the duration of an event pops you out of any while there is or
could be, because you are bigger than it, and YOU ARE PUTTING IT THERE.
Looking at an unknown while from inside the while is hell.
Looking at a known while from outside the while is heaven.
Just getting the idea you are putting it there, whether you believe
it or not, will often open the door to the higher viewpoint. Especially
if you include in your putting it there, that you don't believe a word
of this.
So none of the above was really clear to me at the time of the
acceptance wars on a.c.t. with Hacker,
My first cognition leading me the way out is written in another
posting to the effect that if you are suffering some physical condition,
and efforts to accept it do not make it flow and run out and turn into
pleasure waves, then there is something MUCH BIGGER and earlier that you
are not accepting, which then results in the later symptoms being
unaditable.
Find the real flinch and cringe about life and death, existence,
mortality, immortality and eternality, and you will find too much case
gain too fast. Blinded by the light and the beauty.
We have come to a point that eternal freedom to have what
we want is unacceptable, either we don't deserve it any more,
or its just too good to be true.
We have accepted that some things can never be 'fixed' and so we
have accepted them into resignation until we are at the bottom of the
sea no longer even aware of what we wanted and what despair and ruin we
last left them in.
We forget what we were thinking about, "Let's see, what was I just
thinking about, was I worried about something, dunno, may be no, how
come I *FEEL* so bad? Maybe I am getting sick, let's go get high..."
Thus the idea might seem offensively ludicrous that a mere change
in attitude at the moment of acceptance born of willingness to put it
there, would have caused the crushing forces of our loss to unlock and
dissolve into humor, beauty, deliciousness and peace forever and ever
amen.
Thus a being whose life is MADE of the acceptances of resignation
is wary of the acceptances of vanishment, he wonders how could he have
been so WRONG and how can he live this down, and make this up to
himself.
WHO OR WHAT BETRAYED HIM, and who will pay for the damage he caused
in the aftermath of the fit he threw?
THE WRONG is the gift, it is self vanishing because it is self
beautiful, it won't be something ELSE that makes the ugly of the wrong
up to him, the BEAUTY of the wrong will be self justifying.
Thus there is nothing to live down, the wrong was a wonderful
masterpiece, and nothing to make up for, for you just can't lose
anything without HAVING the beauty of what you lost in the mechanisms of
the loss of it.
Resignation cases will love to prove you wrong on that one, until
they see it for themselves, so don't go throwing pigs before pearls,
until you have cleaned up your own act to a point where others can't
throw you into eternal acceptance and resignation again.
Homer
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ACCEPTANCE AND VANISHMENT
It would seem to me that the tiniest slightest desire to change or get
rid of something would entail just that much non acceptance of the thing
one wants to change, and that would be enough to cause its persistence.
I find it unworkable to use the word acceptance as the operative
function of vanishment. I would prefer to use cessation of resistence or
unacceptance. Cessation of resistence and unacceptance does not equate to
acceptance.
Ron said it well in the Phoenix Lectures.
Things persist because the pc is trying to make them not exist
BY THROWING EFFORT, FORCE AND PARTICLES at it.
It's ok to want something to not exist, to not accept its continued
existence forever and ever, but its the way you go about making it not
exist that determines whether it continues to persist or not.
The idea that you can accept something that is vanished is not
coherent and in fact gets the pc to recreate what he is trying to vanish
in the effort to accept it!
The idea that it takes time between the acceptance of something
and its vanishment is an arbitrary, and leads to, "well you have
to accept it long enough for it to vanish."
"No one is asking you to accept it forever, just for a while, at which
point it will fade away." One begins to ask "OK, how long already?!"
Acceptance is the RESULT of a reality change, a change from wanting it
never to have been there, to wanting it to have been there for a while.
One can then let go. Things that "should never have been but were anyhow"
are a death trap to the thetan.
He's not accepting that it ever was. So it persists.
If he can reach an acceptance that IT WAS, it will be gone now.
Acceptance that something was, comes from understanding why and how it
was created and the purpose and *mechanism* of its continuance.
The beauty of the purpose and mechanism makes it OK that NOT OK
existed for a while. That's humor, the universal solvent of all
injustice.
Unacceptance comes from the violation of resonance brought about
by incorrect understandings of purpose and mechanism of creation and
continuance.
Vanishment is vanishment. Acceptance itself is a persistence of
accepting something that is persisting. That's not a vanishment! Thats
a persisting!
Correcting the misreality that causes the dissonance removes
the UNacceptance which creates a vanishment. It does not create
an acceptance.
It's *GONE*, as gone as never was.
Thus I conclude that acceptance as an auditing tool is a trap,
although a subtle one that leads utlimately towards accepting a
persistance forever.
Its fine to get the pc to look at his unacceptance of things, but
its just going to grind him in if you get him to try to 'accept'
the things he wants to get rid of.
Dig it and don't leave it.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 27 03:06:01 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom26.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU8CVrURT1lqxE3HERAg3rAKC9ICxzyOnVHpb4LEkXrGhFTTMdZACgj29L
T+JAxO5MyTgypvWFHeAJFrg=
=dR6u
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Feb 27 18:42:25 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom26
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU8QDiURT1lqxE3HERArQbAKCWui+SKbjjgHlUXWYlNUMrOmt+IwCcCJp9
5YQWpZYjr5Gi5d1Rrvb8jJc=
=PxrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, February 27, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
ADORE144
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BEAUTY AND ILLOGICS
Adore claims that we manifest because we want to share the
perfection and beauty of the unmanifest. Kind of a contradiction, as
the Big Snooze is the Big Snooze, but Adore claims that native state is
"Infinitely happy, alone, forever, and beyond thank you." Well that's
just before the Big Snooze :)
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been saved,
you aren't."
That's peace, smugness and self confidence all rolled up into one.
We wake up into the as-isness of "infinitely happy, alone forever
and beyond thank you." But then it vanishes and we go back to the big
snooze again, and do this over and over again.
Eventually we want to share this with someone else.
So we create manifestation by mocking up persistences that persist
due to a particular mechanism of lies and illogic. That mechanism of
lies and illogic contains the beauty and perfection of native state.
It would be the beauty of tragedy and travesty, miracles and
majesty (jokes), romance and sin/song.
Ludicrous demise in other words.
Auditing beautiful illogic will bring many to a glimpse of this.
Thus by entering manifestation we wear these losses via this
mechanism of persistence, but are no longer aware ourselves of that
mechanism (lest we wake up to native state again) nor of its beauty.
Since both native state and awareness of the mechanism of loss are
lost to us, our experience is one of loss.
But others who are higher can see the mechanism and how we have
adorned ourselves with loss, and they will see the beauty of ourselves
and our native state that is encoded in our adornments of loss.
By going clear, we ourselves recover one by one the mechanisms of
our own losses, and as we do so, the beauty and humor of ourselves is
returned to us, along with awareness of absolute responsibility for our
condition, why we chose to manifest and how and for who etc.
Our suffering was an act of love given to our audiences, so they
might appreciate, through our display of 'tragedy and travesty, romance
and song' the beauty of ourselves.
The greatest love is self love. The second greatest love is love
for other's self love. Unfortunately the only way we can share our self
love with others, is to adorn ourselves with loss of it through
manifestation and decension into limitation etc.
The new idea is that the ineffable beauty of native state is
retained in the beautiful illogics by which we leave native state for a
while.
Man is that convoluted, but it says it as best I can at the moment.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:03:10 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore144.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU7hxuURT1lqxE3HERArzwAJ95DFwHsRxoDZSsrpzduLnVDyqtCwCdESVu
qRBPh9I1MfyU1v+eiCthH3M=
=QHDA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BEAUTY AND ILLOGICS
Adore claims that we manifest because we want to share the
perfection and beauty of the unmanifest. Kind of a contradiction, as
the Big Snooze is the Big Snooze, but Adore claims that native state is
"Infinitely happy, alone, forever, and beyond thank you." Well that's
just before the Big Snooze :)
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been saved,
you aren't."
That's peace, smugness and self confidence all rolled up into one.
We wake up into the as-isness of "infinitely happy, alone forever
and beyond thank you." But then it vanishes and we go back to the big
snooze again, and do this over and over again.
Eventually we want to share this with someone else.
So we create manifestation by mocking up persistences that persist
due to a particular mechanism of lies and illogic. That mechanism of
lies and illogic contains the beauty and perfection of native state.
It would be the beauty of tragedy and travesty, miracles and
majesty (jokes), romance and sin/song.
Ludicrous demise in other words.
Auditing beautiful illogic will bring many to a glimpse of this.
Thus by entering manifestation we wear these losses via this
mechanism of persistence, but are no longer aware ourselves of that
mechanism (lest we wake up to native state again) nor of its beauty.
Since both native state and awareness of the mechanism of loss are
lost to us, our experience is one of loss.
But others who are higher can see the mechanism and how we have
adorned ourselves with loss, and they will see the beauty of ourselves
and our native state that is encoded in our adornments of loss.
By going clear, we ourselves recover one by one the mechanisms of
our own losses, and as we do so, the beauty and humor of ourselves is
returned to us, along with awareness of absolute responsibility for our
condition, why we chose to manifest and how and for who etc.
Our suffering was an act of love given to our audiences, so they
might appreciate, through our display of 'tragedy and travesty, romance
and song' the beauty of ourselves.
The greatest love is self love. The second greatest love is love
for other's self love. Unfortunately the only way we can share our self
love with others, is to adorn ourselves with loss of it through
manifestation and decension into limitation etc.
The new idea is that the ineffable beauty of native state is
retained in the beautiful illogics by which we leave native state for a
while.
Man is that convoluted, but it says it as best I can at the moment.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Feb 25 14:03:10 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore144.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU7hxuURT1lqxE3HERArzwAJ95DFwHsRxoDZSsrpzduLnVDyqtCwCdESVu
qRBPh9I1MfyU1v+eiCthH3M=
=QHDA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
THE GOD FACTORY v2.0
Additions and corrections.
THE GOD FACTORY
ACT - 28
27 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Chris has repeatedly brought up the subject of good and bad with
regard to elemental theta manifestations. No one yet seems to have
answered his questions directly, and I am not sure I can do so
satisfactorily, but I will try.
There are possibly absolute definitions of good and bad, but they
would always be relative to some being's DESIRES. If there are some
absolute desires, such as to live forever, to have games (which include
penalties and pain, but maybe not permanent loss) then good would be
those things which aligned with these desires.
If theta or thetans are sovereign as some suggest (not me, lord
forbid) then anything created by a thetan, since it must come from his
own desire, must be good, no matter how painful it might seem in the
present.
If thetans are not inherently sovereign, then it is possible that
things exist in the universe or in the basic nature of theta itself
which theta finds itself opposed to, even actually detests, and so these
parts of existence would be considered bad by theta.
As to whether or not they really WERE bad, begs the question of
'bad relative to whose desire?'
Within a game, you can set rules, and it is implied that once you
have done this, following the rules is good, and breaking the rules is
bad. People can enter your game with the intention to cheat, to break
the rules in order to win unfairly, so from within the game it looks
like these people are bad, even though a sovereign thetan would have had
to set the game up so that people COULD enter it with an intention to
cheat, so having such beings in this case would be good.
But within games, good and bad are well defined, they involve
following and breaking the rules. Penalties are set up so that
punishments and rewards are allotted according to whether you follow or
break the rules. These punishments and rewards, being of pain and
pleasure, ugly and beauty, are themselves intrinsically bad and good.
Sometimes really vicious games are set up so that painful penalties
are associated not only with breaking the rules but also with LOSING the
game. This puts constant pressure on the players to choose between
breaking the rules and losing, especially if they think they can escape
being caught for breaking the rules, and that breaking the rules will
help them win.
Thus we have two kinds of good and bad, good and bad behavior, and
good and bad experiences. Good and bad behavior seems more arbitrary as
it is defined by the rules of the game which can be changed by the game
creators. Good and bad experiences are more absolute as they have to do
with beauty and ugly which in my opinion are mathematical absolutes
relating to harmony and disharmony.
However any good musician will tell you that even disharmony can be
good if it is used intelligently within the framework of a greater whole
where the discord is resolved into a harmony at the end. The best
pieces are not all harmony, as anyone who has appreciated Tchaikovski's
violin concerto can attest.
It is therefore one of the philosopher's main jobs to ask if the
pain and disharmony that we see in life is indeed part of a bigger
picture including the past and future and ALL of the present wherein the
present disharmony is somehow resolved into a harmony at the end, which
harmony is better for having been resolved from a disharmony.
It has been suggested that harmony is only of value WHEN it
resolves a disharmony, although I personally have had visions of clear
harmony which belie this position.
Within a game therefore, it is plausible to find that various
behaviors are considered good and bad according to whether they produce
resolve or not, and whether they break the rules of the game.
It is possible that if a being runs away from doing the right
thing, and makes doing the wrong thing right, he will continue in error,
which will lead to a form of decay based on denial of doing wrong.
He will withhold, he will limit himself, he will make others wrong
who are right, he will generally become more unconscious of himself and
his past, future, and the present, and he will be less and less able to
play the game at the level of game piece that he is accustomed to. Thus
he may take on smaller and smaller pieces and roles as they are the only
options left to him as he corners himself in his denial of wrongness.
How many corners can you back yourself into before you become a
rat?
So that could be considered a poetic statement of the law of decay
espoused by myself and others including Hubby about what happens to
beings who continue to withhold and do wrong. They refuse to correct an
error, they refuse apology and confession, and they continue on down the
dwindling spiral by holding onto their engrams and memories of pain
harder and harder because they act as justifications and make rights for
the wrong that they did.
"You hurt me second, so I was RIGHT to hurt you first!"
Hubbard says beings do not last long in this universe, but quickly
become entities in other people's lives, eventually to fall to the
bottom of the tone scale as a form of stone cold apathetic MEST, not
physical universe MEST, but a ball of mental mass and entheta, or
enturbulated theta.
What mental mass is, is a higher harmonic of physical mass. The
physical universe is the lowest of seven planes of existence labeled by
the Theosophers as Physical/Etheric, Astral, Mental/Causal, Buddhic,
Nirvanic, Monadic and Divine.
((A monad is an indivisible and impenetrable unit of substance
viewed as the basic constituent element of reality.))
Each plane is it self divided into 7 sub planes. The Mental plane
in particular has 4 lower planes which have to do with normal thought
and which are usually considered the 'mental' plane. The upper 3 planes
of the mental plane have to do with thoughts that can not be put into
words and in particular have to do with personal responsibility and
personal CAUSATION and is therefore referred to as the CAUSAL plane by
the Theosophers and as the Spiritual plane by Adore.
The physical plane is also divided into 7 subplanes. The lower 4
physical subplanes are the material planes that we know of in the
physical universe, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. (Yes I know this is
terrible physics, but most of theosophy was written before anyone knew
anything about sub atomics.)
The upper 3 planes are are called the Etheric plane and are the
physical efforts exercised directly by the thetan in its effort to
control the physical universe. The etheric plane is that elusive bond
that everyone says doesn't exist and which if it were sensed would prove
that something more is affecting the body than mere biochemistry. The
body's RIDER in other words rides the body through the reigns of the
etheric plane. The etheric plane is the operational interface between
the higher planes and the body on the physical plane.
Thus we have the following correlations between Theosophy, Hubbard
and Adore.
Theosophy Hubbard Adore Adore Adore
CAUSAL CHOICE SPIRITUAL RELIGION CREATION
MENTAL THOUGHT MENTAL SCIENCE DISCOVERY
ASTRAL EMOTION EMOTIONAL ART EXPRESSION
ETHERIC EFFORT PHYSICAL BUSINESS TRADE
PHYSICAL MEST
Thus comes Adore's proclamation that,
'The Purpose of Creation is Trade in Expressions of Discovery'.
To the theosophist, the soul resides in present time on the three
lowest of their seven planes, the mental, astral and physical. (By
mental plane I mean here to include the causal plane, and the physical
includes the etheric).
The Soul, being created in the image of God, is a Triune being,
which means he has three 'bodies' or parts to his overall beingness.
They are the physical, emotional and mental parts.
As a soul goes through his multi lifetime, multi body journey, he
evolves on the causal plane until he is bulging out the top of it. At
the point he breaks through to the Buddhic plane of consciousness he
becomes 'Enlightened'. At that point he moves all three of his bodies
up one plane. Now he resides on the Buddhic, Mental and Astral planes
only. His body continues to exist, but he doesn't think he IS a body
any more and is quite aware of being exterior and controlling it by
conception alone.
The outward implication of this is that he no longer needs to use
EFFORT to get things done, he can merely emote them into existence as
the emotional plane is his lowest plane and the one he uses to interact
with the world. This is a recovery of 'Desire is Sovereign.' He is not
all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything, but he can act
without EFFORT, and he does now recognize that everything which exists
is in accordance with his own desire, so he has recovered his sense of
sovereignty in good working order.
Adore would say his Sovereignty is balanced by his Majesty which is
his Sovereign Desire that his Desire not be Sovereign for a while.
Further since he is no longer tied to the physical plane via his
use of the etheric subplanes to get things done, he is free to wander
around where his body is not. He can also put himself inside of other
people's heads and be them or see what they are being, doing and having
and thinking, feeling and exerting.
He no longer controls his body by effort or mental force, but
communicates with it as anyone would communicate with another animal,
for example a dog. You don't MAKE the dog come, you say 'Come!' and it
comes, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Just so with the body.
The enlightened soul's journey now consists of mastering the
Buddhic plane of consciousness until he once again breaks through to the
Nirvanic plane which is often called Nirvana, or Christ Consciousness.
The Christ, considered as a post, is the head being of the Nirvanic
Plane of beings. Kind of like the Chairman of the Department.
I believe that a dude named Metteya either is or recently was the
holder of that post. Jesus, Homer, I can't believe you don't know this.
Shame on you.
Anyhow, the Theosophers hold that Jesus was an incarnation of
Metteya or whoever was holding the post during his time on Earth.
I have had many micro second visions from the Nirvanic plane, and
all I can say is that it is Class beyond Imagination. I assure you,
there is no Hell Forever. The kindness, wisdom and INTELLIGENCE of The
Christ plane is unfathomable, unmeasurable, and without bounds, truly a
Sovereign Omnilord of Unanimous Regency and Caliber Excaliper (SOURCE).
As the Soul enters each plane above where he is, he raises up all
of his three bodies with him, shedding the lowest plane he was last on.
Thus he remains a Triune Being to the very top which is called the
Divine plane. The Divine plane relates to the Divine Chakra, at the top
of the head, much as the lower planes each relate to their own Chakra.
The attainment of the top subplane of the Divine plane is the
attainment of total Sovereignty in this universe. One recognizes in
that moment that the soul is God in carnation, one of many, figuratively
and litterally.
At the top of the Divine Plane is the head of all head Triune
Beings, the King of Kings, God himself, again another post for this
universe, held by someone real. This God by the way has the Divine
plane as his BOTTOM plane, so his top two planes are in the next
universe out!
Above this God is another whole series of planes in a larger
universe of which our God is himself an evolving Spirit among many.
As the soul from this universe passes through the top level Divine
plane he enters the bottom plane of the next universe out and becomes
himself a pre-God among peers, other souls who have embarked on this
same journey, all of whom are preparing to have their own personal
universe of beings.
We call this the God Factory.
Now THIS boggles the mind.
By the way, you can't go around the God of this universe, or try to
petition HIS God in a dispute. The God of this universe has absolute
Sovereignty over this universe. As long as you are in this universe,
which you are by your own choice, you are under Him and only Him.
So you ask for proof of all this.
Well first of all it's a THEORY. But it's a theory based on direct
personal reports of beings who claim to have been there and returned to
tell the tale.
Someone claimed they went, they saw, they returned and they
reported.
It is going to be hard to prove without taking you there for your
own experience.
They all belong in a mental institution, you say?
Well perhaps.
You see the problem is that when a meatball asks for proof, he is
really asking for evidence. But when he asks for evidence he is really
asking for a THEORY BACKED BY EVIDENCE.
You see he considers that he can't consider some thing TRUE unless
he has a theory which SAYS that thing is true and evidence to back it
up, EVEN THOUGH HE WILL ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE BACKING UP A THEORY DOES NOT
PROVE TRUTH WITH CERTAINTY!
Thus even if he sees something with his own conscious experience,
unless he has a theory about it, and some evidence to back it up, he
won't be able to accept what he saw.
If I go to the Nirvanic plane and I see all this stuff there, and I
come back and report what I saw, someone can always say, well maybe you
were hallucinating. Maybe it isn't real.
But what does he mean by REAL?
Perhaps he means, well something that HE can go see too.
So you take HIM to the Nirvanic plane and he sees just what you saw
and he comes back and he says,
'Well maybe I was hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
So you take 50,000 people there, all separately, and they all come
back and report the same thing, and of course they will all say, 'Well
maybe we are all hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
Well if seeing is not believing, then how do you know you exist?
How do you know you are awake? Do you have a theory that you exist, and
some evidence to back it up, so it becomes a good guess that you exist?
No of course not, that's nonsense. You LOOK and you KNOW.
But some people don't believe what they see. They must have a
theory and evidence to back it up, to verify with high probability that
what they can observe directly and with perfect certainty, does indeed
probably exist.
What is objective reality?
It is what everyone can see and agree to and manages to be
consistent from day to day.
If you need a theory and evidence to back it up in order to know
that you exist, then you are surely too far gone to know anything with
certainty merely by LOOKING, and so of course you will have little to no
experience of the higher planes of consciousness.
And even if you still manage to get a glimpse, you will say, 'Maybe
I was hallucinating, maybe it was not real, how do I support my theory
that what I saw was real without just looking at it again.'
You see they play their scientific games with themselves, a game of
vias. They already have a theory which says nothing can be known for
certain, because all knowledge consists of theories backed up by
evidence which they readily admit proves nothing with perfect certainty.
So they don't know that they exist, but they do have a well
supported theory that they exist. But what evidence do they have that
they exist? What evidence do they have that THAT EVIDENCE exists? Do
they have another theory that says that the evidence exists too? Backed
up by what evidence?
Eventually someone has to LOOK and see what they see, and take it
as a given self evident truth that if they see something it must exist
and be true.
Its hard to argue with bliss, "Maybe I just thought I was
happy but really it was only a hallucination that I was happy!"
Say you see a car. Now maybe there is no actual car
there made of metal and glass, but YOU DO SEE A CAR, the *SEEING*
of the car can not be doubted. That's a perfect certainty.
Just so with a happiness, if you feel happy you feel happy, it
can't be questioned.
That is how you know you exist, you look, you see, and you see yourself
seeing, and it is OBVIOUSLY true.
Nirvana is the same way. It is not some mechanical theoretical out
thereness which you can never see and so can only hypothesize and get
peer review about.
Nirvana is inside you, it is part of your own consciousness. It,
like all conscious experiences, IS ITSELF the evidence at the end of the
chain of looking for evidence to prove there is evidence.
It IS what you finally look at and say, yes I see it, therefore it
is true.
All nirvana is, is something to see and experience.
Consciousness is self luminous, you don't need something ELSE, some
other evidence, to support to yourself that you see. It is not a theory
that you see. Those to whom seeing is just a theory, AREN'T SEEING!
They can't be seeing because all they have is an uncertain theory that
they see, backed by some uncertain evidence which they saw using their
theoretical ability to see!
Not only does Nirvana exist, but it also has a wonderful sense of
humor.
But really, it takes an ability to SEE and to see one's self
seeing, until there is nothing but perfect certainty of seeing left.
All of the above might make it seem to be an overwhelming job to
get to the top of things, but really where you are right now is inside
all of it. You seeing the world THROUGH all planes of existence and it
looks like only one the bottom one.
Thus with a little auditing you can punch through to see the top,
if you aren't too worried by being blinded by light, and then have a lot
more fun working your way around in the middle of it all.
You will see, yes there is a mountain there and the top is gorgeous
beyond your wildest undreamed dream come true,
Just remember the way to climb any spiritual mountain is to bungee
jump off of it, as jumping off of the mountain puts you by postualte up
where you CAN jump off.
It might seem like a long journey to finding out you are God in
carnation, but that journey consists solely and only of taking full
responsibility for all conditions, people, places and things that you
run into and getting others to do the same.
If you can put it there, where you are and where you want to get to,
and how you got to where you are, you can get there.
That's because PUTTING IT THERE, PUTS YOU THERE PUTTING IT THERE.
Get it?
But only if you dare. To an OT, all can't is won't.
Full responsibility vanishes all created conditions of existence,
one by one, on a gradient scale.
Ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, impossible, incredible, perfect.
Those are the guardian dicoms.
Homer
Tue Feb 24 15:10:22 EST 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
THE GOD FACTORY
ACT - 28
27 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Chris has repeatedly brought up the subject of good and bad with
regard to elemental theta manifestations. No one yet seems to have
answered his questions directly, and I am not sure I can do so
satisfactorily, but I will try.
There are possibly absolute definitions of good and bad, but they
would always be relative to some being's DESIRES. If there are some
absolute desires, such as to live forever, to have games (which include
penalties and pain, but maybe not permanent loss) then good would be
those things which aligned with these desires.
If theta or thetans are sovereign as some suggest (not me, lord
forbid) then anything created by a thetan, since it must come from his
own desire, must be good, no matter how painful it might seem in the
present.
If thetans are not inherently sovereign, then it is possible that
things exist in the universe or in the basic nature of theta itself
which theta finds itself opposed to, even actually detests, and so these
parts of existence would be considered bad by theta.
As to whether or not they really WERE bad, begs the question of
'bad relative to whose desire?'
Within a game, you can set rules, and it is implied that once you
have done this, following the rules is good, and breaking the rules is
bad. People can enter your game with the intention to cheat, to break
the rules in order to win unfairly, so from within the game it looks
like these people are bad, even though a sovereign thetan would have had
to set the game up so that people COULD enter it with an intention to
cheat, so having such beings in this case would be good.
But within games, good and bad are well defined, they involve
following and breaking the rules. Penalties are set up so that
punishments and rewards are allotted according to whether you follow or
break the rules. These punishments and rewards, being of pain and
pleasure, ugly and beauty, are themselves intrinsically bad and good.
Sometimes really vicious games are set up so that painful penalties
are associated not only with breaking the rules but also with LOSING the
game. This puts constant pressure on the players to choose between
breaking the rules and losing, especially if they think they can escape
being caught for breaking the rules, and that breaking the rules will
help them win.
Thus we have two kinds of good and bad, good and bad behavior, and
good and bad experiences. Good and bad behavior seems more arbitrary as
it is defined by the rules of the game which can be changed by the game
creators. Good and bad experiences are more absolute as they have to do
with beauty and ugly which in my opinion are mathematical absolutes
relating to harmony and disharmony.
However any good musician will tell you that even disharmony can be
good if it is used intelligently within the framework of a greater whole
where the discord is resolved into a harmony at the end. The best
pieces are not all harmony, as anyone who has appreciated Tchaikovski's
violin concerto can attest.
It is therefore one of the philosopher's main jobs to ask if the
pain and disharmony that we see in life is indeed part of a bigger
picture including the past and future and ALL of the present wherein the
present disharmony is somehow resolved into a harmony at the end, which
harmony is better for having been resolved from a disharmony.
It has been suggested that harmony is only of value WHEN it
resolves a disharmony, although I personally have had visions of clear
harmony which belie this position.
Within a game therefore, it is plausible to find that various
behaviors are considered good and bad according to whether they produce
resolve or not, and whether they break the rules of the game.
It is possible that if a being runs away from doing the right
thing, and makes doing the wrong thing right, he will continue in error,
which will lead to a form of decay based on denial of doing wrong.
He will withhold, he will limit himself, he will make others wrong
who are right, he will generally become more unconscious of himself and
his past, future, and the present, and he will be less and less able to
play the game at the level of game piece that he is accustomed to. Thus
he may take on smaller and smaller pieces and roles as they are the only
options left to him as he corners himself in his denial of wrongness.
How many corners can you back yourself into before you become a
rat?
So that could be considered a poetic statement of the law of decay
espoused by myself and others including Hubby about what happens to
beings who continue to withhold and do wrong. They refuse to correct an
error, they refuse apology and confession, and they continue on down the
dwindling spiral by holding onto their engrams and memories of pain
harder and harder because they act as justifications and make rights for
the wrong that they did.
"You hurt me second, so I was RIGHT to hurt you first!"
Hubbard says beings do not last long in this universe, but quickly
become entities in other people's lives, eventually to fall to the
bottom of the tone scale as a form of stone cold apathetic MEST, not
physical universe MEST, but a ball of mental mass and entheta, or
enturbulated theta.
What mental mass is, is a higher harmonic of physical mass. The
physical universe is the lowest of seven planes of existence labeled by
the Theosophers as Physical/Etheric, Astral, Mental/Causal, Buddhic,
Nirvanic, Monadic and Divine.
((A monad is an indivisible and impenetrable unit of substance
viewed as the basic constituent element of reality.))
Each plane is it self divided into 7 sub planes. The Mental plane
in particular has 4 lower planes which have to do with normal thought
and which are usually considered the 'mental' plane. The upper 3 planes
of the mental plane have to do with thoughts that can not be put into
words and in particular have to do with personal responsibility and
personal CAUSATION and is therefore referred to as the CAUSAL plane by
the Theosophers and as the Spiritual plane by Adore.
The physical plane is also divided into 7 subplanes. The lower 4
physical subplanes are the material planes that we know of in the
physical universe, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. (Yes I know this is
terrible physics, but most of theosophy was written before anyone knew
anything about sub atomics.)
The upper 3 planes are are called the Etheric plane and are the
physical efforts exercised directly by the thetan in its effort to
control the physical universe. The etheric plane is that elusive bond
that everyone says doesn't exist and which if it were sensed would prove
that something more is affecting the body than mere biochemistry. The
body's RIDER in other words rides the body through the reigns of the
etheric plane. The etheric plane is the operational interface between
the higher planes and the body on the physical plane.
Thus we have the following correlations between Theosophy, Hubbard
and Adore.
Theosophy Hubbard Adore Adore Adore
CAUSAL CHOICE SPIRITUAL RELIGION CREATION
MENTAL THOUGHT MENTAL SCIENCE DISCOVERY
ASTRAL EMOTION EMOTIONAL ART EXPRESSION
ETHERIC EFFORT PHYSICAL BUSINESS TRADE
PHYSICAL MEST
Thus comes Adore's proclamation that,
'The Purpose of Creation is Trade in Expressions of Discovery'.
To the theosophist, the soul resides in present time on the three
lowest of their seven planes, the mental, astral and physical. (By
mental plane I mean here to include the causal plane, and the physical
includes the etheric).
The Soul, being created in the image of God, is a Triune being,
which means he has three 'bodies' or parts to his overall beingness.
They are the physical, emotional and mental parts.
As a soul goes through his multi lifetime, multi body journey, he
evolves on the causal plane until he is bulging out the top of it. At
the point he breaks through to the Buddhic plane of consciousness he
becomes 'Enlightened'. At that point he moves all three of his bodies
up one plane. Now he resides on the Buddhic, Mental and Astral planes
only. His body continues to exist, but he doesn't think he IS a body
any more and is quite aware of being exterior and controlling it by
conception alone.
The outward implication of this is that he no longer needs to use
EFFORT to get things done, he can merely emote them into existence as
the emotional plane is his lowest plane and the one he uses to interact
with the world. This is a recovery of 'Desire is Sovereign.' He is not
all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything, but he can act
without EFFORT, and he does now recognize that everything which exists
is in accordance with his own desire, so he has recovered his sense of
sovereignty in good working order.
Adore would say his Sovereignty is balanced by his Majesty which is
his Sovereign Desire that his Desire not be Sovereign for a while.
Further since he is no longer tied to the physical plane via his
use of the etheric subplanes to get things done, he is free to wander
around where his body is not. He can also put himself inside of other
people's heads and be them or see what they are being, doing and having
and thinking, feeling and exerting.
He no longer controls his body by effort or mental force, but
communicates with it as anyone would communicate with another animal,
for example a dog. You don't MAKE the dog come, you say 'Come!' and it
comes, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Just so with the body.
The enlightened soul's journey now consists of mastering the
Buddhic plane of consciousness until he once again breaks through to the
Nirvanic plane which is often called Nirvana, or Christ Consciousness.
The Christ, considered as a post, is the head being of the Nirvanic
Plane of beings. Kind of like the Chairman of the Department.
I believe that a dude named Metteya either is or recently was the
holder of that post. Jesus, Homer, I can't believe you don't know this.
Shame on you.
Anyhow, the Theosophers hold that Jesus was an incarnation of
Metteya or whoever was holding the post during his time on Earth.
I have had many micro second visions from the Nirvanic plane, and
all I can say is that it is Class beyond Imagination. I assure you,
there is no Hell Forever. The kindness, wisdom and INTELLIGENCE of The
Christ plane is unfathomable, unmeasurable, and without bounds, truly a
Sovereign Omnilord of Unanimous Regency and Caliber Excaliper (SOURCE).
As the Soul enters each plane above where he is, he raises up all
of his three bodies with him, shedding the lowest plane he was last on.
Thus he remains a Triune Being to the very top which is called the
Divine plane. The Divine plane relates to the Divine Chakra, at the top
of the head, much as the lower planes each relate to their own Chakra.
The attainment of the top subplane of the Divine plane is the
attainment of total Sovereignty in this universe. One recognizes in
that moment that the soul is God in carnation, one of many, figuratively
and litterally.
At the top of the Divine Plane is the head of all head Triune
Beings, the King of Kings, God himself, again another post for this
universe, held by someone real. This God by the way has the Divine
plane as his BOTTOM plane, so his top two planes are in the next
universe out!
Above this God is another whole series of planes in a larger
universe of which our God is himself an evolving Spirit among many.
As the soul from this universe passes through the top level Divine
plane he enters the bottom plane of the next universe out and becomes
himself a pre-God among peers, other souls who have embarked on this
same journey, all of whom are preparing to have their own personal
universe of beings.
We call this the God Factory.
Now THIS boggles the mind.
By the way, you can't go around the God of this universe, or try to
petition HIS God in a dispute. The God of this universe has absolute
Sovereignty over this universe. As long as you are in this universe,
which you are by your own choice, you are under Him and only Him.
So you ask for proof of all this.
Well first of all it's a THEORY. But it's a theory based on direct
personal reports of beings who claim to have been there and returned to
tell the tale.
Someone claimed they went, they saw, they returned and they
reported.
It is going to be hard to prove without taking you there for your
own experience.
They all belong in a mental institution, you say?
Well perhaps.
You see the problem is that when a meatball asks for proof, he is
really asking for evidence. But when he asks for evidence he is really
asking for a THEORY BACKED BY EVIDENCE.
You see he considers that he can't consider some thing TRUE unless
he has a theory which SAYS that thing is true and evidence to back it
up, EVEN THOUGH HE WILL ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE BACKING UP A THEORY DOES NOT
PROVE TRUTH WITH CERTAINTY!
Thus even if he sees something with his own conscious experience,
unless he has a theory about it, and some evidence to back it up, he
won't be able to accept what he saw.
If I go to the Nirvanic plane and I see all this stuff there, and I
come back and report what I saw, someone can always say, well maybe you
were hallucinating. Maybe it isn't real.
But what does he mean by REAL?
Perhaps he means, well something that HE can go see too.
So you take HIM to the Nirvanic plane and he sees just what you saw
and he comes back and he says,
'Well maybe I was hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
So you take 50,000 people there, all separately, and they all come
back and report the same thing, and of course they will all say, 'Well
maybe we are all hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
Well if seeing is not believing, then how do you know you exist?
How do you know you are awake? Do you have a theory that you exist, and
some evidence to back it up, so it becomes a good guess that you exist?
No of course not, that's nonsense. You LOOK and you KNOW.
But some people don't believe what they see. They must have a
theory and evidence to back it up, to verify with high probability that
what they can observe directly and with perfect certainty, does indeed
probably exist.
What is objective reality?
It is what everyone can see and agree to and manages to be
consistent from day to day.
If you need a theory and evidence to back it up in order to know
that you exist, then you are surely too far gone to know anything with
certainty merely by LOOKING, and so of course you will have little to no
experience of the higher planes of consciousness.
And even if you still manage to get a glimpse, you will say, 'Maybe
I was hallucinating, maybe it was not real, how do I support my theory
that what I saw was real without just looking at it again.'
You see they play their scientific games with themselves, a game of
vias. They already have a theory which says nothing can be known for
certain, because all knowledge consists of theories backed up by
evidence which they readily admit proves nothing with perfect certainty.
So they don't know that they exist, but they do have a well
supported theory that they exist. But what evidence do they have that
they exist? What evidence do they have that THAT EVIDENCE exists? Do
they have another theory that says that the evidence exists too? Backed
up by what evidence?
Eventually someone has to LOOK and see what they see, and take it
as a given self evident truth that if they see something it must exist
and be true.
Its hard to argue with bliss, "Maybe I just thought I was
happy but really it was only a hallucination that I was happy!"
Say you see a car. Now maybe there is no actual car
there made of metal and glass, but YOU DO SEE A CAR, the *SEEING*
of the car can not be doubted. That's a perfect certainty.
Just so with a happiness, if you feel happy you feel happy, it
can't be questioned.
That is how you know you exist, you look, you see, and you see yourself
seeing, and it is OBVIOUSLY true.
Nirvana is the same way. It is not some mechanical theoretical out
thereness which you can never see and so can only hypothesize and get
peer review about.
Nirvana is inside you, it is part of your own consciousness. It,
like all conscious experiences, IS ITSELF the evidence at the end of the
chain of looking for evidence to prove there is evidence.
It IS what you finally look at and say, yes I see it, therefore it
is true.
All nirvana is, is something to see and experience.
Consciousness is self luminous, you don't need something ELSE, some
other evidence, to support to yourself that you see. It is not a theory
that you see. Those to whom seeing is just a theory, AREN'T SEEING!
They can't be seeing because all they have is an uncertain theory that
they see, backed by some uncertain evidence which they saw using their
theoretical ability to see!
Not only does Nirvana exist, but it also has a wonderful sense of
humor.
But really, it takes an ability to SEE and to see one's self
seeing, until there is nothing but perfect certainty of seeing left.
All of the above might make it seem to be an overwhelming job to
get to the top of things, but really where you are right now is inside
all of it. You seeing the world THROUGH all planes of existence and it
looks like only one the bottom one.
Thus with a little auditing you can punch through to see the top,
if you aren't too worried by being blinded by light, and then have a lot
more fun working your way around in the middle of it all.
You will see, yes there is a mountain there and the top is gorgeous
beyond your wildest undreamed dream come true,
Just remember the way to climb any spiritual mountain is to bungee
jump off of it, as jumping off of the mountain puts you by postualte up
where you CAN jump off.
It might seem like a long journey to finding out you are God in
carnation, but that journey consists solely and only of taking full
responsibility for all conditions, people, places and things that you
run into and getting others to do the same.
If you can put it there, where you are and where you want to get to,
and how you got to where you are, you can get there.
That's because PUTTING IT THERE, PUTS YOU THERE PUTTING IT THERE.
Get it?
But only if you dare. To an OT, all can't is won't.
Full responsibility vanishes all created conditions of existence,
one by one, on a gradient scale.
Ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, impossible, incredible, perfect.
Those are the guardian dicoms.
Homer
Tue Feb 24 15:10:22 EST 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT28 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE GOD FACTORY
ACT - 28
27 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Chris has repeatedly brought up the subject of good and bad with
regard to elemental theta manifestations. No one yet seems to have
answered his questions directly, and I am not sure I can do so
satisfactorily, but I will try.
There are possibly absolute definitions of good and bad, but they
would always be relative to some being's DESIRES. If there are some
absolute desires, such as to live forever, to have games (which include
penalties and pain, but maybe not permanent loss) then good would be
those things which aligned with these desires.
If theta or thetans are sovereign as some suggest (not me, lord
forbid) then anything created by a thetan, since it must come from his
own desire, must be good, no matter how painful it might seem in the
present.
If thetans are not inherently sovereign, then it is possible that
things exist in the universe or in the basic nature of theta itself
which theta finds itself opposed to, even actually detests, and so these
parts of existence would be considered bad by theta.
As to whether or not they really WERE bad, begs the question of
'bad relative to whose desire?'
Within a game, you can set rules, and it is implied that once you
have done this, following the rules is good, and breaking the rules is
bad. People can enter your game with the intention to cheat, to break
the rules in order to win unfairly, so from within the game it looks
like these people are bad, even though a sovereign thetan would have had
to set the game up so that people COULD enter it with an intention to
cheat, so having such beings in this case would be good.
But within games, good and bad are well defined, they involve
following and breaking the rules. Penalties are set up so that
punishments and rewards are allotted according to whether you follow or
break the rules. These punishments and rewards, being of pain and
pleasure, ugly and beauty, are themselves intrinsically bad and good.
Sometimes really vicious games are set up so that painful penalties
are associated not only with breaking the rules but also with LOSING the
game. This puts constant pressure on the players to choose between
breaking the rules and losing, especially if they think they can escape
being caught for breaking the rules, and that breaking the rules will
help them win.
Thus we have two kinds of good and bad, good and bad behavior, and
good and bad experiences. Good and bad behavior seems more arbitrary as
it is defined by the rules of the game which can be changed by the game
creators. Good and bad experiences are more absolute as they have to do
with beauty and ugly which in my opinion are mathematical absolutes
relating to harmony and disharmony.
However any good musician will tell you that even disharmony can be
good if it is used intelligently within the framework of a greater whole
where the discord is resolved into a harmony at the end. The best
pieces are not all harmony, as anyone who has appreciated Tchaikovski's
violin concerto can attest.
It is therefore one of the philosopher's main jobs to ask if the
pain and disharmony that we see in life is indeed part of a bigger
picture including the past and future and ALL of the present wherein the
present disharmony is somehow resolved into a harmony at the end, which
harmony is better for having been resolved from a disharmony.
It has been suggested that harmony is only of value WHEN it
resolves a disharmony, although I personally have had visions of clear
harmony which belie this position.
Within a game therefore, it is plausible to find that various
behaviors are considered good and bad according to whether they produce
resolve or not, and whether they break the rules of the game.
It is possible that if a being runs away from doing the right
thing, and makes doing the wrong thing right, he will continue in error,
which will lead to a form of decay based on denial of doing wrong.
He will withhold, he will limit himself, he will make others wrong
who are right, he will generally become more unconscious of himself and
his past, future, and the present, and he will be less and less able to
play the game at the level of game piece that he is accustomed to. Thus
he may take on smaller and smaller pieces and roles as they are the only
options left to him as he corners himself in his denial of wrongness.
How many corners can you back yourself into before you become a
rat?
So that could be considered a poetic statement of the law of decay
espoused by myself and others including Hubby about what happens to
beings who continue to withhold and do wrong. They refuse to correct an
error, they refuse apology and confession, and they continue on down the
dwindling spiral by holding onto their engrams and memories of pain
harder and harder because they act as justifications and make rights for
the wrong that they did.
"You hurt me second, so I was RIGHT to hurt you first!"
Hubbard says beings do not last long in this universe, but quickly
become entities in other people's lives, eventually to fall to the
bottom of the tone scale as a form of stone cold apathetic MEST, not
physical universe MEST, but a ball of mental mass and entheta, or
enturbulated theta.
What mental mass is, is a higher harmonic of physical mass. The
physical universe is the lowest of seven planes of existence labeled by
the Theosophers as Physical/Etheric, Astral, Mental/Causal, Buddhic,
Nirvanic, Monadic and Divine.
((A monad is an indivisible and impenetrable unit of substance
viewed as the basic constituent element of reality.))
Each plane is it self divided into 7 sub planes. The Mental plane
in particular has 4 lower planes which have to do with normal thought
and which are usually considered the 'mental' plane. The upper 3 planes
of the mental plane have to do with thoughts that can not be put into
words and in particular have to do with personal responsibility and
personal CAUSATION and is therefore referred to as the CAUSAL plane by
the Theosophers and as the Spiritual plane by Adore.
The physical plane is also divided into 7 subplanes. The lower 4
physical subplanes are the material planes that we know of in the
physical universe, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. (Yes I know this is
terrible physics, but most of theosophy was written before anyone knew
anything about sub atomics.)
The upper 3 planes are are called the Etheric plane and are the
physical efforts exercised directly by the thetan in its effort to
control the physical universe. The etheric plane is that elusive bond
that everyone says doesn't exist and which if it were sensed would prove
that something more is affecting the body than mere biochemistry. The
body's RIDER in other words rides the body through the reigns of the
etheric plane. The etheric plane is the operational interface between
the higher planes and the body on the physical plane.
Thus we have the following correlations between Theosophy, Hubbard
and Adore.
Theosophy Hubbard Adore Adore Adore
CAUSAL CHOICE SPIRITUAL RELIGION CREATION
MENTAL THOUGHT MENTAL SCIENCE DISCOVERY
ASTRAL EMOTION EMOTIONAL ART EXPRESSION
ETHERIC EFFORT PHYSICAL BUSINESS TRADE
PHYSICAL MEST
Thus comes Adore's proclamation that,
'The Purpose of Creation is Trade in Expressions of Discovery'.
To the theosophist, the soul resides in present time on the three
lowest of their seven planes, the mental, astral and physical. (By
mental plane I mean here to include the causal plane, and the physical
includes the etheric).
The Soul, being created in the image of God, is a Triune being,
which means he has three 'bodies' or parts to his overall beingness.
They are the physical, emotional and mental parts.
As a soul goes through his multi lifetime, multi body journey, he
evolves on the causal plane until he is bulging out the top of it. At
the point he breaks through to the Buddhic plane of consciousness he
becomes 'Enlightened'. At that point he moves all three of his bodies
up one plane. Now he resides on the Buddhic, Mental and Astral planes
only. His body continues to exist, but he doesn't think he IS a body
any more and is quite aware of being exterior and controlling it by
conception alone.
The outward implication of this is that he no longer needs to use
EFFORT to get things done, he can merely emote them into existence as
the emotional plane is his lowest plane and the one he uses to interact
with the world. This is a recovery of 'Desire is Sovereign.' He is not
all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything, but he can act
without EFFORT, and he does now recognize that everything which exists
is in accordance with his own desire, so he has recovered his sense of
sovereignty in good working order.
Adore would say his Sovereignty is balanced by his Majesty which is
his Sovereign Desire that his Desire not be Sovereign for a while.
Further since he is no longer tied to the physical plane via his
use of the etheric subplanes to get things done, he is free to wander
around where his body is not. He can also put himself inside of other
people's heads and be them or see what they are being, doing and having
and thinking, feeling and exerting.
He no longer controls his body by effort or mental force, but
communicates with it as anyone would communicate with another animal,
for example a dog. You don't MAKE the dog come, you say 'Come!' and it
comes, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Just so with the body.
The enlightened soul's journey now consists of mastering the
Buddhic plane of consciousness until he once again breaks through to the
Nirvanic plane which is often called Nirvana, or Christ Consciousness.
The Christ, considered as a post, is the head being of the Nirvanic
Plane of beings. Kind of like the Chairman of the Department.
I believe that a dude named Metteya either is or recently was the
holder of that post. Jesus, Homer, I can't believe you don't know this.
Shame on you.
Anyhow, the Theosophers hold that Jesus was an incarnation of
Metteya or whoever was holding the post during his time on Earth.
I have had many micro second visions from the Nirvanic plane, and
all I can say is that it is Class beyond Imagination. I assure you,
there is no Hell Forever. The kindness, wisdom and INTELLIGENCE of The
Christ plane is unfathomable, unmeasurable, and without bounds, truly a
Sovereign Omnilord of Unanimous Regency and Caliber Excaliper (SOURCE).
As the Soul enters each plane above where he is, he raises up all
of his three bodies with him, shedding the lowest plane he was last on.
Thus he remains a Triune Being to the very top which is called the
Divine plane. The Divine plane relates to the Divine Chakra, at the top
of the head, much as the lower planes each relate to their own Chakra.
The attainment of the top subplane of the Divine plane is the
attainment of total Sovereignty in this universe. One recognizes in
that moment that the soul is God in carnation, one of many, figuratively
and litterally.
At the top of the Divine Plane is the head of all head Triune
Beings, the King of Kings, God himself, again another post for this
universe, held by someone real. This God by the way has the Divine
plane as his BOTTOM plane, so his top two planes are in the next
universe out!
Above this God is another whole series of planes in a larger
universe of which our God is himself an evolving Spirit among many.
As the soul from this universe passes through the top level Divine
plane he enters the bottom plane of the next universe out and becomes
himself a pre-God among peers, other souls who have embarked on this
same journey, all of whom are preparing to have their own personal
universe of beings.
We call this the God Factory.
Now THIS boggles the mind.
By the way, you can't go around the God of this universe, or try to
petition HIS God in a dispute. The God of this universe has absolute
Sovereignty over this universe. As long as you are in this universe,
which you are by your own choice, you are under Him and only Him.
So you ask for proof of all this.
Well first of all it's a THEORY. But it's a theory based on direct
personal reports of beings who claim to have been there and returned to
tell the tale.
Someone claimed they went, they saw, they returned and they
reported.
It is going to be hard to prove without taking you there for your
own experience.
They all belong in a mental institution, you say?
Well perhaps.
You see the problem is that when a meatball asks for proof, he is
really asking for evidence. But when he asks for evidence he is really
asking for a THEORY BACKED BY EVIDENCE.
You see he considers that he can't consider some thing TRUE unless
he has a theory which SAYS that thing is true and evidence to back it
up, EVEN THOUGH HE WILL ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE BACKING UP A THEORY DOES NOT
PROVE TRUTH WITH CERTAINTY!
Thus even if he sees something with his own conscious experience,
unless he has a theory about it, and some evidence to back it up, he
won't be able to accept what he saw.
If I go to the Nirvanic plane and I see all this stuff there, and I
come back and report what I saw, someone can always say, well maybe you
were hallucinating. Maybe it isn't real.
But what does he mean by REAL?
Perhaps he means, well something that HE can go see too.
So you take HIM to the Nirvanic plane and he sees just what you saw
and he comes back and he says,
'Well maybe I was hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
So you take 50,000 people there, all separately, and they all come
back and report the same thing, and of course they will all say, 'Well
maybe we are all hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
Well if seeing is not believing, then how do you know you exist?
How do you know you are awake? Do you have a theory that you exist, and
some evidence to back it up, so it becomes a good guess that you exist?
No of course not, that's nonsense. You LOOK and you KNOW.
But some people don't believe what they see. They must have a
theory and evidence to back it up, to verify with high probability that
what they can observe directly and with perfect certainty, does indeed
probably exist.
What is objective reality?
It is what everyone can see and agree to and manages to be
consistent from day to day.
If you need a theory and evidence to back it up in order to know
that you exist, then you are surely too far gone to know anything with
certainty merely by LOOKING, and so of course you will have little to no
experience of the higher planes of consciousness.
And even if you still manage to get a glimpse, you will say, 'Maybe
I was hallucinating, maybe it was not real, how do I support my theory
that what I saw was real without just looking at it again.'
You see they play their scientific games with themselves, a game of
vias. They already have a theory which says nothing can be known for
certain, because all knowledge consists of theories backed up by
evidence which they readily admit proves nothing with perfect certainty.
So they don't know that they exist, but they do have a well
supported theory that they exist. But what evidence do they have that
they exist? What evidence do they have that THAT EVIDENCE exists? Do
they have another theory that says that the evidence exists too? Backed
up by what evidence?
Eventually someone has to LOOK and see what they see, and take it
as a given self evident truth that if they see something it must exist
and be true.
Its hard to argue with bliss, "Maybe I just thought I was
happy but really it was only a hallucination that I was happy!"
Say you see a car. Now maybe there is no actual car
there made of metal and glass, but YOU DO SEE A CAR, the *SEEING*
of the car can not be doubted. That's a perfect certainty.
Just so with a happiness, if you feel happy you feel happy, it
can't be questioned.
That is how you know you exist, you look, you see, and you see yourself
seeing, and it is OBVIOUSLY true.
Nirvana is the same way. It is not some mechanical theoretical out
thereness which you can never see and so can only hypothesize and get
peer review about.
Nirvana is inside you, it is part of your own consciousness. It,
like all conscious experiences, IS ITSELF the evidence at the end of the
chain of looking for evidence to prove there is evidence.
It IS what you finally look at and say, yes I see it, therefore it
is true.
All nirvana is, is something to see and experience.
Consciousness is self luminous, you don't need something ELSE, some
other evidence, to support to yourself that you see. It is not a theory
that you see. Those to whom seeing is just a theory, AREN'T SEEING!
They can't be seeing because all they have is an uncertain theory that
they see, backed by some uncertain evidence which they saw using their
theoretical ability to see!
Not only does Nirvana exist, but it also has a wonderful sense of
humor.
But really, it takes an ability to SEE and to see one's self seeing,
until there is nothing but perfect certainty of seeing left.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 24 15:10:22 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act28.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU7NqvURT1lqxE3HERAm7aAKCQ/mZE4wciD0QKej7+29fZ3Bwj+QCfSVOY
fjJ+GHIytGwCJVkRPt5GIKA=
=xl3E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE GOD FACTORY
ACT - 28
27 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Chris has repeatedly brought up the subject of good and bad with
regard to elemental theta manifestations. No one yet seems to have
answered his questions directly, and I am not sure I can do so
satisfactorily, but I will try.
There are possibly absolute definitions of good and bad, but they
would always be relative to some being's DESIRES. If there are some
absolute desires, such as to live forever, to have games (which include
penalties and pain, but maybe not permanent loss) then good would be
those things which aligned with these desires.
If theta or thetans are sovereign as some suggest (not me, lord
forbid) then anything created by a thetan, since it must come from his
own desire, must be good, no matter how painful it might seem in the
present.
If thetans are not inherently sovereign, then it is possible that
things exist in the universe or in the basic nature of theta itself
which theta finds itself opposed to, even actually detests, and so these
parts of existence would be considered bad by theta.
As to whether or not they really WERE bad, begs the question of
'bad relative to whose desire?'
Within a game, you can set rules, and it is implied that once you
have done this, following the rules is good, and breaking the rules is
bad. People can enter your game with the intention to cheat, to break
the rules in order to win unfairly, so from within the game it looks
like these people are bad, even though a sovereign thetan would have had
to set the game up so that people COULD enter it with an intention to
cheat, so having such beings in this case would be good.
But within games, good and bad are well defined, they involve
following and breaking the rules. Penalties are set up so that
punishments and rewards are allotted according to whether you follow or
break the rules. These punishments and rewards, being of pain and
pleasure, ugly and beauty, are themselves intrinsically bad and good.
Sometimes really vicious games are set up so that painful penalties
are associated not only with breaking the rules but also with LOSING the
game. This puts constant pressure on the players to choose between
breaking the rules and losing, especially if they think they can escape
being caught for breaking the rules, and that breaking the rules will
help them win.
Thus we have two kinds of good and bad, good and bad behavior, and
good and bad experiences. Good and bad behavior seems more arbitrary as
it is defined by the rules of the game which can be changed by the game
creators. Good and bad experiences are more absolute as they have to do
with beauty and ugly which in my opinion are mathematical absolutes
relating to harmony and disharmony.
However any good musician will tell you that even disharmony can be
good if it is used intelligently within the framework of a greater whole
where the discord is resolved into a harmony at the end. The best
pieces are not all harmony, as anyone who has appreciated Tchaikovski's
violin concerto can attest.
It is therefore one of the philosopher's main jobs to ask if the
pain and disharmony that we see in life is indeed part of a bigger
picture including the past and future and ALL of the present wherein the
present disharmony is somehow resolved into a harmony at the end, which
harmony is better for having been resolved from a disharmony.
It has been suggested that harmony is only of value WHEN it
resolves a disharmony, although I personally have had visions of clear
harmony which belie this position.
Within a game therefore, it is plausible to find that various
behaviors are considered good and bad according to whether they produce
resolve or not, and whether they break the rules of the game.
It is possible that if a being runs away from doing the right
thing, and makes doing the wrong thing right, he will continue in error,
which will lead to a form of decay based on denial of doing wrong.
He will withhold, he will limit himself, he will make others wrong
who are right, he will generally become more unconscious of himself and
his past, future, and the present, and he will be less and less able to
play the game at the level of game piece that he is accustomed to. Thus
he may take on smaller and smaller pieces and roles as they are the only
options left to him as he corners himself in his denial of wrongness.
How many corners can you back yourself into before you become a
rat?
So that could be considered a poetic statement of the law of decay
espoused by myself and others including Hubby about what happens to
beings who continue to withhold and do wrong. They refuse to correct an
error, they refuse apology and confession, and they continue on down the
dwindling spiral by holding onto their engrams and memories of pain
harder and harder because they act as justifications and make rights for
the wrong that they did.
"You hurt me second, so I was RIGHT to hurt you first!"
Hubbard says beings do not last long in this universe, but quickly
become entities in other people's lives, eventually to fall to the
bottom of the tone scale as a form of stone cold apathetic MEST, not
physical universe MEST, but a ball of mental mass and entheta, or
enturbulated theta.
What mental mass is, is a higher harmonic of physical mass. The
physical universe is the lowest of seven planes of existence labeled by
the Theosophers as Physical/Etheric, Astral, Mental/Causal, Buddhic,
Nirvanic, Monadic and Divine.
((A monad is an indivisible and impenetrable unit of substance
viewed as the basic constituent element of reality.))
Each plane is it self divided into 7 sub planes. The Mental plane
in particular has 4 lower planes which have to do with normal thought
and which are usually considered the 'mental' plane. The upper 3 planes
of the mental plane have to do with thoughts that can not be put into
words and in particular have to do with personal responsibility and
personal CAUSATION and is therefore referred to as the CAUSAL plane by
the Theosophers and as the Spiritual plane by Adore.
The physical plane is also divided into 7 subplanes. The lower 4
physical subplanes are the material planes that we know of in the
physical universe, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. (Yes I know this is
terrible physics, but most of theosophy was written before anyone knew
anything about sub atomics.)
The upper 3 planes are are called the Etheric plane and are the
physical efforts exercised directly by the thetan in its effort to
control the physical universe. The etheric plane is that elusive bond
that everyone says doesn't exist and which if it were sensed would prove
that something more is affecting the body than mere biochemistry. The
body's RIDER in other words rides the body through the reigns of the
etheric plane. The etheric plane is the operational interface between
the higher planes and the body on the physical plane.
Thus we have the following correlations between Theosophy, Hubbard
and Adore.
Theosophy Hubbard Adore Adore Adore
CAUSAL CHOICE SPIRITUAL RELIGION CREATION
MENTAL THOUGHT MENTAL SCIENCE DISCOVERY
ASTRAL EMOTION EMOTIONAL ART EXPRESSION
ETHERIC EFFORT PHYSICAL BUSINESS TRADE
PHYSICAL MEST
Thus comes Adore's proclamation that,
'The Purpose of Creation is Trade in Expressions of Discovery'.
To the theosophist, the soul resides in present time on the three
lowest of their seven planes, the mental, astral and physical. (By
mental plane I mean here to include the causal plane, and the physical
includes the etheric).
The Soul, being created in the image of God, is a Triune being,
which means he has three 'bodies' or parts to his overall beingness.
They are the physical, emotional and mental parts.
As a soul goes through his multi lifetime, multi body journey, he
evolves on the causal plane until he is bulging out the top of it. At
the point he breaks through to the Buddhic plane of consciousness he
becomes 'Enlightened'. At that point he moves all three of his bodies
up one plane. Now he resides on the Buddhic, Mental and Astral planes
only. His body continues to exist, but he doesn't think he IS a body
any more and is quite aware of being exterior and controlling it by
conception alone.
The outward implication of this is that he no longer needs to use
EFFORT to get things done, he can merely emote them into existence as
the emotional plane is his lowest plane and the one he uses to interact
with the world. This is a recovery of 'Desire is Sovereign.' He is not
all powerful in the sense of being able to do anything, but he can act
without EFFORT, and he does now recognize that everything which exists
is in accordance with his own desire, so he has recovered his sense of
sovereignty in good working order.
Adore would say his Sovereignty is balanced by his Majesty which is
his Sovereign Desire that his Desire not be Sovereign for a while.
Further since he is no longer tied to the physical plane via his
use of the etheric subplanes to get things done, he is free to wander
around where his body is not. He can also put himself inside of other
people's heads and be them or see what they are being, doing and having
and thinking, feeling and exerting.
He no longer controls his body by effort or mental force, but
communicates with it as anyone would communicate with another animal,
for example a dog. You don't MAKE the dog come, you say 'Come!' and it
comes, ON ITS OWN ACCORD. Just so with the body.
The enlightened soul's journey now consists of mastering the
Buddhic plane of consciousness until he once again breaks through to the
Nirvanic plane which is often called Nirvana, or Christ Consciousness.
The Christ, considered as a post, is the head being of the Nirvanic
Plane of beings. Kind of like the Chairman of the Department.
I believe that a dude named Metteya either is or recently was the
holder of that post. Jesus, Homer, I can't believe you don't know this.
Shame on you.
Anyhow, the Theosophers hold that Jesus was an incarnation of
Metteya or whoever was holding the post during his time on Earth.
I have had many micro second visions from the Nirvanic plane, and
all I can say is that it is Class beyond Imagination. I assure you,
there is no Hell Forever. The kindness, wisdom and INTELLIGENCE of The
Christ plane is unfathomable, unmeasurable, and without bounds, truly a
Sovereign Omnilord of Unanimous Regency and Caliber Excaliper (SOURCE).
As the Soul enters each plane above where he is, he raises up all
of his three bodies with him, shedding the lowest plane he was last on.
Thus he remains a Triune Being to the very top which is called the
Divine plane. The Divine plane relates to the Divine Chakra, at the top
of the head, much as the lower planes each relate to their own Chakra.
The attainment of the top subplane of the Divine plane is the
attainment of total Sovereignty in this universe. One recognizes in
that moment that the soul is God in carnation, one of many, figuratively
and litterally.
At the top of the Divine Plane is the head of all head Triune
Beings, the King of Kings, God himself, again another post for this
universe, held by someone real. This God by the way has the Divine
plane as his BOTTOM plane, so his top two planes are in the next
universe out!
Above this God is another whole series of planes in a larger
universe of which our God is himself an evolving Spirit among many.
As the soul from this universe passes through the top level Divine
plane he enters the bottom plane of the next universe out and becomes
himself a pre-God among peers, other souls who have embarked on this
same journey, all of whom are preparing to have their own personal
universe of beings.
We call this the God Factory.
Now THIS boggles the mind.
By the way, you can't go around the God of this universe, or try to
petition HIS God in a dispute. The God of this universe has absolute
Sovereignty over this universe. As long as you are in this universe,
which you are by your own choice, you are under Him and only Him.
So you ask for proof of all this.
Well first of all it's a THEORY. But it's a theory based on direct
personal reports of beings who claim to have been there and returned to
tell the tale.
Someone claimed they went, they saw, they returned and they
reported.
It is going to be hard to prove without taking you there for your
own experience.
They all belong in a mental institution, you say?
Well perhaps.
You see the problem is that when a meatball asks for proof, he is
really asking for evidence. But when he asks for evidence he is really
asking for a THEORY BACKED BY EVIDENCE.
You see he considers that he can't consider some thing TRUE unless
he has a theory which SAYS that thing is true and evidence to back it
up, EVEN THOUGH HE WILL ADMIT THAT EVIDENCE BACKING UP A THEORY DOES NOT
PROVE TRUTH WITH CERTAINTY!
Thus even if he sees something with his own conscious experience,
unless he has a theory about it, and some evidence to back it up, he
won't be able to accept what he saw.
If I go to the Nirvanic plane and I see all this stuff there, and I
come back and report what I saw, someone can always say, well maybe you
were hallucinating. Maybe it isn't real.
But what does he mean by REAL?
Perhaps he means, well something that HE can go see too.
So you take HIM to the Nirvanic plane and he sees just what you saw
and he comes back and he says,
'Well maybe I was hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
So you take 50,000 people there, all separately, and they all come
back and report the same thing, and of course they will all say, 'Well
maybe we are all hallucinating, maybe it is not real.'
Well if seeing is not believing, then how do you know you exist?
How do you know you are awake? Do you have a theory that you exist, and
some evidence to back it up, so it becomes a good guess that you exist?
No of course not, that's nonsense. You LOOK and you KNOW.
But some people don't believe what they see. They must have a
theory and evidence to back it up, to verify with high probability that
what they can observe directly and with perfect certainty, does indeed
probably exist.
What is objective reality?
It is what everyone can see and agree to and manages to be
consistent from day to day.
If you need a theory and evidence to back it up in order to know
that you exist, then you are surely too far gone to know anything with
certainty merely by LOOKING, and so of course you will have little to no
experience of the higher planes of consciousness.
And even if you still manage to get a glimpse, you will say, 'Maybe
I was hallucinating, maybe it was not real, how do I support my theory
that what I saw was real without just looking at it again.'
You see they play their scientific games with themselves, a game of
vias. They already have a theory which says nothing can be known for
certain, because all knowledge consists of theories backed up by
evidence which they readily admit proves nothing with perfect certainty.
So they don't know that they exist, but they do have a well
supported theory that they exist. But what evidence do they have that
they exist? What evidence do they have that THAT EVIDENCE exists? Do
they have another theory that says that the evidence exists too? Backed
up by what evidence?
Eventually someone has to LOOK and see what they see, and take it
as a given self evident truth that if they see something it must exist
and be true.
Its hard to argue with bliss, "Maybe I just thought I was
happy but really it was only a hallucination that I was happy!"
Say you see a car. Now maybe there is no actual car
there made of metal and glass, but YOU DO SEE A CAR, the *SEEING*
of the car can not be doubted. That's a perfect certainty.
Just so with a happiness, if you feel happy you feel happy, it
can't be questioned.
That is how you know you exist, you look, you see, and you see yourself
seeing, and it is OBVIOUSLY true.
Nirvana is the same way. It is not some mechanical theoretical out
thereness which you can never see and so can only hypothesize and get
peer review about.
Nirvana is inside you, it is part of your own consciousness. It,
like all conscious experiences, IS ITSELF the evidence at the end of the
chain of looking for evidence to prove there is evidence.
It IS what you finally look at and say, yes I see it, therefore it
is true.
All nirvana is, is something to see and experience.
Consciousness is self luminous, you don't need something ELSE, some
other evidence, to support to yourself that you see. It is not a theory
that you see. Those to whom seeing is just a theory, AREN'T SEEING!
They can't be seeing because all they have is an uncertain theory that
they see, backed by some uncertain evidence which they saw using their
theoretical ability to see!
Not only does Nirvana exist, but it also has a wonderful sense of
humor.
But really, it takes an ability to SEE and to see one's self seeing,
until there is nothing but perfect certainty of seeing left.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 24 15:10:22 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act28.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU7NqvURT1lqxE3HERAm7aAKCQ/mZE4wciD0QKej7+29fZ3Bwj+QCfSVOY
fjJ+GHIytGwCJVkRPt5GIKA=
=xl3E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 23, 2015
ADORE351 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLOUD
Most people seem to be walking around in a self invalidating
philosophical cloud.
The certainties they want to attain, whether they are mortal or
not, CAN NOT be attained until they have attained the certainties they
can attain.
Once an unquestionable continuously reverifiable standard of perfect
certainty has been attained, like say "I exist and care", or 'Something
exists', or "I perceive different colors", this standard can be used to
weed out the remaining false certainties and vanities that people are
crushing themselves with, leaving their minds free to see the truth should
it deign to show itself to them.
Like it says, you gotta knock, but you gotta knock HARD with
absolute tone 40 intent. If the being is still lost in false
certainties and no standard of perfect certainty in sight, he will
never be able to muster the nerve or the might to open the door.
It doesn't take force to open the door, but if the door opens you
had better be able to wield force or the on rush will sweep you away.
And he just won't 'be there' if the door does open on its own, as a
gift, which it does once in a while (prime postulates).
Thus false certainties close the door to wisdom because true wisdom
is always a perfect certainty.
Perfect certainty is the beginning of wisdom and opens the
door to more wisdom.
Homer
PS:
A perfect certainty is always 'Would you bet your eternity in hell on
it?' If truely a perfect certainty, the being should have no qualms about
making the bet.
If the guy says "I don't make bets and I don't believe in Hell",
well send him on his way.
He is lying and knows it.
He makes a bet with every breath that he takes, and not only does
he believe in hell, he's TERRIFIED of it, as he is IN hell.
He's already in hell forever underneath that 9 to 5 facade he
calls his human life.
He is denying perfect certainty of anything, even his own existence,
because he is terrified of certainty, as underneath the 9 to 5 nonsense,
he is 'certain' he is in hell forever.
He does need that false certainty cleared, but that won't happen
until he admits its there. However at that moment you will have one
flaming crazy pc on your hands, so you had better have handled this
material yourself and be able to audit it flying upside down with both
wings on fire.
How much would it be worth to you to know before you die exactly how
long you will remain in hell after you die or your next lives?
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jul 18 13:37:27 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Feb 23 13:38:25 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore351.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU63OhURT1lqxE3HERArvkAKDRCG/8mJSYqhAQdy4NikLNBLhw3wCfY8oY
+8PxSo38sr+/3PyLU/9CHHY=
=mJ1A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLOUD
Most people seem to be walking around in a self invalidating
philosophical cloud.
The certainties they want to attain, whether they are mortal or
not, CAN NOT be attained until they have attained the certainties they
can attain.
Once an unquestionable continuously reverifiable standard of perfect
certainty has been attained, like say "I exist and care", or 'Something
exists', or "I perceive different colors", this standard can be used to
weed out the remaining false certainties and vanities that people are
crushing themselves with, leaving their minds free to see the truth should
it deign to show itself to them.
Like it says, you gotta knock, but you gotta knock HARD with
absolute tone 40 intent. If the being is still lost in false
certainties and no standard of perfect certainty in sight, he will
never be able to muster the nerve or the might to open the door.
It doesn't take force to open the door, but if the door opens you
had better be able to wield force or the on rush will sweep you away.
And he just won't 'be there' if the door does open on its own, as a
gift, which it does once in a while (prime postulates).
Thus false certainties close the door to wisdom because true wisdom
is always a perfect certainty.
Perfect certainty is the beginning of wisdom and opens the
door to more wisdom.
Homer
PS:
A perfect certainty is always 'Would you bet your eternity in hell on
it?' If truely a perfect certainty, the being should have no qualms about
making the bet.
If the guy says "I don't make bets and I don't believe in Hell",
well send him on his way.
He is lying and knows it.
He makes a bet with every breath that he takes, and not only does
he believe in hell, he's TERRIFIED of it, as he is IN hell.
He's already in hell forever underneath that 9 to 5 facade he
calls his human life.
He is denying perfect certainty of anything, even his own existence,
because he is terrified of certainty, as underneath the 9 to 5 nonsense,
he is 'certain' he is in hell forever.
He does need that false certainty cleared, but that won't happen
until he admits its there. However at that moment you will have one
flaming crazy pc on your hands, so you had better have handled this
material yourself and be able to audit it flying upside down with both
wings on fire.
How much would it be worth to you to know before you die exactly how
long you will remain in hell after you die or your next lives?
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jul 18 13:37:27 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Feb 23 13:38:25 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore351.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU63OhURT1lqxE3HERArvkAKDRCG/8mJSYqhAQdy4NikLNBLhw3wCfY8oY
+8PxSo38sr+/3PyLU/9CHHY=
=mJ1A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 22, 2015
ADORE467 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THEORY
I find dictionaries to be one of the greatest sources of MU's,
particuarly on subjects that are close to the truth. True original
meanings are defined out of existence, and replaced with meanings that
leave no room for thought about the original.
(MU means Mis-Understood word, mechanism or intent.)
There are two kinds of logic, inductive logic and deductive
logic.
Inductive logic allows us to generalize from a finite number of
observations. Only the observations are certain.
We observe that 100 apples fall when dropped, and so we conclude
that all apples will fall, and always have and always will.
We generalize from the certain observation that "100 apples
fell," to the uncertain theory that "all apples fall."
All apples fall is called a theory. Only one observation to the
contrary will prove it wrong, and no number of observations supporting
it will ever prove it right.
Theories are born to die in obscurity as observations move on.
But don't tell a theoretician this, as it gives him the willies.
Deductive logic goes in the opposite direction, it starts with a
theory, and tries to predict what will happen in a specific
circumstance.
All apples fall (theory), and this is an apple (observation), so it
too will fall (prediction). We drop the apple, and it falls, so our
prediction turns out true, thus supporting the original theory that all
apples fall.
The irony is that inductive logic is based on perfect
certainties, namely the original observations, but can never give us a
certainty in a generalized theory.
Deductive logic is based on these very same theoretical
uncertainties, Thus one certain observation contradicting the uncertain
theory disproves the uncertain theory with certainty.
Do not confuse the words induction and deduction with the word
inference.
Inference comes from To Infer, is the process of induction *OR*
deduction.
One induces/infers from the observation that 100 apples fell the
theory that all apples fall.
One deduces/infers from the theory that all apples fall, that the
next apple will probably also fall.
Inference is the process of logic, whether inductive or
deductive.
So we get,
1.) Certain observations
2.) Induction: Certain Observatons -> Uncertain
theory/generalization
3.) Deduction: Theory -> predictions
4.) Certain observation of the opposite of the prediction.
5.) Certain disproof of the original theory.
There is no room for confusion or misinterpretation with the
above, it says what it says, and nothing more or less or else.
People who are certain they can't be certain of anything, and those
who are certain of things that no one can be certain of, will choose to
argue with the above, but in the end its all their yap and natter, and
is wind between their ears.
Like people who mention that logic isn't logical and mis quote
Godel, whom they hardly know, and barely understand, to logically prove
that logic is illogical, well they just are not worth talking to.
That logic may be 'incomplete', ie capable of producing undecidable
propositions, does not mean that logic is wrong where the propositions
are decidable.
*THE UNDECIDABILITY OF ANY PROPOSITION WILL NEVER AFFECT THE
DECIDABILITY OF A DECIDABLE PROPOSITON.*
Thus the mere fact that logic or math or algebra are incomplete,
and can produce undecidable propositions, in no way lessens the absolute
truth of the propositions which are decidable.
Is is Is, Is isnot IsNot.
IsNot is IsNot, IsNot isnot Is.
That's a hard one on the mental loony tunes, but it's absoluteness
is unquestionable.
Since the above little ditty in is and is not absolutely and
irrevokably describes the nature of one's own consciousness,
consciousness then is a standard bearer of the nature and meaning of is
and is not.
As much as I like dictionaries, and as much as mine does a
relatively good job of defining the words in question, even this one
skirts around the issues.
To speculate means merely to think about.
To conjecture means to speculate about, but also means to posit
with out certainty.
The best words are to suppose, to pretend something is true in
order to see where it leads.
Theories are, in the end, guesses that make predictions that either
are observed or not. Only observations are certain, no theory is ever
certain.
For one, certainty has to do with truth, theories have little or
nothing to do with truth, they only deal with models that work.
Workability does not mean true.
Notice the statement that only observations are certain does not
imply that ALL observations are certain, although I would assert this to
be true also.
Just because we SEE space, doesn't mean there IS space, but it does
mean we SEE space. Get it?
That we SEE the moon bigger on the horizon doesn't mean the moon IS
bigger on the horizon, but it does mean we SEE the moon bigger.
Seeing the moon bigger is the observation.
Claiming that the moon is therefore bigger is the theory.
Other observations can be made which then counter the theory.
The observation is always certain, the implied referent may or may
not be as you are seeing it. Often the referent doesn't exist in any
actual sense at all.
It's an illusion that the moon is bigger on the horizon, but sorry
ladies it's also an illusion that the moon exists at all except in the
dream you call your life.
That we all dream the same thing at the same time is interesting,
but not proof that anything more than a co dream is taking place.
Collapsing conscious observation and physical referent is the act
of the insane.
Homer
THEORY:
1.) Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of *ASSUMPTIONS*,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict
or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
(observed) phenomnenon.
1b.) Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment
or practice.
2.) Abstract reasoning; speculation.
3.) Broadly, hypothesis or supposition.
SPECULATION:
1.) Speculating, to meditate on a given subject, reflect.
2.) A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by speculating.
CONJECTURE:
1.) To infer from inconclusive evidence, to guess.
2.) An opinion or conclusion based on inference.
INFERENCE:
1.) To conclude from evidence, deduce through deductive logic or
to induce through inductive logic.
HYPOTHETICAL
1.) Of or based on a hypothesis, suppositional, conjectural or
uncertain.
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Mar 10 23:51:26 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 20 03:06:06 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU5uruURT1lqxE3HERAo9cAKDZq0WG12wA67oICUnQYhMvEoLQ8ACg2e5q
0AMuNYNF6kOy/smopswAaQ0=
=vmJs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 22 17:37:55 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6lpEURT1lqxE3HERApEsAKCT2D8EizumnlTtzuarJcMiL1rZAQCgnXvY
Qf29sTahJNJkkEDAj5Zksjw=
=NkN2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THEORY
I find dictionaries to be one of the greatest sources of MU's,
particuarly on subjects that are close to the truth. True original
meanings are defined out of existence, and replaced with meanings that
leave no room for thought about the original.
(MU means Mis-Understood word, mechanism or intent.)
There are two kinds of logic, inductive logic and deductive
logic.
Inductive logic allows us to generalize from a finite number of
observations. Only the observations are certain.
We observe that 100 apples fall when dropped, and so we conclude
that all apples will fall, and always have and always will.
We generalize from the certain observation that "100 apples
fell," to the uncertain theory that "all apples fall."
All apples fall is called a theory. Only one observation to the
contrary will prove it wrong, and no number of observations supporting
it will ever prove it right.
Theories are born to die in obscurity as observations move on.
But don't tell a theoretician this, as it gives him the willies.
Deductive logic goes in the opposite direction, it starts with a
theory, and tries to predict what will happen in a specific
circumstance.
All apples fall (theory), and this is an apple (observation), so it
too will fall (prediction). We drop the apple, and it falls, so our
prediction turns out true, thus supporting the original theory that all
apples fall.
The irony is that inductive logic is based on perfect
certainties, namely the original observations, but can never give us a
certainty in a generalized theory.
Deductive logic is based on these very same theoretical
uncertainties, Thus one certain observation contradicting the uncertain
theory disproves the uncertain theory with certainty.
Do not confuse the words induction and deduction with the word
inference.
Inference comes from To Infer, is the process of induction *OR*
deduction.
One induces/infers from the observation that 100 apples fell the
theory that all apples fall.
One deduces/infers from the theory that all apples fall, that the
next apple will probably also fall.
Inference is the process of logic, whether inductive or
deductive.
So we get,
1.) Certain observations
2.) Induction: Certain Observatons -> Uncertain
theory/generalization
3.) Deduction: Theory -> predictions
4.) Certain observation of the opposite of the prediction.
5.) Certain disproof of the original theory.
There is no room for confusion or misinterpretation with the
above, it says what it says, and nothing more or less or else.
People who are certain they can't be certain of anything, and those
who are certain of things that no one can be certain of, will choose to
argue with the above, but in the end its all their yap and natter, and
is wind between their ears.
Like people who mention that logic isn't logical and mis quote
Godel, whom they hardly know, and barely understand, to logically prove
that logic is illogical, well they just are not worth talking to.
That logic may be 'incomplete', ie capable of producing undecidable
propositions, does not mean that logic is wrong where the propositions
are decidable.
*THE UNDECIDABILITY OF ANY PROPOSITION WILL NEVER AFFECT THE
DECIDABILITY OF A DECIDABLE PROPOSITON.*
Thus the mere fact that logic or math or algebra are incomplete,
and can produce undecidable propositions, in no way lessens the absolute
truth of the propositions which are decidable.
Is is Is, Is isnot IsNot.
IsNot is IsNot, IsNot isnot Is.
That's a hard one on the mental loony tunes, but it's absoluteness
is unquestionable.
Since the above little ditty in is and is not absolutely and
irrevokably describes the nature of one's own consciousness,
consciousness then is a standard bearer of the nature and meaning of is
and is not.
As much as I like dictionaries, and as much as mine does a
relatively good job of defining the words in question, even this one
skirts around the issues.
To speculate means merely to think about.
To conjecture means to speculate about, but also means to posit
with out certainty.
The best words are to suppose, to pretend something is true in
order to see where it leads.
Theories are, in the end, guesses that make predictions that either
are observed or not. Only observations are certain, no theory is ever
certain.
For one, certainty has to do with truth, theories have little or
nothing to do with truth, they only deal with models that work.
Workability does not mean true.
Notice the statement that only observations are certain does not
imply that ALL observations are certain, although I would assert this to
be true also.
Just because we SEE space, doesn't mean there IS space, but it does
mean we SEE space. Get it?
That we SEE the moon bigger on the horizon doesn't mean the moon IS
bigger on the horizon, but it does mean we SEE the moon bigger.
Seeing the moon bigger is the observation.
Claiming that the moon is therefore bigger is the theory.
Other observations can be made which then counter the theory.
The observation is always certain, the implied referent may or may
not be as you are seeing it. Often the referent doesn't exist in any
actual sense at all.
It's an illusion that the moon is bigger on the horizon, but sorry
ladies it's also an illusion that the moon exists at all except in the
dream you call your life.
That we all dream the same thing at the same time is interesting,
but not proof that anything more than a co dream is taking place.
Collapsing conscious observation and physical referent is the act
of the insane.
Homer
THEORY:
1.) Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of *ASSUMPTIONS*,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict
or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
(observed) phenomnenon.
1b.) Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment
or practice.
2.) Abstract reasoning; speculation.
3.) Broadly, hypothesis or supposition.
SPECULATION:
1.) Speculating, to meditate on a given subject, reflect.
2.) A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by speculating.
CONJECTURE:
1.) To infer from inconclusive evidence, to guess.
2.) An opinion or conclusion based on inference.
INFERENCE:
1.) To conclude from evidence, deduce through deductive logic or
to induce through inductive logic.
HYPOTHETICAL
1.) Of or based on a hypothesis, suppositional, conjectural or
uncertain.
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Mar 10 23:51:26 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 20 03:06:06 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU5uruURT1lqxE3HERAo9cAKDZq0WG12wA67oICUnQYhMvEoLQ8ACg2e5q
0AMuNYNF6kOy/smopswAaQ0=
=vmJs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 22 17:37:55 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6lpEURT1lqxE3HERApEsAKCT2D8EizumnlTtzuarJcMiL1rZAQCgnXvY
Qf29sTahJNJkkEDAj5Zksjw=
=NkN2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, February 21, 2015
AUDITING AND COACTIVITY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LIFE REPAIR, SOLO OR DUAL, CO ACITIVITY
Answer to private letter below.
Yes, but you WANT a dual mate.
Remember when you solo you are usually auditing other entities, en
masse, but pracatice making space and time is always good. But it is
the TWO WAY COMMUICATION BETWEEN beings that makes the bank come apart
ultimately.
The process make break the bank open, but two way comm blows it
apart from there and clears out the rubble.
You do not want to be clear and alone.
So going clearer TOGETHER with someone else makes it much more
powerful by many orders of magnitude.
Trying to solo too much creates an ARC break of not being able to
find another to audit or to audit with.
Running this on another or many others would probably produce
amazing changes in YOU, even if no one runs it on you.
Go out and find a bum in the street, or a child, or someone in dire
distress or even a cat or a dog or your own body and run it on them.
5 complete cycles of this process can change a whole person's life
and they won't even know why. So it doesn't have to be formal, just
enough to plant the seed.
"Get the idea of space in front of you."
"Get the idea of space behind you."
etc...
You can't get them to do it without doing it yourself, so auditing
others IS auditing yourself.
Auditing is co activity, life co activity, the purpose of auditing
is to clear co activity, what's IN that space in front, behind, top and
bottom of you are terminals for co activity, you see?
So trying to run auditing 'solo' is self deprecating.
Solo is mostly for auditing discarnate others, zillions of them in
your surrounding space and in the make up of your body.
Even running the process of your body, would do better than
'running it on yourself'.
But go ahead mockup some space and times for a while alone, but
then start putting some coactivity in them and run it on them.
Casting others into casting space and time for themselves is an
amazing process, it will produce almost OT 1 types gains.
"Spot a person. Get the idea he is getting the idea of space in
front of him. Get the idea he is getting the idea of space in back of
him. Finish the entire cycle of commands. Then spot another person and
do the same."
When you spot a person, PUT HIM THERE. YOU BE CAUSE OF HIM
BEING THERE.
When you get the idea of him getting the idea of space etc,
PUT HIM THERE GETTING THE IDEA OF SPACE. YOU be the cause of him
of him doing this. That's OT VII, ability to project intention
onto others to be, do or have things.
It doesn't matter at all if he actually does it, just get the idea
he is, you can't cast onto others without having some affect on them,
and tremendous affect on yourself long term.
Projection of intention is not a matter of forcing someone else to
be, do, have or know something, its a matter of creating in the
conception of things.
OT's cause by conception, not by force of will.
If you got sparks flying out of your eyes at your target,
that's *WAY* too much force and power, you will probably burn your
own eyes out before he feels the effect.
And if he does feel the effect, he is more likely to spark back at
you than complete the auditing command.
That's why we always run auditing with "get the idea of," see?
Pure conception and zero force.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
> Excellent , I am practicing the first half on this process during my errands
> in the neigborhood.
> I found your LIFE REPAIR process. Is it possible to do this process SOLO ?
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Homer Wilson Smith
> <HomerWSmith@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> Run to a win.
>
> Get the idea of space in front of you.
>
> Get the idea of space behind you.
>
> Get the idea of space to the right of you.
>
> Get the idea of space to the left of you.
>
> Get the idea of space above you.
>
> Get the idea of space below you.
>
> Run to a win.
>
> Get the idea of a future.
>
> Get the idea of a past.
>
> Get the idea of a present.
>
> Homer
>
>
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Feb 21 12:45:42 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore966.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6MRGURT1lqxE3HERAvt1AKDWLCs5Kdxn9O7tkoyiHLR0DYZseQCgkt0d
LqOmdRsxXz9lidIBn/qNdOM=
=Xvmd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LIFE REPAIR, SOLO OR DUAL, CO ACITIVITY
Answer to private letter below.
Yes, but you WANT a dual mate.
Remember when you solo you are usually auditing other entities, en
masse, but pracatice making space and time is always good. But it is
the TWO WAY COMMUICATION BETWEEN beings that makes the bank come apart
ultimately.
The process make break the bank open, but two way comm blows it
apart from there and clears out the rubble.
You do not want to be clear and alone.
So going clearer TOGETHER with someone else makes it much more
powerful by many orders of magnitude.
Trying to solo too much creates an ARC break of not being able to
find another to audit or to audit with.
Running this on another or many others would probably produce
amazing changes in YOU, even if no one runs it on you.
Go out and find a bum in the street, or a child, or someone in dire
distress or even a cat or a dog or your own body and run it on them.
5 complete cycles of this process can change a whole person's life
and they won't even know why. So it doesn't have to be formal, just
enough to plant the seed.
"Get the idea of space in front of you."
"Get the idea of space behind you."
etc...
You can't get them to do it without doing it yourself, so auditing
others IS auditing yourself.
Auditing is co activity, life co activity, the purpose of auditing
is to clear co activity, what's IN that space in front, behind, top and
bottom of you are terminals for co activity, you see?
So trying to run auditing 'solo' is self deprecating.
Solo is mostly for auditing discarnate others, zillions of them in
your surrounding space and in the make up of your body.
Even running the process of your body, would do better than
'running it on yourself'.
But go ahead mockup some space and times for a while alone, but
then start putting some coactivity in them and run it on them.
Casting others into casting space and time for themselves is an
amazing process, it will produce almost OT 1 types gains.
"Spot a person. Get the idea he is getting the idea of space in
front of him. Get the idea he is getting the idea of space in back of
him. Finish the entire cycle of commands. Then spot another person and
do the same."
When you spot a person, PUT HIM THERE. YOU BE CAUSE OF HIM
BEING THERE.
When you get the idea of him getting the idea of space etc,
PUT HIM THERE GETTING THE IDEA OF SPACE. YOU be the cause of him
of him doing this. That's OT VII, ability to project intention
onto others to be, do or have things.
It doesn't matter at all if he actually does it, just get the idea
he is, you can't cast onto others without having some affect on them,
and tremendous affect on yourself long term.
Projection of intention is not a matter of forcing someone else to
be, do, have or know something, its a matter of creating in the
conception of things.
OT's cause by conception, not by force of will.
If you got sparks flying out of your eyes at your target,
that's *WAY* too much force and power, you will probably burn your
own eyes out before he feels the effect.
And if he does feel the effect, he is more likely to spark back at
you than complete the auditing command.
That's why we always run auditing with "get the idea of," see?
Pure conception and zero force.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
> Excellent , I am practicing the first half on this process during my errands
> in the neigborhood.
> I found your LIFE REPAIR process. Is it possible to do this process SOLO ?
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Homer Wilson Smith
> <HomerWSmith@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> Run to a win.
>
> Get the idea of space in front of you.
>
> Get the idea of space behind you.
>
> Get the idea of space to the right of you.
>
> Get the idea of space to the left of you.
>
> Get the idea of space above you.
>
> Get the idea of space below you.
>
> Run to a win.
>
> Get the idea of a future.
>
> Get the idea of a past.
>
> Get the idea of a present.
>
> Homer
>
>
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Feb 21 12:45:42 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore966.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6MRGURT1lqxE3HERAvt1AKDWLCs5Kdxn9O7tkoyiHLR0DYZseQCgkt0d
LqOmdRsxXz9lidIBn/qNdOM=
=Xvmd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT69
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
THE PERFECT GAME
ACT - 69
26 July 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The PERFECT GAME does not refer to a game which is perfect, but to
the game of finding perfection in the AllThatIs.
I have always assumed that perfect happiness was possible.
This is not native to me, as I started off life born in Hell, but
through the years and the various things that happened I had a number of
visions of higher states of consciousness, mostly having to do with raw
beauty. I did not particularly ever see the perfect happiness that I
longed for, what I saw in fact was beauty tinged by searing sorrow and
permanent loss.
Indeed what I saw was PERFECT LOSS of PERFECT Beauty, of Beauty
beyond Perfect Beauty, of indescribable beauties the very
noncomprehension of which was the source of eternal sadness.
But rather than get lost in the loss of it all, I instead
concentrated on the PERFECTION of the loss, and I saw that Perfection
existed, and I was perfectly certain of that.
Whether this perfection was of perfect happiness or perfect sadness
though was open to question, the evidence sure seemed to point in the
wrong direction.
Then many years later I had a few really nice visions, real high,
real sweet and I knew at last that there was goodness in the world, but
it seemed to be encased by higher badness and probably to this day I
have not broken through the last highest badness I ever saw. Seems like
Beauty and Ugly go out the top layered in kind of a Napoleon layer cake,
first a level of Beauty, then a higher monster layer of Ugly, then an
even higher layer of Beauty etc.
Even the Beauties themselves are layered in the Frosties and the
Friendlies. First a Frosty Beauty, then a Friendly Beauty, then a
Frosty Beauty etc. And between each was a layer of Ugly.
Each time I managed to stick my nose into one of these higher
layers of Beauty, I would immediately crash into the next higher layer
of Ugly and get stuck there for a LONG time. This is the Ascension
Crash Effect which seems to be the latest rage in auditing.
Anyhow, what I saw from all this was that at each level of Beauty
or Ugly there was something to be understood about that level, and that
the understanding itself was the source of that Beauty and or Ugly.
Thus if I could attain the understanding of a particular level I could
turn on that Beauty or Ugly at will.
The hard part though was most of these levels were just
outrageously noncomprehensible to me, I knew there was a message there,
but not what it was.
I did a lot of drugs, pot and LSD to be specific, which took me up
to these levels a number of times. My last few LSD trips were quite
glorious and actually gave me a repeated taste of a very friendly level
of Excalibur Beauty that I really wish I could have all day long. Its a
total friendliness towards all of existence and really sweet and
radiantly gorgeous. But I spent the whole trip, a number of them,
trying to understand the damn stuff, utterly failing every time. So of
course once the drug wore off I was not able to maintain the Beauty
state.
What I did learn over the years was there was a game to play here
in all this and the game went as follows.
It starts off with the assumption that perfect Happiness is
possible.
It asserts further that happiness or unhappiness is the result of
understanding, of what you believe or know with certainty to be true
about the universe, tempered by false 'certainties' that alloy the
beauty with tension, disharmony and dissatisfaction.
It is asserted that the basic nature of existence is TRUTH, it is
not just an IS, it is an IS that is concerned with WHAT IS, truth in
other words, and so understanding down here at the human level is very
much a connecting cord back up to that living TRUTH.
Native state, just before the Big Snooze at the top is sort
of a self aware Truth.
There is a further assertion that the top level truth is ABSOLUTELY
in accord with our personal desire, which means that if we could attain
perfect understanding of what actually was true, we would have that
perfect happiness.
It could be that WHAT IS is actually very undesirable, in which
case the more we found out about the WHAT IS the unhappier we would get,
so this is no small assumption that WHAT IS is actually in perfect
accordance with our desire and should not be taken lightly.
To the degree then that our understanding does not correspond to
what truly is, we have an inaccurate view of WHAT IS. Since there is
only one WHAT IS that would make us perfectly happy, if we think that
some other WHAT IS actually obtains, then we will fall away from perfect
happiness.
Now it is not at all clear that WHAT IS is actually desirable at
all.
But what is clear is that we have desires, and that if we were a
God of sorts and could create any ultimate WHAT IS that we wanted to, we
would create one that would make us as happy as possible, even if it
included periodic forays into nightmare city.
From this comes the game that I was talking about.
Now the first problem is that most people are no longer in contact
with their desires. They have lost and hurt so much and for so long,
that they have numbed their desires absolutely out of existence and
buried them with concrete and not-is.
We called this chernobyling.
So how is anyone going to create the best of all possible worlds
for himself if he no longer knows what he desires? These people are in
such suppressed pain, that they no longer dare remember what they want
because it just hurts them too much to know that they can't have it. So
these people are not really able to play this game at all.
Some people have said that remembering what they REALLY WANT
would kill them.
That's probably not true, but scare the hell out of them it might.
None the less we have to play the game. So the first part of the
game is to find out WHAT WE DESIRE. Our desire is our most important
possession, next to life and existence itself. It makes us happy when
we have what we want, and unhappy when we have what we don't want. So
to squash our desire out of existence, to make believe it is not there,
to deny what we want merely because we can't have it, to refuse to feel
the sorrow of eternal permanent loss, is really a high crime against
ourselves.
There is nothing sadder than a being who has given up on what he
wants, and no longer knows what he wants or that he gave up on it.
At least rage against the coming of the night, you know?
We have come to despise our desire for its lack of accord with WHAT
IS, our desire has become anathema to us, a second rate citizen in our
lives, like a bum on the street, or a criminal at our door, something we
would do better without, something we wish would go away and leave us
alone. So we trash it in the grave yard of not-is, and pretty soon we
are 'happy' again having all the things that we detest more than
anything.
Most people live lives of being unhappy that they don't have things
which in fact they would detest having, if they had them.
So the first job we have is to dig our desire up out of its grave,
and dust it off and put it back on a pedestal where it belongs as our
number one friend and raison d'etre.
This is a hard job, because of the encrustations of sorrow and
bitterness and eternal rage, but it can and must be done in order to
become a perfectly happy person or to go really really clear and OT.
A Clear knows what he wants. A top level Operating Thetan can have
it in the mere conception of it.
Now of course just because you want something, doesn't mean you
necessarily can have it, so dusting off your desire and bringing it out
into the daylight where everyone can see is a mighty risky proposition,
you might start crying in public.
But this then is the game.
1.) Perfect happiness exists. Perfect happiness obtains when
desire is perfectly fulfilled. Desire is perfectly fulfilled when there
is perfect accord between what desire wants and WHAT IS.
This state is a state of Accord, Clear Harmony and Co
Communication.
Scientology calls it Affinity, Reality (Agreement) and
Communication.
Now you can say, well I don't know WHAT IS, and maybe if I find out
WHAT IS, I won't like it. OK, that would be too bad, now wouldn't it.
You also find that finding out WHAT IS is very hard to do, because
you don't know where to look or who to ask, or even how to go about
starting to find out WHAT REALLY IS.
You also find that you are very afraid to look to see WHAT IS
because you might find something you don't like, you might find that
your Desire and WHAT IS are NOT in fact in accord, and in that case you
would be up the creek forever. Better to not know, or just believe
things were good than to know the truth, right?
But there is another way to look at the game. Suppose that the
WHAT IS and your desire ARE in accord. Thus you are unhappy only
because you have a false understanding of WHAT IS and your FALSE
understanding rankles with your desire and this produces the experience
of loss and sorrow.
How then should you get a better view of the WHAT IS, so that you
can know that you have what you want? You see the problem is we don't
know very much about the WHAT IS or where to look to find out. It would
help if we had some inkling of what we were looking for, then we could
better look to see if it were true.
For example, someone could TELL YOU, well the WHAT IS is this way,
and you go look and suddenly you see that they are right. You would
never have found out that the WHAT IS was that way, because you never
would have thought of it, and you wouldn't have known where to look, but
once you already have the idea of what the WHAT IS *MIGHT* be, why then
its real easy to see if its true or not.
So where do you turn to get your idea of what the WHAT IS might be?
From your DESIRE of course.
So now the game is with yourself and your desire.
You start asking yourself, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR ME TO BE
PERFECTLY HAPPY? Each time you come up with an answer that you are SURE
is right, you then look to see if it is true. If it is true, you will
see that it is.
That's real convenient isn't it? You see the WHAT IS is willing to
cooperate with you on discovering what it is, but ONLY IF YOU ALREADY
KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. And the only way to find what you are
looking for is IN THE NATURE OF WHAT YOU DESIRE TO BE TRUE.
Desire is a very fundamental part of existence, the WHOLE PURPOSE
OF EXISTENCE, THE WHOLE DESIRE OF EXISTENCE is that desire have what it
wants.
Thus Desire knows all about the WHAT IS, because for one, down deep,
desire DESIRES to know all about the WHAT IS, and so this HAS to be true
that desire knows all about the WHAT IS, for desire to be happy,
Desire also likes to engage in mystery and nightmare FOR A WHILE,
and thus desire must ALSO have the ability to not know about the WHAT IS
for a while and engage in suffering, misery, sin and error pining.
If you can be happy FOREVER wouldn't it be cool to engage in some
ludicrous demise for a while every now and then?
For two the whole of existence exists to service desire, so you can
be sure that the WHAT IS has made sure that DESIRE knows everything
about the WHAT IS that could ever be important for it to know.
No one has ever said that to you before.
So from your desire you can determine what you WANT to be true, and
then you can look at existence and see if it is true. If it is true,
you will see that it is. That's the promise that this thing we call God
made to you.
Since God is the HIGH US in carnation, it because our promise to
ourselves.
The promise only holds under two conditions.
1.) You must desire what ever it is to be true.
2.) It must be true.
If both of these hold, then all you have to do is to LOOK at
existence to see if it is true.
Pure magic, isn't it?
So the only way to find perfect happiness is,
1.) Find out what your desire wants,
2.) LOOK to see if it's true.
May you all be pleasantly surprised.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Feb 21 12:17:44 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act69.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6L25URT1lqxE3HERAhMqAJ99MjcRiZ2MQSFWA5lKgAGriDr3qACg2fwU
dBcq6tR6eL0lf/tRvWxqoQ0=
=rch/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
THE PERFECT GAME
ACT - 69
26 July 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The PERFECT GAME does not refer to a game which is perfect, but to
the game of finding perfection in the AllThatIs.
I have always assumed that perfect happiness was possible.
This is not native to me, as I started off life born in Hell, but
through the years and the various things that happened I had a number of
visions of higher states of consciousness, mostly having to do with raw
beauty. I did not particularly ever see the perfect happiness that I
longed for, what I saw in fact was beauty tinged by searing sorrow and
permanent loss.
Indeed what I saw was PERFECT LOSS of PERFECT Beauty, of Beauty
beyond Perfect Beauty, of indescribable beauties the very
noncomprehension of which was the source of eternal sadness.
But rather than get lost in the loss of it all, I instead
concentrated on the PERFECTION of the loss, and I saw that Perfection
existed, and I was perfectly certain of that.
Whether this perfection was of perfect happiness or perfect sadness
though was open to question, the evidence sure seemed to point in the
wrong direction.
Then many years later I had a few really nice visions, real high,
real sweet and I knew at last that there was goodness in the world, but
it seemed to be encased by higher badness and probably to this day I
have not broken through the last highest badness I ever saw. Seems like
Beauty and Ugly go out the top layered in kind of a Napoleon layer cake,
first a level of Beauty, then a higher monster layer of Ugly, then an
even higher layer of Beauty etc.
Even the Beauties themselves are layered in the Frosties and the
Friendlies. First a Frosty Beauty, then a Friendly Beauty, then a
Frosty Beauty etc. And between each was a layer of Ugly.
Each time I managed to stick my nose into one of these higher
layers of Beauty, I would immediately crash into the next higher layer
of Ugly and get stuck there for a LONG time. This is the Ascension
Crash Effect which seems to be the latest rage in auditing.
Anyhow, what I saw from all this was that at each level of Beauty
or Ugly there was something to be understood about that level, and that
the understanding itself was the source of that Beauty and or Ugly.
Thus if I could attain the understanding of a particular level I could
turn on that Beauty or Ugly at will.
The hard part though was most of these levels were just
outrageously noncomprehensible to me, I knew there was a message there,
but not what it was.
I did a lot of drugs, pot and LSD to be specific, which took me up
to these levels a number of times. My last few LSD trips were quite
glorious and actually gave me a repeated taste of a very friendly level
of Excalibur Beauty that I really wish I could have all day long. Its a
total friendliness towards all of existence and really sweet and
radiantly gorgeous. But I spent the whole trip, a number of them,
trying to understand the damn stuff, utterly failing every time. So of
course once the drug wore off I was not able to maintain the Beauty
state.
What I did learn over the years was there was a game to play here
in all this and the game went as follows.
It starts off with the assumption that perfect Happiness is
possible.
It asserts further that happiness or unhappiness is the result of
understanding, of what you believe or know with certainty to be true
about the universe, tempered by false 'certainties' that alloy the
beauty with tension, disharmony and dissatisfaction.
It is asserted that the basic nature of existence is TRUTH, it is
not just an IS, it is an IS that is concerned with WHAT IS, truth in
other words, and so understanding down here at the human level is very
much a connecting cord back up to that living TRUTH.
Native state, just before the Big Snooze at the top is sort
of a self aware Truth.
There is a further assertion that the top level truth is ABSOLUTELY
in accord with our personal desire, which means that if we could attain
perfect understanding of what actually was true, we would have that
perfect happiness.
It could be that WHAT IS is actually very undesirable, in which
case the more we found out about the WHAT IS the unhappier we would get,
so this is no small assumption that WHAT IS is actually in perfect
accordance with our desire and should not be taken lightly.
To the degree then that our understanding does not correspond to
what truly is, we have an inaccurate view of WHAT IS. Since there is
only one WHAT IS that would make us perfectly happy, if we think that
some other WHAT IS actually obtains, then we will fall away from perfect
happiness.
Now it is not at all clear that WHAT IS is actually desirable at
all.
But what is clear is that we have desires, and that if we were a
God of sorts and could create any ultimate WHAT IS that we wanted to, we
would create one that would make us as happy as possible, even if it
included periodic forays into nightmare city.
From this comes the game that I was talking about.
Now the first problem is that most people are no longer in contact
with their desires. They have lost and hurt so much and for so long,
that they have numbed their desires absolutely out of existence and
buried them with concrete and not-is.
We called this chernobyling.
So how is anyone going to create the best of all possible worlds
for himself if he no longer knows what he desires? These people are in
such suppressed pain, that they no longer dare remember what they want
because it just hurts them too much to know that they can't have it. So
these people are not really able to play this game at all.
Some people have said that remembering what they REALLY WANT
would kill them.
That's probably not true, but scare the hell out of them it might.
None the less we have to play the game. So the first part of the
game is to find out WHAT WE DESIRE. Our desire is our most important
possession, next to life and existence itself. It makes us happy when
we have what we want, and unhappy when we have what we don't want. So
to squash our desire out of existence, to make believe it is not there,
to deny what we want merely because we can't have it, to refuse to feel
the sorrow of eternal permanent loss, is really a high crime against
ourselves.
There is nothing sadder than a being who has given up on what he
wants, and no longer knows what he wants or that he gave up on it.
At least rage against the coming of the night, you know?
We have come to despise our desire for its lack of accord with WHAT
IS, our desire has become anathema to us, a second rate citizen in our
lives, like a bum on the street, or a criminal at our door, something we
would do better without, something we wish would go away and leave us
alone. So we trash it in the grave yard of not-is, and pretty soon we
are 'happy' again having all the things that we detest more than
anything.
Most people live lives of being unhappy that they don't have things
which in fact they would detest having, if they had them.
So the first job we have is to dig our desire up out of its grave,
and dust it off and put it back on a pedestal where it belongs as our
number one friend and raison d'etre.
This is a hard job, because of the encrustations of sorrow and
bitterness and eternal rage, but it can and must be done in order to
become a perfectly happy person or to go really really clear and OT.
A Clear knows what he wants. A top level Operating Thetan can have
it in the mere conception of it.
Now of course just because you want something, doesn't mean you
necessarily can have it, so dusting off your desire and bringing it out
into the daylight where everyone can see is a mighty risky proposition,
you might start crying in public.
But this then is the game.
1.) Perfect happiness exists. Perfect happiness obtains when
desire is perfectly fulfilled. Desire is perfectly fulfilled when there
is perfect accord between what desire wants and WHAT IS.
This state is a state of Accord, Clear Harmony and Co
Communication.
Scientology calls it Affinity, Reality (Agreement) and
Communication.
Now you can say, well I don't know WHAT IS, and maybe if I find out
WHAT IS, I won't like it. OK, that would be too bad, now wouldn't it.
You also find that finding out WHAT IS is very hard to do, because
you don't know where to look or who to ask, or even how to go about
starting to find out WHAT REALLY IS.
You also find that you are very afraid to look to see WHAT IS
because you might find something you don't like, you might find that
your Desire and WHAT IS are NOT in fact in accord, and in that case you
would be up the creek forever. Better to not know, or just believe
things were good than to know the truth, right?
But there is another way to look at the game. Suppose that the
WHAT IS and your desire ARE in accord. Thus you are unhappy only
because you have a false understanding of WHAT IS and your FALSE
understanding rankles with your desire and this produces the experience
of loss and sorrow.
How then should you get a better view of the WHAT IS, so that you
can know that you have what you want? You see the problem is we don't
know very much about the WHAT IS or where to look to find out. It would
help if we had some inkling of what we were looking for, then we could
better look to see if it were true.
For example, someone could TELL YOU, well the WHAT IS is this way,
and you go look and suddenly you see that they are right. You would
never have found out that the WHAT IS was that way, because you never
would have thought of it, and you wouldn't have known where to look, but
once you already have the idea of what the WHAT IS *MIGHT* be, why then
its real easy to see if its true or not.
So where do you turn to get your idea of what the WHAT IS might be?
From your DESIRE of course.
So now the game is with yourself and your desire.
You start asking yourself, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR ME TO BE
PERFECTLY HAPPY? Each time you come up with an answer that you are SURE
is right, you then look to see if it is true. If it is true, you will
see that it is.
That's real convenient isn't it? You see the WHAT IS is willing to
cooperate with you on discovering what it is, but ONLY IF YOU ALREADY
KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. And the only way to find what you are
looking for is IN THE NATURE OF WHAT YOU DESIRE TO BE TRUE.
Desire is a very fundamental part of existence, the WHOLE PURPOSE
OF EXISTENCE, THE WHOLE DESIRE OF EXISTENCE is that desire have what it
wants.
Thus Desire knows all about the WHAT IS, because for one, down deep,
desire DESIRES to know all about the WHAT IS, and so this HAS to be true
that desire knows all about the WHAT IS, for desire to be happy,
Desire also likes to engage in mystery and nightmare FOR A WHILE,
and thus desire must ALSO have the ability to not know about the WHAT IS
for a while and engage in suffering, misery, sin and error pining.
If you can be happy FOREVER wouldn't it be cool to engage in some
ludicrous demise for a while every now and then?
For two the whole of existence exists to service desire, so you can
be sure that the WHAT IS has made sure that DESIRE knows everything
about the WHAT IS that could ever be important for it to know.
No one has ever said that to you before.
So from your desire you can determine what you WANT to be true, and
then you can look at existence and see if it is true. If it is true,
you will see that it is. That's the promise that this thing we call God
made to you.
Since God is the HIGH US in carnation, it because our promise to
ourselves.
The promise only holds under two conditions.
1.) You must desire what ever it is to be true.
2.) It must be true.
If both of these hold, then all you have to do is to LOOK at
existence to see if it is true.
Pure magic, isn't it?
So the only way to find perfect happiness is,
1.) Find out what your desire wants,
2.) LOOK to see if it's true.
May you all be pleasantly surprised.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Feb 21 12:17:44 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act69.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFU6L25URT1lqxE3HERAhMqAJ99MjcRiZ2MQSFWA5lKgAGriDr3qACg2fwU
dBcq6tR6eL0lf/tRvWxqoQ0=
=rch/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)