PROOF10 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Feb 16 16:10:58 EST 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Naoya Kinjo (mountaingate at pop06.odn.ne.jp) wrote:
>homer at lightlink.com says in
><200005121605.MAA28470 at adore.lightlink.com>
>[      That is perhaps why I have never made any progress with standard
>[ dianetics, because they always direct
>[ attention to the MEST of the event,
>[ rather than to the two or more beings in relationship.  An engram is
>[ basically a collision between two beings, not between MEST and body, or
>[ MEST and being.

>What about an incident where the guy
>fell down to earth after stumbling over
>a piece of rock?

      The apparency is a MEST - MEST collision, rock against body.

      The truth is that the body is a mockup made by beings, as is the
mountain and all its rocks, and its way late on the chain to be
running MEST - MEST collisions, one needs to also run what one is
doing in that space in the first place, whose space it is, and what
the real underlying conflict is between Being and Counter Being that
got the first being into being a mountain climber in the first place
and falling flat on his face on the other's beings rock.

      One can run MEST - MEST collisions forever and get more and more
enmired in "What the hell am I doing here?"

      Then one gets further enmired in "What exact is 'here' in the
first place?"

      Turns out that 'here' in an entaglement of two or more beings,
fighting wars with mockups, who have long since forgotten that there
is a being behind every mockup and their attention has drifted off the
source of the mockup to the mockup itself, as if the mockup is a
problem.

      Mockups are conscious light pictures, they aren't solid no matter
how solid they look or feel when touched by other conscious light
pictures.  They have no cause of their own, only pretended cause.

      Study the old game of PONG, one of the first arcade games, the
little light ball goes back and forth and bounces off the light
paddle.  Why?  Because the light ball is solid and the light paddle is
solid?  No because the computer program is making them act AS IF they
were solid.  Same thing with MEST, its a dream, its being mockedup and
maintained by various Gods etc, and in fact you can't get hurt at all
by a light picture, but you can consider in agreement with the Gods,
that a light picture of a rock can hurt the light picture of your
body, at which point yours and their postulates govern the experience
and outcome of the event.

      It's VIRTUAL damage to virtual objects.  The experience of pain
is added in to enhance the apparency.

      An engram is a moment of unconfronted unwillingness.  The thetan,
rather than spotting the live sources of the event and thus as-ising
his involvement in it, instead misdirectes to the 'event' itself,
finds a persistence he can not get rid of, begins to resist and not-is
and make nothing of, in order to quell the resulting pain, and thus
carries an impression, a MEST RIDGE, along with him for the rest of
time.

      That is an engram, a facsimile if you will.

      It is two layers of energy, one the thetans which he puts out to
make nothing of something, and the other is the energy of the event
impinging on him, 'hurting' him.

      Both layers of energy are virtual light pictures, they have no
cause nor reality other than to be perceived, but they are USED as if
they are actual and can defend against each other.

      An engram is formed then when a being not-ises an other
determined impingment of some sort.

      It is actually a refusal to conceed that the incident happened,
and at the deepest part of the refusal, he won't have actually
experienced any of it, so it didn't happen as far as he is concerned.

      When you run this, he begins to go through the ridge-forming
process again, 'running the incident from earliest to latest', and the
masses he piled up on the offending light picture that hurt him, begin
to come off, and then he is faced ONCE AGAIN with the deepest part of
the incident.

      Now he has a choice to make, either do what he did before, which
was not-is, make nothing of etc, which will end him up back where he
was before he started running the incident.

      Or he can start spotting real sources to save his life, and if he
succeeds the incident comes apart, replays off in perfect
revivification, because he is actually there again, and this time he
runs it out PROPERLY, so its GONE and never happened.

      He has to do NOW in running the incident, what he SHOULD HAVE
DONE THEN when the incident first occured, to run it out to the point
of it being a non event.

      If he had done the right thing originally, he would have suffered
no pain, his involvement in 'damage' would have been non existent, and
he would have had no lasting memory of the incident except maybe an
analytic one containing a deep sense of humor.

      Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 13 03:06:02 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof10.memo
Send mail to archive at 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)

iD8DBQFU3bBrURT1lqxE3HERArriAKDS35bthq5DE8JNJDTojs/jwYLFdgCfcVgE
7dz5NoVSto7OoD/7hQYhFr8=
=v2I7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list