WhatYou0.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Jul 17 00:06:02 EDT 2019


************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which is available to all those who subscribe to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
Home Page: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ - with extensive links to FZ!
************************************************************************


To: ivy-subscribers at lightlink.com
Subject: What you were before you mocked yourself up
Date: Wed.  24 June 1998 00:52 EDT
From:  PJSpickler at aol.com


Dear Anyone,
     I should probably start this by saying something like "What you weren't
before your mocked yourself up;"  perhaps more on that later.  In the
meantime, if my memory serves me correctly, L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 was very
busy attempting to get one or more international Buddhist societies to agree
that he was the fulfillment of a Buddhist prophecy that at the midpoint of the
20th Century, 1950 if you please, a red-haired Buddha would burst upon the
scene and successfully communicate Buddhism in a form that would sweep across
the western world.  Hmmmm, you say -- is that so?  I'd say, "Sure!" Anybody
takes the time or the trouble to take a good look at some of the Buddhist
writings of the last 2500 years, or enjoys reading about Zen, it's easy to see
that Scientology and even Dianetics (relief from suffering) is simply good
old-fashioned Buddhism put into a form that Westerners can easily get their
thetans around, and that leads to the rapid accomplishment of numerous
satoris, which is just another way of saying, moments when you encounter your
own Buddha-nature, or what you were before you mocked yourself up.  It's these
moments that put the life into both Buddhism and Scientology, and without them
the whole thing would be just intellectual blah.  

       Ron's genius, in my opinion, before he went bonkers (Scientology is a
deadly serious business that should be run by a bunch of fanatics), lay in all
the different things he could come up with that would make it possible for a
person to have the experience of their own true nature, or as a Buddhist might
put it, conceive mind-essence, or as L. Ron Hubbard might put it, what's the
top process in Scientology?  That's right!  It went under the name of
"Conceive a static."  Just imagine, processes and procedures that would allow
what seems to be a regulation human being, someone who is every day fighting
to survive, bringing this guy to the point of conceiving a static.  That gets
a big WOW, doesn't it? 

     One thing the Buddhists understood that the Scientologists and their many
offshoots still seem to be avoiding as an understanding has to do with the old
Buddhist idea of non-attachment.  Folks still insist, when they get blown out,
or keyed out, or make contact with the great truth, they'll insist this is so
wonderful, I want it to always be this way and it must never change.  Well,
come on now, all you guys out there, you know what happens when you put
anything on the time track or in other words try to give it persistence.  Need
I say more?  You still have to keep brushing your teeth, they don't stay clean
just because you brushed them last night.  Even your automobile will
deteriorate if you actually use it in life and time.  And so anything that is
given persistence in time will deteriorate at greater or lesser degrees of
speed, and this goes for the highest ascension state you could ever imagine.
We could learn something from the Buddhists because they had a couple of
thousand years to figure out the "how come?" about all this stuff: namely,
there are many great states possible, none of them will persist if it is your
intention to leap back into the 8 great aberrations known as the dynamics and
the playing of the game commonly called Life.  So as long as you don't try to
hang onto them or put them up on your wall as certificates or wear them on
your wrist, they come under the heading of "Great experiences that you've had
in this lifetime," and just let it be known that there's many great states
ahead, not to speak of rehabbing earlier ones.  But you mustn't take it so
seriously when they go away and assume something was wrong -- if you do you're
going to spend a lot of money and be quite unhappy and still fail to find out
that's just the way life works.  Since this is bad for business, the Church of
Scientology never went out of its way to explain this to folks, lest they say,
"I paid for it, and I expect it to last a long, long, long time, just the way
it was when I took it out of the HGC showroom."  

      Getting onself in a position to have life the way it is, meaning all of
it, not just the parts that our most personal selves think of as neat, remains
a grand possibility for all of us.  Ron even discovered processes that made it
possible,  at least for brief times, to be able to cease to mock up that poor
little survival entity that we go around in life calling "me", and at such
moments when that false "I" cease to be there, what followed were such amazing
moments of clarity, perception, and  affinity that it's no wonder we wanted
these states to never go away.  As for the self or selves that do all the
suffering, that we are continuously attempting to give immortality to,
(something that none of them can attain):  by simply taking over the
automaticity of the mock-up of that self, in other words paralleling what the
mind is doing, it can be caused to temporarily vanish.  You can practically
cause yourself to as-is at will, and enjoy being the Static.  

      That's all for tonight -- I'll be seeing you on the playing field --
love and best wishes, Phil
P.S.  As any good Buddhist, or person in their right minds, would say, all of
what I have to say is pure nonsense and a giant waste of electrons.  The only
excuse I can offer is I like to beat my gums -- Phil
**

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 17 00:06:02 EDT 2019 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/spickler/WhatYou0.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend 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.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list