ADORE406

homer at lightlink.com homer at lightlink.com
Tue Jul 12 03:06:03 EDT 2011


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

     TO DUPLICATE OR NOT TO DUPLICATE

mearvk (mearvk at gmail.com) wrote:
>Native state isn't about laughing or any other action. It's total
>Being. Just being, zero complexity. The charge you talk about is a lie.

    Correct.

>Having to consider it before attaining native state is a
>non-duplication of native state. It's just a clever via you keep
>putting up.

     Uh well, so much for Scientology.  Hubbard said one could not
just change one's mind about postulates, one had to review them and
as-isness them, returning each one to native state.

     Maybe that was just a gradient, but native state is not an
as-isness of a lie, it is the result of the as-isness of the lie.

     The persisting isness is a creation between native state and the
being, and he can't just bypass that isness and go directly to native
state, without getting the as-isness of the isness.

     Once the as-isness vanishes then native state is resumed.

     Native state -> created as-isness -> alter-isness -> isness.

     One can't just go back to native state and leave the isness
to be, the being must as-isness the persisting object in order
for it to vanish.

     Othewise once he comes back out of native state, all his isnesses
will still be there.
 
     Hubbard called that kind of operation 'up the pole'.
 
     Now maybe some can audit 'Return to Native State!' but I would
bet good money this would be unworkable on the vast majority of your
pc's no matter how much you word cleared the command.

     Return to static.
     Return to kinetic.

     Return to non manifestation.
     Return to manifestation.

     Now that I could handle.

     On the way back in he would start to as-is all the crap
he left in place on the way out.

>Considering that there is a via to native state is unethical. Native
>state is a 'vialess' transition. One simply assumes unthinkingness.

    Never work without operating the opposite flow.

    Assume a thinkingness.
    Assume unthinkingness.

     Present theory tells me that assume a thinkingness will work
better because the guy has to be the unthinkingness to create the
thinkingness.

     But every inflow demands an outflow, and every outflow demands an
inflow, thus running assume an unthinkingness for a while will create
a screaming need to create a thinkingness, and visa versa.  Once the
guy has the flow going both ways at 200 amps, then perhaps he can let
go of the dichotomy and end up in peace.
 
     Yes the above are mechanics, if you can bypass mechanics in your
journey of going free all the more power to you.

    Homer

Sat Nov 25 18:58:46 EST 2006

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 12 03:06:03 EDT 2011 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore406.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOG/JbURT1lqxE3HERAgGOAJ9fDJfFxgkcmk1n7QkGIpAl8BOxZQCggI2X
qeD3fiOcaIfHUnNfCSO3Dh0=
=ppUV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Homerwsmith-l mailing list