ADORE406 (fwd)

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Fri Aug 7 16:59:01 EDT 2015


-----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.

      Otherwise 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.

      Yes, in theory you can't become cause by being an effect.

      However in practice, 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 ========================
Posted: Fri Aug  7 16:59:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore406.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)

iD8DBQFVxRwVURT1lqxE3HERAsK0AJ9esVF0QhmIrmMQiT7svbr0mTEC9gCeIM6C
tb5YTcQgpDauX8WluaRz0Ao=
=XmqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list