************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
5. Be, Do, Have (Leo Faulhaber)
Paul Tipon I would say that Be and Do are possible non-life goals. In contrast to Have they are both not on the list of life goals which have been tested by Dennis. Why are they possible non-life goals? They are too general. Be is just holding a specific set of postulates. And those postulates can be anything, life or non-life. And Do is just realizing any postulate, life or non-life. I would be careful in running those on Level 5. Best wishes Leo Faulhaber Am Montag, 20. August 2012 schrieb : > Send Trom mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Trom digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. For Paul and anyone else interested: my answer (Paul Tipon) > 2. Re: Trom Digest, Vol 97, Issue 26 to Martin (Paul Tipon) > 3. a little on Ron while I am on the virtual reality theme > (Paul Tipon) > 4. Assistant writer wanted.... (David M. Pelly) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:37:28 -0700 > From: Paul Tipon <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [TROM1] For Paul and anyone else interested: my answer > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Hi Paul - this was an answer I placed on the Ivy list - which you > > could > > consider joining. > > > I have been asked by Ant several times but every time I looked at the > blogs there was a bunch of anti Scn stuff. Not that such is a > negative for me. It just that I didn't see anything where any Tech > of anybody was being discussed or put forward. That is where my > interest lies. > > > I answered the following thread about Buddhism which I have studied a > > bit but rejected: I would appreciate your and other Trommer's > > comments. > > > > Ivy - lister: > >> I am not a buddhist, but sadly remain emeshed in the scientology > >> mindfuck. I explore buddhism to give myself perspective, and the > >> advantage of another model for consideration. > > > > Martin: > > Thanks for replying, > > > > I recently discovered translations of "The dead sea scrolls" - and > > found > > them very interesting. beautiful and wise sayings > > > > Have you read "Gods of Eden" by William Bramley? He speaks about > > "Maverick" religions becoming Custodial religions. > > > > The only method I have come across in which the mind can be dismantled > > is by using TROM by Dennis Stephens. > > > > Stephens addresses the mind and not peripheral phenomena or subjects - > > such as dynamics, ethics conditions and related "How to audit pc's." > > > These subjects are important however. They are tools which help one > have freedom over mechanisms which are part of keeping one in traps. > They are not the traps themselves but periphery mechanisms. I will > say more on that below. > > > Those subjects are probably very important ones and one possibly needs > > to have some modus operandi in life but they do not address the mind's > > command power. > > > True. Encompassed in these subjects are however some of the many > tools that facilitate traps. > > > Once one starts using the method - or by just reading TROM one > > starts on > > a journey of freeing oneself from the command power of the mind. > > > Yes, this is true. Dennis however did not fully address all of the > mechanisms the mind has at its command to entrap. Let me be more > specific. I posted the fact that I used Dennis' Tech and put > together postulate failure charts on Be Do Have. I offer those > charts for those interested. I will just take up one. > > Have is a very insidious package of postulates. One must have > complete freedom of Havingness as part of going Clear and Free. A > statement that makes this easy to see is ... One can only have what > they don't have and likewise one can only not want what they already > have. So automatically one is not having what they don't have and > not wanting what they do have. Pure logic. When one gets to the > ability to have what they don't have and not have what they do have > without having to automatically duplicate a particular havingness in > the MEST Universe, then one will have freedom from having to have or > not having what one has. > > At first all of this may sound non-sequitur and confusing but by > processing or just logically going over the trap that is presented > thru the MEST Universe through havingness one can achieve Freedom of > Havingness. It is a really big step and one that eliminates one of > the control/trapping mechanisms of the mind. For the bottom line is > the mind will never have or not have. But, through the identity (Be) > and the doingness (Do) of the identity, one gets locked into a > particular pattern specifically for themselves of what they can have > and what they cannot or do not wish to have. The MEST Universe with > its distances and separations enforces and amplifies that havingness > component. Through this mechanism one can also be taught lessons of > how un-OT, un-Clear they are. > > The ability to Love as in Sedona and in the meditation of Tom > Campbell is a method of handling this. > > When one goes thru the Postulate Failure Chart of Be Do Have, they > are not working against an opponent other than that which the mind > throws up in order to obfuscate and keep the battle going by > providing another terminal (which actually doesn't exist other than > in the mind). It is actually a mock battle, fully set up to make > things seem important, real and solid. It's kind of funny as only > one postulate is necessary to keep this battle in place. There is no > opposing terminal and no opposing postulate. A neat trick if you > look at it and dissect it. It's one playing a joke on themselves > without the need for anyone else to participate. > > As a real-time example, just recall or look around for something you > or someone else just absolutely must have or absolutely must not have > and look at all of the effort/actions you or they take up to enforce > a particular havingness. This can be going on whether or not there > is anyone else around. An opponent is not a necessity. Sadly, only > the mind is a necessity. > > Break it! TimeBreak it out. > > > I, too, have been enamored with some very beautiful things in > > Buddhism, > > Catholicism, Hinduism and even in the Quran. > > > > I have now concluded that the beautiful things are attractants to that > > very hidden "implant station" which is one's own mind. > > > Keep in mind 'who' is defining beautiful. As in above, who and what > is defining one's havingness. > > > It's not religion or politics which implants one. It's the command > > power > > of one's own mind. External influences may trigger those hidden > > postulates - within the mind - but when there is nothing to trigger, > > there is no effect. > > > Yes, any Clearing is the process of eliminating that command power. > That command power and in fact the mind itself being ones' self > created entity and power over one's self. > > > Most of the meditative philosophies try to discard the metaphorical > > mind > > completely because they think they have discovered the so called > > source > > of their disabilities and aberrations and so they attempt getting > > rid of > > all thought and sit thinking "I must not think"which is nigh > > impossible! > > > I will start off by saying that ... yes, it is the source and yes it > is that which one has put there and given it power over oneself. For > myself I see eastern meditation as means to come into recognition of > the mind and what it is doing, a recognition which then places it as > an entity unto itself. An entity that can be watched and observed > and with enough of this, then have some ability to not be influenced > by it or totally at its command. It does not resolve or eliminate > the mind. It is a very good method of coming to the ability to > confront the mind and what it is. It is not eliminated or resolved. > I dare say that one may not necessarily carry that ability with them, > between lives but it is not an impossibility. > > And, not thinking is an impossibility as the Theta/spirit's only > doingness is that at a very high level. There are two distinct types > of thinking and one must know the difference and at some point in the > future always be able to know which they are doing. This is a broad > subject too and one that I will not be going into here. > > > Hubbard was aware of this trap and disparaged hypnotism and forbade > > meditation. > > > Yes and I have done both and been successful at both. That success > led me directly to the reasons why they should not be done. However, > I am meditating now with the intention and purpose to fully > exteriorize from the physical universe. It is the meditation of > OOBE, remote viewing, traveling and interfacing within the Theta/ > spiritual/consciousness only universe. That same meditation that is > mentioned by Tom Campbell. (I wish there was more description. If > you know of any, please let me know) > > > In studying TROM, one will discover that the mind is set in such a > > fashion that any attempt to create an effect upon the mind (Must be > > known) will cause it to resist the effect - The mind sets up a > > (Mustn't > > know). > > > The same mechanism I discussed above with Be Do Have. > > > The greater the attempt to create an effect upon it the more resistive > > it becomes. > > > > Any attempt to withdraw from the mind (Mustn't be known) will cause > > the > > mind to seemingly pursue the being (Must know). Hence, the well known > > feeling of being 'stuck with' ones' own mind. > > > > So possibly you can now see why meditation becomes a futile exercise. > > > That and other reasons too which I will not go into here. There are > many and it is not necessary to even know one of them or any one of > them. > > > Discovering other realms using "Astral projection" in various > > degrees or > > "Remote viewing" may be very entertaining and exciting BUT - until one > > has rid oneself of the command power of the mind one will never be > > certain whether one is having a solipsistic experience or > > hallucination. > > > I totally agree and the meditation I have mentioned is not to be > delved into until after Level 5 or somewhere within the midst of > doing Level 5 but that somewhere is not definable at this time. > > > Phew!!, I've written more than I initially intended - Forgive my > > garrulousness and sententiousness if I have offered what you > > already know. > > > > > > Martin > > I thoroughly enjoyed it and it gave me a platform to convey that > which I have discovered and know. I started my discovery trek at the > age of 3 but must admit that I took some time off over periods here > and there, getting to where I am now. Going thru puberty and > becoming an adult was a big area of lost search and discovery time. > > Paul/Level 5 in progress > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:47:42 -0700 > From: Paul Tipon <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 97, Issue 26 to Martin > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Wow Paul - You could write your own MBT. > > > Funny you wrote that comment. I have not been thinking of writing my > own MBT but I wanted to explain more about it which was left out. I > will do some of that below. > > > Thanks for the review - my considerations interspersed below: > > > > On 16 Aug 2012 16:59, Paul Tipon wrote: > >> I don't know how much of Tom Campbell's, MBT you have read. I have > >> read the entire book. I found it quite interesting and true. I also > >> found it validating many of the things LRH has said and likewise the > >> other way around too. I don't see that there were any contrary or > >> opposing viewpoints from either theory. > > > > It was the most difficult book I've ever read. I couldn't get away > > from > > the Scio premise of originally being "Super beings" now trapped in > > MEST. > > > Yes it is difficult because Tom writes strictly from a scientific > viewpoint. > > >> Secondly, you must interpret the data you do get. (e.g., that data > >> available in the database on our history thread or some part thereof > >> depending on the completeness of the query) Your interpretation is > >> limited by your fear, ignorance, ego, knowledge of the possibilities, > >> understanding, expectations and beliefs. > > > > Yes and by whatever old postulates you have buried in your mind. > > Yes, at the beginning, early stage, one is basically a solipsist. > Then as one becomes aware and learned, he can add in his own > subroutines and become not so much a solipsist but still a solipsist, > a self customized solipsist if you will. Not until one discovers > that there is something that can be called free-will does one start > to move out of solipsism. A further outward move would be to go up > against the psi uncertainty principal and the rule-set of the > physical universe. The next step would be out of the box but only at > certain surfaces. One is truly in control of the environment in and > around himself but not free from it at will as yet. That last stage > would be to live in both the physical and non-physical universe > simultaneously and at will or just one of the two exclusively. > > Now I never would but I guess there are those who would choose to > live exclusively in the physical. Take solipsists for example. Now > further on my original intent herein. > > > One big factor that Tom has left out is the fact that people don't > read 1's and 0's code. The data may be derived, stored and put forth > in digital code but the physical universe and consideration does not > occur at that level. The physical universe and thinking are done in > analog. Also probability is of the analog set of data not 1's and > 0's. If that were true, everything would be down to 50% > probability ... Is it a 1 or a 0. So probability is against one > analog against another. > > Analogs are integrations of data or data points. Any and all waves > can be characterized by different mathematical series and a > conglomeration of several mathematical series. What changes in those > series are events of 1's and 0's at different times/intervals and of > course the whole series expansion can be turned off or on. A 1 or a > 0 all by themselves have no information by their individual selves. > Off or on all by itself is just that and nothing else. > > So the bare minimum usable data is in analog form. Language itself > is analog for it introduces degree of off and on and on top of that > can combine several things and degree of things as communication. > > I hope this is of some help. As we continue with our comm, we can > further get into this. > > >> In a sense, one's imagination could approximate probable data. One > >> would just have to keep in mind that the imagined data has > >> probabilities, having not been actualized and that the probability > >> can > >> be very high to very low as well as being conformed to the rule- > >> set of > >> the particular PMR into which that imagined data would be processed > >> against. Then too, who is to say that a skilled imagination couldn?t > >> predict what will be found to be true in the future. Or, who is to > >> say > >> that one is not actually getting the probability data and then > >> calling > >> it imagination.] (the foregoing bracketed thoughts are entirely my > >> own) > > > > Which is why I will continue with TROM - I would like greater > > certainty > > that what I perceive is not just projected illusion. > > > But I must say ... it actually is (projected illusion) but in analog > form. We do live in a virtual environment, the physical universe. > As one inspects anything down to the smallest of particles, one must, > due to the nature of things arrive at probabilities. Even in a large > sense whether you or I will get up at 7am tomorrow is a probability > that gets modified by events all the way up to the event of waking up > at 7am. But then .... did you wake up because of the previous > pertinent events or did you just decide to wake up? > > It's an interesting game, life is. In the end, even if one did wake > up due mostly to the events leading up to and prior to waking up at > 7am, one still had the option to not wake up at all. That is free- > will, the free will of the being, that being, being the > consciousness, the Thetan, the soul. The
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
