************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Be & Do are not 'non-life' goals, they just aren't goals.
They are the tools of accomplishing goals. One adopts an identity (be) to accomplish something. Accomplish is Do. Something is Have. You are correct, these are not valid junior goals packages. You can be sure that Dennis would have listed be and do if they were valid. _____ From: Leo Faulhaber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 1:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 97, Issue 40 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
