************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Paul, The highlighted in violet section really shook the earth under my feet; how true that is. It allows one to decide to act or to not act also. This will work well of course to the degree that one is uptone/ethical. Thanks much, Aarre
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Paul Tipon <[email protected]> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > > Give Unto Caesar What is Caesar's and Unto God What is God's > > On Feb 4, 2013, at 5:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Intentional harm > > > By way of contrast, if ones sets out with the intention of harming > another then the backlash from this action will be in accordance with the > Law of Cause and Effect, That Which One Sows, One Reaps. The actual truth > is that one cannot harm another unless he has created the idea that he can > be harmed. This of course, is his responsibility. It follows logically > that one cannot be harmed unless one seeks to be so for the sake of > experience which may be a non-survival way of balancing up one's past > overts. That one is solely and totally responsible for everything that > happens in one's life by virtue of one having created it, for whatever > reason, is perhaps the most > difficult aspect of responsibility to understand, accept and put > into practice in one's life. It was this aspect that brought about my own > present life case completion. > > > The following is my take on making someone else guilty of an overt. This > action may have been like Martin states above, just a decision or making > another guilty and wrong or it could have been both at different instances > but they are both the same games condition of making another wrong, the > blame game. > > This is a very critical concept and a juncture in the change of one's > existence, well beyond any one life time just as Martin is saying. Basic > is the fact that the body can be harmed but not the spirit, the soul, the > Thetan. The basic true self, the spirit cannot be harmed and it is only > taken upon one's self as such through using the body or whatever beingness > or identity. If the Thetan is to be harmed it is because the spirit/Thetan > postulates that it is so about himself as a spirit. A Thetan can only be > trapped and harmed if he considers he is trapped and harmed and he will > play the darndest games to prove to others and himself that it is so. > Stupidity also plays a big part. > > It all started when the first overt was made. Ron mentions the very 1st > and 2nd overt in the State of Man lectures. At the level of Theta and > strictly in the realm of the Theta universe, the first overt, if there > truly ever was such a thing, to harm another, was when a Thetan made > another Thetan guilty of an overt act. The specific action here was one > Thetan blaming another for harming him. The stupidity comes into the > picture when the accused Thetan considers he has harmed another as the > other Thetan does a good job of pretending and demonstrating that he has > been harmed by the guilty Thetan. Not to difficult a performance for a > Thetan even without a body, a beingness. As this game went around, it > probably got better and better and even the accusing Thetan began to > believe, there just might be a way to harm a Thetan without his agreement. > After all, he had to continue to make the guilty party guilty, the ol' I'm > right and you're wrong game. Just more stupidity and game playing. Who > knows, possibly the accusing Thetan had a body or some identity at the time > to really demonstrate being harmed. > > With this 1st overt, that of making another guilty of an overt act, one > can now see how powerful and deadly this overt can be. By making the most > powerful guilty and showing that the MOST powerful could be harmed, the > seed was planted that could and would make the most powerful of all in all > universes succumb to being trapped and rendered down to nothing more than > an inconsequential grain of sand on a lonely uninhabited beach somewhere, > anywhere in a far off forgotten corner of the physical universe. > > For one to now look back at all of this, one can easily see that the game > of blame is this same insidious disabling,injuring and killing agent of > oneself and others who were once totally immune to any and all harm of any > nature. The beginning of the downfall of Theta and Thetans. > > If you have gotten this far, I hope you can see that Level 4 is the key > that opens the door to walking out of the trap and Level 5 is the walking > out. What must be accomplished on Level 4 is 'Freedom from Overwhelm'. > Without this Level 5 is only of minor benefit for you are not yet free > from overwhelm. I also want to point out that doing Level 4 to where one > can no longer see any more charge to run off by TimeBreaking is not a point > of completion without having achieved 'Freedom from Overwhelm'. Without > this 'Freedom', there still remains the seed to succumb. > > Once this is done, my experience has been a vast expansion of > understanding and knowledge. Being difficult to accept, it is not all that > surprising. Consequently many will raise every possible arguments against > its being so. The truth itself is quite simple but, as Dennis Stephens > said to me on his last tape before relinquishing his body 'truths are > always simple, complexities are just playing games'. This leads to the > rather startling concept that there are really no such things as accidents. > All occurs within the workings of the Laws of Life which I wrote about in > IVy No 18, already cited. > > > Feeling guilty > LRH said that to accept responsibility for anything, one had only to > admit openly that he had done that which was created. Once this was done > the incident disappears by virtue of being as-ised. I don't know if this > is necessarily true. It will occur when responsibility has really been > fully taken but just saying so may not be enough in all cases. > > > Shared responsibilities > There are many situations where shared responsibilities occur and I > have mentioned above a very simple example of this but the scale can be > very much larger in its scope and in the number of people involved. > Consider the complexities of responsibilities in regard to a war, for > example or the destruction of the earth's atmosphere by increasing > pollution. The complexity of this means that it is a game with no simple > solutions to it so that each one involved, voluntarily or involuntarily, > must assess his own degree of responsibility in regard to it. To simplify > the solution a little in regard to one's own measure of responsibility, one > must look at one's own intentions and actions or inactions in regard to the > situation and act or not act accordingly. > > > Possible lines of action > Here is the outline of a tool for counselling or for running TROM. > The former will have the wording 'Has another forced upon you ...?' The > latter 'Is there a game where you were overwhelmed with ...?' > > > Questions could be : > 1. Accept a responsibility that you did not desire. > 2. Prevent you from accepting a responsibility that you desire. > 3. Accept as yours, a responsibility that wasn't yours. > 4. Be irresponsible. > 5. Feel guilty. > > > Each question to be run on all four flows in order to cover every aspect > of it. > > > This I used with the client mentioned at the beginning of this article > but found that the use of the four flows on 1 was all that was needed > to complete the case by reason of the cognition which then occurred. Later > I told her that in reality this conclusion was not an end but the beginning > of ever increasing knowledge, understanding and opportunities . She has > already found this happening. > > > The Editor, Antony Phillips (internet address: [email protected]), > does have an Internet line for TROM and allied topics where opinions > and experiences can be shared. He will readily give you details of it. If, > like myself, you are not into having the necessary computer you can always > get in touch with me via himself or, for matters regarding TROM, to Judith > Methven who has had considerable experience with TROM. I am moderately well > versed in the theory but have had no practical experience since my case > completion occurred on a totally different route, which took very much > longer. > > > The price to be paid > > > When one lives to the best of one's ability and having regard for the > Laws of Life, then, as I have mentioned, new knowledge just flows in > and understanding increases. For one at this level, the price is one that > he is quite happy to pay. This price has been expressed in the injunction, > 'as you have freely received, so freely give'. I have told my clients that > there is no need for my personal recompense but just pass on to others that > which you have learnt and tell them to do the same. It works! LRH himself > said that ideally scientology should be given freely but then he went on to > find every reason why it couldn't be. That, perhaps, was the beginning of > the failure > of the C. of S. > > > The way ahead > > > Whilst I was thinking about the writing of this article it occurred to > me that those who are closely tied up with any 'ism, 'ology, or group > association may find it more difficult to reach a present life time > case completion. This is because too close an association with such > organizations tends to impose limitations of thought and actions. In the > course of time they all are liable to deteriorate to the level of 'the only > way'. Such an association may indeed be very valuable during one's lower > levels in one's development but when they become restrictive, it is time to > leave them. I went from christian to spiritualist to scientologist to the > unnamed freedom that I now enjoy. This freedom I have found to be essential > for me as I can not be restricted by others' set beliefs. Once one puts a > label on any sort of activity, it can tend to cause it to become limiting, > especially if it involves creating an organization. Since the separation > of the many old time scientologists from the C of S many have found or > created new forms of therapy and counseling. To me it is axiomatic that no > one way will be right for everyone but that each of them will meet the > needs of those who are able to gain from what it offers. This growth and > expansion is especially true of the USA as a glimpse through the adverts in > The Free Spirit will show. The only thing here that is not to my taste is > that some of them still offer their knowledge and services only to those > who can afford high prices. I feel that this in itself is highly likely in > the course of time to cause the founders to lose their games. > > > I agree with this assessment too. In addition, I would suggest that there > may be concepts and truths here and there which are true and worth while > and one should be able to note which those are and those which are not > worth while. There is the situation where one may accept a dogma or a > belief as a truth in the beginning and not be able to note the dogma or > faith until one has progressed beyond the need or the understanding of > either. That would only be possible as one continues to progress in > knowledge and understanding to higher and higher levels of truth. With > that I must say that one must continue incessantly with one's experience > and one's actions to understand those experiences. Need I say this then > tends to be an un-ending progression. This then also supports your > consideration of 'isms', 'ologies' and groups getting to a point where they > then become restrictive and limiting. Most, typically purport to be 'the' > answer and quite often say they are 'the only true answer'. All that > really does is say that there is a top, a limit to what exists and what can > exist, past, present and future. Obviously a very limiting viewpoint and > not the truth. > > Remember the effect that this eventually had on LRH. Others have offered > their new-found discoveries for no more than, or just a little over, the > cost of reproducing them. My personal knowledge of them has been Geoffrey > Filbert with his Excalibur Revisited, Dennis Stephens with TROM and > Flemming Funch with his two volumes of essays and his latest > work Transformational Dialogues. There are undoubtedly others but I have no > first hand knowledge of them. It does seem to me that these are the ones > who are on the right and most survival path. > > > A further warning is that one shouldn't make or imply false claims > or unattainable results. In the current edition of The Auditor at the time > of writing there is a banner headline in red: "Make it to full OT:- do > the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course at Ron's home". This implies that > doing so will make one full OT as defined by LRH. I have never heard of > anyone achieving that as yet and I am sure that we would have, had it > occurred. Irene Mumford (Mitchell) claimed that Dianasis would do this but > just before she left her body she said that she didn't think this could be > attained while still in a physical body. > > > Let me end by saying quite briefly that if one does not pass on freely > that which one has received, then the source and channel of that knowledge > is very likely to dry up. On the other hand, when one passes on one's > knowledge and experiences freely there is a never ending stream of new > concepts and the understanding of life that accompanies this. This is the > open channel to Spirit, Intuition or whatever you chose to call it but once > you've experienced, you can never doubt its reality and value. > > > Very true. Especially if one has a new understanding only common to > himself then that understanding and its knowledge will come to an end and > not go any further, it having been passed nowhere and it will not propagate > any further through time and space nor through the non-physical universe. > > It has been a while since you last posted here on TROM. I find your posts > enjoyable, worthwhile and thought provoking/stimulating. Where else do you > post? > > Paul, Level 5 in progress > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
