************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Hi Robin,
Thank you for your reply and explanation. The only thing I meant by Oahspe being of "data of comparable magnitude" to scn is: is that both are "bodies of knowledge", especially unique knowledge as compared to everything else out there on earth. I would even call Oashpe and scn polarities of "extreme knowledge". I see them as extreme polarities of knowledge. Two polarities far from each other. I read Oahspe several yrs before I got into scn. And then referred back to Oashpe now and then, after I was doing scn. Scn has the effect of totally pulling a person fully into itself, and controlling one's mind and life. All encompassing. In effect a brain washing. Scn is the largest or biggest, most mind controlling subject on earth, especially if done in the church. That is why it takes many yrs for escapies to decompress, if they ever do. It is bad enough for someone like me, who did scn on my own (outside the church). The benefit of the Oashspe is that it is a good and useful "far out" polarity for me. At least one of them (polarities) for me. I also have others. There is a philosophical and psychological saying saying "Beware of the one who has only read one book". One can easily become an extreme zealot, an extreme fanatic, or simply an extremist: the most extreme example is an Islamic extremist. And this idea of reading data of comparable magnitude, is one of the things I get from "How to study a science" in New Slant on Life. In "how to study a science" Hubbard says to stop parroting him and learn to think for oneself, question and test everything (scrutinize everything). Develop critical thinking methods. And complete the cycle of learning. The data that most stands out for me in Oashpe, or that I took away from it is "the virtues". Another is the different levels of heavens (dimensions) and what goes on there. Works like a government or administration departments for earth. Another is the science and cosmology part. And there are others. I read it twice from cover to cover before I got into scn and referred back to it, countless times. I think I may have even read much of it again,(to pull myself (my mind) out of scn) some yrs after I got into scn (97). My Oahspe book is highlighted to the extreme. I categorize things like Oashpe and scn, high theta data. Another good set of books (high theta data) to read, is the Anastasia series of books by Vladimir Megre. ( 9 of them in hard copy). www.ringingcedars.com A recent one in pdf on line. I have not read this one yet. David On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 2:46 AM, The Resolution of Mind list < [email protected]> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > Dear David, > > Yes it was us who conversed about Oasphe about a year back on the > timetrack. > (For those reading too: The Oashpe book is kind of contemporary Bible which > covers time almost up to present tense. A volume of 1500+ pages available > as > pdf-download (see link in the APPENDIX)). > > David, find my answers interspersed in your message below. > > Hello Robin, >> RE: was it you who said, took me up on the recommendation on TROM list, to >> read the Oashpe? >> Because it was a good alternative or data of comparable magnitude to scn. >> > > Yes and no. It is different from Scientology in that it does not provide > processing technology. However, you can read it as a kind of manual > for managing your path toward enlightenment, ascension, leaving the MEST- > Universe, ... whatever one wants to call it. There are many roads one can > travel. I did not perceive it as a writing of "comparable magnitude". > Rather as a supplementary text which offered a completely different - in > large parts contrary - viewpoint on existence. In that respect it was > valuable and interesting. It can as well be read as pure fantasy. Then it's > entertaining. > > And shortly after you said you were glad that you did read it? >> Was that you? >> > > Yes, especially the last third of the book was very interesting and > inspiring. > The start was really hard for me. But it would have been even harder to > leave > a book unfinished. To digest the 1500 pages required a significant > investment > of time. I'm glad I did it. What it did case-wise for me is hard to say > because > I did other relevant things at the same time. > Certainly there are a couple of gems in the text. But one must dig through > some wide-winded passages to find them. That in itself is an exercise. > > My memory fails me. >> If so, being that a year or so has passed, >> I am curious to know what you think of it now? >> > > I've looked up the relevant parts of our conversation in my mail-archive > and copied them in below (see APPENDIX) for your reference. What I've > stated a > year ago is still valid. > > And how your viewpoint of life and the universe has changed? >> > > This book - as many others - did not produce a radical change in viewpoint. > I'm basically not drawn to monotheism. But it was a good exercise to slip > into > the viewpoint of people who have chosen a path in accordance with Oashpe. > In that sense it is valuable. Because it enables me to better understand > and accept alternative ways without having to change my own convictions and > believes. These things can co-exist comfortably, no need to fight them - > but > still you could - and then, consciously, deciding against it. > A book like Oashpe can improve reality on other's believe systems and thus > help to understand them better. So I would say, it had kind of adjustment > function > for me. Further it confirmed my believe that life is therapeutic in that > it provides > challenges to learn from. Oashpe is, over large portions, a text about > avoidance > and non-avoidance of those challenges and the consequences on has to bear > in case > of non-confront and non-acceptance. > It's metaphoric. Scientology isn't; it's technical, a tool-kit which, when > understood and applied properly, can help to overcome the challenges and > repair > the damage done by a defeat suffered. > > What are the most outstanding datums for you? >> > > Since I perceive human history as depicted in Oahspe as metaphoric and > fantasy > (this is not meant in an invalidating sense), it's difficult for me to > point > at specific data. The key message, embedded in a more or less fictional > story, > is: "Lead a decent life dedicated to love and service to others, get rid > of desires > and aversions. And that's the way out of the mire of a bodily existence > into higher > states." We've probably heard that elsewhere in other words. Never the > less it is > good to have a message transported in various forms because people are so > different > in perceptiveness. But you probably see already how uninspired and dull it > appears > when I try to pick out a key datum - in it's isolation. Oahspe should be > read completely > and it will most likely have some effect on the reader in its entirety. > > What do you take away most, from the data? >> > > Element - essential in Scientology - which is not present, or at least > understated, > in Oasphe is self-determinism. Still the acknowledgement and acceptance of > responsibility > for the own state of mind and thus state of being is strongly emphasized > in Scientology > and as well in textbooks in the tradition of Oashpe etc. Ron Hubbard is > very explicit in > that regard. In Oashpe the message is conveyed in story form between the > lines. > Since this elements are completely in alignment with my own convictions, > it's a very strong > support to have here a common datum in virtually incompatible > philosophical/religious views. > > Sincerely, >> David >> PS: I did try and do an email search on gmail to try and find that >> particular email, and they have now limited the archives only back two >> months. >> > > > Best wishes, > > Robin > > > APPENDIX: > > On 17.09.2016 I posted to you: > > (excerpt) > ... > >> Thanks for pointing out the books. >> >> ( The download-link to the Oasphe book is: >> http://oahspestandardedition.com/OAHSPE_Standard_Edition_for >> _Screen_Reading.pdf) >> > ... > > And later this one: > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:28:38 +0100 > From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> > >> David, >> >> it was you who recommended Oahspe to me a couple of weeks ago. >> You said that it changed your life. Made me curious of course. >> I'm grateful you did. >> >> Could not manage to finish the book until now (I think I've done >> almost up to page 500 of the 1500 pages. It's not really >> the kind of material one would call 'easy reading' >> Up to around page 100 I was often tempted to abandon it. >> But leaving a book unfinished is so unsatisfying and then it >> fascinated me more and more as I went on. >> >> The problem I had - and still have - with this kind of material >> is, that I can not very well align such data to the technical >> stuff I'm so used to and which is much in the tradition of Scientology. >> It boils down to aligning a pure religion (especially those mono- >> theistic ones with a creator entity) with the views of an application- >> oriented religious philosophy which is heavily biased towards >> 'superiority of the self'. Occasionally it appeared to me that >> the latter must be close to blasphemy from an Oahspe viewpoint. >> >> On the other hand we can perceive the positive effects which processing >> creates upon us. Never the less, your observation that "real life" >> is still restimualtive even when you have wins in therapy is real to me. >> >> In that respect you're most likely correct in stating that Oahspe >> is balancing scientology. >> >> I'm trying to resolving the seeming contradictions like that: >> Books like Oahspe, and similar material, suggest to live your life >> in a certain manner to ascend to higher states of beingness, to >> more fulfillment, completeness, happiness, ... >> While processing-tech is a tool which can support and accelerate >> ones progress along that way. But the mere tool itself will do >> nothing for us. One must some way or other prove under real-life >> conditions its effectiveness. All tech finally pertains to life >> itself. >> >> It becomes plausible why some "bridges" emphasize a two - or even >> three - lane approach. Those are: Processing - Study and Training - >> and last but not least: Application in life. >> (The order is arbitrary; none of those aspect has seniority - as >> far as I see it.) >> >> <snip> > > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
