the murder of LRH

[judymoon]

Posted by Wantsthetruth74 (here)

Posted by Nothingness (here)

Posted by Wantsthetruth74 (here)
The thing is, what Jim is trying to tell us is that we are all equal, all gods, and he all have the same abilities, and his goal here is to help us find the route to get us there as quick as possible. lets face it, whrightfully at we are up against is BIG. TPTB have money and technology beyond our imaginations. So we better get our shiit together and figure out a way to take back what is ours. Our power, our planet. If he THINKS he is Matteyya, maybe he is. Maybe he isn't and doesn'n know it. Many of us, myself included have not had the privaledge or opportunity to have any kind of regression therapy, and if we did I am sure we would find things in our history that we had no idea. Anyway my point is, we should be paying attention to the things that are not arguable. Like learning how to use the powers we were born with.

Thank you for pointing this out Wantsthetruth74, but most methodologies and paths say this. It's nothing new. This is not something I don't understand. I don't feel a lot of light coming out of the posts and I don't see anyone else actually saying: yes, this led to a great deal of spiritual growth in me, and I actually feel love pouring out of them via their post because yes you can feel highly evolved light.

When there is a lot of talk and not much compassion or love, I have my doubts. I have yet to see any quick fixes that work. I don't see a plethora of people coming out of this in a truly enlightened high state. They can claim to be in a enlightened high state, but that doesn't mean they are. People may change, but to what? And there is a lot of outward emphasis and not a lot of inner work going on.

My belief is that all of this drama going on is currently there for a reason--to awaken and transform people; the form it takes is superfluous. Choosing a path out of anxiety is probably not a good idea. The pain is there for a reason, and what I see are a lot of people trying to find quick fixes that allow them to avoid the pain and anxiety. They are running like crazy from one quick fix to another to avoid pain. I still go with: The only way out of pain is through it.

My belief is that surrendering takes us to higher states. Enlightenment is an eternal process (we never arrive at an end point) going from one state to a higher state, and surrender is a part of that, going from more surrender to more surrender. Unfortunately, facing all that life/existence dishes out is a part of it, and work and persistence is also a part of it. And just like life is what IS, higher states come to us through work and patience and time and a divine grace and lifetimes, not through some quick fix. It's our egos that think: Oh, this, this is the one "miracle" fix that will deliver me out of my misery and I won't have to face this any more.

My belief is that Jesus and Buddha were trying to tell us that by facing trials (nailed to a cross/whatever) head on and surrendering, we can transcend (we are in a body on this planet for a reason), but I have yet to run across any high teachings that said there was an easy way out--and yes there are adulterated teachings, but discernment is a part of the process, too.

Some Buddhists have so transcended and surrendered that they can burn alive without anxiety. They certainly aren't going: "Ouch, ouch, oh ouch; I think I need to try something else besides Buddhism because I'm in a hurry, there must be a quicker way out of this pain." I'm laughing. Sigh. I don't claim to be in a highly enlightened state, and frankly, I could utilize my time better for my own growth because being on a forum doesn't necessarily make any of us candidates for a highly enlightened state. Laughing again. This is a stop off for everyone. Sigh.

I don't really know who you are talking about, the enlightened?? Are you referring to ppl that are replying to jiminiis postings?
I don't claim to be enlightened, although I am learning. : ) We are all at different stages of it. That said, I don't think love and light is the purpose of jiminiis journey here. Its to empower us to stop being prisoners in our own home. I don't know about you, that that is what I would like to see happen. Because in my opinion, life on earth sucks, from what I have experienced thus far, and its not exactly an environment suitable for breeding enlightenment. I think that is the whole point of Jims mission. That is my interpretation of it anyway. I don't think he is here teaching enlightenment skills.
Its late, and my brain is starting to go in slo-mo, so if I totally misinterpreted your message, feel free to set me straight, as I am a bit confused.

I know what you are talking about Very little light here. I noticed that others have tried to get this thread on a heart-to-heart level and those threads are ignored.

I also believe that surrendering takes us to higher states. My own experiences of higher steates have come through meditation or once, when I was getting a body massage.

I think some of the hardest spiritual work is seeing the value in every living thing and not getting caught up in the drama of the time frame in which you've arrived here.

I think the idea of 'saving the planet' or the human race, or whoever needs saving is seductive and possibly too physically based to be part of a spiritual path. The idea that 70 % of the earth population is of no worth (paraphrasing ) is disturbing. Those two ideas together seemed rather ego-based and somewhat elitist.

Reducing the effects of the ego on one's life opens the heart. Maybe thats why there's not much heart energy to be felt on this thread.

In fact, I'm only responding so there will be a variety of veiwpoints - variety is good

[Sidney]

Posted by judymoon (here)

Posted by Wantsthetruth74 (here)

Posted by Nothingness (here)

Posted by Wantsthetruth74 (here)
The thing is, what Jim is trying to tell us is that we are all equal, all gods, and he all have the same abilities, and his goal here is to help us find the route to get us there as quick as possible. lets face it, whrightfully at we are up against is BIG. TPTB have money and technology beyond our imaginations. So we better get our shiit together and figure out a way to take back what is ours. Our power, our planet. If he THINKS he is Matteyya, maybe he is. Maybe he isn't and doesn'n know it. Many of us, myself included have not had the privaledge or opportunity to have any kind of regression therapy, and if we did I am sure we would find things in our history that we had no idea. Anyway my point is, we should be paying attention to the things that are not arguable. Like learning how to use the powers we were born with.

Thank you for pointing this out Wantsthetruth74, but most methodologies and paths say this. It's nothing new. This is not something I don't understand. I don't feel a lot of light coming out of the posts and I don't see anyone else actually saying: yes, this led to a great deal of spiritual growth in me, and I actually feel love pouring out of them via their post because yes you can feel highly evolved light.

When there is a lot of talk and not much compassion or love, I have my doubts. I have yet to see any quick fixes that work. I don't see a plethora of people coming out of this in a truly enlightened high state. They can claim to be in a enlightened high state, but that doesn't mean they are. People may change, but to what? And there is a lot of outward emphasis and not a lot of inner work going on.

My belief is that all of this drama going on is currently there for a reason--to awaken and transform people; the form it takes is superfluous. Choosing a path out of anxiety is probably not a good idea. The pain is there for a reason, and what I see are a lot of people trying to find quick fixes that allow them to avoid the pain and anxiety. They are running like crazy from one quick fix to another to avoid pain. I still go with: The only way out of pain is through it.

My belief is that surrendering takes us to higher states. Enlightenment is an eternal process (we never arrive at an end point) going from one state to a higher state, and surrender is a part of that, going from more surrender to more surrender. Unfortunately, facing all that life/existence dishes out is a part of it, and work and persistence is also a part of it. And just like life is what IS, higher states come to us through work and patience and time and a divine grace and lifetimes, not through some quick fix. It's our egos that think: Oh, this, this is the one "miracle" fix that will deliver me out of my misery and I won't have to face this any more.

My belief is that Jesus and Buddha were trying to tell us that by facing trials (nailed to a cross/whatever) head on and surrendering, we can transcend (we are in a body on this planet for a reason), but I have yet to run across any high teachings that said there was an easy way out--and yes there are adulterated teachings, but discernment is a part of the process, too.

Some Buddhists have so transcended and surrendered that they can burn alive without anxiety. They certainly aren't going: "Ouch, ouch, oh ouch; I think I need to try something else besides Buddhism because I'm in a hurry, there must be a quicker way out of this pain." I'm laughing. Sigh. I don't claim to be in a highly enlightened state, and frankly, I could utilize my time better for my own growth because being on a forum doesn't necessarily make any of us candidates for a highly enlightened state. Laughing again. This is a stop off for everyone. Sigh.

I don't really know who you are talking about, the enlightened?? Are you referring to ppl that are replying to jiminiis postings?
I don't claim to be enlightened, although I am learning. : ) We are all at different stages of it. That said, I don't think love and light is the purpose of jiminiis journey here. Its to empower us to stop being prisoners in our own home. I don't know about you, that that is what I would like to see happen. Because in my opinion, life on earth sucks, from what I have experienced thus far, and its not exactly an environment suitable for breeding enlightenment. I think that is the whole point of Jims mission. That is my interpretation of it anyway. I don't think he is here teaching enlightenment skills.
Its late, and my brain is starting to go in slo-mo, so if I totally misinterpreted your message, feel free to set me straight, as I am a bit confused.

I know what you are talking about Very little light here. I noticed that others have tried to get this thread on a heart-to-heart level and those threads are ignored.

I also believe that surrendering takes us to higher states. My own experiences of higher steates have come through meditation or once, when I was getting a body massage.

I think some of the hardest spiritual work is seeing the value in every living thing and not getting caught up in the drama of the time frame in which you've arrived here.

I think the idea of 'saving the planet' or the human race, or whoever needs saving is seductive and possibly too physically based to be part of a spiritual path. The idea that 70 % of the earth population is of no worth (paraphrasing ) is disturbing. Those two ideas together seemed rather ego-based and somewhat elitist.

Reducing the effects of the ego on one's life opens the heart. Maybe thats why there's not much heart energy to be felt on this thread.

In fact, I'm only responding so there will be a variety of veiwpoints - variety is good

Yeah, I really haven't decided how to take the 70% comments. but my own opinion of the population, is that 85% (roughly) are not "equipped" (be through DNA, or there lack of it, or through brainwashing through TV and Chemically induced conceious coma). Thats different than being worthless IMO. The other 15% (or less) are not from here, or have had our DNA tweaked. And I even think it might be possible that if one can open their mind just enough to see but one worm escape from that proverbial can, then incoming "information" might even assist in the changing of our DNA. Who knows. Its really speculation at this point, but the fact is, we do live on a prison planet, and many of the people "tending fields" do NOT do it by choice.

[gripreaper]

So the question still remains? Where's the beef? Where's the enlightened souls who have embraced these tools and are levitating, putting their hands through walls, altering physical manifestation, seeing the future, effortlessly traversing the dimensions, teleporting and emanating pure love, that it would be virtually impossible not to see them and feel them, due to the huge attraction we would have to such pure light?

This is "still" a good question.

[Sidney]

I agree, a valid question. Maybe they do it only in private? Or maybe the big tricks are for the majicians in the bunch. I don't think the goal is for all of us to be able to "move mountains" (literally). I guess I thought the goal is to raise our vibration as high as possible. Or Tone, I think Jim/and sci call it. And the point of the dianetics and auditing is to get rid of all the "crap" that is lowering our vibration. Counseling on steroids I'd like to think of it. LOL Anyway, that is my interpretation of this whole thing, regardless of what Jiminii says he has done/can do. I personally think he might have been better off leaving out some of his claims, as some things many never be proven or disproven. But I think he did so, because it would give him some credibility, which is not always the case.

I did find it interesting the accounts of justoneman, where he truly thought he was God.

[jiminii]

Posted by Wantsthetruth74 (here)
I agree, a valid question. Maybe they do it only in private? Or maybe the big tricks are for the majicians in the bunch. I don't think the goal is for all of us to be able to "move mountains" (literally). I guess I thought the goal is to raise our vibration as high as possible. Or Tone, I think Jim/and sci call it. And the point of the dianetics and auditing is to get rid of all the "crap" that is lowering our vibration. Counseling on steroids I'd like to think of it. LOL Anyway, that is my interpretation of this whole thing, regardless of what Jiminii says he has done/can do. I personally think he might have been better off leaving out some of his claims, as some things many never be proven or disproven. But I think he did so, because it would give him some credibility, which is not always the case.

I did find it interesting the accounts of justoneman, where he truly thought he was God.

the truth is we are gods ... limited gods ... we can't be total gods or this universe would vanish on us ,,, we already KNOW EVERYTHING ..

but the implants put so many lies in us ... we can't see out of it ... so we have to remove the lies

that is what the OT levels are .. I remember when they had the old OT levels ... these people had real power
then they said more repair had to be done on us ... so they stop those ot levels
and made ot levels up to ot 8 ... that only handle past case
the real ot levels are suppose to be from 9 to 15
I have them .. I already proved it ... but there are more .that I have .. i just have to see what free zone has actually done to compare

I have been yawning most every night all these years ... now I know what it is ... they are running new auditing ... going to higher levels

so what ever case LRH has ... will pass over to me .. it is just I can't use it until I know what it is and can attest to those ot levels

so I would have to study the meter or have someone do more checks .. cathy attested up to ot 30 .. then they stopped it

I wanted to attest to more too ... but I don't know what I am suppose to attest to ... because they might not know what it is here
they would know it on base 2 ...

jim

[Sidney]

LOL, you guys get all that.???? Haha. I didn't understand a word of that. Well i did gt the part about us all being gods. Limited. : ) The question was, there obviously is many scientologist that have been privy to this for some time and are capable of some of these tricks(for lack of a better word). So can you tell us who they are and what things they are doing that might represent these abilities? forgive me if I didn't word that well, Im getting tired. And Il take your answer off the air. LOL just kidding.

[turiya]

Posted by Nothingness (here)
Apologies for another post after that huge, long one. Maybe the issue for people like me is that I have gotten some of the results jiminii talks about by not using the methods he talks about in a less roundabout way--so to each their own.

My way certainly isn't the only way or necessarily the right way for anyone else, and maybe my objections are just that jiminii's methods don't resonate with me at this point. I apologize if I have offended you jiminii, but I just can't relate. We are all on different paths. I see things differently.

Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response... It would also go well with that Genesis video... thanks to Fred Steeves - enjoyed that very much. Anyways, here goes...

The third question:

What is your opinion of scientology?

"It is fantastic… I mean bullsh*t, utter bullsh*t! Be aware of such stupid things. They move in the world in the name of science because science has credit, so any kind of stupidity can pretend to be scientific. And people are very much impressed by words: ‘scientology’. People are very much impressed by shining gadgets, instruments… Man is so unaware and unconscious of himself that he falls a victim to anything! You just need to propagate it, advertise it – and our century has the most efficient media to advertise, to propagate things.

Scientology is nothing but a kind of hypnosis – it can hypnotize you. And real religion is just the opposite: it is dehypnosis. You are already hypnotized, you don’t need any scientology anymore. You need a process of dehypnosis, you need deconditioning, you need to come out of all kinds of ideologies. Scientology is an ideology. It talks in terms of science, and science has great appeal. Science is the modern superstition.

The modern man is immediately impressed if you bring science in. So anything and everything has to be proved scientifically. And there are quacks who even go on proving God scientifically, and who are trying to measure states of meditation – as if meditation can be measured. Whatsoever you can measure will be mind; no-mind cannot be measured. All your alpha waves, et cetera, are not going to help. They can only go to a certain extent in the mind. But meditation begins only where mind ends.

Mind is measurable, because mind is a machine. But no-mind is immeasurable, it has no limits. So all the nonsense that goes on in the name of measuring… and people are very much impressed. They are sitting before very shiny gadgets – it gives an impression of science – wires attached to the head, to the hands, just like a cardiogram. They are trying to figure out the inner silence. It is impossible! Whatsoever you come to record is mind. All waves are of the mind.

Meditation is wavelessness because it is thoughtlessness. Meditation cannot be recorded; there can be no cardiogram, there can be no machine which can record it. It is very elusive, it is very subjective, it cannot be reduced to an object. But because the Western mind is very objective, is trained in science, now there are quacks around who are cashing in on this attraction and this training.

Scientology is one of those pseudo religions. The real religion has no need of any such thing. And scientology is destroying many people’s minds.

Modern man is in a special situation: the old religions have lost their grip, their credibility, and the new religion has not yet arrived – there is a gap. And man cannot live without religion, it is impossible; religion is such a need. So, if the true is not available, the false becomes prevalent, the false becomes a substitute. Scientology is a false religion, and there are many like Scientology.

Real religion consists of becoming utterly silent, unconditioned, unhypnotized. It is going beyond mind, beyond ideology; it is going beyond scripture and beyond knowledge. It is simply falling into your own interiority, becoming utterly silent, not knowing a thing, and fuctioning from that state of not knowing, from that innocence. When you function out of innocence, your actions have a beauty of their own. That’s what virtue is – aes dhammo sanantano.” – Osho
Dhammapada Volume 2, Discourse 6, Question #3

turiya

[Kano]

Scientology is nothing but a kind of hypnosis – it can hypnotize you. And real religion is just the opposite: it is dehypnosis. You are already hypnotized, you don’t need any scientology anymore. You need a process of dehypnosis, you need deconditioning, you need to come out of all kinds of ideologies. Scientology is an ideology. It talks in terms of science, and science has great appeal. Science is the modern superstition.

So so true! These outlandish claims of snake oil medicine stated as facts are laughable to the point of being insulting.

[Hervé]

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response...

turiya

Why not post this in Bill's Q&A thread?

I'll be very interested in his own answer because, as far as I am concerned, Osho is advocating the very premise of Scientology, the philosophy, since Scientology is an applied philosophy that has taken on the "religion" label because it deals with "theta"/"spirit"/spirituality which, by definition, is the domain of "religion":

STATIC,
1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06)

2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C--)

3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29)

4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A)

5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13)

6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)


THETAN,
1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1)

2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)

3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)

4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)

5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9)

6 . the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46)

7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247)

8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——)

9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK)

1 0 . a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )


VIEWPOINT,
1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2)

2 . that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)

3 . evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (CONA, pp. 208-209)

[CdnSirian]

Jiminii, you said "there are two viewpoints ,,, one is that because we are crossing the equatorial plane the planets will automatically have a pole shift ,, comes from someone who says he from andromeda and his name is captain bill
but so much of his data he has been saying since 2010"....Captain Bill died in 1991 I believe. So who said what, when, please, just to avoid confusion? Thanks.

[jiminii]

https://youtube.com/user/atlanticobr
it is here
if you want to look
he answers questions like what the piramid was was used for and all the questions anyone asked ,,, like the different space groups around the planet and what they are doing
like he is an adromedian from andromeda

jim

[jiminii]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response...

turiya

Why not post this in Bill's Q&A thread?

I'll be very interested in his own answer because, as far as I am concerned, Osho is advocating the very premise of Scientology, the philosophy, since Scientology is an applied philosophy that has taken on the "religion" label because it deals with "theta"/"spirit"/spirituality which, by definition, is the domain of "religion":

STATIC,
1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06)

2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C--)

3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29)

4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A)

5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13)

6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)


THETAN,
1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1)

2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)

3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)

4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)

5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9)

6 . the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46)

7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247)

8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——)

9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK)

1 0 . a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )


VIEWPOINT,
1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2)

2 . that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)

3 . evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (CONA, pp. 208-209)

this definition of thetan is ok but it doesn't allow another timeline to work in the equation

if you have multiple timelines running other bodies from the same spirit with their own memories separate from the timelines .. that is I don't know the life experiences of my other timelines like those other bodies I am running they each have their own memories

the only one that has all the memories is the spirit himself

so to make a better definition you would have to say the thetan is one of the viewpoints of the spirit and has it's own memories
and the spirit has all the memories of all the viewpoints it can use to do whatever it does ...

and one more thing LRH separated the definitions of spirit to allow us to see there is 2 separate entities running the body

the GE and the thetan
because some might think the spirit is the ghost .. it is not

so if you want to clarify it you have to make another definition for the spirit that is running all of it

so maybe thetan for viewpoint

GE for ghost

and some other greek letter for spirit with a n added to it

that would clarify all the definitions
exactly

jim

[CdnSirian]

https://youtube.com/user/atlanticobr I'm still confused. This alien from Andromeda uses the name Captain Bill and someone on Earth channels him?

[Hervé]

Posted by jiminii (here)
https://youtube.com/user/atlanticobr
it is here
if you want to look
he answers questions like what the piramid was was used for and all the questions anyone asked ,,, like the different space groups around the planet and what they are doing
like he is an adromedian from andromeda

jim

jim, if I were you... I would check with Bill as to the validity of the info from THAT captain bill...

[Hervé]

Posted by jiminii (here)
[...]

this definition of thetan is ok but it doesn't allow another timeline to work in the equation

if you have multiple timelines running other bodies from the same spirit with their own memories separate from the timelines .. that is I don't know the life experiences of my other timelines like those other bodies I am running they each have their own memories

the only one that has all the memories is the spirit himself

so to make a better definition you would have to say the thetan is one of the viewpoints of the spirit and has it's own memories
and the spirit has all the memories of all the viewpoints it can use to do whatever it does ...

and one more thing LRH separated the definitions of spirit to allow us to see there is 2 separate entities running the body

the GE and the thetan
because some might think the spirit is the ghost .. it is not

so if you want to clarify it you have to make another definition for the spirit that is running all of it

so maybe thetan for viewpoint

GE for ghost

and some other greek letter for spirit with a n added to it

that would clarify all the definitions
exactly

jim

jim, this was in response to Turiya's not so positive feedback from an Osho guy providing the evidence that both LRH and Osho are talking of the same thing.

These are the definitions from LRH collected from various lectures, books and bulletins from before and up to 1975 and published in the Tech Dictionary.

So, of course, they are missing your definitions...

[turiya]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]
Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response...
turiya

Why not post this in Bill's Q&A thread?

I'll be very interested in his own answer because, as far as I am concerned, Osho is advocating the very premise of Scientology, the philosophy, since Scientology is an applied philosophy that has taken on the "religion" label because it deals with "theta"/"spirit"/spirituality which, by definition, is the domain of "religion":

STATIC,
1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06)

2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C--)

3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29)

4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A)

5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13)

6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)


THETAN,
1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1)

2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)

3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)

4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)

5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9)

6 . the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46)

7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247)

8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——)

9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK)

1 0 . a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )


VIEWPOINT,
1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2)

2 . that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)

3 . evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (CONA, pp. 208-209)

Jiminii also posted this in another thread. I will also cross post my answer in this thread, since this is where it originated.

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]
Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response...

Amzer Zo wrote:

Why not post this in Bill's Q&A thread?

I posted this yesterday... only noticed this morning that Bill had started up a Q & A thread pertaining to this. So, apologies if it seems inappropriate for this thread.

One thing that is prevalent about any 'new' ideology/philosophy that is created & that is that 'new' terms & definitions are created. Even if familiar terms are used, new definitions are there to be learned in order to absorb the material. Its like learning another language.

In this way, one seemingly has to pass through a reorientation, a relearning of terms & definitions. It is a reconditioning process - before one is able to move further into understanding pronouncements & premises that are made. It is in this light that it appears, to me, that Scientology, instead of pulling one out of one's social conditioning, it is, in other words, re-conditioning one to accept new terms, new concepts. In this regard, instead of helping one to come out of their deep hypnosis, it re-programs the individual to accept the seemingly new ideology. Instead of going beyond mind, beyond concepts - one is moving more into the mind, into one's intellect. This, in my book, is not putting the mind aside, i.e. meditation.

Osho understood that the modern day individual is too filled-up with unnecessary suppressed/repressed mental & emotional garbage. Most individuals that attempt to simply sit down & meditate will come away with a very frustrating experience. They will instaneously see that the house (the head) is filled with maddening unpleasantries. And the body is unable to sit still because of this. Most will not want to look at how much insanity exists within themselves.

I do agree with some of the methods that are used in Scientology are quite similar to the cathartic therapies that Osho has used to clear the body-mind mechanism of its collected crap. These therapies are used in conjunction with periods of silent meditation. I don't know of any other mystic or mediation 'guru' that has combined these two things together.

The important thing to point out is that Osho's emphasis is on meditation - relaxing into one's own being. As one goes deeper into meditation, one will find that innate "gifts" - greater intuition, psychic abilities, opening of the third eye etc. - one will find arising out of this. One can certainly become distracted with these so-called gifts, but it is not to be considered an endpoint that meditation leads to. As long as their is a small drop of the ego that remains, such 'gifts' can be used for ego gratification & darker purposes. Absolute death of the ego is the ultimate endpoint, only then - when the 'I' of the ego is not, when 'you' are not, will the 'music' of Existence be able to be expressed through the body-mind mechanism.

Jiminii wrote:

do you know what it is like to find out you have powers?

From what I have so far researced on Scientology, I have not seen much of an emphasis on meditation. Instead, it appears that retaining one's innate psychic gifts are at the forefront. This makes it obvious that there is a goal to be achieved, whether it is to save the Earth, humanity, or whatever, this is but fulfillment of the ego - the ego is still there to claim it has been successful.

In this regard, this seems, to me, to be what Osho is commenting about.
I also posted it to see if someone would respond to what he had said in his response to the question when it was asked of him "What is your opinion of Scientology?"

Thanks for you response.
Cheers - turiya

[Hervé]

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

One thing that is prevalent about any 'new' ideology/philosophy that is created & that is that 'new' terms & definitions are created. Even if familiar terms are used, new definitions are there to be learned in order to absorb the material. Its like learning another language.

In this way, one seemingly has to pass through a reorientation, a relearning of terms & definitions. It is a reconditioning process - before one is able to move further into understanding pronouncements & premises that are made. It is in this light that it appears, to me, that Scientology, instead of pulling one out of one's social conditioning, it is, in other words, re-conditioning one to accept new terms, new concepts. In this regard, instead of helping one to come out of their deep hypnosis, it re-programs the individual to accept the seemingly new ideology. Instead of going beyond mind, beyond concepts - one is moving more into the mind, into one's intellect. This, in my book, is not putting the mind aside, i.e. meditation.

turiya

That's one way to look at it.

Another way, the way LRH designed it after understanding what the mind does and how it operates, is to have to invent new terminology so that the mind doesn't confuse it with previous practices that have led to nowhere. That is mostly the terminology of the many religions, which are control-operations, as well as the terminology from the many fields of psychology.

Also, from his research on the mind, LRH found out that many meditation practices were booby trapped to lead the practitioners into implant engrams... not too good for one's mental health since these are very similar to many abductees' accounts of "love and light" overlays/screen memories meant to hide the actual nasty implant.

That's the technical part of it, unfortunately there was the organization that came along with it, the "church," which is the part that screwed up everything. No qualms with that.

[eaglespirit]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
That's one way to look at it.

Another way, the way LRH designed it after understanding what the mind does and how it operates, is to have to invent new terminology so that the mind doesn't confuse it with previous practices that have led to nowhere. That is mostly the terminology of the many religions, which are control-operations, as well as the terminology from the many fields of psychology.

Also, from his research on the mind, LRH found out that many meditation practices were booby trapped to lead the practitioners into implant engrams... not too good for one's mental health since these are very similar to many abductees' accounts of "love and light" overlays/screen memories meant to hide the actual nasty implant.
That's the technical part of it, unfortunately there was the organization that came along with it, the "church," which is the part that screwed up everything. No qualms with that.

UNDO...the "control-operations"...We Can Do It!!!
...
It is time for Us to grow up and into Our Spiritual Prowess(heartfelt bravery with a positive light)...please simply stop getting sidetracked or sidetricked by words of usage that may bother you for any number of reasons...like 'godlike' or 'gods', for instance.
Become maturer and wiser spiritual beings, simply by consciously choosing to, and acting on it... and put your very own innate abilities to work for the betterment of all humanity...simply because you can and are much more able than you accept...accept your abilities in gratitude of realization now and use them with wisdom and love. You are 'highly' capable.
And put more of that spiritual maturity into posts here...just because "You Can" for the betterment of the forum that is now working together together as never before to help us transcend this beautiful planet to a very, very higher spiritual ways and means.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post676905

[turiya]

Sorry, another crosspost from one of the other threads on LRH. I will stop with this one.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

One thing that is prevalent about any 'new' ideology/philosophy that is created & that is that 'new' terms & definitions are created. Even if familiar terms are used, new definitions are there to be learned in order to absorb the material. Its like learning another language.

In this way, one seemingly has to pass through a reorientation, a relearning of terms & definitions. It is a reconditioning process - before one is able to move further into understanding pronouncements & premises that are made. It is in this light that it appears, to me, that Scientology, instead of pulling one out of one's social conditioning, it is, in other words, re-conditioning one to accept new terms, new concepts. In this regard, instead of helping one to come out of their deep hypnosis, it re-programs the individual to accept the seemingly new ideology. Instead of going beyond mind, beyond concepts - one is moving more into the mind, into one's intellect. This, in my book, is not putting the mind aside, i.e. meditation.

turiya

That's one way to look at it.

Another way, the way LRH designed it after understanding what the mind does and how it operates, is to have to invent new terminology so that the mind doesn't confuse it with previous practices that have led to nowhere. That is mostly the terminology of the many religions, which are control-operations, as well as the terminology from the many fields of psychology.

Also, from his research on the mind, LRH found out that many meditation practices were booby trapped to lead the practitioners into implant engrams... not too good for one's mental health since these are very similar to many abductees' accounts of "love and light" overlays/screen memories meant to hide the actual nasty implant.

That's the technical part of it, unfortunately there was the organization that came along with it, the "church," which is the part that screwed up everything. No qualms with that.

That's the technical part of it, unfortunately there was the organization that came along with it, the "church," which is the part that screwed up everything. No qualms with that.

Yes, but that seems to run counterproductive... to associate it, and to call it "The Church of Scientology". He seemed to be intent on establishing Scientology as an 'established religion'. At least he should have been aware of the conflict that would arise with this. Perhaps he would have been better off calling it "The Yoga of Scientology".

I do understand LRH's purposes for calling it a "Church", since the AMA & the Psychology/Psychiatrist Organizations & possibly the FDA were in 'hot' pursuit of closing his instiution down. But these same agencies have never bothered with going after 'Yoga' Organization & Institutes. Seems he should have had some insight or foresight as to where this would end up going.

turiya

[jiminii]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

Just can't help but to post the following in a kind of response...

turiya

Why not post this in Bill's Q&A thread?

I'll be very interested in his own answer because, as far as I am concerned, Osho is advocating the very premise of Scientology, the philosophy, since Scientology is an applied philosophy that has taken on the "religion" label because it deals with "theta"/"spirit"/spirituality which, by definition, is the domain of "religion":

STATIC,
1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06)

2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C--)

3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29)

4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A)

5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13)

6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)


THETAN,
1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1)

2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)

3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)

4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)

5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9)

6 . the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46)

7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247)

8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——)

9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK)

1 0 . a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )


VIEWPOINT,
1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2)

2 . that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)

3 . evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (CONA, pp. 208-209)

from these definitions you can see if we use the definition of thetan is the spirit
then viewpoint is a point he views from

in the time track of theta tapes LRH says a thetan can operate more than one body

therefore .. it must have more than one viewpoint ...
and each viewpoint has it's own individual track
and it's own individual memory banks

that is how I see it ... if we are operating more than one body

jim