*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Sent Saturday 23rd of July 2016
by ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk (Antony Phillips)
Note that this is a
resend of a message sent some years ago, and some data (like
addresses) is
liable to be inaccurate.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
*************
The following message is relayed to you by tro...@newciv.org
************
[[Note: Last weeks replay was B52 . I forgot to put the "B"
there - the B
just indicates it is different from the first time I sent replays
out,
where the numbering and contents were different., Hi, Good tromming,
Ant]]]
Subject:
TROM Replay B53
Date:
Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:04:49 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <i...@post8.tele.dk>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
tro...@newciv.org
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
i...@post8.tele.dk
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy
lists
Subject:
RE: Antony Phillips sugestion
to "Introduce yourself"
Date:
Fri, 1 May 1998 20:18:54
+-300
From:
Nori Avidan
<nor...@netvision.net.il>
To:
"'Antony Phillips'"
<i...@post8.tele.dk>
CC:
"'TROM-L'"
<tro...@newciv.org>
Dear Antony,
>So Engliash is not your native tongue. Curious as to what is
and where
>you are. Why don't you introduce yourself to the list?
Here are some details about myself:
Born in 1961, started searching for some answers about 18 years ago.
This search was intensified in 1987 when my first child was born.
Got intouch with a local enlighted (True) teacher from whom I learned
a
great deal.
I was introduced to Scientology about a year ago. Since then I
started
studying and also got some processing.
The Scientology path was completely new to me, since till then I was
only
used to the meditation & Love path, and not with the reason &
money one.
The last one (money) is a double barrier for me since I was thought
that
"One cannot serve two masters : God and money, at the same
time".
Also, since I don't posess the enourmous amounts of money required to
reach
"Absolute Freedom" via Scientology, and since I'm looking for
some
practical and TRUE way to get there I was atracted by TROM.
Since I personally think that the TRUTH can not and must not be owned
by
any single individual or group, and I also think that no one which
realy
reached NIRVANA would mess himself in asking money for it, I'm looking
for
answers in the public domain: the Internet.
Thus,I can only congratulate you and your fellows for your blessed
initiative in publicating TROM.
I only have a few question marks regarding it, some of them I have
expressed in a letter directly to Judith Metheven (from which I hope
I'll
get some answers soon).
Most of those question marks are related to TROM procedures for which
there
are not enough examples in the original document,thus giving me a hard
time
trying to applicate it correctly, or event stopping me entirely.
If you know of the existance of some written materials or
corespondence
which may help me I'll be very glad to know about it.
Well that's all for now .
Sincerely,
Nori.
----------
Subject:
Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 04 May 1998 06:51:42
-0700
From:
"MICHAEL W.
BONNYCASTLE" <bcas...@soca.com>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Hello Trommers,
Can anyone provide the origin of the statement(s) that Dennis
Stephens
had not completed Level 5 at the time of his death? And please
elaborate
if possible. It is interesting and somewhat unbelievable as it tends
to
conflict with the way Trom reads.
thank you,
Michael Bonnycastle
Subject:
Re: Dennis
and level 5
Date:
Tue, 05 May
1998 09:18:31 +1000
From:
Ron Van
Haarlem <r...@tig.com.au>
To:
"MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE" <bcas...@soca.com>
CC:
tro...@newciv.org
References:
1
MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
> Hello Trommers,
>
>
Can anyone provide the origin of the statement(s) that
Dennis Stephens
>
had not completed Level 5 at the time of his death?
And please elaborate
>
if possible. It is interesting and somewhat
unbelievable as it tends to
>
conflict with the way Trom reads.
>
>
thank you,
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
Hi Michael,
I made this claim based on the following extract from TROM:
"So even though Level Four is complete we still have a residual
hard-core of mind left, and our
job on Level Five is to bring it into view so it can be Timebroken. As
your power of postulate increases on
Level Five, so you'll be able to spring more and
more of this into view; this in turn will improve your power of postulate
even more, which will
permit you to spring even deeper levels into view. And so on until the
job is finally done. How capable will
you be? I don't know, for to the very best of my knowledge no one has got
there yet. You write and tell me about it. I do known this, though:
the
sky is a lot higher than you think. Even when you can knock a couple of
planets out of orbit with the
whisper of a thought, you're still only a babe in arms in
terms of your full potential. Only life has ever put a limit to the
ability of life."
I also was told by Judith Anserson when I initially started TROM about 18
months ago that to the
best of her knowledge, Dennis had not finished level 5. Actually, I am
planning to contact Anne
Stephens by telephone in the very near future in an attempt to gain more
info on this and on
Dennis' last thoughts on TROM before he died, in case there is anything
relevant that has been
missed in the published info.
It does sound like Dennis had completed level 5 in the manual if you miss
that extract, which I
did initially. I do not think that it invalidates anything Dennis said
though, and I intend to
run TROM as far as I can this lifetime. This is the most promising tech
around in my opinion,
regardless of price!!
I would like to see TROM published in paperback form as well as the net,
so that it can reach
more people on the planet. I wish I had the time to do this. The proceeds
of course would go to
Anne.
rvh
Subject:
Re: Dennis
and level 5
Date:
Tue, 05 May
1998 07:22:57 -0700
From:
"MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE" <bcas...@soca.com>
To:
Ron Van
Haarlem <r...@tig.com.au>
CC:
tro...@newciv.org
References:
1 ,
2
Ron Van Haarlem wrote:
>
> MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
>
> > Hello Trommers,
> >
>
>
Can anyone provide the origin of the statement(s)
that Dennis Stephens
>
>
had not completed Level 5 at the time of his death?
And please elaborate
>
>
if possible. It is interesting and somewhat
unbelievable as it tends to
>
>
conflict with the way Trom reads.
> >
>
>
thank you,
> >
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I made this claim based on the following extract from TROM:
>
> "So even though Level Four is complete we still have a residual
hard-core f mind left, and our
> job on Level Five is to bring it
> into view so it can be Timebroken. As your power of postulate
increases on Level Five, so you'll
> be able to spring more and
> more of this into view; this in turn will improve your power of
postulate even more, which will
> permit you to spring even deeper
> levels into view. And so on until the job is finally done. How
capable will you be? I don't
> know, for to the very best of my
> knowledge no one has got there yet. You write and tell me about it.
I do known this, though: the
> sky is a lot higher than you
> think. Even when you can knock a couple of planets out of orbit with
the whisper of a thought,
> you're still only a babe in arms in
> terms of your full potential. Only life has ever put a limit to the
ability of life."
>
> I also was told by Judith Anserson when I initially started TROM
about 18 months ago that to the
> best of her knowledge, Dennis had not finished level 5. Actually, I
am planning to contact Anne
> Stephens by telephone in the very near future in an attempt to gain
more info on this and on
> Dennis' last thoughts on TROM before he died, in case there is
anything relevant that has been
> missed in the published info.
>
> It does sound like Dennis had completed level 5 in the manual if you
miss that extract, which I
> did initially. I do not think that it invalidates anything Dennis
said though, and I intend to
> run TROM as far as I can this lifetime. This is the most promising
tech around in my opinion,
> regardless of price!!
>
> I would like to see TROM published in paperback form as well as the
net, so that it can reach
> more people on the planet. I wish I had the time to do this. The
proceeds of course would go to
> Anne.
>
> rvh
Hi Ron,
Yes, that passage is 'rather' straight forward. I suppose it is
the
certainty of the EP for level five which Dennis writes and speaks
with on the level 5 tape, if you've heard it. It is interesting
though
I agree that it does not invalidate anything about Trom. I have
had
(and continue to) so much gain from Trom over the last year that
such
invalidation would seem unreal and pointless. I wonder what Greg
Pickering
might have to say about this or Anne Stephens as you suggested.
Michael Bonnycastle
Subject:
Re: Dennis
and level 5
Date:
Tue, 05 May
1998 19:30:17 -0700
From:
Randy
Nicholson <b...@best.com>
To:
Ron Van
Haarlem <r...@tig.com.au>
CC:
"MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE" <bcas...@soca.com>,
tro...@newciv.org
References:
1 ,
2
Hello TROM listers,
I just re-read the last section of the TROM book and found the last
sentance of the last paragraph
to be somthing you might be interested in.
Randy
Addendum to Theory and Practical Sections.
This universe only consists of life and purposes. Some of the purposes
are perceive as more solid
than others. The basic purposes from which all others stem are the four
legs of the To know goals package. All other (junior) purposes are
methods of achieving one
or other of the basic purposes, and are therefore within the basic
To know goals package. If you can clearly see how a junior purpose is
within one or other of the
basic purposes, then it will erase at Level 5a and need no further
address in therapy. However, due to the vicissitudes of games play, some
junior purposes come to be
regarded as independent of the basic purposes, and they will have to be
addressed at Level 5b.
The purpose can either be formulated directly into a junior goals package
and erased or collapsed in
therapy, or, if unerasable, will be found to reside in the negative
leg of some other erasable junior goals package. Eg. The goal To
Display can be formulated into an
erasable goals package. E.g. The goal To Hide cannot be
formulated into an erasable goals package, but it resides within the goal
To not Display, so can be
erased by erasing or collapsing the To Display goals package at
Level 5b. An object only consists of one or more purposes (functions),
and can be erased from the
mind by erasing these purposes. If the purpose or purposes of
an object are clearly seen as within one or other purposes of the basic
To know goals package,
then this object will erase from the mind at Level 5a without any
need for further address in therapy. However, if the object is believed
to consist of purposes
independent of the basic purposes, these purposes will have to be
addressed at Level 5b as indicated above. Finally, the object - if still
not erased - can be erased
by making it the subject matter of the To Know goals package at Level
5c.
E.g. A girl has completed Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of therapy, and has nulled
the basic package as far
as possible at Level 5a. She obviously has purposes which she considers
to be independent of the basic purposes (Otherwise her whole mind would
have erased at Level 5a.) and she recalls that shes always felt uneasy
about wearing a dress, and decides to erase the class of Dresses from
her mind.
(N.B. The choice of material to be run at Level 5b and 5c is always made
on the basis of interest.) She decides that a dress has two
purposes:
1)
To display her femininity.
and
2)
A modesty function of hiding her
body.
Addressing each of these in turn she first formulates the To Display
goals package which she
discovers to be erasable. The concealing function of the dress is
To
Hide which she discovers cannot be formulated into an erasable goals
package, but spots that its
within the To not Display leg of the To Display goals package.
She addresses the To Display package at Level 5b, and it collapses
after a few minutes when she
realizes that To Display is a method of being known, and is
therefore within the To be Known leg of the basic package. She now re -
nulls the basic To Know
package at Level 5a according to the rule.
The position now, she realizes, is that the class of Dresses, although
reduced, has not yet erased
from her mind, so she hunts around for some other function of a
dress. She soon spots that a dress has a sexual function when displaying
her femininity, so she
addresses the To Sex goals package at Level 5b. During the erasure
of this package a childhood sexual incident involving her dress pops into
view and explains her
lifelong unease with wearing a dress. When the To Sex package
erases she returns to and re-nulls the To Know package at Level 5a. She
then makes A Dress the
subject matter of the To Know goals package at Level 5c,
only to discover that its already erased during the re-nulling of Level
5a.
She has now erased the class of Dresses from her mind, and is ready to
find another
object or junior goals package for erasure. One day, when routinely
re-nulling Level 5a after
erasing an object or junior goals package from her mind, to her
great
joy the basic To Know goals package will itself go on through to
erasure.
She will then have achieved a full resolution of mind - and know
it.
Dennis H. Stephens.
Redland Bay,
September 1992.
Ron Van Haarlem wrote:
> MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
>
> > Hello Trommers,
> >
>
>
Can anyone provide the origin of the statement(s)
that Dennis Stephens
>
>
had not completed Level 5 at the time of his death?
And please elaborate
>
>
if possible. It is interesting and somewhat
unbelievable as it tends to
>
>
conflict with the way Trom reads.
> >
>
>
thank you,
> >
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I made this claim based on the following extract from TROM:
>
> "So even though Level Four is complete we still have a residual
hard-core
of mind left, and our
> job on Level Five is to bring it
> into view so it can be Timebroken. As your power of postulate
increases
on Level Five, so you'll
> be able to spring more and
> more of this into view; this in turn will improve your power of
postulate
even more, which will
> permit you to spring even deeper
> levels into view. And so on until the job is finally done. How
capable
will you be? I don't
> know, for to the very best of my
> knowledge no one has got there yet. You write and tell me about it.
I do
known this, though: the
> sky is a lot higher than you
> think. Even when you can knock a couple of planets out of orbit with
the
whisper of a thought,
> you're still only a babe in arms in
> terms of your full potential. Only life has ever put a limit to
the
ability of life."
>
> I also was told by Judith Anserson when I initially started TROM
about 18
months ago that to the
> best of her knowledge, Dennis had not finished level 5. Actually, I
am
planning to contact Anne
> Stephens by telephone in the very near future in an attempt to gain
more
info on this and on
> Dennis' last thoughts on TROM before he died, in case there is
anything
relevant that has been
> missed in the published info.
>
> It does sound like Dennis had completed level 5 in the manual if you
miss
that extract, which I
> did initially. I do not think that it invalidates anything Dennis
said
though, and I intend to
> run TROM as far as I can this lifetime. This is the most promising
tech
around in my opinion,
> regardless of price!!
>
> I would like to see TROM published in paperback form as well as the
net,
so that it can reach
> more people on the planet. I wish I had the time to do this. The
proceeds
of course would go to
> Anne.
>
> rvh
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Wed, 6 May 1998 13:22:15
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
"TROM-L"
<tro...@newciv.org>, "MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE"
<bcas...@soca.com>
>
Hi Ron,
>
>
Yes, that passage is 'rather' straight forward. I suppose it is
the
>
certainty of the EP for level five which Dennis writes and speaks
>
with on the level 5 tape, if you've heard it. It is interesting
though
>
I agree that it does not invalidate anything about Trom. I have had
>
(and continue to) so much gain from Trom over the last year that
such
>
invalidation would seem unreal and pointless. I wonder what Greg
Pickering
>
might have to say about this or Anne Stephens as you suggested.
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
Great to hear you are getting such good results. If I hear anything of
interest
from Anne I will post it of course. Provided she agrees.
Ron Van Haarlem
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Wed, 6 May 1998 13:22:31
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
"TROM-L"
<tro...@newciv.org>, "Randy Nicholson"
<b...@best.com>
>Hello TROM listers,
>I just re-read the last section of the TROM book and found the last
sentance of the last paragraph
>to be somthing you might be interested in.
>Randy
I assume this is the quote you refer to:
"She will then have achieved a full resolution of mind - and know
it."
Here is another from TROM:
"Just keep going round and round that chart, level by level,
Timebreaking as you
go, and running plenty of RI, and you'll make it to Nirvana. Remember:
There's
no place to go after Level Five. There's no Level Six. "
Since it seems no one has finished yet, we can only wait and
see.
rvh
Subject:
Re: Dennis
and level 5
Date:
Wed, 06 May
1998 00:19:17 -0700
From:
"Maximilian J. Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
References:
1
At 08:29 AM 5/6/98 -0500, Dustin W. Carr wrote:..
>Such a person might merely say "I am not there now, nor have I
been, but
>here is the path to where I will be."
>
>Dustin
great little, big poem!!!
is that yours? if so, can I borrow it :-)
mx
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Wed, 6 May 1998 08:29:13
-0500
From:
"Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
>
>Here is another from TROM:
>
>"Just keep going round and round that chart, level by level,
Timebreaking
>as you
>go, and running plenty of RI, and you'll make it to Nirvana.
Remember:
There's
>no place to go after Level Five. There's no Level Six. "
>
>Since it seems no one has finished yet, we can only wait and
see.
Should we assume that we would know if someone else had completed TROM.
It
might be too much to expect that a person having achieved Nirvana
would
really feel the need to tell anybody else about it.
Such a person might merely say "I am not there now, nor have I been,
but
here is the path to where I will be."
Dustin
>
>rvh
Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
"...for pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust
of
result, is in every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel Legis
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Fri, 8 May 1998 10:51:38
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>>Here is another from TROM:
>>
>>"Just keep going round and round that chart, level by level,
Timebreaking
>>as you
>>go, and running plenty of RI, and you'll make it to Nirvana.
Remember:
There's
>>no place to go after Level Five. There's no Level Six.
"
>>
>>Since it seems no one has finished yet, we can only wait and
see.
>
>Should we assume that we would know if someone else had completed
TROM. It
>might be too much to expect that a person having achieved Nirvana
would
>really feel the need to tell anybody else about it.
>
>Such a person might merely say "I am not there now, nor have I
been, but
>here is the path to where I will be."
>
>Dustin
Ok, it was not well worded. Let me change it to: No one has yet claimed
to
have finished level 5 and are prepared to tell us mere mortals about
it.
rvh
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Thu, 07 May 1998 21:19:00
-0700
From:
"Maximilian J.
Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
At 10:51 AM 5/8/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
...
>Ok, it was not well worded. Let me change it to: No one has yet
claimed to
>have finished level 5 and are prepared to tell us mere mortals about
it.
>
>rvh
>
You may be waiting for a loooong time!
If Level 5 really equals 'nirvaana', your sentence above would
describe
a so-called 'sammaasa.mbuddho' (a completely awakened person).
Such a person cannot possibly be observed, by definition, as already
explained
in length by the last 'historical Buddha' Gotamo Siddharto, approx.
2550 years ago. It is a paradox. (cp. my article 'The Buddha Paradox' at
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
Why is that people get so fixated on this nirvaana thing (either
positive
or negative)?
Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You know
where
you are when you're there, never before...
and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
believe it or not ;-)
Max
Subject:
Re: Dennis
and level 5
Date:
Fri, 08 May
1998 11:43:09 -0700
From:
Randy
Nicholson <b...@best.com>
To:
"Maximilian J. Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
CC:
tro...@newciv.org
References:
1
Maximilian J. Sandor wrote:
> At 10:51 AM 5/8/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
> ...
> >Ok, it was not well worded. Let me change it to: No one has yet
claimed to
> >have finished level 5 and are prepared to tell us mere mortals
about it.
> >
> >rvh
I would say that no one is interested in telling us about it or has
the desire
to. Dennis made the effort to mention what he knows to us in the TROM
manual but
beings in the "state" of " nirvana" probably could
not care less about us meat
balls here on earth.
There are bigger and better games in other universes to be played in
higher states
of beingness than we can even imagine right now. They are being played
right now.
Does anyone try to run Dianetics on a piss ant or an ameba ? Why waste
your time
when there are better things to do ?
Level five is a way out or to and there is no specified time that it
takes to
complete it . One day or a year to twenty years. Time has nothing to do
with it.
Thousands could have already made it one way or another. Millions are
already
there and never were "trapped"
I only consider myself to be trapped here in this universe to make it (
the game )
more interesting and challenging. Its better than nothing. I find
timebreaking to
be a great way to chop up the mind and realize who and where I am in
relation to this universe.
Randy Nicholson
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 9 May 1998 16:19:48
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>Maximilian J. Sandor wrote:
>
>> At 10:51 AM 5/8/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>> ...
>> >Ok, it was not well worded. Let me change it to: No one has
yet claimed to
>> >have finished level 5 and are prepared to tell us mere
mortals about it.
>> >
>> >rvh
>
> I would say that no one is interested in telling us about it or has
the desire
>to. Dennis made the effort to mention what he knows to us
in the TROM manual but
>beings in the "state" of " nirvana"
probably could not care less about us meat
>balls here on earth.
I don't think it is because they "could not care less", but
rather the
thought would not arise. In fact, probably no thought ever arises for
them
again. No need, no desire, just total fullfillment. End of game
condition.
This could explain why Dennis left the way he did. Maybe he made it out
and
left just the GE running the body. I don't see why he would have any
interest in any games here if he did.
Just my opinion, nothing more. In fact, I have no authority to even
speculate on that state from this extremely abberated state. Just an
extremely uninformed guess. :-))
>
>There are bigger and better games in other universes to be played in
higher states
>of beingness than we can even imagine right now. They are being
played right now.
Exactly. These are all available to us, we just have to figure out how.
Or
maybe someone like Dennis already has.
>
>Does anyone try to run Dianetics on a piss ant or an ameba ? Why
waste your time
>when there are better things to do ?
Yep.
>Level five is a way out or to and there is no specified time that it
takes to
>complete it . One day or a year to twenty years. Time has
nothing to do with it.
>Thousands could have already made it one way or another. Millions are
already
>there and never were "trapped"
It probably depends on where you started from as well. Some beings are
no
doubt more abberated than others.
>
>I only consider myself to be trapped here in this universe to make it
( the
game )
>more interesting and challenging. Its better than nothing.
> I find timebreaking to
>be a great way to chop up the mind and realize who and where I
am in relation to
>this universe.
This why I am running it also. Seems like really revolutionary tech to
me.
Interesting comments.
Ron Van Haarlem
>
>Randy Nicholson
>
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 9 May 1998 16:28:01
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>At 10:51 AM 5/8/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>...
>>Ok, it was not well worded. Let me change it to: No one has yet
claimed to
>>have finished level 5 and are prepared to tell us mere mortals
about it.
>>
>>rvh
>>
>
>You may be waiting for a loooong time!
>
>If Level 5 really equals 'nirvaana', your sentence above would
describe
>a so-called 'sammaasa.mbuddho' (a completely awakened person).
>
>Such a person cannot possibly be observed, by definition, as
already
explained
>in length by the last 'historical Buddha' Gotamo Siddharto,
approx.
>2550 years ago. It is a paradox. (cp. my article 'The Buddha Paradox'
at
>
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
I have had a look at this. Interesting, but this is _your_
viewpoint.
>
>Why is that people get so fixated on this nirvaana thing (either
positive
>or negative)?
>
>Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
This is an option. I know many who are doing just that.
There are also other options.
>
>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You know
where
>you are when you're there, never before...
Again, this is your viewpoint. If others want to see things
differently,
then good for them. Ever heard of "self determination"? If
myself or anyone else
wants to have a "goal" and play the game of achieving it, then
that is also an option.
>
>and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
>believe it or not ;-)
May have been true for you and some others up to now. Does not mean it
is
therefore true for everyone.
I do believe there is an "ultimate state". Whether I choose to
continue
processing or meditating or whatever it takes to reach that state, or
choose
to stop short when I am able to play games at a level I am happy with
is
something I will decide along the way.
If it works for you.........
or maybe - "do whatever you want". We all do mostly
anyway!
:-))
rvh
>
>Max
>
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 09 May 1998 04:55:51
-0700
From:
"Maximilian J.
Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
At 04:28 PM 5/9/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>>
>>Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
>
>This is an option. I know many who are doing just that.
>
>There are also other options.
what are they?
...
>>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You know
where
>>you are when you're there, never before...
>
>Again, this is your viewpoint. If others want to see things
differently,
>then good for them. Ever heard of "self determination"?
what's good about it (for them)?
If you're sitting in a train from Frankfurt to Kopenhagen and
you're just now rolling into Hamburg Central Station,
you're in Hamburg.
Alan C. Walter has an interesting viewpoint on
'self-determination'
(if I read his Web page correctly).
Maybe he cares to expound.. (I, for one, would be interested
in
his rationales, Alan C. are you there?).
I noticed your repeated use of the assertion "this is your
viewpoint".
This assertion is a tautology (meaning, it is _always_ true).
Since you use it _without_ presenting or reiterating _your_
viewpoint, such a generality works as an invalidation.
I say this because you may not be aware of this. (if you
would
be, though, tzzzz, tzzzz..)
If I look at your statements, I would say that we mostly
_agree_.
What is your actual agreement/disagreement?
>I do believe there is an "ultimate state". Whether I choose
to continue
>processing or meditating or whatever it takes to reach that state, or
choose
>to stop short when I am able to play games at a level I am happy with
is
>something I will decide along the way.
I agree wholeheartedly !!!!
Max
Btw: if you look at the beginning of the 'Buddha Paradox' chapter in
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/ ,you'll notice that it is _not_
my invention at all (even though it is a fascinating possibility I
would
have been proud of to discover all by myself).
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 09 May 1998 08:42:25
-0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Ron, trom types,
>>
>>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You know
where
>>you are when you're there, never before...
>
>Again, this is your viewpoint. If others want to see things
differently,
>then good for them. Ever heard of "self determination"? If
myself or anyone
>else
>wants to have a "goal" and play the game of achieving it,
then that is also
>an option.
This is a valid point, but I have one thing to add. When you make a goal
of
attaining an enlightened state you may tend to push yourself towards
that
which you consider to be enlightenment, but is really only another
illusion.
That can be a game that can actually stand in the way of your progress.
The
unenlightened should not presume to guess what enlightenment is.
It is much better to proceed without desire for result. Acknowledge
your
gains, but don't anticipate from where your next will come.
>
>>
>>and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
>>believe it or not ;-)
>
>May have been true for you and some others up to now. Does not mean
it is
>therefore true for everyone.
>
This is basically just a time postulate. It is true as long as you agree
to
it, which everyone in this universe has.
Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
"...For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the
lust of result, is every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel
Legis
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sun, 10 May 1998 08:44:08
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>Ron, trom types,
>
>>>
>>>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You
know where
>>>you are when you're there, never before...
>>
>>Again, this is your viewpoint. If others want to see things
differently,
>>then good for them. Ever heard of "self determination"?
If myself or
anyone
>>else
>>wants to have a "goal" and play the game of achieving
it, then that is
also
>>an option.
>
>
>This is a valid point, but I have one thing to add. When you
make a goal
of
>attaining an enlightened state you may tend to push yourself towards
that
>which you consider to be enlightenment, but is really only
another
illusion.
Two interesting points you have brought up here.
1. In order to push toward a state, you are taking the viewpoint that
you
are not that, which as a postulate in itself would prevent the attainment
of
the state. "Catch 22".
2. "......but is really only another illusion." True, because
that state can
not be accurately conceived of from a state of ignorance, it can only
be
experienced.
>
>That can be a game that can actually stand in the way of your
progress.
The
>unenlightened should not presume to guess what enlightenment
is.
Agreed.
>
>It is much better to proceed without desire for result.
Acknowledge your
>gains, but don't anticipate from where your next will come.
Agreed that this would be ideal, but very difficult to do. Why not just
keep
going with the best tech you can find at the time, and see what happens.
To
do this, not expecting results...... I find it difficult to imagine
anyone
being able to do this. Why would you be doing it in the first
place.
>
>>
>>>
>>>and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
>>>believe it or not ;-)
>>
>>May have been true for you and some others up to now. Does not
mean it is
>>therefore true for everyone.
>>
>
>This is basically just a time postulate. It is true as long as
you agree
to
>it, which everyone in this universe has.
I don't remember agreeing. :-))
rvh
>
>Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
>"...For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from
the
>lust of result, is every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel
Legis
>
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sun, 10 May 1998 09:59:25
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>At 04:28 PM 5/9/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>>>
>>>Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
>>
>>This is an option. I know many who are doing just that.
>>
>>There are also other options.
>
> what are they?
EG: To have a goal and work toward it. This is an enjoyable and valid
game
to play.
>
>...
>>>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You
know where
>>>you are when you're there, never before...
>>
>>Again, this is your viewpoint. If others want to see things
differently,
>>then good for them. Ever heard of "self
determination"?
>
> what's good about it (for them)?
It's what they want to do, an enjoyable game.
As for extrapolation of results, what wrong with expecting the EP of
a
certain level. If Dennis said the EP of level 3 for example is
"xyz", and he
also said don't start level 4 until you have finished level 3, because
if
you do, at best it will not run properly. Then I think it would be wise
to
follow his instructions. To do otherwise is a good example of how
knowledge
is distorted and lost over time. This is exactly why Dennis did not want
his
work to be fragmented. He wanted it to be kept whole, because the intent
of
the tech can be easily lost if it is not kept complete. This is why
Dennis
did not want TROM on the internet. He thought it would be too easily
fragmented, risking loss of intent.
Lets do our very best to keep this extremely valuable text intact, in
case
we need to come back and complete the work next lifetime.
>
> If you're sitting in a train from Frankfurt to Kopenhagen
and
> you're just now rolling into Hamburg Central Station,
> you're in Hamburg.
Yes but you have the expectation of getting to Kopenhagen, and this will
not
stop you getting there. Probably not a good analogy. :-))
>
> Alan C. Walter has an interesting viewpoint on
'self-determination'
> (if I read his Web page correctly).
>
> Maybe he cares to expound.. (I, for one, would be interested
in
> his rationales, Alan C. are you there?).
>
> I noticed your repeated use of the assertion "this is
your viewpoint".
> This assertion is a tautology (meaning, it is _always_
true).
>
> Since you use it _without_ presenting or reiterating
_your_
> viewpoint, such a generality works as an
invalidation.
Thats not what I meant. I simply meant you are entitled to your
viewpoint
and I am entitled to mine. I am not saying either is invalid.
>
> I say this because you may not be aware of this. (if you
would
> be, though, tzzzz, tzzzz..)
>
> If I look at your statements, I would say that we mostly
_agree_.
> What is your actual agreement/disagreement?
Your assertation that we MUST not have a goal of "nirvana". My
reply to
Dustin outlines my view on that subject.
I really don't think this whole issue is that important, at least until
the
final stages where a goal of nirvana would actually prevent the
attainment
of the state, as I claim in my reply to Dustin.
>
>>I do believe there is an "ultimate state". Whether I
choose to continue
>>processing or meditating or whatever it takes to reach that
state, or
choose
>>to stop short when I am able to play games at a level I am happy
with is
>>something I will decide along the way.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly !!!!
>
>Max
>
>Btw: if you look at the beginning of the 'Buddha Paradox' chapter
in
>
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/ ,you'll notice that it is
_not_
>my invention at all (even though it is a fascinating possibility I
would
>have been proud of to discover all by myself).
I'll have another look at it when I get a chance.
Like I said, interesting work you have done there.
Thanks for your comments.
rvh
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 09 May 1998 18:54:22
-0700
From:
"Maximilian J.
Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
To:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>, <tro...@newciv.org>
At 09:59 AM 5/10/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
(I wrote)
>> If I look at your statements, I would say that we mostly
_agree_.
>> What is your actual agreement/disagreement?
>
and At 09:59 AM 5/10/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>Your assertation that we MUST not have a goal of "nirvana".
My reply to
>Dustin outlines my view on that subject.
I have never asserted anything like that. In the contrary,
the
paradox is that one _must_ develop (temporarily) the goal to
reach 'nirvaana'. What one is doing then, is literally another
story,
and any contemplation of that would be speculation...
>I really don't think this whole issue is that important, at least
until the
>final stages where a goal of nirvana would actually prevent the
attainment
>of the state, as I claim in my reply to Dustin.
this is exactly what I'm saying, too.
I would be very interested what part of my communication
caused
these misunderstandings in order to correct or modify these
parts.
If you could be so kind to point me out what statements were
so
unclear in my article, that would be much appreciated...
One thing that I meant to add on to this discussion since a
long
time is that it appears vital to me that a Being must rise on
the
tone level the 'loftier' it gets around its 'beingness', unless
it
runs the risk to hurt itself. This was, according to what I
heard
(hearsay!!), not quite the case with Dennis in his last days.
Even
then, it is impossible to say that he did or did not reach
his
goal (nirvaana), as it may have happened in his last moments.
As far as the Internet goes, the last letter I got from
Dennis
(about two weeks before he kicked the bucket), made it
obvious
to me that he just didn't understand the paradigm of the
Internet
itself. I was quite sure at that time that with another
letter
or two from my side (and/or Flemming's or Rowland's), he may
have 'formally' agreed to release it on the Internet wit PGP
stamping or something similar.
In any case, happy trommin'
mx
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 11 May 1998 17:10:17
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>,
"Maximilian J. Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
>At 09:59 AM 5/10/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>
>(I wrote)
>>> If I look at your statements, I would say that we
mostly _agree_.
>>> What is your actual agreement/disagreement?
>>
>and At 09:59 AM 5/10/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>
>>Your assertation that we MUST not have a goal of
"nirvana". My reply to
>>Dustin outlines my view on that subject.
>
> I have never asserted anything like that. In the contrary,
the
> paradox is that one _must_ develop (temporarily) the goal
to
> reach 'nirvaana'. What one is doing then, is literally another
story,
> and any contemplation of that would be speculation...
>
>>I really don't think this whole issue is that important, at least
until
the
>>final stages where a goal of nirvana would actually prevent the
attainment
>>of the state, as I claim in my reply to Dustin.
>
> this is exactly what I'm saying, too.
Sounds like a misunderstanding on my part.
>
> I would be very interested what part of my communication
caused
> these misunderstandings in order to correct or modify these
parts.
> If you could be so kind to point me out what statements were
so
> unclear in my article, that would be much
appreciated...
I am afraid I don't have access to your initial message I responded to
at
the moment, because I am away from my home computer and only have my
laptop.
I won't be able to check this therefore for about 1 week.
Sounds like I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I'll check on
it
when I get back. Even if I did misunderstand, or not, it hardly
matters.
It's was just my opinion anyway. I hope no one takes me too seriously.
:-))
>
> One thing that I meant to add on to this discussion since a
long
> time is that it appears vital to me that a Being must rise on
the
> tone level the 'loftier' it gets around its 'beingness',
unless it
> runs the risk to hurt itself.
A very valid point. I do notice a few people claiming to be OT and
yet
behaving badly. (unable to control anger etc). I agree this would be
very
risky.
>This was, according to what I heard
> (hearsay!!), not quite the case with Dennis in his last
days.
Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean that he seemed arogant? I did
hear
that. (also hearsay on another newsgroup I think)
>Even
> then, it is impossible to say that he did or did not reach
his
> goal (nirvaana), as it may have happened in his last
moments.
>
> As far as the Internet goes, the last letter I got from
Dennis
> (about two weeks before he kicked the bucket), made it
obvious
> to me that he just didn't understand the paradigm of the
Internet
> itself.
Yes, although this is no reason to think less of him. Lots of
people,
particularly in that agegroup are computer illiterate. Maybe he
thought
processing was more important than wasting time with computers
anyway.
>I was quite sure at that time that with another letter
> or two from my side (and/or Flemming's or Rowland's), he
may
> have 'formally' agreed to release it on the Internet wit
PGP
> stamping or something similar.
I am sure he was just wanting to keep the knowledge intact.
>
>In any case, happy trommin'
>
>mx
Likewise!
rvh
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 11 May 1998 12:32:34
-0500
From:
"Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
>>It is much better to proceed without desire for result.
Acknowledge your
>>gains, but don't anticipate from where your next will come.
>
>Agreed that this would be ideal, but very difficult to do.
I would encourage you to find the source of this postulate.
>Why not just keep
>going with the best tech you can find at the time, and see what
happens. To
>do this, not expecting results...... I find it difficult to imagine
anyone
>being able to do this. Why would you be doing it in the first
place.
>
That is a good question to explore.
Personal responsibility, discipline. Without these, progress in the
area
of the mind and spirit is erratic at best.
As LRH stated, The true test of a thetan is its ability to make things
go
right, or equivalently (as I would state) the true test of a being is
its
willingness to let things be right.
Dustin W.
Carr
work phone: 607-255-2329 ext. 117
Electron Beam Lithography home
phone: 607-272-1831
Cornell Nanofabrication Facility email: d...@cornell.edu
Knight Laboratory
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 16 May 1998 15:57:08
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
>>>It is much better to proceed without desire for result.
Acknowledge your
>>>gains, but don't anticipate from where your next will
come.
>>
>>Agreed that this would be ideal, but very difficult to do.
>
>I would encourage you to find the source of this postulate.
I am sure I will on level 5. :-))
>
>>Why not just keep
>>going with the best tech you can find at the time, and see what
happens.
To
>>do this, not expecting results...... I find it difficult to
imagine anyone
>>being able to do this. Why would you be doing it in the first
place.
>>
>
>That is a good question to explore.
>
>Personal responsibility, discipline. Without these, progress in
the area
>of the mind and spirit is erratic at best.
Does seem to be true for me also.
>
>As LRH stated, The true test of a thetan is its ability to make
things go
>right, or equivalently (as I would state) the true test of a being is
its
>willingness to let things be right.
Who decides what is "right" and why should I accept that
beings' assessment?
This is the problem that has/will cause the downfall of C$S for
example.
Forcing things to go how some being in an abberated state decides is
"right", just causes
more problems for everyone involved IMO.
If you feel a need to force something to go a certain way, I would
advise
looking carefully to see if in fact it is "right". My
definition of right
would be that it would be of maximum benefit to the maximum number
of
dynamics. Attempting to assess this from an abberated state with
suspect
data, would be extremely difficult in IMO.
Of course, using this line of thinking, the less aberated an individual
is,
the easier it would be to be accurate in assessing "right
action". According
to my background in Hinduism, it is said that an enlightened being
naturally
performs "right action". No effort is used, nothing is
"forced". I have used
this principle in my life (going with the flow rather than
struggling
against things) and found things to work out much better for me, and
others
involved. I try hard to not become an Opp terminal. Not always
successful
unfortunately, but I am finding it easier as time goes on, thanks to
the
processing and meditation.
One of the things that attracted me to TROM was Dennis' understanding,
and
explanation of this principle that I had already found to be valid in
my
life. IE: Opposing postulates and the resulting compulsory games
condition
and persistence. I could see before I read TROM that this was the key to
the
way to freedom. That is find a way to attain a state of being where you
just
naturally do not resist problems compulsively, and they will
disappear.
Dennis has provided one way to accomplish this.
Ron Van Haarlem
>
>Dustin W. Carr work phone: 607-255-2329 ext.
117
>Electron Beam Lithography home phone:
607-272-1831
>Cornell Nanofabrication Facility email:
d...@cornell.edu
>Knight Laboratory
>Cornell University
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>
>
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 16 May 1998 19:58:08
-0500
From:
"Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Ron,
>>
>>Personal responsibility, discipline. Without these,
progress in the area
>>of the mind and spirit is erratic at best.
>
>Does seem to be true for me also.
>
And humility, I forgot that one. That was a tough one for me to come
by.
Always be willing to consider that others might know more, even if it
does
not seem to be so at first glance. If you accept this, you can learn
much
from any person you interact with.
>>
>>As LRH stated, The true test of a thetan is its ability to make
things go
>>right, or equivalently (as I would state) the true test of a
being is its
>>willingness to let things be right.
>
>Who decides what is "right" and why should I accept that
beings' assessment?
That is not relevant. What is, is right, good, beautiful. Do you not
seek
a state where this is true?
>
>This is the problem that has/will cause the downfall of C$S for
example.
>Forcing things to go how some being in an abberated state decides
is
>"right", just causes
>more problems for everyone involved IMO.
This is a worthy observation, but it still has nothing to do with
LRH's
quote or my statement.
Force and effort only occur when a being is not letting things be
right.
>
>If you feel a need to force something to go a certain way, I would
advise
>looking carefully to see if in fact it is "right". My
definition of right
>would be that it would be of maximum benefit to the maximum number
of
>dynamics.
Yes, that was LRH's definition. Now you still need to define benefit,
and
maximum.
Or you can just not play that game and just be right. There are
infinite
choices within infinite choices.
>Of course, using this line of thinking, the less aberated an
individual is,
>the easier it would be to be accurate in assessing "right
action". According
>to my background in Hinduism, it is said that an enlightened being
naturally
>performs "right action". No effort is used, nothing is
"forced". I have used
>this principle in my life (going with the flow rather than
struggling
>against things) and found things to work out much better for me, and
others
>involved.
Ahhh. You have come to a very worthy conclusion. I thought that I
(and
LRH) had said this very same thing with much fewer words.
Forgive me for saying this, but this is the second time in a week that
you
have done this sort of thing, i.e., placed yourself in opposition to
another just so you could make his point for him (referencing your
previous
conversation with Mr. Sandor). A funny game.
>I try hard to not become an Opp terminal. Not always successful
>unfortunately, but I am finding it easier as time goes on, thanks to
the
>processing and meditation.
That is good, I am sure it will continue to become easier. Personal
responsibility, discipline, humility. They all become easier.
Dustin
Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
"...for pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust
of
result, is in every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel Legis
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 18 May 1998 23:50:21
+1000
From:
"Ron Van Haarlem"
<r...@one.net.au>
To:
"TROM-L"
<tro...@newciv.org>
>And humility, I forgot that one. That was a tough one for me to
come by.
>Always be willing to consider that others might know more, even if it
does
>not seem to be so at first glance. If you accept this, you can
learn much
>from any person you interact with.
I have no problem with this.
I have read your posts with interest since I have been on TROM-L (about
18
mths).
>>>As LRH stated, The true test of a thetan is its ability to
make things go
>>>right, or equivalently (as I would state) the true test of a
being is its
>>>willingness to let things be right.
>>
>>Who decides what is "right" and why should I accept
that beings' assessment?
>
>That is not relevant. What is, is right, good, beautiful.
Do you not seek
>a state where this is true?
Ah, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying. In any case, I only had
a
problem with what LRH said:
" The true test of a thetan is its ability to make things go
right,"
and how it seems to be applied in COS.
Most of my knowledge about scientology I gained by reading what
people
wrote on
the internet about their experiences with the COS. This statement is one
area
where I thought LRH had got it wrong, or at least the way it was being
used in
COS was wrong. From reading work such as "the lonesome
squirrel" by
Fishman, it
seems clear that the application of this statement meant using force
if
required, and it usually was, to, for example keep, Stats up. The
penalties
for
failing to do so ranged from unpleasant to severe (eg. RPF).
Which is why I wrote the following.
>>
>>This is the problem that has/will cause the downfall of C$S for
example.
>>Forcing things to go how some being in an abberated state decides
is
>>"right", just causes
>>more problems for everyone involved IMO.
>
>This is a worthy observation, but it still has nothing to do with
LRH's
>quote or my statement.
I can see that now. I do apologise for this misunderstanding.
I believe it does accurately portray the "application" of LRH's
quote in COS.
The idea that that is not what LRH meant did not occur because of what ex
COS
people had written.
>
>Force and effort only occur when a being is not letting things be
right.
No conflict here.
>
>>
>>If you feel a need to force something to go a certain way, I
would advise
>>looking carefully to see if in fact it is "right". My
definition of right
>>would be that it would be of maximum benefit to the maximum
number of
>>dynamics.
>
>Yes, that was LRH's definition. Now you still need to define
benefit, and
>maximum.
I don't feel comfortable answering that just yet. I have my ideas, but am
not
confident I can express those ideas accurately.
>
>Or you can just not play that game and just be right. There are
infinite
>choices within infinite choices.
This is a very nice way of putting it.
>
>>Of course, using this line of thinking, the less aberated an
individual is,
>>the easier it would be to be accurate in assessing "right
action". According
>>to my background in Hinduism, it is said that an enlightened
being naturally
>>performs "right action". No effort is used, nothing is
"forced". I have used
>>this principle in my life (going with the flow rather than
struggling
>>against things) and found things to work out much better for me,
and others
>>involved.
>
>Ahhh. You have come to a very worthy conclusion. I
thought that I (and
>LRH) had said this very same thing with much fewer words.
I can see that now.
I thought you were endorsing the COS application of what LRH said, which
is
why
I opp term'ed you.
>
>Forgive me for saying this, but this is the second time in a week
that you
>have done this sort of thing, i.e., placed yourself in opposition
to
>another just so you could make his point for him (referencing your
previous
>conversation with Mr. Sandor). A funny game.
That was not my intention. Both seem to be based on misunderstanding on
my
part.
For that I apologise.
I don't like wasting time, and it seems that this is exactly what I have
done
here. But then again, maybe this discussion has clarified some points
of
interest for others on this list.
>
>>I try hard to not become an Opp terminal. Not always
successful
>>unfortunately, but I am finding it easier as time goes on, thanks
to the
>>processing and meditation.
>
>That is good, I am sure it will continue to become easier.
Personal
>responsibility, discipline, humility. They all become
easier.
>
>Dustin
I would be happy to discuss this by telephone if you want to discuss
further. If
so, please Email me a range of times it would be best to call, bearing
in
mind I
live in Sydney, Australia. Telephone rates are very reasonable here at
the
moment thanks to the internet.
A 5/10 minute phone call could have saved me a few hours of precious time
in
this instance.
Ron Van Haarlem
>
>
>
>
>Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
>"...for pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the
lust of
>result, is in every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel
Legis
>
>
>
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Tue, 19 May 1998 13:27:54
-0500
From:
"Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Ron,
>I have read your posts with interest since I have been on TROM-L
(about 18
>mths).
Thanks.
>
>>>>As LRH stated, The true test of a thetan is its ability
to make things go
>>>>right, or equivalently (as I would state) the true test
of a being is its
>>>>willingness to let things be right.
>>>
>>>Who decides what is "right" and why should I accept
that beings'
assessment?
>>
>>That is not relevant. What is, is right, good,
beautiful. Do you not seek
>>a state where this is true?
>
>Ah, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying. In any case, I only
had a
>problem with what LRH said:
>
>" The true test of a thetan is its ability to make things go
right,"
>
>and how it seems to be applied in COS.
>
I understand. I think his statement is out of balance, but still has
its
wisdom.
I have to believe that he meant it in the most positive way, while at
the
same time he fully expected it to be applied in the most negative
way.
Let me say it one more way. The true test of a being is its knowledge
and
understanding of the infinite possibility of every action and every
moment.
>Most of my knowledge about scientology I gained by reading what
people
>wrote on
>the internet about their experiences with the COS. This statement is
one area
>where I thought LRH had got it wrong, or at least the way it was
being
used in
>COS was wrong. From reading work such as "the lonesome
squirrel" by
>Fishman, it
>seems clear that the application of this statement meant using force
if
>required, and it usually was, to, for example keep, Stats up.
The
>penalties for
>failing to do so ranged from unpleasant to severe (eg. RPF).
I was CoS staff for 5 months, and I assure you that everything bad that
you
hear is probably true.
>>
>>Force and effort only occur when a being is not letting things be
right.
>
>
>No conflict here.
>
I am not familiar with the
>>
>>>
>>>If you feel a need to force something to go a certain way, I
would advise
>>>looking carefully to see if in fact it is "right".
My definition of right
>>>would be that it would be of maximum benefit to the maximum
number of
>>>dynamics.
>>
>>Yes, that was LRH's definition. Now you still need to
define benefit, and
>>maximum.
>
>
>I don't feel comfortable answering that just yet. I have my ideas,
but am not
>confident I can express those ideas accurately.
>
I understand.
>>
>>Or you can just not play that game and just be right. There
are infinite
>>choices within infinite choices.
>>
>>Forgive me for saying this, but this is the second time in a week
that you
>>have done this sort of thing, i.e., placed yourself in opposition
to
>>another just so you could make his point for him (referencing
your previous
>>conversation with Mr. Sandor). A funny game.
>
>That was not my intention. Both seem to be based on misunderstanding
on my
>part.
>For that I apologise.
>
No need to apologize.
>I don't like wasting time, and it seems that this is exactly what I
have done
>here. But then again, maybe this discussion has clarified some points
of
>interest for others on this list.
>
>>
>I would be happy to discuss this by telephone if you want to
discuss
>further. If
>so, please Email me a range of times it would be best to call,
bearing in
>mind I
>live in Sydney, Australia. Telephone rates are very reasonable here
at the
>moment thanks to the internet.
>
>A 5/10 minute phone call could have saved me a few hours of precious
time in
>this instance.
The 12 hour time difference would seem prohibitive, but we can discuss
it
in the future if the need arises. I am not much of a talker, and I
prefer
the convenience of email. I know that communication gets confused
sometimes, but I do find that it is often because the nature of the
medium
makes people read too fast and skip large, important pieces of
information.
Similar things happen on the writing end also.
Dustin
>
>Ron Van Haarlem
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
>>"...for pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the
lust of
>>result, is in every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel
Legis
>>
>>
>>
Dustin W. Carr, Maker of small things
"...for pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust
of
result, is in every way perfect." - Liber Al Vel Legis
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 23 May 1998 15:26:47
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
"TROM-L"
<tro...@newciv.org>, "Dustin W. Carr"
<d...@cornell.edu>
>I understand. I think his statement is out of balance, but
still has its
>wisdom.
>
>I have to believe that he meant it in the most positive way, while at
the
>same time he fully expected it to be applied in the most negative
way.
>
>Let me say it one more way. The true test of a being is its
knowledge and
>understanding of the infinite possibility of every action and every
moment.
Sounds good to me. In the context of the discussion, this is a very
nice
way of
putting it.
>I was CoS staff for 5 months, and I assure you that everything bad
that you
>hear is probably true.
At one stage I walked into a SeaOrg and asked to try out some auditing.
After
filling out the usual documentation and paying a sum of money, I was
informed
that I was an illegal PC because I was doing a meditation technique,
and
because
I had spent time (13 years) as an Air force officer. It seems they
were/are
paranoid. Anyhow, I even got my money back, which as I read on the
internet, is
a minor miracle! :-)
Later I discovered the freezone and was extremely relieved that I did not
get
involved with COS, after reading all those personal accounts on the
net.
There is so much great tech available on the net now, like TROM and
Pilot's
Self
clearing manual, not to mention the variety of clearing practicioners,
that I
don't see how anyone would need to go to the church these days.
>No need to apologize.
Thanks.
>The 12 hour time difference would seem prohibitive, but we can
discuss it
>in the future if the need arises. I am not much of a talker,
and I prefer
>the convenience of email. I know that communication gets
confused
>sometimes, but I do find that it is often because the nature of the
medium
>makes people read too fast and skip large, important pieces of
information.
>Similar things happen on the writing end also.
Sure, I agree. In this instance, I just wanted to resolve the ARCX
quickly.
Ron
>
>Dustin
Subject:
RE: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sun, 24 May 1998 16:33:43
-0700
From:
"Maximilian J.
Sandor" <m...@transmillennium.net>
To:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>, <tro...@newciv.org>
At 01:59 PM 5/25/98 +1000, RVH wrote:
>Dear MX,
>
>This is the extract from the post that I had a problem with.
..
(quote followed)
Aaah! I was assuming that the goal already existed!
Once a goal is there, it is pointless to second-guess
the outcome by speculating about it because, sooner or
later, one will be there and will see it oneself.
Let's say you make yourself the goal to climb a rock.
Once you have that goal and you started climbing,
it distracting, if not dangerous in this case, to
think about it how the view will be on top of the
rock. It is vital to concentrate on the process (the
climbing in this case). The view from the top will
happen once one is there.
Hope this clarifies my thoughts.
Happy trommin'
Max
Subject:
RE: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 25 May 1998 13:59:43
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
<tro...@newciv.org>
Dear MX,
This is the extract from the post that I had a problem with. It sounds to
me
like you were saying we should not have a goal of enlightenment. While
I
agree that technically such a goal could prevent the actual attainment
of
that state, due to the underlying postulate that we are NOT enlightened,
my
point was, if we did not have such a goal we would not be interested
in
processing/meditation etc. Sounds like a catch 22 to me. I see no
problem
having such a goal until very late in the process, when it would
probably
become easier and easier to not have. Just my opinion FWIW.
rvh
>Why is that people get so fixated on this nirvaana thing (either
positive
>or negative)?
>
>Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
>
>Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You know
where
>you are when you're there, never before...
>and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
>believe it or not ;-)
>
>Max
>
Subject:
RE: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Mon, 25 May 1998 22:18:19
+-300
From:
Nori Avidan
<nor...@netvision.net.il>
To:
"'TROM-L'"
<tro...@newciv.org>
Dear Trommers,
For a while now, I'm reading with interest the comments of some of
us
regarding the legitimacy
of having a goal of "reaching Nirvana" .
At least for me, this state as I interpret it , is more like a must than
a
goal. I mean that it
is lying mostly in the subconscious level and therefore I'm not
considering
it a goal at all.
One analogy which may describe my feelings towards "Nirvana" is
about a
very thirsty man
walking in the desert desperately searching for water.
Therefore, I don't think that the proper term to define "finding
water" in
this context
would be a goal, but rather a very basic necessity.
Thus, from my point of view, all the discussion around this subject
is
actually pointless.
But then again, it's only my viewpoint : -)
----------
*
* Dear MX,
*
* This is the extract from the post that I had a problem with. It
sounds
to me
* like you were saying we should not have a goal of enlightenment.
While I
* agree that technically such a goal could prevent the actual
attainment of
* that state, due to the underlying postulate that we are NOT
enlightened, my
* point was, if we did not have such a goal we would not be
interested in
* processing/meditation etc. Sounds like a catch 22 to me. I see no
problem
* having such a goal until very late in the process, when it would
probably
* become easier and easier to not have. Just my opinion FWIW.
*
* rvh
*
*
* >Why is that people get so fixated on this nirvaana thing
(either positive
* >or negative)?
* >
* >Why not just go along with the process? (pun intended).
* >
* >Extrapolation of process results is a terrible illusion. You
know where
* >you are when you're there, never before...
* >and, lo and behold, there is always something else around the
corner,
* >believe it or not ;-)
* >
* >Max
* >
*
*
Subject:
Re: Dennis and level 5
Date:
Sat, 30 May 1998 19:20:19
+1000
From:
"RVH"
<r...@ozemail.com.au>
To:
"TROM-L"
<tro...@newciv.org>, "Maximilian J. Sandor"
<m...@transmillennium.net>
>>Dear MX,
>>
>>This is the extract from the post that I had a problem with.
>..
>(quote followed)
>
>Aaah! I was assuming that the goal already existed!
>
>Once a goal is there, it is pointless to second-guess
>the outcome by speculating about it because, sooner or
>later, one will be there and will see it oneself.
>
>Let's say you make yourself the goal to climb a rock.
>Once you have that goal and you started climbing,
>it distracting, if not dangerous in this case, to
>think about it how the view will be on top of the
>rock. It is vital to concentrate on the process (the
>climbing in this case). The view from the top will
>happen once one is there.
>
>Hope this clarifies my thoughts.
Perfectly. Thanks for your reply, and sorry about the comm lag, I've
been
away.
Ron Van Haarlem
>
>Happy trommin'
>
>Max
Subject:
Re:Dennis and level 5
Date:
Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:00:00
-0700
From:
"MICHAEL W.
BONNYCASTLE" <bcas...@soca.com>
To:
tro...@newciv.org
Dear Tromsters,
I have recently had excellant results on Trom consciously
practicing
as Dustin Carr suggests and that is not 'lusting for result'. This
improves a good deal with practice. With that point of view, the
idea
of achieving Nirvana rather naturally is laid aside. It seems
something
of a button word anyway, inspiring 'lustful', compulsory feelings
when
it comes to self-betterment excercises.
Michael Bonnycastle
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
i...@post8.tele.dk
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l,
previous-life-scio and IVy lists
***************
Replies, comments, to the list, send to tro...@newciv.org
***************
--
Antony A Phillips ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
