I’m sorry but any physical object doesn’t explain its own existence. It requires a source outside of itself in order to explain it. Thus anything complex requires intelligence behind it.

I just wanted to wrap this and the anything but boring tempest of information flying around this impossible universe, in to as neat an envelope as possible..

This helps me more than anything, put it into perspective as I write it down..

I just wanted to say I was a bit lost as to your credibility about seeming to not know and had read “all” of blavatsky, yet a main concept of what blavatsky wrote quite flagrantry about with her allies to Luciferian doctrine and her understanding of 2 doctrines, was dissapointing.

The doctrine of the eye, crafted most publicly workable, usable, accessable, however “honestly” in the form of scientology today. The doctrine of the heart.. Christ consciousness, abrahamic source faith… Most current in x today.
Buddhism. Traditional mother mahayana buddhism (according to blavatsky), seems to only describle to me characteristics of delaying nirvana, for selfless service, (which by the way nirvana is apparently I’ll defined today as inclusive of considering a rebirth process to arrive at nirvana) but could shed light on Hubbard taking the doctrine of the eye to the extreme; even if “god” doesn’t exist, the equivalent would be a nirvana type definition. So as to why Hubbard has been allowed to, if he is matreya Advent, has me conclude that original Buddhism was as aptly as it was in both, embrasive of the 2 doctrines of heart and eye.
Making him unique no doubt. Which may be why you Revere him so much.. One that could arrive at the logic of science of eye, without neglecting the love of the heart.
I really appreciate that.

Side note:
I wasn’t clear, whether you meant there is no mind in Buddhism meaning: it does not consider the mind as a thing? or that it does not cover the mind? I think the latter of course.

I think what may have occurred is that, the Buddha if returned today as lrh, is hard left, eye doctrine..
Fortunately a seperate heart doctrine was birthed at this new age too..

As for these mahatma letters, and this alledged photo of hpb with ascended masters, what stands out to me is the shere life time devotion volume of the content, and its seeming coherent, very high intellectual quality..
Not to mention their easily resembling something like a scientology in nature science, intergalactic.. and higher eye wisdom; whether they contained much heart doctrine, considering their supposed terminal, perhaps not so much. It’s hard to say, their tone was awfully crowleyan.

So with this in mind, I think scientology, for the ultimate purpose of our age, for the millennium at least, is a complete (enough) eye philosophy, and Lucifer’s bridge may be technically part of a complete system of a hard left doctrine codified into a workable science to get man as high as, theologically speaking, the level of servant of submost high angel, with a will that has been deteriorated through luciferian control, despite having “the knowledge”..

Hence why I think a bridge from this realatively high level, “total freedom”, to nirvana or heart doctrine (roughly speaking), will not only be difficult if not impossible; depending on how far removed from the purpose, heading along the sides of the north, having travelled in that direction.
If, figuratively speaking, it travels parallel to the sides of the north (god), then theoretically, it doesn’t look like it would be too removed from bridging accross to god. However that would occur..
Perhaps as, this age, both doctrines are set up as complete, it’s not that science could not potentially develop a way to better harmonize the science with heart, like Buddhism. This though on a wide scale level, I believe is prophesied to occur in about 800 or so years (complete peace on Earth). Does not mean this as a development could be in place sooner rather than later. Or perhaps taking this “total freedom” knowledge, awareness and abilities and simply walking over to the heart doctrine, may or not be so feasible, from habbit and indoctrination. Hence the importance of a template, I think any heart soul, with a hunger for knowledge would utilize; or their wisdom of heart will protect them up the bridge, despite other modes of mediumship and mystic ability scientology does not cover: communication with masters, angels etc.
Which makes me think he rubbished the chakral system, as that would involve the heart..
Doesn’t make scientology rubbish, just hard left. A necessary component to marry with hard right. Knowledge was, I believe supposed to be obtained, before we could properly partake again of the tree of life; though I’m recalling heart is primary somehow. But whether incarnated or in spirit, souls will obtain knowledge or education, before the fullness of love can be experienced and then partake of that fullness, the tree of life. Prior is just a reduced version of love/life
As far as cross bridge ramifications go.

Not that scientology doesn’t have a thin vaneer of love, or “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof” (Bible).

Let me know what you think.

I think I’m pretty much done, I just needed to assimilate this new perspective.
I believe it helped me greatly. I feel I understand it much better.

I would like to hear any argument or sincere disagreeance, or just a response at least.

Cheers

A

Funny that her teachings coincide with x, the father of the new age who was born before her, and unvieled himself right in and around about the time she died; and could almost be a replication of source for her theories and philosophies, for her to advance upon.
Christ and Lucifer teaming up again..?
Isn’t that cute..

I wonder who these mystics/masters she bumped into were?

I am absolutely in love with the cover of her 1″888″ (8-8008) book – the secret doctrine. Reminds me of Albert pikes “secret doctrine”, which, oh what do you know, happens to be Lucifer allied..

This is getting boring now..

Sorry, mother of the new age..
I can see why Crowley, and Hubbard liked Buddhism.. this is a compliment.
I see that Helena was the joseph smith of Christianity, as she was for Buddhism – to herald in a new Buddhist era – hint hint..

Your piercing girl helena seems to do nothing but praise Lucifer, as separate to Satan (which is arguable but I’ve had similar computations – I have read some Helena), attributing to almost exactly my thoughts on the matter… along with connecting Lucifer and Christ, in some way connecting to God’s will.

I don’t see your argument.
I wasn’t sure whether or how relevant this predecessor of a guru was going to be in this equation but you couldn’t have referred me to a better one, as she does nothing but support, with her Buddhist influences too, lrh as Buddha’s inescapable return.

The Pali collection looks big..
Still know shit about Buddhism..
Don’t mean to be invalidating, but we are having a straight discussion.
Theosophical society could be useful.. I have thought.

This is all my own words; not trying to use jargin that I probably wouldn’t fully understand.

It is intriguing to have stumbled on a publisher of that book which upon reading the main blasphemies, it seems were summarized, further reinforced other things I have read and given me a great insight as to what Hubbard is exactly upto with that and how it fits into the greater scheme and power structures; also a greater conviction that what I have read was ot-8 data. I happened to have slipped this out (that I read ot-8 data online) in a has (hubbard audacious secretary) ethics interview a couple weeks back. Do you know the alteration
of the ot-8 briefing which I believe the book stated had been changed to cater to shocked parishioners?
It would be doing me a favor if you knew and told me that..
Buddha is not in the Bible as far as I know.. (aside from whatever of his priciples Christ I’m sure greatfully and very usefully embodied) however as you say, the savior that you referred to, then seemingly conflicting, said there was no savior in Buddhist literature.. There very much is Buddhist scripture that speaks of his “return”. Now the return of any past wisdom teacher, has generally always referred to the attributes and characteristics of the person’s role, not the return of the person themselves.
Very good, this 9th kingdom (because it’s characterized by and represented in many ways by the number 9) source affirms the impossibility of reincarnation, aside from the rare case (generally speaking) and regards any cyclic return of such manifestations as I forementioned. Incarnation on other planets/worlds was mentioned which I am still investigating.
I have long disagreed with Hubbard’s “past lives” even though technically there are past lives; there is a defined whole track.. individually no, but collective, universal consciousness if one taps into it, can subjectively experience “other people’s lives” in their mind/somatic experience (is what I have extrapolated). Christ certainly did it. Many Yogi’s connect with it. But yes, no sneaky alterior motive “past lives”. So my point about Buddha’s “return”..in your literature.. It’s quite clear. The second coming in the Bible referrs to the manifestation of the awaited one pertaining to most if not all main world religions. Buddhism, even from this alledged already occurred second coming source, which I will call x, affirms this reality, and has the recognition of Buddha as a manifestation who taught a way to the divine. I acknowledge that reality. There is but an exception of entering question as to whether Buddha can be grouped into the abrahamic prophecies.. despite many agreeing he is included. I believe it is officially inconcluded to date.
I don’t know, and see it could be either Hubbard – which funnily enough and more the probably unrelative and unsubstancial to point out as any type of evidence – you can make Buddha out of those letters.
If you have not sourced the
Buddhist scriptures mentioned in the hymn of asia and checked them against validity and sincere interpretation, you haven’t really considered, one of the 2 most likely and obvious returns of Buddha… Right in your scripture..
Prophetically the time has already passed for his arrival. It’s realistically, Ron, or x. I don’t know anywhere where I’ve read that says Buddha was perfect; he certainly started out in a lavish, paragonian decadence, to establish his domain or field of work – the great work..? (the physical plane – which lead to spiritual plane), if that’s anything to correlate to Rolex Kool Ron, among this Mara impermanence factor, as impermanent as something like scientology is.
As much as Crowley and Hubbard “used” Buddhism: the idea that “Satan” just changes or inverts what “god” already placed in existence, is not out of the question here.
Still though..
One Buddhist scripture says his hair shall be as fire on his head (red or gold); however that is to be interpreted. Another says he will rise in the West and bring teachings from the east, or something to that effect; however that is to be interpreted. This was to occur 2500 years after the beginning of the Buddha’s dispensation. Do the math. You will obviously need to run over these yourself.
Yes I agree, pedistooling the teacher, as apposed to the application of the teachings; the teachings under the exoteric cloak, which more than
often refer to our internal world, is to be refrained. Considering the age we are in, the spiritual messages are also inclusive of helping the physical/societal world structure, to such a degree of focus, where a kingdom of heaven on Earth as it could be called, among paradise, eutopia etc. can come about. Outer world reflects inner (relatively speaking). This does and is not supposed to undermine internal (spiritual) ascension (meditation) or 9th kingdom (divine) work, which is perhaps primary.
I think whether it “fits” with Buddhism or not, a science of the mind, ideally, that is harmonized and not tweaked for evil purposes (which are ever increasing up that bridge) is however much partnering with divine (preciding) decrees, necessary to create a “kingdom of heaven” on Earth. The “insanity” will not permit it. It’s not to say that scientology is the end all of course. I think that as arrogant and vain as Hubbard is (his character), his bridge “will” bridge a much higher plato.. at a much higher price.. but such is the greed of the devil and intent of a “prosperous” society. Refining the satanic connotations, and hopefully reducing the costs, perhaps bypassing or augmenting the ot levels “demonology” might be in order.
If one considers that harmony of science, philosophy and religion to be a catalyst to divinity is a worthy endeavor, and then looking around for a source on the mind, we think it vain to expect some other cheeky Maverick to come along and whip up a sufficient batch (of data on it).
Ok so if Buddha didn’t touch the mind, then Ron is whether we like it or not, in new territory, necessary territory.
If 7 is Crowley, 8 Lron, 9 is subsequently higher..(arbitraririly speaking).. Embracing 9 (divinity) can and will of course be power to you, power to me, but to not sound indoctrinated: a gradient level knowledge (you find, technically, most of the time, Ron doesn’t actually lie, so it can generally be bent to the direction of the individual, if their will is strong enough to not be enticed to his wicked connotations) and embodiment will help us fathom divinity so much more; so long as we cut the fat off, which is inevitably going to enter into a megalomanic agenda, like Lucifer.
It (scientology) may need to be done away with completely, but I think that will be centuries before that happens. A science of the mind nonetheless is necessary.
Correct I have not yet read blavatski or Pali. How valid their contributions will be in changing what I have asserted, I doubt little. Not that I won’t get what is important from them, thanks.
(never heard of the Pali canon).

Hi,
You have put together a lot of information about Buddhism and it seems you are trying to fit Buddha into the Bible. While some of your analogies are compelling, it is obvious that you have not read Blavatsky or the Pali Canon. My wife and I have read most of it and the important parts in Pali. Buddhism really stands on its own. You get a lot of junk translated in the Western World. The main question you suggest is that the Buddha might be Lucifer. You also suggest that enlightenment is related to this star of wisdom. Mara is sort of our Satan and he or she is impermanent. In fact, the job rotates during time. Anyone could have been Mara. Past lives for the average person, however, are completely misunderstood. In fact, in my practice, we do not consider that Buddha ever even mentioned past lives. This data was added by Hindus. Most Buddhists believe that the Pali Canon was memorized and then written down 600 years later. A lot of data was added.
Hubbard and Blavatsky both denied Nirvana but for different reasons. It is a confusion in the West. Buddhist literature speaks of a Creator God and a savior. We do not know if this is authentic. However, the story of a savior is common. In Buddhism there is only meditation. There is no savior. Buddha said all that one needs is contained in the body. There is also no mind in Buddhism. That is a Western concept.
I appreciate your desire to fit all of it together. Hubbard tried but failed

Very condensed wisdom there.
And so simple, that if someone is in need of hearing it, It’s too late.

My questions to you were more, riddles for anyone curious, that I feel I have to some small degree discovered the answers to, if you didn’t already pick that up.
Is that an ot student briefing? Ot-8? I know he mentions Antichrist/lucifer stuff in that, minus politician data..
It’s not a bad theory, (to take your savior augmentation way too seriously) if it is true or he believes this incarnation to a politician complex, why would he not want to occupy the body of the false Messiah too (which is in the “illuminati” card game line up of events to expect on their Todo list – along with this ? encounter – which has been pretty reliable since 1995 when they were created)? Then again, this “Messiah” to be congruent would seem to need to form a loop back to lrh (as a Trinity would), because I think if a false savior did come (with new teachings), then that would be at odds perhaps with his already established teachings in scientology as lrh already projecting a sort of savior of mankind figure/return of Buddha that denies nirvana (whatever that’s about).
Seeing as according to baconian philosophy and the good old Bible flowing with wisdom and consealment, it looks to me that Scientology will be the 8th kingdom of the world; which will overthrow this totallitarian establishment to soon be in full swing as 7th kingdom power, but this nearing 7th won’t last long. Along this line, the 9th is already on the scene and growing, slowly. The Mormon religion I observed was instrumental in heralding this 9th in, even if still in embryo or fetus on the earth (not the Mormon religion to be clear), (hence Mormon scripture insights relevant for the age). I’m only being cryptic to withhold things you may have no interest in, trying to stay on topic.
It says that the 8th kingdom is of the 7th, which would very much connect the association of Crowley’s thelemic law being “inseminated” into our society now, and lrh’s strong connection and in ways, advancement somewhat of thelema (if you can see the numerological patterns & resemblance in both their age pioneering philosophies).
Buddhism has to be one of those religions i’ve barely looked into. Perhaps investigating scientology has indoctrinated me to believe he is, in some bad horror movie out of this “golden age of grotesque”, the return spoken of in the Buddhist scripture vs hymn of asia. I’ve checked the prophecies out, and compared them word for word. They can and do in theory check out; with regard to time, and characteristic descriptions.
Some say that this refers to the 9th kingdom thief in the night (symbolic Bible reference for second coming); considerable, in that chronologically they aren’t far apart in their conception.
In many ways lrong’s scientific (on this physical plane of semi-full raging, evolved, satanic strength of survival – as ugly as that sentence made sense) system seems to better suit the succession of Buddha’s methods, that didn’t persay refer to a personal god and to some degree have methodical practices to reach higher states of existence/consciousness like scientology is conveyed to.
Which brings to question whether Kundalini yoga/Christ consciousness or some such thing isn’t the “fast track” out of here. If what we’re trying to do is escape this existence.
Anyway, this non nirvana thing & chakra model degradation lrh spat on a page though, is seeming a bit luciferian, despite Buddha potentially being boxed into this luciferian archetype, if this short video I’ll link at the bottom i found is anything to note as being plausible. Considering that lucifer may not be all that bad (quite necessary to “bridge” humanity to a higher state). Then there is just bridging that Gap, however far removed from the goal it is or has become. I don’t know nearly enough, personally, about Buddhism to make an informed comparison.
I’m sure Hubbard spoke about these things, certainly not artful, careful or in depth enough for those that haven’t lazily/blindly and fanatically put their whole trust in man & succumbed to being recreated into a robot in Ron’s image, completely subservient to “his” will.
It’s fucken sickening.
Apart from that, what I have observed of diabetics & scientology and applied, hopefully retaining my humanity, is “very” useful on this plane. A mind science would be right.. an actual embracing science of mind.. which is “Satan’s” territory anyway, biblically and whateverelseally I’m sure has evidenced the mind is something to be transcended, not by avoiding it, but confronting it, and mastering/dominating it.
If earth mirrors heaven, useful here, could it not then translate to being useful in the spirit world – as above so below. Confusing..
I will have a browse at your book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwhLwiaoWdI&t=27s

Hubbard wrote in his Student Briefing of June 1980 about the politician and the anti-Christ. I took liberty in calling him the savior. You can check out my book “Lucifer’s Bridge” by George M. Witek, my alias. You are one of the few to understand Lucifer as the morning star. I am not familiar with the Mormon Bible. Hubbard does speak carefully. I would not call it artfully. Personally, I am Buddhist and do not follow Biblical scripture. Thus I am not qualified to answer some of your questions.