Back to the list

Cosmic History 24 (author: Pilot - universe def.)

The first part of the Pilot's Cosmic History. Includes material not posted earlier in this series of repostings.. 1. INTRODUCTION 2. IN THE BEGINNING 3. THE DANCE OF CREATION 4. THE WOMB

From: Ant Phillips
Subject: [CosmicHistory] Cosmic History 24 (author: Pilot - universe def. &

[Coming to you via the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
[[First sent 24th March 2011]]

Dear Cosmic Historian,

Definition of terms is important. Relevant when some one talks about
"another dimension". As I understand it, they mean another universe,
not a part of this universe "to the left" on the fourth dimension,
and I wanted to repeat the Pilot's definition of a universe which is
the way I use it. When I looked to find the Pilot's definition I
came across a part of Cosmic History which I have not included in the
Cosmic History series before (and no one has commented on that
lack). In the earlier times when I read Cosmic History, I found this
bit confusing (to my simple mind - I don't have a university
education), I classified it as Pilot "philosophical figure figure"
(P-ph-f-f), and I skipped it He is reasoning things out, and I have
difficulty following his reasoning, and I also feel he is talking of
times before reason and logic were postulated. Things were
postulated, and one did not reason whether they were reasonable to
postulate. My problems with some of the following philosophic
figure-figure, might arise from the fact that early on (in my Scn
career) I had to learn the Scientology Axioms by heart. If you have
done that, or demonstrated them in clay, you might share my feelings
about the Pilot's philosophical figure figure :-)

However, belatedly, I send it here - most important in my mind the
definition of universe near the beginning.

All best wishes,

P.S. You note that he writes:
If we have indeed fallen from a godlike state
and I protest the idea strongly. I have not fallen from a god like state - I have not known the vast majority of my infinite god like powers in order to have a game/occupation (I think).
There: does not that sound like I need to have grade four run on me :-)




We have come down through a long series of universes. All of the more
advanced sources seem to be aware of this, most notably the Tibetan
scriptures and L. Ron Hubbard's investigations of 1952. However, no
one has ever provided a detailed description of the sequence or
characteristics of these universes. If we have indeed fallen from a
godlike state, then the universes themselves must follow some sort of
a dwindling progression and the mechanics of that decay must reflect,
on the whole, how we have come to be in the state that we are in.

This document will attempt to sketch out the broad outlines and
provide a context which will hopefully support further research. I
cannot guarantee that all the information given here is exactly
correct. The best I can do is to say that I think it comes reasonably
close. But of one thing I am certain, the picture can be no less
complex than that presented here. If I have erred, it is on the side
of missing things rather than putting too much there. Nothing less
would serve to explain the degree to which we have fallen.

Before embarking on an actual discussion of the history, it is
important to define my usage of the word "universe" because it is
used in many sloppy ways in the field of metaphysics.

By universe, I mean a complete system of space and time. And for this
discussion, I mean specifically those large agreed upon universes in
which we all have lived.

There is not a one to one mapping between the points in space within
one universe and those in another. A universe can have more than one
3 dimensional plane and can also have other 3 dimensional spaces
(bubbles or pockets) tied to it. These are all considered to be part
of the same universe because there is a mapping of points and there
is a correspondence of time and there is a carry over of physical
laws. But truly separate universes do not tie together in a direct
manner and do not have identical laws. Note that you can setup
transfer points between separate universes, but these are arbitrary
points linked together without any correlation.

The current universe is one of very strict physical laws and is best
characterized as a highly mechanical MEST (Matter/ Energy/ Space/
Time) oriented creation. The immediately preceding universe was one
of Magic where physical laws were not quite as solid. Just as the
literature of science fiction hints at the flavor of our life in this
universe, the literature of fantasy hints at the nature of the Magic
universe. But even the magic universe was quite physical and highly
structured in its own context. As we work backwards from this
universe, we see that each preceding universe was slightly less solid
and more conducive to thought until we reach the earliest ones where
the Thetan (Spirit / that which thinks) is senior and the physical
aspects are trivial things that can be modified by the merest whim.

Let us now go all the way back and set the stage for the entire
procession of universes.


Before anything exists, there can only be nothing, But the
preternatural nothingness must have a potential, and that potential
must be infinite because an infinity of creations has descended from
it. If there had been no potential, then we would not exist, and if
the potential had been limited, we would have ground to a halt long ago.

The nothingness exists before all space and time, therefore it is
unchanging and may be described as static.

Matter and energy and any other possible forms can only exist within
space and time and therefore are second order creations. Counting and
the quantification of things are dependent on the existence of things
which can be counted, therefore all mathematics and the very concept
of quantification is a second order creation. And so the nothingness
is above the concept of quantification and is neither few nor many,
neither zero nor infinite, it is literally beyond counting.

The nothingness has the potential for thought, but there is nothing
to think about until something is created, therefore, the first
thought and the first creation must be one and the same, for
something must be conceived of to exist. Therefore, the process of
thought in its ultimate form, is the process of creation.

Of the four basic components of this universe, namely Matter, Energy,
Space, and Time, only Space can be conceived of without reference to
any of the other factors. Therefore, the first creation must be space
rather than matter, energy, or time.


But the basic life static which is the unchanging nothingness is
senior to space time and therefore cannot be affected by this
separation. It is not made less by it, and therefore it may again
separate. And from the view of the basic nothingness, the separations
cannot be before or after each other because it is indeed timeless,
but from the lesser view of that which is separated, the separated
almost statics can conceive that one separated before another and
therefore we have time.

And the lesser near-statics are also nothingness with the potential
for infinite creation, but they have the experience of time and
therefore the experience of what they have created.

Once those who can conceive are separated from the basic nothingness,
they then proceed to apply further separations to bring about the
creation of existence. A positive and a negative can be pulled out of
nothing and the net equation remains the same. 1 - 1 = 0 = 2 - 2 = 0
= 256 - 256 etc. The only difference between these is consideration
and consideration is the product of thought. Infinite matter and
energy may therefore be generated by thought alone.


The interposition of distance is necessary for viewing or perceiving anything.

The interposition of time is necessary for emotion. There is no loss
without time, nor is there feeling.

The interposition of identity is necessary for consideration. Without
identity, all thought is one which is a passive condition of cosmic
allness. Therefore, to think about or consider thought, it is
necessary to introduce at least a slight separation from all thought
and therefor it is necessary to be an individual to some slight
degree. Therefore, identity is necessary for self awareness.
Furthermore, the Zero-Infinite Life Static is not a self aware unit,
instead it is the sum total of all awareness that is or that might be
(or might have been). Therefore, it does not judge or intervene, it just IS.


Since the basic nothingness is beyond all limitations of time and
space, it may be considered as infinite and eternal from our
time/space limited perspective. By its very nature, it will always
exceed the highest orders of infinite creation that have been
achieved and therefore will always demand the creation of even
further infinities of somethingness to balance the nothingness.
Therefore, the scope of creation is limitless and eternal. Since the
nothingness is always with us, we do not lack for it. Our only lack
is for the somethingnesses (those things which are not nothing) which
will always fall short of completely balancing the nothingness.

The self aware near-statics which we will call Thetans (thought
units) fulfill themselves by an ongoing process of creation. Only
when this creative process is blocked or stifled do they become miserable.

Furthermore, the separation itself is only a matter of consideration.
The thought beings are still part of the original static and
therefore have no need to rejoin it since they never really left it
in the first place. The ultimate state of these beings is to be an
operating manifestation of the ultimate static and project an
infinity of creation to balance the nothingness. All lesser states
are therefore at least slightly unpleasant but are maintained in the
hope of future creation.


At the highest levels, the self-aware life statics participate in a
dance of infinite creation. Here, everything that can be conceived of
is created, exchanged, and experienced. Here we have an infinity of
universes in constant flux, varying even in the number of dimensions
used by each universe. At this level, the individual is himself near
infinite, creating and experiencing multiple universes simultaneously
and projecting an infinity of personalities, and yet the individual
is still individual and separate and distinct from the other
individuals who also participate in the dance of creation. And the
flux between these individuals is the dance and is the infinity of creation.

This level is the co-existence of static and here each individual is,
to all intents and purposes, God. And the only compelling purpose of
it all is to continue to add to the richness of creation. And this
might well be termed divine and infinite bliss. It is a nirvana, but
a nirvana of infinite somethingness rather than nothingness.

But given an infinity of infinities to fill, it becomes mandatory to
leave no stone unturned in the search for yet more new and varied
creations. In pursuit of this, there is the idea that a new being,
freshly separated from the zero-infinite life static, might conceive
of new systems of creation, different from those which are already in
existence. And so new beings were indeed separated out and did add
greatly to the richness of creation.

But the most original creations would stem from beings who were
isolated from the existing order and were not tainted by exposure to
what the older beings had created. And so there is the concept of
isolating a new crowd of individuals within a sort of womb where they
can develop on their own.

We are now in such a womb, and the entire series of universes that we
have built and inhabited are in this womb. When we have finished our
development, we will exit the womb and carry our new systems of
creation with us into the dance and begin an infinitely interesting
exchange of mockups with the older beings. And someday, eons hence,
when we have milked dry every variation of our own systems, and the
systems of the older beings, and the endless variations of
intermixing the systems, then we will eagerly await the birth of yet
another crop of new beings who will bring forth their own set of wonders.

No matter how miserable you might be today, the duration of the
misery is short in comparison with eternal bliss. When you have
achieved the ultimate godlike state, you will consider the pains of
birth a small price to have paid for it.


How is it possible to enclose a group of godlike beings and prevent
them from experiencing the vast and interesting body of existing
creations? How can you control someone whose merest whim has the
power to create and destroy universes?

Initially, since you are dealing with innocent new beings, you can
distract them with an interesting object and channel their attention
in the direction that you desire. But this does not work for very
long, and soon they will begin to look around and be attracted by the
fascinating works of the older beings. And with that, the freshness
of new unbiased creation would be lost. So something further is needed.

But a god can only trap or limit himself, and at most, he can be
aided by the deception and trickery of others. But even in this, the
older beings must not be directly involved or they will eventually
contaminate the new crowd.

And so the new group of beings must be tricked into conflict among
themselves and into building traps for each other. And each one is
trapped, not so much by the traps that others laid for him, but by
the traps that he laid for others for sooner or later, he will forget
one of his own traps and fall into it by mistake.

The general plan is that the new beings will dig themselves into a
trap of their own devising. And will sink deeper and deeper into it
and eventually will become the effect of their own creation and even
forget who they are and how they built the trap in the first place.
But in so doing, they will evolve a new system of creation which will
be the anatomy of the trap. And eventually, they will begin to dig
themselves out, which will require regaining control over the
entirety of their creations.

We lie now at the bottom of such a trap, and it might seem that we
could never create even a single atom of the physical universe around
us. But these abilities will return as we dig ourselves out. And when
we exit the womb, each of us will not only have all of the rich and
interesting details of Earth at our fingertips, but we will also have
the details of the Star Wars like physical universe and the Magic
universe, and the numerous universes that came before. We will bring
all of this out into the greater society of beings and our rewards
will be great. It has been a hard road and will continue to be rough
for awhile, but it has worked before and it is the only way to
develop in true isolation.

And the older beings will not and cannot intervene. We must dig
ourselves out, for it is this which will give us the power over these
creations of ours. If the older beings were to step in and rescue us,
so to speak, by pulling us out of this trap, they would be stealing
from us our richly deserved reward. These are our creations and it is
for us to take command over them.

We have been totally isolated for a long time. There was only one
external intervention at the very beginning. This was the absolute
minimum possible and there have been no others although we have
frequently pretended to each other that we were older or higher
beings and have even sometimes imitated the actual intervention with
the intent of bedeviling and tricking each other.

This one and only bit of external interference consisted of
presenting us with a single ultra-complex object which would
prejudice us towards conflict and entrapment. This object was the
Jewel of Knowledge.


This is the only creation we have ever

CosmicHistory mailing list


Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:01:52 +0200

From: Ant Phillips
Subject: Re: [CosmicHistory] Possible Magic Universe Experience

[Coming to you via the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
Dear Cosmic Historian,

At 14:52 23-03-2011, Ant Phillips wrote (relaying a message from Alan Entwistle) 

Hi Ant,
 the idea that after death we may
enter a part of the "magic Universe" seems to
parallel some of my own experiences
   As an experiment some ten years ago now, i
underwent a deep hypnotic regression delivered by
a friend of mine, who was not a Scientologist,
and really
It does however seem to relate to the
"Magic Universe" or the mythical "Celtic and
Classical Otherworlds" also that which we term "Fearie."

   The interesting thing is though that this
particular "Magic Universe" was not something I
had viewed as past track but exists in present
time (hence my earlier referral to it still being
populated). It also points to the existence of
astral planes or levels and planes that are
parallel to this one, an area not covered well in Scientology.

[In getting permission to post his letter I offered Alan the choice of being anonymous, which he later felt was unnecessary]

I found Alan's contribution most interesting.

From what he wrote, and seemed to imply, he met someone with a "meat" body, a body with organs, which presumably grew (or rather had grown). My understanding (correct me if you know better :-) ) is that in the magic universe, everything was created by straight postulate, and not by growing in the way human bodies do. I did a certain amount of "thinking" (or is it better to say "meditating") on this.

Which "caused me" to reissue the Pilot's definition of a universe, which is the one I use and have used.

And this "caused me" (you can see how "effect" I am becoming :-)), remembering my "revelation" about my experiencing how exuberant* the Magic universe population was at the thought of creating a universe were things grew, developed, evolved, with a far higher degree of randomity than just postulating them into existence, to think that possibly more than one universe was created at that time, our present universe being one of two or more created, and Alan visited another one.

The Pilot also talks about there being pocket universes, in this one, and Michael Newton, in his books, does give an instance or so of life on other planets, apparently in this universe. Possibilities are vast.

We are going on to the Pilot's reset time next week (well, tomorrow) were we have a rare contribution from a list member (from a few years back), and I would invite other list members to write in if they have an experience concerning what we talk about here. And of course if you have a suggestion. (Don't be shy!! )

2 a : joyously unrestrained and enthusiastic (~ praise) (an ~ personality) 

All best wishes,


PS: I got a private mail concerning my use of the word complexity (I think I used it with regard to the number of different woodpecker species there are, as a (minor) example of the enormous complexity on this planet, and the physical universe). The write regarded the word complexity as negative, and preferred the word variety.

I have never felt the word complexity contained a negative bias - it could be negative or positive, and I do not think that variety (in my experience) properly expresses what I had in mind - but perhaps we are getting into philosophical fiddle-faddle (or figure figure) :-)

And now duck your head - I'm going to throw the dictionary at you :-)

------   [[whoops - the black diamonds with a question mark are an error - I shall possibly remove the whole thing  - is it is not so relevant[[


com��plex�i�ty \k m-'plek-s -t , k�m-\ n, pl -ties (1661)
1 : something complex
2 : the quality or state of being complex

1com�plex \'k�m-"pleks\ n [LL complexus totality, fr. L, embrace, fr. complecti] (1643)
1 : a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts �a ~ of welfare programs� �the military-industrial ~�
2 a : a group of culture traits relating to a single activity (as hunting), process (as use of flint), or culture unit b (1): a group of repressed desires and memories that exerts a dominating influence upon the personality (2): an exaggerated reaction to or preoccupation with a subject or situation c : a group of obviously related units of which the degree and nature of the relationship is imperfectly known d : the sum of factors (as symptoms) characterizing a disease or condition
3 : a chemical association of two or more species (as ions or molecules) joined usu. by weak electrostatic bonds rather than covalent bonds
4 : a building or group of buildings housing related units �an apartment ~� �a sports ~�

2com�plex \k�m-'pleks, k m-', 'k�m-"\ adj [L complexus, pp. of complecti to embrace, comprise (a multitude of objects), fr. com- + plectere to braid � more at ply] (1645)
1 a : composed of two or more parts : composite b (1)of a word: having a bound form as one or more of its immediate constituents �unmanly is a ~ word� (2)of a sentence: consisting of a main clause and one or more subordinate clauses
2 : hard to separate, analyze, or solve
3 : of, concerned with, being, or containing complex numbers �a ~ root� �~ analysis�
� com�plex�ly adv
� com�plex�ness n
syn complex complicated intricate involved knotty mean having confusingly interrelated parts. complex suggests the unavoidable result of a necessary combining and does not imply a fault or failure �a complex recipe�. complicated applies to what offers great difficulty in understanding, solving, or explaining �complicated legal procedures�. intricate suggests such interlacing of parts as to make it nearly impossible to follow or grasp them separately �an intricate web of deceit�. involved implies extreme complication and often disorder �a rambling, involved explanation�. knotty suggests complication and entanglement that make solution or understanding improbable �knotty ethical questions�.

3com-plex \same as 2\ vt (1658)
1 : to make complex or into a complex
2 : chelate
� com�plex�a�tion \"k�m-"plek-'s -sh n, k m-\ n
CosmicHistory mailing list