On enjoying the game. Immensely.

Most religions teach salvation. From sin, from pain, from entrapment, from the game called “life”. Christianity has Heaven, Buddhism has Nirvana. Scientology has “Total Freedom”.

There seem to be a longing after escaping. Life.

In Scientology, we are taught that we are living on a “prison planet”. In Eastern religions one seeks to end the seemingly endless cycle of life and death. The mantra most religions “sell” is this “escape”.

And much of the focus is on “sin”, “transgressions”, “overts” and the rules of conduct to purify oneself.

What happened to the all too simple “enjoying life”?

Rather than the focus on “escape”, I would like to see the selling of “embrace” – of enjoying life to the fullest, enjoying the game. Immensely.

Maybe one can only reach Nirvana by fully embracing and love what is. But to do that, one must truly see what is. And maybe one can most easily reach happiness by being happy. What do you think?


PS: If you wonder what I’ve been occupied with the last couple of weeks, I’ve been hanging out here πŸ™‚

74 thoughts on “On enjoying the game. Immensely.

  1. I agree, Geir. Enjoying life, your family, etc., IS the secret to happiness. Don’t forget, though, for many low toned people, enjoying life means getting drunk, cheating on their spouse and bilking their friends, etc. Enjoying life’s simple pleasures in an ethical way is not real for all.

    Today is Thanksgiving and I will be enjoying a nice meal and a get together with one of my sons and some very close friends. Life’s simple pleasures will include a great meal, conversation and some live music (performed by moi).

    Have a wonderful day, to all those who read Geir’s blog! XXXOOO,


  2. Here is what I wrote on NIRVANA on my blog sometime back.


    Here is what I wrote recently in my critique of SCN 8-8008 on ESMB:

    Hubbard (Scn 8-8008): “In thought itself at its highest range, we discover the only true static known. In physics a static is represented as a body at rest but it is known in physics that a body at rest is yet an equilibrium of forces and is itself in motion if only on the level of molecular motion. A true static would contain no motion, no time, no space and no wavelength. To this static in Scientology is assigned the mathematical symbol theta. This designation means solely a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.”

    Vinaire: “Hubbard perceives static to be something at the highest range of thought. He assigns to this static certain attributes. Thus, Hubbard gives this static some beingness. But any beingness is a manifestation, and any manifestation appears out of no manifestation. No manifestation is simply unknowable, because there is nothing to know about.

    By making ‘beingness’ the highest state in Scientology, Hubbard rejects the Vedic notion of Nirvana, and forwards the Semitic notion of ‘a manifestation is the source of all other manifestations.’

    Happy Thanksgiving to all.


    1. And I agree. I also think that totally loving every aspect of all will not only take you anywhere you wish, but it will be pure happiness along the way. And I really mean loving it ALL – the moment, the pleasure, the pain, the drag, the ALL. Without that, there are parts uninspected where you are not in control and hence it will control you.

    2. I think Hubbard is correct in the above from a certain viewpoint. Static has certain potentials as everything evolves from static which is beyond our ordinary mind. Static probably has certain qualities of it’s own. Like something being beyond time is a quality in itself. It is a kind of consciousness and maybe that’s why he use the word thought although thought is something which arises from consciousness and is connected with time and space therefore with (matter and) energy, so thought is not static for sure. Maybe that’s why he said “thought itself at its highest range”.
      There are people with different levels of understanding, so that’s why it is not correct to bind them to one teaching.

      Nirvana is for sure beyond being or not being as being in itself is a thought.

      1. Hubbard’s static with special qualities is a speculation. Here is my critique of Axiom 1:

        Hubbard gave static a beingness. It became “individuality” to him… the ultimate in self-determinism. A beingness is a manifestation. “Individuality” is a manifestation. Hubbard’s static is a manifestation.

        Hubbard made a manifestation to be the source of all other manifestations.

        This is very much in line with the traditional premise entertained in the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hubbard simply gave it a new garb pretending it to be coming from the East. He had no inkling what East is about. According to East, the background of manifestation is “absence of manifestation.” That background is UNKNOWABLE because there is nothing there to be known.

        AXIOM 1 looks good on the surface, but it has a curve thrown into it.


  3. Religion sells escape yes, but it’s what works to reel people in I guess. I wanted to escape and found SCN. Yet with SCN I learned that the road out is via responsability, not escape. I am now so glad to be here on this planet and to be an active part toward it’s betterment. Let’s not confuse the PR and marketing of religion with it’s nature. After all who is it’s public? I saw embrace life, for there is no escape from life as it’s all there is out there!

  4. The first of the Four Noble Truths of Buddha is the Noble Truth of “Suffering”
    (or “dukkha” in Pali. Dukkha does not only mean suffering, but impermanence and being conditioned by other things.) To see the truth of it is simple I guess. That’s why human beings are looking for a way out of the endless cycle of Samsara.
    And this does not mean that all life is suffering and it is perfectly fine to enjoy what is joyful and what is right. But there is a certainty in our life which is the fact that one day our life in this body will end. And it makes a difference how well we are prepared for that moment.
    Bodhisattvas does not want to “escape”, they come back until all beings will become free. I do not think one can “escape” without the “others”.

    Regarding your hanging out, I like classic designs as well πŸ™‚

  5. Oh yes ! Maybe things can only be seen as they really are when we are willing to do just that. The most fantastic experiences IΒ΄ve had involve loving and embracing everyone and everything. Vanishment and creation dancing together! I believe that is life at its best.

  6. I totally agree Geir.

    It’s a simple philosophy which many, many good people live by. It is all you need. You could perhaps add to it and say “be respectful of others and be honest”.

    In that video of Tom Cruise where he gets the medal of valor or some such thing, he says “I sometimes wish I could romp and play, but I can’t” – I found myself shouting “yes you can! go and romp and play!”.

    But of course, everyone at some stage in their life is not happy. Maybe for a short while, maybe for a long while.

    I once learned an interesting technique:- You plot your life on a line chart, where the X axis is time, starting from your birth to the current day, and the Y axis is how happy you are, on a scale of say 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. You then place all the key events of your life on the chart. The date your relative died gets a mark at 0, the day you graduate from college gets a 10. The date you got fired from your job gets a 3 (you hated the job anyway!), the day you got promotion in your current job gets a 9 and so on.

    You then draw a line from the date of your birth through all the marks on your chart. When you stand back and look at your “life chart” you see it looks like a mountain range, with lots of ups and downs. It showed me this – if you’re going through a rough patch, there is a dizzy peak just around the corner – there always has been, there always will be.

    But, my point is this: everyone has low points in their life. It is for this reason that “escape” from your unhappiness, your uncertainty, your doubt, your worry can seem very attractive. Saying to someone “you need to try and enjoy life more” is likely to be met with a sullen look. Saying to someone “I can tell you the secrets of the universe, I can make you fulfilled, I can make you happy” – well that’s much more like it.

    Life can be tough – that’s why religions flourish.

    1. Good points.

      Right now, I am into practicing enjoying drags, pains and the downs. There aren’t that many, but I’m practicing nevertheless πŸ™‚

  7. At some basic point, with the cloaking of identity, desire, and attachment set aside, the singular spark of awareness we all are has the opportunity to enquire as to the nature of what it encounters. And in that moment of silent loving awareness all makes sense. The good, the bad.

    It is useful to hold that as reference when back in the game.

    Seems you do.

  8. I do not think that there is anything like an immortal thetan. There has been a lot of speculations in the past about soul and God. Scientology continues on the same course speculating about thetan and its capabilities. I think this line of reasoning has been exhausted.

    It seems that this universe is a manifestation looking at itself. We are a part of this universe. We are using a very limited viewpoint when we think of ourselves as a thetan.

    It would be interesting to assume the beingness of the universe and then look at the universe from the viewpoint of this universe. This is a new line of looking and reasoning which has now become possible in this age of science.


    1. I think LRH was onto something in “The Dynamics and the Tone Scale” where he talks about +40 as Being all 8 dynamics. The consequence of that would be what we here talk about.

      1. So, what is it like being the universe? πŸ™‚
        Look at yourself. What do you see?
        The thetan dies too. After all it is just a speculation.
        What is this fear of death that makes you wanna feel immortal?
        Ha… ha…


        1. I think you misunderstood me. What I am alluding to is the fact that one is inheritely all that one sees, and at +40, beingness ceases as all visualizations are collected and awareness returns to pure potential. I believe that identity is at +39 or so, unidentity at -39, pure potential at +40 and unknowable at -40 – describing the dichotomy of potential generating all we see and experience in between +40 and -40. You should know me by now… I don’t ascribe to individuality as the highest on a scale, but pure potential.

      2. I prefer to use the word “unknowable” rather than “pure potentional” to avoid any assumption or speculation, no matter how justified we may feel about it. I no longer subscribe to the Theta-MEST theory as it assumes Theta and MEST to be two differnt systems opposed to one another. I now believe that both Theta and MEST are different aspects of a single system called UNIVERSE. THETA is not above the universe of space-energy-matter and Time.

        In a way, we are the awareness of the UNIVERSE that is trying to comprehend itself. We are not some individuality called THETAN. We are the awarenes of this overall system called UNIVERSE that has become fragmented.


        1. When “counting backwards”, then “unknowable” seems a good term. We see what is here and we speculate on what the causes are and we get back to a sort of nothingness, beyond identity, beyond the spirit, and we may well call it “unknowable”, because it is. But when “counting forward”, starting with “unknowable”, that term does not invite any explanation as to how it all came about. I feel this is the main challenge now.

          1. Yes, it is a challenge. All that I can determine so far is,

            (1) All that is knowable comes from the desire of the unknowable to know itself.

            (2) All that is knowable starts with a speculation. See Factors for example.

            I am sure there is more.


            1. well, the problem with only “unknowable” is that when you start off with “unknowable”, there is nothing else, nothing to account for all that is. This is why I presently prefer “potential” as that could lead somewhere. There would be “potential” and there would be “actual”. It seems one step forward.

        2. Theta creates universes, it is a creative and causative agent. MEST is effect and a mere creation of theta. MEST is a product of Theta, the opposition is a metaphore. Some have gone EXT from MEST and have clear reality on the above.

          1. Pascal, if MEST is effect and is a mere creation of theta, than what is the building block of MEST?
            Way back Buddha’s definition of this universe was quite precise and seemingly verified by quantum physics. Seemingly there is no matter. There is no energy. There is no time. Seemingly only space exists. But without matter, energy and time, space get a different dimension I guess.
            vinaire is quite right on this point. This universe is looking at itself.
            Besides, theta is beyond this universe, so theta is beyond creating or not creating as well. It is also beyond looking or not looking.
            If you want to grasp the Truth than you must forget to think with the terms of Scientology, cause Scientology is only about how to play a “better” game in Samsara. This is all what Scientology is about. (And “better” is in between quotes as being here a very undefined quality by concrete experience of Scientology.) You can be the best player in Samsara yet you would not be free of Samsara. Still, you would only get a better prison.

    2. Good point.
      However I would not have a problem with Hubbard or Scientology only on questions of “faith”. As there are different viewpoints and people with different level of understanding.
      My main problem is it’s saying being the only route, the only workable knowledge, being critical to everything else and it’s agressiveness and compulsoriness even though Hubbard said in “My Philosophy” that “A philosophy can only be a route to knowledge. It cannot be crammed down one’s throat. If one has a route, he can then find what is true for him. And that is Scientology.”

      1. Look at Judaism. Look at Christianity. Look at Islam. Now it is Scientology in the same tradition. Each one claims to be the only way and look down upon “squirreling.”

        Calling an action squirreling is simply an effort to stop the progress of knowledge and an attempt to establish a monopoly.


        1. Religions 99,9% came about half the reason to control masses by certain means. Scientology is not an exception. Contrary. Control is embedded in its own symbol.
          You can’t control people to became free but you can HELP them to become enlightened. But sadly, help is just a “button” in the “newspeak” of Scientology.
          Actually Scientology is squirreling in the “tradition of knowing how to know” if there is such a tradition.
          The difference is that no other religion say that in such a self-sufficient, arrogant and oppressive way in the civilized part of our planet.

        2. I agree with KSW1, SCN applied correctly works. But few can apply it correctly on this orb of crap hence we get arguments about it. Decadence is the hallmark of religions so it’s better to stamp out squirrels. But more important is to deliver the real deal. If not, then you’re a squirrel yourself, eg COS in PT.

          1. My observation is that part of SCN works and part of it does not work. SP and PTS is an excuse for the part not working.

            What works is much more basic action like LOOKING. What does not work is ransacking the bank for answers as Scientology does, rather than letting the mind un-stack itself in its natural order.


          2. It seems nobody was able to apply SCN correctly to this day. LRH is not an exception.
            Besides Scientology was “developed” or “researched” or whatever exactly in a squirrel way. The present failure of the Church is the perfect proof that the tech does not work.
            Can you imagine that the Church could squirrel in the presence of the OTs it delivered in the past?
            Seemingly these OTs are not capable to change the route the Church is travelling now. So are they OTs? Or in what degree are they OTs? One man DM was able alone to hijack the whole Scientology? Come on! It was developed this way.
            LRH said he has a map. He has a map to OT VIII but even there the road is not appropriate or not safe for too many. You can’t blame everything on application. How could it be that noone was able to apply Scientology correctly up to this day?
            Future and Power and all those levels are researched fully by LRH and yet we are nowhere? How can it be? There is one answer to that: Scientology is not what you think it is.

            1. Your logic doesn’t hold when you say “The present failure of the Church is the perfect proof that the tech does not work”. That is no proof at all, let alone perfect. It is like saying you cannot misapply something workable. The rest is you opinion πŸ˜‰

          3. “Your logic…”
            Isene, I see your point here and you are right (partially). I am saying that because there is a vast technology admin, ethics, tech. So everyone is able to use it not just the Church. And yet, noone is able to make the Church go into the right direction? The majority of the people are out there. Those who read LRH, those who got auditing. Those who are OT’s those who are auditors, etc. and yet, noone is able to do a damn thing about it? Where are the unified OT powers of those individuals?
            LRH created the system the way that no internal revolution or evolution can occur.
            LRH created the system that way that it can be used for suppression. He warned against it… πŸ™‚ How clever πŸ˜€ And finally DM was LRH’s man.
            If LRH went all the way up the Bridge, maybe he took over the body of DM and it is really him who is operating this all industry right now πŸ™‚ I’m not serious, this is just an idea, or you can call it a joke, but please, use my words to see beyond the letters πŸ™‚

            1. I understand your points. But consider this:

              Could there be parts of the body of data that when used could render other parts unworkable? Could e.g. the use of the Admin Tech be detrimental to the Auditing Tech? Could there be specific policies that would make it hard for the Tech to go in. Or could there even be possible to misapply certain policies in order to ensure Auditing Tech would not work. Etc.

              There are lots of reasons why something seems to not work. There can be misapplication, corruption of tech and policy, lack of training, wrong policies, wrong tech, something that worked in one situation not working in another etc. Jumping to a swift conclusion here is jumping to a swift conclusion here.

          4. The main reasons you can’t apply Scientology “correctly” lies in the following points:
            1.) Too much information. You lose your way.
            2.) Inconsistencies at basic points.
            3.) Even where there are no inconsistencies understanding of individuals will “always” be different. So as application.
            That also explains why KSW is simply a flub. This has nothing to do with decadence. This has nothing to do with squirreling.

            1. Although your point #1 is not really a problem in any case – witness physics, chemistry, social sciences, wikipedia. All with much more information.

          5. In the past years I completely forget about applying Scientology. Guess what, my relationship with others got better.
            I made the same mistakes before that almost everybody when wants to “apply” Scientology.
            How could it be that people all over the world in Scientology make the same mistakes in their relations? This has something to do with the subject itself.
            Although Scientology can make it’s way very smoothly in the “upper class” world where people anyway are used to protocols and are impressed by glitter and parade.
            But on the avarage person’s level you rather get forward with sincerity, straightforwardness, good-will and TRUE RESPONSIBILITY than techniques, tricks, communications and responses based on certain evaluations like Tone Chart, etc… This is just too complicated, insincere, transparent.
            That just does not work anymore in society at large. And this is not about decadence. People at large in our societies were never before at such a high state of comprehension or at least at the potential of it. Information are circulating faster and people are demanded more on intellectual level. Look at sports or look at achievements on the level of conquering the “physical universe”. Scientology just dropped behind.
            (Look at the iPod and now the iPad. Yet you are still required to buy bulky volumes of CDs filling up your home with Scientology materials you will probably never have time to read or listen.
            I’m sure those guys behind this project did not see or grasp a bit of the future. I am referring here to the level OT XII – named “Future”. (After all it is said that DM, the head of the Church is “just” an OT V.) OK. This is the dirt of the Church and nothing has to do with LRH πŸ˜€ that’s why I put this into brackets. Although if LRH was decried Dschinghis Khan for example (and others) that he had no technology – opposite to LRH who had – and so his empire fallen apart after his departure, I would except from LRH that his “empire” not to fall apart, as he has the technology… wouldn’t you expect the same?)

            1. Ho-ho-ho… painting with a very large brush – the brush called generalization. Re-read your first paragraph and see if you can reword and specify so as not to have the logical fallacy so blatantly on display.

      2. I agree with LRH. You can’t cram down data down someone’s throat. But you can tone 40 his ass up the Bridge, no doubt about that! And he’ll find out the data by himslef as he goes on up the road with your “prodding”. That he does say in OT tapes.

        1. Enforcing anything is the wrong way to approach the solution. It will always jam up in the long run. It happened in Dianetics (Hubbard incorrectly called it the bank beefing up), and which has now happened in Scientology.


  9. For this view to be applicable and useful one has to have his/her case more or less handled and life under control IMO.

    How useful would it be to tell a crackhead to just enjoy life. Or someone who is in a severely impoverished area and is hungry all the time; or a war vet with PTSD…etc, etc.

    How would you have reacted as “a shy nerd terrified of reading aloud at school” to be told to just “enjoy life, immensely”? (hehe)

    My 2 cents.

    1. And IMO this is precisely why the idea of actually loving and admiring anything and everything is such a suppressed idea. Except this is where the Dalai Lama excels as he preaches this, starting with the love and compassion for others.

      1. I don’t think it’s a suppressed idea (suppressed by who?) so much…just “not real” to people. Might as well tell them to hold hands in a circle and sing “kum ba ya”

        Re: the Dalai Lama…if every 2 year old was recognized and treated as a spiritual leader, raised and educated as such, this planet would be a different place I’m sure.

        I’m reminded of an LRH quote:
        “It is not enough to suddenly determine to love everybody. That is forcing affinity on yourself.” (HFP, p . 80, 2007 edition)

        The Buddhist viewpoint is more along the lines of “seeing everything as it is”.

        Love and compassion for others goes without saying and is a part of all major religions AFAIK, though very rarely applied.

        It seems to me to be more a result of being OT, and not a route per se.

        1. I will give you the LRH way of doing just as I write: “rising scale processing”.

          And then I invite you to read my article “On Will“.

          1. Re: rising scale processing:
            “But first the thetan has to recover from the depths his postulates have taken him”

            Rising Scale Processing (postulate processing) came out during the same time period as Admiration, ’52-’53, when LRH was researching OT and a thetan’s capabilities. He spent many years after that undercutting to reach all cases.
            Compare what he wrote in ’56 (FOT):

            Auditing: Things to Avoid
            1.SIGNIFICANCES. The easiest thing a thetan does is change his mind. The most difficult thing he does is handle the environment in which he is situated. Therefore, asking a thetan to run out various ideas is a fallacy. It is a mistake. Asking the pc to think over something can also be an error. Asking a pc to do exercises which concern his mind alone can be entirely fatal. A pc is processed between himself and his environment. If he is processed between himself and his mind, he is processed up “too short a view” and his condition will worsen.

            There are gains to be had with it but if postulate processing was a complete answer no other process would be necessary.

            Had a conversation with an OT VIII; he mentioned that the tech in the Route to Infinity lectures, Technique 80, was too high-level for him; he hadn’t come across or run it yet on his processing side of the Bridge. Btw, as an OT VIII yourself, can you confirm or deny that is true?

            IMO, the tech in this period make up the upper OT levels. (Technique 80, Technique 88, Black & White processing, Admiration Processing, etc.)

            Also I find it interesting that Admiration would “indicate” to you as a high-level OT whereas my attention is more on solving the mundane day-to-day crap that comes up. πŸ™‚

            1. Opposite of significances as stated above: Pure looking. There is nothing as basic as that. That will take you from bottom to top. And per the factors: Admiration is the key. Love the hell out of something is as basic as the ARC triangle. Only looking goes below even this. Getting into complexities is complex… πŸ˜‰

              Re: RTI: Not run anywhere as I see it. Not too high level for me.

    2. Auditor presence, ie impingement on the person here is what is required with people low on the scale of awareness. Tone 40 also applies. But few can manage that, sadly. Therefore having a case is antipathetic to receiving wise advice.

      1. Not really. What is required is training of the preclears to LOOK and recognize what is there at any moment, rather than trying to ransack the bank for answers. Let the mind unwind the way it wants to.

        It is the “rush toward enlightenment” that pushes enlightenment farther away. Hubbard was always in a mad rush. He failed to acheive enlightenment from all the data that is available. Hubbard couldn’t be out and about enjoying life as Buddha did.


      2. I would rather say that really wise advice would penetrate all case. It as all to easy to blame everything on low tone scale, SPs and PTSness. That is the Jolly Joker of the “tech” πŸ˜€

  10. ————–
    isene says:
    2010-11-29 at 23:08
    Although your point #1 is not really a problem in any case – witness physics, chemistry, social sciences, wikipedia. All with much more information.

    “The main reasons you can’t apply Scientology β€œcorrectly” lies in the following points:
    1.) Too much information. You lose your way.”

    Yeah. So, isn’t it strange that people are not able to apply Scientology correctly? Which is by the way heralded as “knowing how to know”?

    Something should be definitely an out-point here and it is just too easy to blame all on the bank.

    1. Well, following that logic then either a) nothing in human history has any significantly more value (as the same goes for other subjects), or b) there are indeed similar reasons why other subject fail in the same way… misapplications, human emotions & reactions, case, evil intentions, mistakes, etc.

      1. I reword and combine the first two points: Unnecessarily too much or too less information needed to be known by one post, often contradictory in key points. Example of too less information is hatting. I mean for example you are not required any schooling or any wog grades or certificates besides being hatted.

        With physics, etc., I guess you do not need to study the whole subject but you can specialize and that tends to be rather good in certain ways as opposite to what Hubbard states. I think by now many things refined in the areas of specialization.

        When you study physics, etc., you study that in a University and you spend much time if you are good “day and night” with that. If you are really good, you have more chances and better future.

        If you are in business or management position, probably you must work with present time situations and what is demanded is not so much to stick to fix and past ideas (like Admin Tech) but rather to solve problems and make progress for your company preferrably between certain moral standards not shortened down to the group dynamic of Scientology.

        1. Now, that’s good.

          On specialization: This is of course also done in Scientology. I am a specialist in Study Tech, being an interned Course Supervisor, a specialist in teh Admin Tech (having studied lots here), a specialist in Human Evaluation, but no specialist as an auditor (only basics here), etc.

      2. They can fail. They did not have the technology not to… πŸ˜€
        There are many subjects seemingly not failing so hard than Scientology. Or not failing at all in their own sphere.
        Again, those subjects do not have the powerful technology of Ethics, Admin, Processing. But Scientology has. At least that is said. So I would expect more. That’s all.

    2. I do believe that Scientology data can be greatly simplified; and to the degree it is simplified it will become easier to understand and apply.

      A great simplification would come about if the stress is put on LOOKING. This means looking at the response that the mind brings up when a question is asked. This also means the recognition of “no response” when the mind does not bring up anything when a question is asked. The moment one fails to reconize a “no response,” and bypasses the mind in search of a possible answer, one has invalidated one’s own sense of LOOKING.

      One’s own sense of LOOKING can easily be developed to a point that it is much more accurate than the accuracy of auditor noticing a floating needle. Just throw away the e-meter and go by LOOKING (recognizing a response, or a lack of it). You will get much better and faster results then.

      Not all processes may be right when the mind wants to un-stack itself in a certain order. You just run a bunch of processes to get whatever charge you can get off. Then you run the same bunch of processes again and you will get more charge off. A process that didn’t get any charge off the first time, may get quite a bit of charge off a second time. It all depends on what the mind wants to unload at what point. Mind has a keen sense of self-protection. The order in which the mind allows itself to be unloaded depends on that sense of self-protection. That sense should never be violated.

      I would do the whole lower bridge without the e-meter, simply on the basis of LOOKING as described above. I would then do the whole lower bridge once again with LOOKING . I may even do it a third and a fourth time the same way with LOOKING. I will get more charge off in much less “total time” if I do this because I would not be needing any repairs at all.

      This is what I mean by simplifying Scientology. A lot of complexity in Scientology is of its own making. All that Repair Tech was developed because inordinate faith was put into the e-meter. Maybe there are some inherent limitations in using the e-meter. Anyway, the sense of LOOKING is much more accurate and can be developed easily. If LOOKING is stressed, then more auditing will occur, and there will be greater gains in much less time.


  11. Hmmm…no “reply” link on your last response. Enjoyed reading your posts (and blog). Thanks for the replies.


    P.S. Off to read “On Will” and KHTK

  12. Here is something Hubbard said about MEST in SCN 8-8008, that may be simplified greatly:

    “It is stated in the 1951 axioms that time could be considered to be the single arbitrary, and might thus be the single source of human aberration. A further investigation and inspection of time has demonstrated it to be the action of energy in space, and it has been found that the duration of an object roughly approximates its solidity.

    Time could be considered to be a manifestation in space which is varied by objects. An object could be considered to be any unit manifestation of energy including matter.


    It is incorrect to think of space as nothing but a background for energy and matter. Space is not NOTHING. Space is a manifestation just like energy and matter are manifestations. SPACE-ENERGY-MATTER FORMS A GRADIENT OF SUBSTANCE.

    Time is caused by succession of events related to space-energy-matter in a cycle. It is how space-energy-matter changes as it moves forward in the cycle. The form may change in terms of the percentage of space, energy, and matter involved at any moment. Solidity seems to be just another way of saying β€œenduring form.”


    1. Btw; The duration of an object does not “roughly approximates its solidity” – at all. It’s almost opposite in fact.

      1. That is correct. Solidity may be looked upon as the component of “matter” in the obeject (a unit manifestation of space-energy-matter). I think that space, energy and matter are translatable into each other and may be looked upon as a single overall dimension.

        Time, on the other hand would be a different dimension that would constite the “cycle” in which “space-energy-matter” combine moves.

        Matter is just as enduring as energy, or space, is from this viewpoint. Ho… ho…


      2. Spelling correction:

        Time, on the other hand would be a different dimension that would constitute the β€œcycle” in which the β€œspace-energy-matter” combine moves.


  13. “I have seen much human misery. As a very young man I wandered through Asia and saw the agony and misery of overpopulated and underdeveloped lands. I have seen people uncaring and stepping over dying men in the streets. I have seen children less than rags and bones. And amongst this poverty and degradation I found holy places where wisdom was great, but where it was carefully hidden and given out only as superstition. Later, in Western universities, I saw man obsessed with materiality and with all his cunning; I saw him hide what little wisdom he really had in forbidding halls and make it inaccessible to the common and less favored man. I have been through a terrible war and saw its terror and pain uneased by a single word of decency or humanity.” (And when we are done enjoying ourselves?)

  14. To be happy, one only must be able to confront, which is to say, experience, those things that are.Unhappiness is only this: the inability to confront that which is.
    Hence, (1) Be able to experience anything.
    2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.

    Your reaction to these tells you how far you have yet to go.
    And if you achieve these two golden rules, you would be one of the happiest and most successful people in this universe, for who could rule you with evil?

  15. The original name on the bridge was,”The bridge to a new world” not “Total Freedom”.
    Total Freedom is an “absolute” and not attainable,it also puts attention on the first Dynamik..(LOL..).

  16. I am however my self quite guilty of “escapism”;))
    (But is that what Ron tried to teach me?)

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s