This is a follow-up to my previous post, “OT 8”
Imagine this:
You have a problem in life. To you it is a big issue that you really would like to get handled.
You come across the Church of Scientology, where they promise you a better life, spiritual freedom and a permanent fix to your problem.
You embark upon a journey up through many levels of counseling – called The Bridge to Total Freedom.
You finish level after level. Your communication improves, you get more self-confident, become more spiritually aware, other areas of your life improves.
Your main issue in life, however seems to be a tough one to handle. But you push on as you are told that some next level will handle it.
All the way to the top you go. To OT 8. Each level has its own specific end result. On OT 8, it is:
“I now know who I am not, and am interested in finding out who I am”
And that is the end of the road. You don’t get to know who you are, what you are or anything positive. You get to know who you aren’t – and you are interested in finding out who you are. That’s it.
Although I got great gains from doing OT 8 myself, partly because I have a different take on the rationale behind the upper levels in Scientology. But imagine getting to the end of the road, still possibly having major issues you’d like to have handled. I would imagine some people could get quite confused, spinny, mad or feel fucked over by such a brush-off end result. Parked out in nowhere and asked to contribute their lives to get the next level released – at the whim of the Church’s management. All the while being demanded to uphold a perfect facade of a happy opinion leader to the rest of the foot soldiers. A perfect exterior, interior in shambles.
I am not saying this is how the majority of OT 8s feel after completing the level. I didn’t, and I know others who have justified the level in a satisfactory way. But I know of several that have had some serious issues and even contemplating suicide after reaching such a spiritual dead end hostage situation – where you get the next fix only if you give your heart and soul to a greedy management. Mad much? You bet.
Letting anyone halt at the end result of OT 8 is cruel. If anything, the church should have waited with the release of OT 8 until they had the rest of “finding out who you are” canned. It’s like doing a surgical operation half-way and leave the patient.
If you were in such a situation, would you do everything the church asked of you in the hope of a new level released? Or would you revolt? Or what?
Update: Maria commented that the EP of OT 8 is in fact that the person completing the level is now interested in doing the Enemy condition.
Geir Isene - uncut 
I don’t know how people can end up in the mess you describe, at least not if each level is done perfectly well. IMO you should find out who you are already on the L/R or the lower grades. It’s NEVER the next level for the problem you are having NOW. Ref.: C/S Series Nr.: 2:
“….A pc must attain the full ability noted on the Chart before going up to the next level of the Chart….” LR
One can certainly have a problem in life that is not addressed at the level at hand (or the next).
True, Isene. And also true that auditing can only start when present time problems are handled first. The “present” time problem can range from “really being there” in the “physical”, or just “mocked up”
as real for the PC – as it being there will prevent auditing, working as a filter, so the PC won’t have a true access to his/her mind..also, if auditing goes on like this, WITH the problem still there, as the PC has bigger and bigger space, the problem will look bigger and bigger…my reality. Eventually, as I am writing it down now, the person can finish up as I am WITH a problem…looks nice! Can happen that the problem is at a very deep level, the person not aware of it even in the I AM
state…and can spin the person…my take.
I agree absolutely, Per…
That is an inconsistency that Scientology is so difficult to follow.
.
Agreed
Scientology the tech is consistent it is peoples mind, what is in their mind, how they did not duplicate what they read, there is the inconsistency.. You are riding again the wrong horse as usual…
The auditor is responsible for the PC until the PC is his/her own control center. That is all words of the auditing question must be cleared before the auditor asks the question. The auditor is responsible for that! The SUP is responsible in the course-room…both the PC’s and the student’s responsibility level must be “brought up” up to the point when the person knows/is/can be responsible for him/herself….
I am, sending you this article as I feel it is appropriate.
Todde
From International Viewpoints (IVy)
Issue 3 – November 1991
Message from exSCNist turned into Bodhi
By Todde Salén. Sweden
Purpose clearing from DUGA
Quote from LRH. “Living is having and following a Basic Purpose”.
For a thetan it is absolutely necessary to have and follow a goal. The
better his goals are the more alive he is if he also follows through
towards attaining them.
If he fails to attain or approach his goals he winds up in trouble. In
other words he ends up in a mass of problems. This is the idea behind
Goals Problem Masses, i.e. GPMs.
So when you want to straighten a thetan out who has become messed up
by his GPMs your first task is to give him the goal of straightening
out his messy situation.
Everybody who ever got “turned on” by LRH in the organization called
Scientology knows how it feels to get a goal and make progress towards
attaining it.
The goals of Scientology for the thetan were really basic goals. So
they made the being come alive.
Hubbard was successful in awakening thetans to try to get straightened
out. He also had some success in getting us moving in that direction.
Failed Purposes
I hope we can agree on the above. If so, we have done step one in the
DUGA process.
Now we will face step two:
What kills the thetan more than anything else is a “failed purpose”.
Knowledge about Goals and Purposes and what they do to a thetan is
very valuable knowledge indeed. A thetan who knows about these things
is much better equipped to handle problems in life. Real problems in
life are purposes and counterpurposes. When you have a mass of
purposes and counterpurposes opposing each other, you have a problems
mass.
The only reason a thetan fails in achieving his purposes is because he
winds up in counter-purposes.
Now just take a look at what you did with your own purposes to get
disentangled from the mess (Goals Problem Mass) you wound up in. Do
you have a failed purpose in the area? If you do, it is only because
you did not have a way to achieve those purposes that was workable for
you.
Now next question: “Who is to blame for your failure to achieve the
purposes?”
If you blame Hubbard or your Scn Auditor or the Cof$ or somebody else,
you are really doing all you can to get stuck in a failed purpose on
the subject. Whenever you create somebody else than yourself as source
for your failures, you are successfully creating a mass of problems
that prevents you to attain your goal.
Congratulations! You have done it again.
It could be said that LRH did not successfully create a bridge that
took you all the way to OT.
It could be said that he claimed to create a bridge to take you all
the way to full OT.
The Road to truth
What he did, however, is that he got you started on the road to truth.
And if you are any kind of being, you should be able to not fall into
the trap of blaming anybody else than yourself for not arriving where
you wanted to go.
It could be said that it is suppressive to give somebody a goal
without also giving him a way to walk towards that goal.
I do not want to make excuses for Hubbard. I seriously doubt that he
would like me to make excuses for him.
I also do not want to allow you to be excused. After all you are
already an OT in many ways. You are OT in the ability to create GPMs
that mess you up. You are OT in blaming other entities for your
failures. You are OT in creating yourself as something less than an
OT.
You have managed to create yourself as a human being who only lives
one short lifetime on planet Earth. And you have possibly been very
much OT in making yourself believe that you are “only human”.
Road to truth
If you have exteriorized and remember it, you have attained the dream
of the Bodhi. You have become aware of not being human. You have
connected up with your beingness as a spiritual being – a thetan.
That is a big step on the road to truth. The road to truth leads
towards your own true self. Your own true self does not need anybody
to blame for your failures.
Your own true ethics not blame Hubbard for having given “too little
help”. Your own true self will be very grateful, indeed, for the help
you have received from LRH and his technology. Your own true self will
look at the Cof$ and recognize that you can no longer get any help
from that organization, as it is today an “out-ethics” organization
and thus cannot deliver “in-tech”. It cannot any more assist you to
move forward on the road to truth.
The best that organization can do today is give a new person that is
getting in contact with it a hope that he can get untangled from the
GPM-mess he is in.
They can give him this goal. But that organization cannot help that
new individual along on the road to truth the way you once were
assisted by it.
Somebody else has to step in here and assist those individuals if they
are ever going to get a chance of arriving enough far down the road to
truth to be able to continue on together with some other guys like you
and me.
Out of the ashes of the Cof$ a lot of free zone organizations have
grown up. Some of those organizations have made it and can deliver a
much higher standard of technology than could ever be done in the
Cof$.
If you want to continue and get your case untangled, you had better
connect up with one (or more) of these organizations and get busy
continuing towards the goal, instead of sitting there playing other
games that will give you new failures and more masses to get stuck in.
Religion
We never played any small game in SCN.
SCN is just a small game inside the bigger game called Religion on
this planet.
SCN did not change the basic philosophy of religion. It only added a
technology to it that can be used to achieve a lot of the goals and
purposes of religion. When you start working on these higher goals and
purposes you are revitalizing yourself as a thetan and OT.
Ron never really tried to make you – the human being – become an OT.
It was only the true self he could make an OT out of.
The biggest misunderstood in the Cof$ is and was that the first
dynamic can be made into an OT. The “human nature” of yours is very
much the effect of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. The “Bodhi-nature”
(i.e. the true self or thetan) exists outside of the MEST universe and
does not have to be the effect of matter, energy, space and time.
Step one is to have the goal of getting untangled from the enegies and
masses of the reactive mind (uncontrolled mind it was called in
Buddhism).
Step two is to make progress in this direction.
Step three is to continue to make progress in this direction despite
obstacles (like the organization one belonged to going out ethics,
etc..)
One step on the road is to have attained exteriorization and then an
Int/Ext Rd, so one can continue.
Another step (much later, which could be called OT 8 or the “end of
Auditing “) is to become so much cause over your mind that you no
longer need to use the E-meter to progress on the road to truth.
On the road to OT 8 you have to become a very good Auditor or you will
never be able to become cause over the mind, which is an important
step.
Excellent post, Todde. I’m afraid it may have been too long for most posters to read but it is well worth reading. I hope Geir took the time to do so as it speaks directly to his OP. Anyway, thanks for posting it!
Thanks.
One note to OT 8: It is Not the last level – never was, never was intended to be. It is not even half-way across the canyon. The Bridge does stop in mid-air. One is, as an OT 8 not capable of taking oneself “all the way” (wherever one defines that). There is other knowledge needed. I have come to realize that I must complete the rest of the bridge by utilizing sources outside of Scientology.
The OT leves are less than 1% they are just a tiny glimps what is there to have to confront to see, what wonders have created over the eons..
A bridge that ends in mid-air sends the person moving on it into a chasm.
.
What a piece of bullocks.
I was just looking at the physics of it. 🙂
.
I know that you are a great fan of bombastic statements. But this one was just so plain wrong. Can you see why?
I think that statement simply took the analogy of a bridge ending in mid-air one step further.
.
The person could turn around, continue build the bridge, find another means of getting across the chasm… many ways to falsify that statement.
That is the case only when a person is able to think for oneself. After all that travel on the bridge and being told otherwise, It takes a lot of guts to realize that the bridge is hanging in mid-air and one needs to turn back.
So yes, there will be different responses to the bridge ending in mid air. It would be a rare individual who would see this situation for what it is, and not just postulate that he has reached the other side, or that there is more bridge, and simply step forward to fall in the chasm.
This reminds me of Capt. Bill Robertson.
.
Maybe it’s not a chasm at all…I know it is easy to say…yet, there are some who “jumped into the unknown” (e.g Papaji, he has a book with the same title) and “explored” it. Me is also inclined to say after some experience that it can be explored.
“Papaji’ example does not fit here. He did not travel the bridge. It may apply to Elizabeth Hamre though.
.
Geir
Looks to be true what you say here. Don’t take it as a comparison as you attained OT8 while I didn’t. I can give only my example. After True meditation (the sitting part)
spontaneously stopped, life became ‘meditation’ (here and present). Calm, love, fluid…no self. Still, something was missing. My perception of ‘reality’ was very different from ‘others’ around me. There was a kind of ‘drive’ to meet someone with
similar or ‘higher’ consciousness. It happened so. In his ‘space’ some so far hidden,
subtle, very powerful ‘layers’ started to be seen and ‘gone through’. As well as a very alive pure energy flow. With this I mean to tell you that “an OT8 not capable of taking oneself ‘all the way’ ” may or may not be true. Buddha did it alone (as far as we know it). I , at that point, needed a ‘mirror’ and a ‘push’. Much like working with
people who have the same purpose and view, it is beneficial to do so with beings…hm. words stop here, you understand.
This is cogent and incisive for those whom are in need of arriving at-cause over self ▬ I have only been OBE ( exteriorized in SCN nomenclature ) twice as I find no need for it now ~ after decades of believing and trying I finally arrived at a make it simple and just do perceptions from stuck in skull as described in Ultimate Test of a Thetan had forced me to do as much
The Enemy condition when done on self as self-self interaction is sort of a trap of its own ▬ GPM-s are the least of it if one does that and will become a GF-40 Case — why bother with the wait? Just more stuff to list and null or for the time-efficient just blow it ~ and better yet create them at-will for someone whom one never met ( TLT ) with a rich repository of DB-s trailing like a biker-race in Blazria ○ best not to tangle with 1,000 DB-s though we can engage the person whom is trailing them
I assure any of you whom are willing to contemplate that there are levels beyond not only 8 & 9 but as well which Hubbard was attempting to share with this dustball though for the non-studied we have only marginal gains when viewed from the sincere adherent whom is a natural to the studies — simple removal of the self—as a non-time-bound awareness—from the immediate field of the body is something I do not expect to occur though viewing existence from within the limited corporeal body can routinely produce Oh wows which are to be expected to occur until one loses the lust for excitement
All things in balance
+10 on that!
“I now know who I am not, and am interested in finding out who I am“
The enemy formula is: find out who you really are
So the EP at the top of the bridge is being interested in applying the enemy formula?!?!
That would be the first thing I would think of. Fricking enemy?!?!
– its a wonder Flag has not been blown off the face of the earth?!
On second thought, things are getting pretty desperate for the C of S and come to think of it, an OT 8 did pretty much raise de revolucion!
Wow.
Maria, I’m LMAO. what a find! “The enemy formula is: find out who you really are”. wow, is right. 🙂
Heck, I found that out on the comm course way back when. I’m a spiritual being a “thetan”. then you go for years and get rid of who you aren’t huh? Well, we certainly all know that to some degree no matter how many years or money. although it was a true experience, like no other. Just happy to be free.
And no, I wouldn’t help another to have the same experience as I did.
I would volunteer to help Marildi.
I would volunteer to help Marildi.
Thanks Chris. Retread? Or MU’s? 🙂
haha, no. I just think she’s a good student and sincere. I would like to see her finish what she started in Scientology. I know the place she is in. Not as in I’m superior, but as in I’m familiar with the place. I spent 15 years in that place and it is uncomfortable, believing but never consummating. I have Scientology friends and they are not far from her. They may have friends in her hometown. Sometimes when a person sets their sights on a goal, they just need to see it through no matter what. I did and it made quite a bit of difference in my outlook. This is the gain that I would like her to have: To finish this walk that she started to her own satisfaction. I bet Geir would help as well.
Chris “haha, no” Of course I was teasing and knew you’d laugh. Maybe it is too serious for another and sorry if feelings were hurt. T’would be nice since you know her and where she is on the bridge to help however you can. I think she is a dedicated person and has courage to speak out on this forum and take some criticism and give some, while continually learning. I’m here to learn from ya’all too.
I do know and like Marildi. I like to think I know her heart as well. She and I are somehow more similar than some others here. Not in a good or bad way, just more similar in our heart’s desires.
I would help her too. The Scientology section on my blog is designed for that.
.
I totally agree Chris. I think I mentioned this before but one of the things I really liked about Scientology when I started was that you could do ALL of it BEFORE you died. Nice! And I did a LOT of it only stopping because I could no longer support the Church of Scientology and I also felt that I needed to do a thorough review of it against a broad spectrum of knowledge and by testing my own experience. I am almost done with that evolution and I have to tell you, it has been worth every bit of angst, discomfort and confusion blowing off. Nice!
Where I sit now is very much pro-auditing as a practical means of addressing fixed and stuck attention, snarled up considerations and exploring the incredible world of ones own capabilities, mind, and states of consciousness. It is amazing. Its like stepping through myriad worlds as the viewpoint shifts and shifts. But I am an explorer at heart, so its all good as far as I am concerned!
I still think that having this immense body of work available on an open source basis is a great idea, but not under a monopoly. It has value, immense value. But it cannot substitute for ones own path and reality.
From where I sit
(1) All knowledge is consistent no matter from what source.
(2) Beyond every inconsistency there is a revelation.
(3) Auditing is essentially non judgmental looking at things as they are.
.
Solo auditing was for me very empowering. Realizing that my life was now in my own hands nevermore to be subject to the whims and evaluations of another broke out a ceiling; a doubt barrier for me and I am changed.
Maria,
Aside from putting any emotion into it….you are right with the enemy formula….I made a comment on it earlier….but the solution is more communication, more understanding….I AM can be a stable I AM on the first dynamics (also there can be huge wins on all). I don’t know if this is the case…let’s ask Geir about it. Geir, what is the nature of that I AM ME concerning responsibility for all the dynamics?
Per, you have my agreement too on your comment..
At the lower end of the Bridge one is not able enough to perceive who one truly is and what his barriers are. Every new level is done with a new gradient level of perception with new case coming into view that one didn’t even know one had. The barriers in OTVIII are stronger and more hidden. One does not truly understand what one’s barriers are until the goal is intended right up to the time it is achieved. The easier it is to overcome the barrier the more OT one is. In the end it is all about the goal, the intention, the barrier, and the frame of mind one wants to assume while achieving the goal.
I’d leave very soon and looked for a way to continue outside the Church.
Actually, I did that anyhow, even without being anywhere near OT VIII 😉
Disagree. One clears all misunderstandings, bad feelings, whatever in him/herself, no matter if one caused them or another as they will stay with the person….Geir is doing it very well….clearing things FOR ALL !! One can start a new “path” on which the problem can still be there….Geir….I trust you…you as an OT8 confront and make people confront…on all dynamics…AS there is basically ONE-ness.
I often see people who are too afraid to confront the fact that they did not get what they wanted out of scientology. I suspect this may account for the depression and thoughts of suicide. I wish it were easier for these people to move on and accept the fact that they weren’t treated fairly – in my opinion by both the church and by l ron hubbard.
What would I do in such a situation? It’s impossible for me to answer, not having been in similar circumstances.
Intriguing post, Geir.
Is it a true reality what you state here as the end phenomenon on Ot 8, “I now know who I am not, and am interested in finding out who I am“?
– –
RockmyStar
Yes.
I am in shock…
Truly for the first time i know of!
If I did not have a reason to smoke a joint, I now have one. 🙂
– –
I did my best in getting hold of Mr Miscavige the other day. First I got hold of the MAA public at AOSHEU, Copenhagen. She brushed me off even though I clearly stated I want and need help – hung up on me. I then tried 2 times via phone and answering machine to get hold of the leader of this church. Then I wrote a report via RTC and reached towards him at the end. This is a week ago.
– –
I have valuable data for him and others.
What the fuck do I do? Sorry my language.
– –
Slack enjoying a fantastic joint
My advice: Go for a walk. A few kilometers at least.
I went to sleep.
I don’t feel like walking.
Thx anyways. .)
– –
Slack
Right. From the I AM (no-thing) as a core one is expanding, clearing up it all – after peeling the onion, “one” is “flowing” through consensus layers….actually this is what is happening here “with me”….I don’t know about you…how is it with you, Geir? Until there is full Realization, that seems to be the case….my reality here.
GEIR since this is your blog I need to ask if the opportunity arises again would you give me your permission to lit into Vinay? By now you know I am not a gentleman and definitely not a lady… and because of that I don’t fallow rules or regulations. And a good zesty invigorating fight have to have personality, character and that only can happen if the rules are not present.. hitting under the belt, kidney punches, biting the nose and definitely scratching should be included and ball kicking would be the highlight of the fight.. up to you!!
“Letting anyone halt at the end result of OT 8 is cruel…If you were in such a situation, would you…Or what?”
I would train! Training is one half of the Bridge. It gives 50% of the potential gains of Scientology, and that seems to be the missing datum in the rationale of the OP.
Do you know of an actual example of some individual who, besides the auditing side, also did the training side of the Bridge and put it into reasonably extensive practice (much as other paths to freedom and enlightenment require) who yet feels they did not get handled what they originally wanted to?
Marildi: I would train! Training is one half of the Bridge. It gives 50% of the potential gains of Scientology, and that seems to be the missing datum in the rationale of the OP.
Chris: What percentage of the Bridge to Total Freedom would you say that you are missing Marildi?
I don’t want to get into a discussion of my own personal “percentage” of gain as that is irrelevant to the OP (and I don’t intend to be introverted by that). But I will say that what I did was more or less equal amounts of both sides of the Bridge, and truthfully I got more from training than auditing.
The point is that achieving what one wants in life isn’t just a matter of eliminating the inner barriers (case), it’s also a matter of understanding the principles that relate to the know-how of life. And that is what the potential of training and its application delivers.
Agreed.
Agree with Geir. And also, Life is more than the Mind. Ever-changing.
No matter how “trained” one is if one doesn’t get up to the point of
Realization that one is Life and is “handling” Life in any instant of life.
Without “principles” in the mind in most cases.
Scientology data is riddled with inconsistencies as I pointed out in detail. So training without the ability to spot inconsistencies could be a liability.
.
.
Marildi, I guess I don’t agree. Not really with any of your points. And my question? It was pertinent to and directly addressed your post. Perpetually promoting the sanctity and success of Scientology become pigheaded especially in light of the lack of a testimonial of your personal success using that Standard Technology.
Standard Scientology Technology is not workable, it is circular.
LOL! I loved that link to circular.
.
Re: circular. Yes, interesting and suitable. Good one!
Sorry to say, Chris, but what I have learned from your posts is that you don’t understand enough about Scientology to be able to put what I have or haven’t personally gained into the correct perspective. You have your fixed ideas that don’t match the actuality of Scientology.
But aside from that, the last several times I’ve tried to discuss with you what you think is contradictory or in error about Scientology itself, you ended up blatantly dropping the exchange, right about when it started to flush out that you had not correctly understood what you were critical of.
Wow after reading this “fixed ideas that don’t match the actuality of Scientology.” Why, scientology is all fixed ideas in all the words he wrote. Accept and can’t reject and you better fix these ideas in your mind, no question, or else.
Dee, you are describing the corruption of Scientology – whether that was done by management or LRH himself. If you really understand the basic principles of the philosophy and the tech it underlies, you know that Scn is not at all fixed ideas. Just the opposite.
But one thing I’ve observed on this blog is that those who are generally critical have not trained in it and applied it enough to get a conceptual understanding of what it is. And the posters who have some training and experience with the tech are generally highly favorable. I think this is a telling observation.
Scientology is what is. You may separate pure from corrupted in your head only. Open your eyes and see what is there.
.
Hot off the press, here is what someone who has much more than a theoretical understanding of Scientology (much less a tiny fraction of that) has to say:
“First, I believe that L Ron Hubbard developed a workable spiritual-based psychotherapy that when applied as prescribed – according to its axioms and fundamental laws – routinely produces a well and happy, self-determined, unrepressed being…Doing so outside structured, policy-controlled Scientology is far less complicated… There is little need…for sundry evaluation (under the justification of ‘ethics’, ‘pts/sp handling’, ‘justice’, or other organizational concerns) that inevitably enters when the process is complicated by later policies, and even tech, that stray from and contradict the laws and axioms which make auditing, and the Bridge, work. I have objective and subjective reality on the workability of Hubbard’s technology.” (Marty Rathbun)
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/mission-statement/
That is not a satisfactory response for me.
.
Here’s a line I liked from the same Marty’s post:
“I still believe Scientologists (of whatever stripe) have to make these choices: integrate or disintegrate, evolve or dissolve, transcend or descend.”
That’s the truth, in my opinion.
.
Yes, I’m in agreement with those lines too.
Marildi: Hot off the press, here is what someone who has much more than a theoretical understanding of Scientology (much less a tiny fraction of that) has to say:
Chris: You can appeal to Marty’s authority, but it does not improve your argument.
Differentiate, Chris. I wasn’t appealing to his authority, I was using him as an example of someone’s EXPERIENCE
I have to call it BULLSHIT!
Maria, you are an inspiration.
.
Would that be an inspiration for an addition to the Discussion Policy? A “call it BULLSHIT” clause?
Still holds = argument not getting better.
You are right Marildi that Marty has EXPERIENCE. Lots of it!!!
Vin-” Scientology is what is. You may separate pure from corrupted in your head only. Open your eyes and see what is there.”
Yes, that’s true for me, thank you. I will continue to keep my eyes open and look.
I believe that is a false assumption and not an observation. As an example; we have discussed the Admin Tech before. I am far more trained and experienced in the Admin Tech than you. I criticize it. You defend it – no matter what I brought up of facts and logic, you still defended it pigheadedly. Remember? I think that your statement above is an excellent example of a brush-off thought stopping technique.
Firstly, I was referring to auditing tech, not admin tech. As for admin tech, if you read the recent blog thread on Marty’s post on KSW 1, you will see just as many experienced in admin tech who take my viewpoint – i.e. that what is needed is an understanding of the basic theory of admin as well as a conceptual understanding of it overall. I don’t think they are just being pigheaded – many of them are perfectly willing to criticize the outpoints too. They just know how to apply policy the basic way LRH prescribed – against expansion and purpose. In our discussion way back when, you were referring to individual policies, and I was looking at general principles
Secondly, my observation about those who have and haven’t done tech training pretty well (if not entirely) separates the adherents from the critics – so I do not feel it is a mere assumption, thought-stopper or brush-off on my part. I don’t know of any of the regular critics here who are auditor trained and experienced. Can you name even one?
Marildi, again your response is not satisfactory to me.
.
Since I’m rather new here and don’t know you, let’s start off with you, since that seems to be your criterion. What auditing tech training and counseling have you had?
“And the posters who have some training and experience with the tech are generally highly favorable. I think this is a telling observation.”
It makes me happy that you see so well. I had training and counseling equal on both sides to clear including higher levels from an independent. It seems you are quite sensitive about the tech and the words and sorry it got serious for you. I don’t see any writings written in stone. The auditor’s code has the greatest importance in auditing, imo.
I want to re-iterate that it isn’t just training I keep emphasizing – it is in-the-chair experience with the tech where one gets to really understand the validity of it. That is really no different from many other fields, where experience makes ALL the difference. That quote of Marty Rathbun that I just posted is an example of what I mean. And as most of us know, it certainly isn’t that Marty thinks LRH was perfect or that there aren’t aspects of Scientology that lead to doom – and I am not defending everything either, no matter how many people assume that I am.
I can’t help but take up..
M – “and I am not defending everything either, no matter how many people assume that I am.”
Should you be familiar with the tech, and I won’t quote it; When you continually defend or say you are not doing something, you probably are! My take, only if I believe everything Hubbard said.
deE, My wish would be that Marildi quit defending so hard and begin to take back her freedom in this area; this subject of Scientology that she has worked so hard to help. No one is a better researcher or more dedicated. I wish I could twin with her on course.
I am auditor trained and I am intensely critical, so critical that even Alanzo refuses to ask me any questions any more. Yes. The auditing processes do produce excellent results on many people. That is true. And by report by Independent auditors, those gains are not dampened by the machinations of the Church.
But for you to say that a solo auditor is not trained is absurd. An auditor is an auditor. Period. Have you done the solo auditor course? Do you even know what is on those training materials? How many hours of auditing do you think a solo auditor clocks in by the time they get to OT8? THOUSANDS. But that doesn’t count? Nonsense. Solo auditing is every bit as demanding as auditing another person in a different body.
I concur with the Mission Statement Marty has made. However, you forgot to add that he closes with the statement: I do not wish to unsettle the beliefs that people hold if they wish to remain in the static comfort of their Scientology beliefs. Those beliefs are just as valid, and protected constitutionally, as more traditional, accepted faiths. You may find some level of solace in the validation of those beliefs on this blog. But, the theme of this forum is just as its title says, Moving On Up A Little Higher. So along with the validation will always come questioning and exploring and the attempts to broaden horizons and transcend. So, if you wish to remain in the static comfort of your belief system, I suggest you not visit here. It could be unsettling for you.
Wow, Maria… you definitely wow me. You are so wowable! 🙂
.
Maria: “But for you to say that a solo auditor is not trained is absurd. An auditor is an auditor. Period. Have you done the solo auditor course?”
I have never said that a solo auditor is not trained. And yes I have done the solo auditor course.
My point has always been not just about training but about getting experience with the tech so that you have personal understanding of how and why it works and can thus see that the tech and the underlying principles are true. And, notwithstanding a relatively few exceptions, those who do get experience see that it does what it claims to do.
I’ve also posted many comments to the effect that I believe in continuing the evolution of it and, just as Marty puts it , moving on up a little higher. Your evaluation of me that I “wish to remain in the static comfort of your [my] belief system” is simply that – your evaluation. But I will admit, that sometimes I feel I’m spending my time and energy in the wrong place, with people who have a whole different viewpoint.
Marildi, the primary inconsistency that I see with your stance that you are constantly making yourself right and all the critics wrong. It is like a service fac.
I believe that I understand and know about Scientology tech.than you do. It is not the memorization of various mechanics that counts. It is the ability to see what is consistent and what is not to overcome the mesmerization that any authority exerts.
.
MARILDI: It was MARTY who said: “wish to remain in the static comfort of your belief system” — I really cannot take credit for that statement.
Marildi –
I admire you for sticking to your guns. I do not believe that you would ever use Scientology harmfully, nor would you allow anyone else to do so. You’ve already received “The Alanzo Pass” from me directly. I would think this would be enough for you to never feel that you had to defend your beliefs here, or anywhere else on the Internet.
Next time someone tries to rub your nose in some Scientology poo, you just tell them “Hey! BACK OFF, Bud. I’ve got an Alanzo Pass to be a Scientologist and if you’ve got a problem with that, then you take it up with Alanzo personally.”
Then you just let me handle them.
Okay?
Alanzo
If one wants to go round the mind, the products of the mind, that is
the outside of the wheel of life, one can do that. And thus make a circle and end up where one started from. But the wheel has an inside, that is the Heart. The YOU.
Yes. I know of highly trained auditors reaching OT 8 and crashed brutally.
Okay, thanks. Not just to argue, Geir, but two things occur to me. First, did these highly trained auditors actually accumulate a lot of hours in the chair?
Secondly, you say they “crashed” but that is something different from what I thought you were saying in the OP, which had to do with people not getting handled what they wanted to. Certainly, many in the upper levels have crashed, and not surprisingly when you consider the gross out-tech of the 6-month refreshers (just one among many other severe outpoints).
Many with lots of hours in the chair crashed. Many never got handled what they wanted to get handled.
Well, again, there are various factors involved, so it is hard to come to a definite conclusion either way.
You might find this radical of me, but I consider that if someone did train and practice auditing to any reasonable degree, unless he were completely “done in” as a being by the MAL-practice of Scientology, he would still have the wisdom to know that the journey doesn’t stop with Scientology. And he would have gained that wisdom from Scientology itself – IMHO, aside from LRH’s statements to this effect.
So, back to a main point; Don’t you think it’s a tad cruel to leave a person with That EP after some 10-30 years of hard work and after forking out some USD 200K-300K?
It seems like you’re talking about two different things. One is “getting to the end of the road, still possibly having major issues you’d like to have handled”, and the other is “finding out who you are”.
I don’t think Hubbard was able to put the question, “Who am I?” to rest. He himself did not know from what I see.
.
To give you a more direct answer, what I was trying to say before is that assuming (and this is definitely an assumption) the Bridge itself hasn’t been corrupted (too much), by the time a person has achieved the gains to be had, that person should have (1) the willingness and (2) the ability – to find his own way from there.
I think that LRH came to that realization when he researched OT VIII and with that level it is now inherent in Scientology itself. In other words, its purpose isn’t to spoon feed an individual (using your recent metaphor to me :)) beyond the point where he can carry on without needing anybody or anything to tell him what to do from that point forward.
It is inconsistent to make a business out of spiritual “help”.
.
I have to agree with Geir here. It is more than cruel what the Church is doing in taking the “faithful” up to OT8 and parking them there. The deceit and betrayal is almost unfathomable. It would be one thing if they said “OK, this is where you take over. If you can’t, or fumble, come back for help.”
But to say what they do (in essence: “You now have to do this and this and… before we’ll let you on to OT9), which is to lie, deceive and betray the trust of that OT… that just begs a lightning bolt, or two.
As far as trained auditors who fall apart after, all I can say is that “trained robot” might be more appropriate as with all that training the person did not learn to first trust their own judgement.
2ndxmr: “It would be one thing if they said ‘OK, this is where you take over. If you can’t, or fumble, come back for help.'”
The above is basically what I am saying too. And in no way am I agreeing with what the CHURCH is doing. Of course it’s cruel – and worse! That to me goes without saying. There’s no one here who disagrees with it, which is why I sort of receive it as a more or less rhetorical statement on this blog.
2ndxmr, p.s. Great point about trained auditors who fall apart. I was assuming that they must have been broken spiritually by the out-tech in their auditing. But what you say makes more sense – if they had really understood the materials as regards the mind and spirit, they would probably not have been vulnerable to “crashing”.
It is an inconsistency that these trained auditors did not benefit from their training, whatever the reason.
.
MARILDI: But what you say makes more sense – if they had really understood the materials as regards the mind and spirit, they would probably not have been vulnerable to “crashing”.
This is BULLSHIT. This is the same think I ran into in the C of S over and over and over again — its okay to ram an OT, its okay to be cruel, its okay to fuck with them and scream at them and tell they are a pathetic lot and they need to do their bridge over again.
Well guess what? People who have had and done a lot of auditing are not cold, disengaged, unfeeling, unresponsive, perfect little angels. You want to see some fury? Hell hath no fury like a freed being. It is only tempered by the fact that they are trained solo auditors and they are not stupid. Consider the impact of Geir Isene on the scene of the Church of Scientology. Consider his joy in his relationship with Annette. This not cold and dispassionate. This is full on joy, passion, fury, focused like a magnifying glass to burn the house down.
As for me, having done through OT4, I can tell you that when I unleash my fury (rarely), people dodge and they are enturbulated for days and days afterwards. Out of respect for others I choose not to let er rip!
Maria, that is quite the re-interpretation of what I said. I only meant that an understanding of the principles of mind and spirit would more than likely help someone who has been mishandled to see what had happened, and/or to be able to figure out where to go from there – knowing that something was very amiss. I’ve heard many accounts of auditors who have done this very type of thing.
Maria, Love it!
The lights are blinking brightly beyond the sun and the moon. All is glorious in it’s brilliance and blissful in it’s state.
Maria, If you want to throw down a gauntlet, you’re welcome to throw it in my direction. I’m not given to pass up the opportunity to enjoy days of enturbulation.
I’m also not given to internecine wars, especially with those I consider combatants on my side. But we are in a new paradigm, for sure, where the ability to toss lightning bolts is soon to re-emerge and maybe we’ll laugh a bit as we smolder. Normally I also have a restrained pugnacity, and I really do have more important things to do, but I neither mind tasting nor spilling blood, so if you’ve got some charge you wish to create pixels out of, I’m here to receive them. In the end maybe we’ll laugh. I’m pretty damned sure I won’t cry.
As far as what I said, and what Marildi interpreted, anybody who has trained and yet can get caved in by the charges they have the tech to resolve has missed at least one important thing. That may be the ability or willingness to allow themselves to apply the tech to their own lives. That would be the robot: able to deliver a session and apply the tech there (in a session environment) but not be able to apply it to their own circumstances. When and where that ability is gained, or whether it’s simply decision may be a point of variance, but the point is by time a person gets to 8, should they not have either been empowered or have attained a point of self-empowerment in dealing with charge as it affects them?
As far as putting a solo auditor into the category of ability of a professional auditor, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Yes, the solo auditor is an auditor but there is no comparison of ability between an auditor only trained on solo and a levels trained auditor. I’ve seen enough of both to know the score. There was a reason, back in the ’80s why all solo auditors with only solo training were sent to the academy to train 0-IV. Out of a few dozen I saw on that path, not one was able to take in a Grades pc and not botch their sessions any less time than any average trainee. That, despite logging hundreds, or thousands of solo hours getting up to solo NOTs. So while there may be exceptions, that was the general rule – solo auditors had generally not learned to audit well enough to make it through the top.
There was little that happened in the Church that I didn’t question. Putting solo auditors back to the acadmey levels was a thing I did question – until I observed their abilities as auditors. It should not have been a blanket order, but based on observations I expect there would have been very few to whom the order would not have applied.
I am delighted what you said about solo auditors was only your reality and not the fact. But I agree with you on that: by the time a person gets up to the OT levels should be able to handle anything what comes into their daily life.. I know some who do and doing very well.. The tech is simple and easy to use,.. but people tooooo lazy to continue and to blame is much easier, and acting crying the blues playing the victim is pathetic and the cause of their misery is self no other person.
Marildi: The people on this blog work VERY VERY concertedly to discern and learn and evolve. You do them an extreme disservice by insisting that they have MUs or do not understand about the mind and spirit because they have not done all of the auditor training.
As far as being more stable, yes, auditors have a great ability to manage communication. But I have seen many auditors crushed under the heel of the C of S, in a state of total collapse because of wrong indications, wrongful dismissals, harsh ethics and disconnection. And what do you suppose happened to LRH along the way? What do you suppose he meant by OT alone? Do you seriously think he was always 100% stable? Never hostile? Never despairing? I think he hurt many times.
I have experienced total collapse this past few years, HEARTBREAK that hurt so badly that all I could do was cry. And for me, reading any more LRH was simply out of the question unless it was to work through it against other works. And now, Geir writes this post and to tell you the truth my rage is at a fever pitch. Interested in doing the ENEMY formula!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as the EP? No wonder the OTs are treated so badly in the Church.
Yes, I had studied all of the materials of Scientology. But the fact is that the gains I have experienced since then did not come from Scientology. PERIOD. They came from this blog, from my personal experiences, from the materials from which Scientology was originally drawn, and from good hearted people like you, and the people who post on these blogs and participate in my life.
It is true, however, that if you want to be a professional auditor, then you should put in the hours and the study to be a professional auditor.
Marty has opened a big, big door by surveying people about what they experience and understand PERSONALLY. Not what LRH says about it all. And that was most enlightening for me for the answers were so individual and different from person to person.
Maria: “You do them an extreme disservice by insisting that they have MUs or do not understand about the mind and spirit because they have not done all of the auditor training.”
This is again putting what I’ve said in a very different light. I have pointed out specific times that I’ve observed such things as an MU or a viewpoint that something in particular is contradictory where I do not see that is the case. And I’ve made the observation (which no one has refuted, btw) that generally speaking those who are critical of Scn overall are not experienced auditors. That fact should tell us something, IMHO.
And I have never denied what the C of S is doing and has done, nor do I say that LRH was perfect although that is something that I see more clearly now than I used to, thanks to this blog in large part. Like you, I have posted many comments stating how much I have learned and gained here. I’ve even referred to it as my current “bridge”.
But what I said in my earlier comment about whether this is still the place I should be is something I need to look at. I feel the way Vinaire and Alanzo must feel on Marty’s blog when they post there and typically get “piled on”. They are coming from very different places than the vast majority of commenters there, who do feel Scientology for the most part makes sense and that there is more to be valued in it than not.
It’s seems to be pretty much the opposite with me on this blog – the majority do not have a mostly favorable viewpoint of Scn. But I agree with you that they are good hearted. It’s just that my basic viewpoint is not aligned and furthermore I don’t appreciate all the evaluations of me personally.
Marildi, “It’s just that my basic viewpoint is not aligned and furthermore I don’t appreciate all the evaluations of me personally.”
Most of us are living in the real world now and have to deal with real people, which you are also. Even Isene would like to blog about other ideas or topics. At least here we have some commonality and discussing should be enlightening or entertaining IMO while getting used to others viewpoints, since we are away from the church by choice, and all it now represents.
Karen #1, OT, say’s it so well on Marty’s blog:
“After spending decades being FORCED to think a certain way, ACT a Certain way, friend/unfriend by order of who I could even speak to and who I couldn’t, even having endured the horrors of Old Gilman House, and basically making myself as robotic as they come (my own doing) I love what you wrote Marty.”
“I love the fresh air. I love transcending everything I was so imprisoned in and I see the benefit of having a 360 degree view rather than tunnel vision.”
Maria, re: Mary’s post and commenters. I thought this was one of his best and was glad to see it too.
deE, I thought his posting of Tom Martiniano’s KSW letter was the best. It will get the most TA because it is the very best and purest example of someone with “no other fish to fry.” Most sincere and heartfelt letter which also happens to align with KSW.
Reason? Puts KSW out there in plain English in a way to let the inconsistencies show up. For example, he said “yes, it’s better that people blindly follow LRH than stumbling around blindly on their own.” This was a beautiful piece of writing. I could have wrote that but it would have been sarcastic instead of with the love that Tom put into it.
We don’t need to fight Scientology, we just need to make it better known.
It is an inconsistency that these people are letting out-tech run on them.
.
Vin,
Don’t you think that it is inconsistent only at a surface level? Could it be that at the level of the first consideration this is exactly what they want? But they are not aware of that. Indeed one can dramatize up to
a point when dramatization stops and “alive life” starts to take control.
More important than training on data is to be able to spot and resolve inconsistencies in data, regardless of whether it has to do with Scientology or with one’s case.
.
“Knowledge is more than data, it is also the ability to draw conclusions.”
“Knowingness is a capability for truth; it is not data”
“Knowingness would be self-determined knowledge.”
So you understand what I am saying!
.
“Knowingness is a capability for truth, it is not data”.
Example: no thinking process is necessary for observing what life is delivering in a given moment of life and when the observation is right, one simply responds (“knows”) what/how to respond.
That is KHTK. Spotting and resolving inconsistencies.
.
I find it true. Training can start from being consistent with what is. Anywhere in life.
Marildi the training will not as-is the bank… example: look at all those banky CL 6’s 8’s 12’s
Same goes with auditing… look at those banky OT’s.
.
The training; the setup for this comes early in life before discovering the Bridge to Total Freedom. We are conditioned to put our faith and trust and confidence in a structure of reality which is outside ourselves — a real world out there, if you will. This is a mistaken idea.
“The Bridge to My Total Freedom” has involved my own personal re-tread and re-train of all of this nonsense.
God has breathed into us Life; but the Devil has given us our Ego. (metaphorically speaking of course.)
Thank you to Geir and each person here who challenged me to revamp my ability to observe. I am doing very well now in a way that I expect to continue for a while.
Good to hear Chris. It seems only the uneducated or naive in the workings and controls of the church cannot understand the dangers thereof and are stuck into the past.
Thank you deE. There is a stability of being moored in harbor and there is another kind of stability in knowing the sea and how to sail. Having the choice of either, I can write that it is surely fun to sail!
Yeah, but until you are so advanced as to be able to sail without one you still need a boat. 🙂
You don’t need to be advanced. Just need to shove off!
Shove off to sail – without a boat…? Aw, now you’re changing the analogy. Or maybe mixing your metaphors. I thought that was a cardinal sin in your book. 🙂
The repartee is yours alone. 100% of spiritual freedom lies in crossing the Bridge to Total Freedom. Right? Without the 100% workable technology of Scientology, man is doomed to stumble around in the dark for eternity, right?
Being a true believer and walking the Bridge to Total Freedom requires an important amount of commitment and dedication. Your “do as I say; not as I do” approach is inconsistent in light of that necessary commitment. You can believe what you want, but I am going to call it that when I see it.
OSA won’t be pleased with me, but I can live with that.
This post of yours is the perfect example of your fixed ideas about both me and Scientology, which no matter how many times I’ve tried to explain are mere assumptions and misunderstandings on your part, you keep repeating. I’ve lost interest.
I am carefully replying to your words. That you take it personally is a mistake.
Where did you see those words of mine?
In my eyes.
Comment to Chris. Don’t be too worried about OSA. They are soooooooo busy with 3 books out just this month, all the worldwide press and a Federal trial coming up with fraud (by an OT8). They won’t be looking at you or me this year anyway. Granted they aren’t please with any of us, but we don’t exist for that.
He he… I like that. 🙂
.
You are what you think you are, advanced? MEST boat or spiritual? One can also practice mock-ups, no?
Good sailing Chris and have fun. I like really your analogy.
Thanks deE. As I correspond with people and as I read about what man has known and figured out in the past, I’ve become sure that each person’s walk in life belongs only to themself. We figure out what we figure out and that’s the whole of it. Even if man develops mighty technology that takes his body to other worlds, it seems he will continue to wonder at his place in the scheme of things.
People seem to be able to rise up in wisdom no matter the walk that they choose. People also seem to be able to remain dense as hell no matter the discipline to which they adhere.
Yes, Chris, this is the core philosophy of my exquisite improvisation in the interverse!
“Pimples on the skin of consciousness!”
AGAIN, great word Maria — interverse!
Chris dear old kid “We are conditioned to put our faith and trust and confidence in a structure of reality which is outside ourselves — a real world out there, if you will. This is a mistaken idea….”””
right you are…. 10000 times yes. one needs to take the power back which one so easily given to others that they know better..
There is no outside or inside when one truly understands.
.
“There is no outside or inside…” True.
Thank you Elizabeth. You point the way.
Chris…..Call,me, we can talk of OT8 there should be no mystery what is about, in my reality that knowledge should have been included in all the basic materials. After all scientology advertised spirituality yet they have withold basic information in order to intrigue, to cause mystery- secrets and that of course pulled people in since every one love to be privy to secrets, that pulls like magnet people want to know, have. It is a interesting phenomenon when a person is offered a secret that person feels valuable, because was trusted that others thought of him wort to have that info.. that make him equal to that person. Secret is like meat to the wolf.. cant resist it… Bigger the secrets-mystery because of that they hold lots of MASS and the being feels huge stimulation by that and gets stock to that mass.. The must have is created it is implanted re-stimulation..
A person might “halt” after OT8 if their entire journey was solely governed by scientology and its doctrinal directions. A person who was happy to continue the journey under his/her own steam might well keep on traveling. Mileages undoubtedly vary.
Precisely so.
This is pretty much what Marty said on his blog a little while ago about what to do when you reach 8 and there is no 9 or 10 or beyond.
It’s also the conclusion I came to when Marty announced (18 months ago?) that the Church did not have a releasable product for above OT8. At that time I decided that the field was open for us all to contribute to what lays beyond.
In essence, that was my “wants handled”: I wanted to be in charge of my own destiny. I had given over that right-of-charge to the Church after I read Dianetics and saw there was a path that had been started (and finished, as we were told).
With that lie exposed I had not a second of remorse at making the decision to go my way and I’ve been enjoying just about every thought since.
Like Marildi said above and I and other trained individuals have said before, auditor training can help enormously in stabilizing a being and it constantly provides me with a knowledge base to handle charges I encounter in routine life. But much more, it gives me the strength to not fear or worry particularly about charge I expect to encounter in striking out at the universe.
Hello PT…. I have never given up solo auditing after I left the church.. Because of the continual solo sessions I have had the most incradible adventure and life… Here is a article if you care to read one persons spiritual journey it is in my blog. I am glad you are a traveler…
To walk the walk of the Solo Auditor: the Path of Enlightenment, The self-discovery.
There is a road beyond OT 8 outside of Scientology. It is not true that there is no road.
.
Truth Revealed…how ironic.
I got great wins from my auditing, much like you Geir…I just knew early on that something wasn’t right and luckily took my wins and ran. Can’t imagine pushing up through OTVIII like you said to handle something and then realizing you are at the end of the road…and still not handled. Wow.
No one told any one that they have to stop auditing… by OT 8 one really learned how to solo audit.. just because it did not occure to those OT to continue… just to bad… they are still at the stage of being a victim and blaming others for the condition they are in… and I put those conditions very low on the tone-scale..
I hear you, Geir.
I think that what you are doing, exactly what you are doing especially in this post, and in the comments, is the exact right thing to be doing. It takes a lot of strength of character to do what you are doing.
A lot of people have been helped by you and your approach. A lot more will be, too, if you just keep it up.
So keep going G. You are doing the exact right thing.
Alanzo
You may want to pitch that one in over at ESMB 😉
ESMB is a post-scientology culture from a different time, when people were fairgamed for even discussing Scientology on the Internet, and had to fight to keep going. It is a war-wounded kind of environment.
This is a new time, and a new environment. And this new environment belongs to people like you and others with a similar, positive, approach.
The war is over. And now a lot of people have to figure out where to go next. Your approach is what they need.
Oh, and I almost forgot to put this:
In my opinion.
There, I said it. (:>)
Alanzo
There never was a war, Al. Just a lot of individuals who felt hurt and attacked.
I’d have to agree there, Mark. 🙂
Is it a war now? The Church is looking more and more desperate. It has given up a lot of ground. I guess it can’t measure up to the power of Internet. Its power came from confidentiality and a hidden data line.
.
It felt like a war to me. Friends and family are dead. The gulags still have fences around them.
I’m glad you feel the war is over, Al. We can still hear some skirmishing going on a blog over, but the “homeland” here, the land of the free is pretty safe and ready for rebuilding.
It’d be a shame if the old warriors like you just sat the swords aside and settled for a life of drinking Victory gin. The wounds that have left scars should be given more balm than just an ‘attaboy. Some may suggest the Old Warrior salve (OWs). Me, I’d suggest a simple solo process of “Look at the thought” to address a charge. Unfortunately it doesn’t come with a handy acronym like Old Warrior salve has, but it’s a very effective balm when applied to troubled spots. Hope you try it and find it useful.
Now, about that sword… Plowshare or bridge girder?
Excellent.
“If you were in such a situation, would you do everything the church asked of you in the hope of a new level released?” NO
“Or would you revolt?” YES in time.
“Or what?” I’d feel stuck to do what the church says to do and that’s to help others on the path and help the church grow. I’d be a bit shocked if I had any senses left at all and then see how I could get out of that situation. Actually I saw that early on and was feel fortunate that I didn’t have the money to find this out.
I can appreciate those that made it to the high or highest levels and since those people have seen what is, some of those are the ones who will in turn, help bring the truth to light regarding the dangers of scientology.
I would add, that that is why the internet and blogs are growing, while actually helping people understand, acknowledging their wins/loses and it helps them move on their own path of finding out who they really are in present time. 🙂
It is a wonderful tool for sharing information and opinion.
This is the kind of data. Hubbard and the Church fought to keep confidential. It was simply to protect business interest. It had nothing to do with endangering a person’s case.
Would you do everything the church asked of you in the hope of a new level released? No. Absolutely not.
Or would you revolt? Absolutely. But in an effective, but nevertheless deadly way. Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind. From an unassailable position, I would work to break the back of monopoly, secretiveness, abuse, and coercion. And I would work to support the use of the beneficial materials in an atmosphere of transparency and integrity. I would welcome the scalding criticisms and the passionate dedication both and so help to forge a new paradigm. And this is exactly what I have been doing since I read your resignation Geir.
God bless you for continuing to stand at the end of that bridge with your great good humor, candor and willingness to share and be home to those who cry, who rail, and who hurt, welcoming all with kind hands, generosity of spirit and your good, open heart
Amen.
The ep of ot8 is so disturbing. Spiritual hostage is a perfect analog. I should say at this point I have no interest in finding out “who I am”. What a dead end! I am a many anyway. What I am interested in is becoming something i wasnt when i started, to keep evolving, to keep growing. I get so angry reading this. I am so grateful for getting out after one year. Fucking horrifying thinking of being around it for another day.
I would think that OT 8 should have put a person in a position that he could continue looking for himself much like what one does with KHTK… spotting and dissolving inconsistencies on all dynamics (so to say), and not stick him in the first dynamic.
By the way, my answer to “who I am” is that a person is the resultant of all the considerations that make him up. That has been quite a workable definition for me.
.
I’m not so sure I’d ask ‘who I am’ and opposed to ‘what I am.
I am a seeker of understanding. I’m satisfied with that as a label, if I need one.
Allmy life , I never asked myself “who I am?” I never raised the question, because there was simply no need for me to do so. The first time in my life I heard about it was in SCN. Enemy condition. Find out who you are.
Its bullshit. The question is a trap. It introverts extremely and it makes a BIG mystery where one sticks to. Scientology Marketing. But not only Scientology.
I even allege one can never find out who he is, because the answer is not available.
For me it is totally adequate to have a first and surname.
keep it simple.
🙂
BEING is the here and now. When one starts on a journey to find the answer to
“who am I”, one finally ends up in the here and now. There are experiences on the way and one can get stuck in them, mostly by fear or indulgence. One can
lose the ” I “, that is the core filter on the way….equally create it again out of the need to be “somebody”, as if how can I function in life…others continually label me, so ‘ I ‘ go along with it….but when Being and an underlying Flow is “strong”, there is no “turning back”, no more fear of “survival”…..more and more
trust that the totality of Life really Cares and Knows…..the answer to the question “Who/what am I?” is in the moment…Life itself….my experience.
Being is expanding through continuous Change. Even without the sense of an ” I “, there is a sense of Change by an interraction with what IS. Here and Now (with a Flow “further and further”). Let’s say, there is “another” who also has this “sense of Change”. “They” “meet”, that is Change meeting Change with the underlying same substance of the Flow (Life). So different experiences arise, from the “physical” up to very “spiritual”, can even have the experience of co-no-thingness. My reality, sorry for not being able to describe it better but words are limited when it comes to beyond the mind experi-
ences.
I look at it as de-condensation of “I” which also appears as exteriorization. It is a release of fixed attention that one was not even aware of.
.
There are some new KHTK exercises for OTs.
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
.
I have a couple of notes after reading through the comments;
1. Maria’s observation that the EP of OT 8 is a person Interested In Doing The Enemy Condition: Brilliant. That is exactly what it is. I have updated the OP accordingly.
2. On the auditor training and experience of solo auditors, consider this; A Solo NOTs auditor must master most aspects of the tech and know it cold, such as Ruds, Listing and Nulling, Date/Locate, Rehab tech, Out-Int handling, PTS handling, Assessments of all kinds, chain running, O/W pulling, etc. This in addition to scores of specific handlings for NOTs such as full BT clearing, ridges handling, waking up dormant BTs,, etc, etc, etc – all known by heart (no references available for any of the confidential handlings – including the PTS handling on BTs). This is demanding Far More than of any auditor running processes on other people.
The Condition of Enemy
When a person is an avowed and knowing enemy of an individual, a group, project or organization, a Condition of Enemy exists.
The formula for the Condition of Enemy is just one step:
Find out who you really are.
I always thought that the person of the Enemy formula was to help one realize that one was being an enemy in the true sense of certain positive efforts.
Similarly, I always thought that the purpose of the Treason formula was to help one realize that one was in treason in the true sense to certain positive efforts.
It was a very specific thing.
.
I guess that the answer should be plain and simple, just like ” a person “
About all that auditor training… I personally believe that the
12 points of mindfulness are equally, if not more effective, and are much easier to achieve.
.
Agreed on all your points. Have had in mind all of this for the last hour. Spot-on what you write about training. Also, you have access to
all viewpoints as you have been going through it all. In a can-do case,
no more further training is necessary. My reality.
I meant my 2013-01-27 at 16:01 comment for Geir.
Isene: “…This is demanding Far More than of any auditor running processes on other people.”
There is certainly a huge demand on the auditor there. Maybe too much for most solo auditors until they have learned to audit on the levels. That was the conclusion that I came too when I saw the OTs train in the academy. Where a solo auditor was able to do all you’ve listed, I applaud.
I for one was easily able to do all that and then some. Most of the other solo auditors I have come to known were in the same league.
Now, it does not seem so bad that there is a state with the given EP. And I can imagine a lot of mental work is needed to find out who you are not. Only I would expect the answer to “Who I am” from the “first real OT level”, “Truth revealed”. otherwise I would say, there is an inconsistency and a misnomer regarding the name of the state and so it is a serious outpoint.
On the other hand there are a couple of books on the subject who you are by the sage Sri Ramana Maharsi. One can buy for a few bucks and can really find out who truly he or she is.
On the experience level it could very well be that while you are in this body you just can’t fully and utterly experience who you really are. So no courses or auditing sessions can get you there.
But logically if you know who you are not it would be quite obvious to know who you really are. Isn’t it true? I think in a way it is quite obvious.
OK. OT8 EP: It is condition of enemy but on a different level. Maybe you can work your way up through the conditions from there and all is as simple as that.
When I say on a different level, I mean you are not an enemy of the… family, company, nation, humanity, etc, up the dynamics, but Geir knows what dynamic this enemy formula covers… for me it can make sense…
Great posts and comments! I like the “enemy condition” – makes sense.
—————————————————————————————–
Yes, it is cruel! To end at THAT after all the endeavor must be like a slap in the face, like a “am I in the wrong movie?”- thing. Betrayal after trust comes to my mind. It also could put a person back at the beginning when he started to find out “who am I”, probably surfacing his failed purposes on this.
“I know who I am not” is a negative, and it doesn’t sound like a great “EP”, which would be expected at the highest level available on “The Road Total Freedom”, it sounds wrong. Also when it handles whole-track amnesia, at that point, one should know “who I am”.
I was looking for some material on the dichotomy of “I am – I am not” and found the following from Advanced Porcedures and Axioms: “On the tone scale, we have at the optimum level, I am, at the lowest level I am not. The lower one goes, the more I am not there is and the less I am.” Interesting! It seems that with the “EP”: “I know who I am not”, regarding to the above, the purpose would be to drive the person down the tone scale.
So the summery would be: a loss instead of a win, a crash down the tone scale, a feeling of betrayal after trust and with it the loss of major stable datum, a “not being” as a negative and failed purpose. And with all that a ”cannot communicate about it” but have to pretend all is just groovy, and if I do not toe the line I get disconnection and declared. The “EP” could feel more like a huge loss instead of a huge win (an ability gained), a failed purpose and a huge threat… unless the person got enough confidence and strength on the way up to have certainty about his beingness. At this point I would say goodbye; but then I would have to disconnect with all its consequences. And with all this descending upon somebody, it is no wonder that some persons crash.
(I read somewhere the assertion that the OT 8 level got split and that what is currently delivered is only half of it. Considering all this it would even make sense; even though at that level I would expect quiet another EP regarding to “Operating Thetan”.)
PS: next time I write shorter. You are all very good at concise expression – my admiration!
Me- That was perfect and understood very well, thanks
Thank you, deElizabethan! – I am glad that it is understood.
(I was wondering if my train of thought was more confusing than explaining). – Karola
I’m in contact with Don, an Class XII auditor and C/S of the “Indies”, Israel, Tel Aviv, Advanced Organization, and he proposed me to handle my main issues in life BEFORE to go on the Bridge to then stabilize my wins. I mean looks to me right at the opposite Isene described about Church’s behaviour.
PPS: the “I am” and “I am not” in Advanced Procedures and Axioms should be in italic.
The road to OT is a “Half Done”. It either was never fully developed or
not released. And I tell you: Every unhandled “Half done” in (your) life will develop to a big pile of shit an finally explode. So do not wonder when you are in deep shit.
Wow. I see that you have added my comment about the enemy condition to your OP Geir!
I find it fascinating that your next step, upon completing OT8 in the Church was to do the doubt formula, the next formula up from enemy.
I just revisted your original resignation after OT8, noting your response to: “Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined.”
You wrote:
Project Freedom is born.
I am adamant on forwarding peoples freedom.
I will help people attain and exercise their free will
Then you did a liability formula.
Could it be that the very next thing was a long non-e formula, for Project Freedom?
You noted that your entire world fell to pieces, and out of that came the spectacular and wonderful changes in your life. Was this a danger formula rolling out? Perhaps this revelation you have just made is the one thing you had withheld?
I hope you wont think that I am evaluating or saying this is so, its just that this suddenly occurred to me and I would like to know what your thoughts on the possibility that such a progression has taken place might be.
Wow. That is an incredible astute observation. It seems you have nailed something here. I will ponder this some more.
The viewpoint is a spiritual viewpoint, it is in the spiritual universe. We are here to be 100% human first that is experience it in its totality. It will stop our interest and/or aversion to being human. That is having to come here and not existing at a different level. The I am me is a great point. Few have it only. This is when things start to speed up….my reality. What’s your’s Geir?
Do that! Maria is right in my reality. Speak out and write down what you have in the meantime. Very few do that and not as precisely as you do. Will help a lot of “others”.
Yes, I have that sense of nailing something too — looking forward to what your examinations lead to!
Geir,
I asked you a question in OT8 which you didn’t give an answer to. The question was:
What is the nature of I AM ME? Will you describe how you mean it, what the
sense of it is, what its abilities are?
It is the nativest state of a being (before going back to pure potential, or whatever you’d like to call it. It is from where as-isness occurs.
Get it,thanks! My reality too. So what’s next for you?
Geir, the conditions formulas are applied as they relate to specific CONDITIONS. Here is the condition for which the Enemy formula is to be applied:
“When a person is an avowed and knowing enemy of an individual, a group, project or organization, a Condition of Enemy exists.”
Do you feel that condition is what is being referred to in the EP of OT 8?
Well, the formula is what it is and the EP of OT 8 is what it is. Draw your own conclusion. My point is really that it seems a lousy EP after dozens of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to do the first Real OT Level. And to leave the OTs hanging with an interest in finally getting to know who they are? That’s just plain cruel. And easily exploitable as we can see in practice within the CoS.
I totally get you Geir! But can you see just one positive side of it? YOU can create as much fresh energy as you want, as much space as you want and as many experiences as YOU want now. You can create energy called money and you can also create time if you want to.
YOU are CAUSE over LIFE as YOU ! and also MEST. If you decide that.
Is it true? How many people can say that? And in the meantime you had lots of experiences others did not have. In auditing and in life. If you look back, was it worth it, the major part of it? Please answer to it.
Yes, the formula is what it is and the EP of OT 8 is what it is. I don’t see how that EP, which happens to use similar wording, infers that the person is in a condition of Enemy. The wording “who you REALLY are” is in the Enemy formula and the word “really” is not in the OT 8 EP. That is one that that implies a significantly different meaning altogether.
It makes much more sense to me to see the EP as alluding to the greater knowingness that exists beyond OT 8. I get that an OT 8 completion has no more barriers that would prevent him from moving forward ON HIS OWN to attain the knowingness of who he is, (This is assuming the CoS itself isn’t insidiously inserting barriers, which it unfortunately is in many cases.) And finding out who you are would obviously not be in the context of being an enemy to some individual or group, a much lower level of knowingness.
The quest you yourself have been on, if I have understood you, is to find out who you are in terms of your relationship to the universe and to other beings. And since it seems that the CoS didn’t somehow manage to place a barrier to that in you, I am sure you will arrive. If you haven’;t done so already. 🙂
Are you implying that at the end of OT 8 one would not be interested in finding out who one REALLY is (as opposed to just finding out who one is)?
And I can assure you that one would not have the wherewithal to continue one one’s own with only the tools provided on the way as one finishes OT 8. I am not certain I would overcome the next death/birth in “one piece” to give you one example.
What I had in mind was that the wording in the Enemy formula of “who you REALLY are” implies that while the person may belong to a particular group he is in fact acting as the enemy of that group and needs to first decide who he really is – in relation to the group – and based on that determination he will be able to go to the next condition of Doubt and validly do that formula and be able to decide which group he should join or remain in. As for the OT 8 EP the word “really” isn’t there and thus I see no such implication of enemy.
The wherewithal I had in mind for any OT 8 to be able to continue on his own towards greater and greater knowingness of himself is based on the fact that the barriers that prevent his moving forward in that direction have been removed as he is no longer blinded by who he isn’t.
M…”The wherewithal I had in mind for any OT 8 to be able to continue on his own towards greater and greater knowingness of himself is based on the fact that the barriers that prevent his moving forward in that direction have been removed as he is no longer blinded by who he isnt.”
That is the way it should be, but the OT’s have not taken responsibility for their own cases… and because of that they have not regained their power therefore cant move on, still waiting to be told what to do and are lost without direction and with that they become a victim.. Without responsibility for self for what ever happens to one is caused by self and no other, if one do not realizes that than one automatically a victim, blaming others for the condition is in..
I hear you, Elizabeth, and I am sure there is great truth to what you are saying, since most of us believe that each person is ultimately responsible for his condition. However, Geir’s point is that there are OT 8’s who have trusted in the Church and the (so-called) tech that it provides. and the Church has led them into disaster in many cases. There’s truth to that too. My idea is that some of those OT 8’s have been “crippled” to an extent that it isn’t possible for them to just get up and start walking again any time soon.
He may be blinded by much more than not knowing who he has not been.
“He may be blinded by much more than not knowing who he has not been.”
I’m sure you’re right. The only hope I would have is that he is now CAPABLE of finding those blind spots or areas of “ignorance”, where he once didn’t have a chance. At least that seems to have been the EP that LRH intended.
M…. the EP is there. but one have to work for to discover for self what is that and no one can tell that to any one. All OT’s know how to solo audit and with solo auditing one takes responsibility for ones case, ones universe.. and that need a realization that they were the creators no matter what they feel, have and experience.
I don’t see that LRH intended that. Why do you think so? Is there any reference that you can point me to?
Here’s a reference, Geir:
“You’re only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he’s on his own. I mean, you can’t go any further with a thetan.” (9 Dec 53, Examples of SOP-8C Patter, Standard Op Procedure 8 Clinical)
That quote has no bearing or relevance in regards to OT 8 specifically.
Do you think LRH intended the first real OT level to be the last? And that his Brifge to OT 15 was bogus/for show/irrelevant/just to creaye a graphical symmetry? And his talks about levels above 8 was just hot air?
There doesn’t seem to be any incontrovertible proof in the matter, but LRH was continuously researching and coming to higher refinements of the tech. The viewpoint below about OT 8 is the one that I think makes the most sense, especially when considering references such as the one I quoted above:
“…at OT 8 Hubbard seeks to guide an individual toward a state or condition of no longer having the slightest attention devoted to past identities, any aspect of the past, introversion or regression. At that level, there wouldn’t be even a remote desire for or inclination toward introspective processes or practices of any kind…
“…Do you think he was cruel enough to build the Bridge to a place where, when you’ve reached the apex, you are so ill-equipped to move on that you must cling to the guard rail, waiting for some priest to prescribe your every step? Do you feel so vulnerable and weak that you cannot step out on your own and begin to walk your own walk toward higher plateaus? […]
“Some express disbelief that Hubbard would not have published something that explicitly let the world know that OT 8 was the end. First, this is not surprising to me. Hubbard was perpetually exploring and prolifically publishing the results of his findings, throughout his life. I would have expected him to be exploring to the end, and if he died before he found anything worthy of publication during his elderly ventures, then the last thing he published would be the last thing he found worthy of publication. Second, if one thinks that OT 8 is the end simply because it is the ultimate attainment on the Scientology Bridge, then from the very beginning one wasn’t pursuing the same ends Hubbard was.
(from the book What Is Wrong With Scientology?)
If you’d done OT 8 it is more than obvious that LRH intended there to be more levels. It is indeed conclusive. I believe any arguments to the contrary to be defensive justifications that I have come to expect of a true Scientology believer.
Do you consider Marty Rathbun to be a “true Scientology believer”? If so, you haven’t been paying much attention to him for quite a while. Also, my understanding of many of his blog posts and comments is that his conclusions about OT 8 were based in part on the dealings he’s had with OT 8’s who don’t all share your viewpoint.
Or was the “true Scientology believer” remark intended as an Ad Hom towards me only?
Marty is evolving, and fast. I believe he was a True Believer. Most such tend to defend regardless IMO.
“Marty is evolving, and fast. I believe he was a True Believer. Most such tend to defend regardless IMO.”
By “Most SUCH…” it seems that you mean to say that anyone who “was” a True Believer although no longer is will still “tend to defend REGARDLESS”. If so, it comes across as a ready-made explanation to brush off the fact that Marty (and others like him) continues to highly praise the awesome results Scientology tech produces, while at the same time is quite capable of seeing “What is Wrong with Scientology” (which he wrote a whole book about).
Another thing, Geir: You do realize that “True Believer” is a label, don’t you? A derogatory one, at that. And I would also like to point out that calling me “pigheaded” as you did in an earlier comment is not only using a derogatory label but such name-calling is a logical fallacy as well.
“Ad Hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person’s reasons. NAME CALLING is a form of this fallacy.” http://my.ilstu.edu/~jecox/FOI%20Materials/Logical%20Fallacies%20Definitions%20and%20Examples.htm
The “pigheaded argument” is fallacious. Not derogatory ad hom.
Geir wasn’t referring to what I had just said or my current argument but rather to something that occurred way back. In other words, it wasn’t a comment that my last reply to him was committing the fallacy of pigheadedness; rather, it was an attempt to discredit me personally by (supposedly) pointing out that I had been pigheaded in an exchange of months (maybe years) ago. That’s Ad Hom.
And btw, when I disagreed and said why even that past argument was not just a matter of being pigheaded he had nothing to say in return.
Sorry, I don’t follow you here. I lost the question, the argument, the string. And with little interest to track it back, I will simply leave it.
I made this comment to Dee: “…But one thing I’ve observed on this blog is that those who are generally critical have not trained in it and applied it enough to get a conceptual understanding of what it is. And the posters who have some training and experience with the tech are generally highly favorable. I think this is a telling observation.”
A few posts down you replied to it: https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-28113
I then posted my response, which you never replied to. But it’s fine if you’d rather just leave it.
Marty has changed. One day I might even feel like shaking his corrupt hand rather than inviting him into the octagon for cage fighting. Time will tell. He was thoroughly trashed for his recent “liberal” comments after Tom Martiniano’s letter by the truly true-believers. He’s had to back peddle but time will tell what his agenda is or evolves into. (These comments are my own opinions and not connected to the isene.me blog.)
As TC and the church says, you’re either in or you’re out, with us or against us.
They don’t grant us who are of mixed breed to be anywhere. Just 2 cents 🙂
Thanks deE. I’ve since had a glass of wine and a Sunday afternoon nap and relieved to realize that Scientology was 20 years in my rear view mirror. My time travel back into the muck of that mistake was long ago and far away. Good to float back to the surface as I had run out of breath.
Blasphemy! Hubbard did not die. He causatively moved on to do further research.
Who knows for sure where he went and if he will ever come back here.
I don’t expect our paths to cross again.
I would rather think he intended for people to also do OT IX-XV.
Capable only if one is class 12 auditor. If not, sit with hands in lap and wait for a C/S. 🙂
I tend to agree with Marildi re the difference between the OT 8 EP and the enemy formula.
Sent from my iPhone
Geir,
If it helps, I don’t know. With the I am me the intention of survival is totally gone. In humans it is still there. Under the point 3. of the doubt
formula it says…..or help.That is it maybe the first real help point to
help humanity in its survival and waking up to truth instead of destroying it by “taking/demanding” etc. out of fear of non-survival. The enemy formula can be seen from “spiritual” sense and all way up the others.Can it be the case?
Geir,
“I’m not certain I would overcome….” Right. In my life the biggest breakthroughs happened in the midst of the biggest miseries. The Stop-no control-no resist formula. Many got enlightened in this way. So yes, no ! tools. No data, no method etc. Me, the real Me starts from mest 0 and can build up mest 8 or spiritual 8 or their combination
by following the Flow. Also, the here and now. Can function quite practically. I am not looking as far as the next death/birth. It will handle itself if I follow what I have witten above. My reality. Does it make sense
to you or your reality is different. If so, in what?
Geir,
Blinded…yes…also your answer to my question to what’s the nature of
the Me. In my present reality there is no answer “in the mind” to the
question “who am I “. The mind is the product, construct of LIfe-Flow.
In the absence of the mind, the answer is the Flow. And it’s “blind” in a sense as it is a not-knowing but ! doing-living kind of existence. That’s my reality now. Alive and fresh.
I do not have the reference to hand, but under applying conditions correctly, if a senior bypasses a junior and the junior does not actively handle that, he automatically starts the danger condition.
Also, if you apply the wrong condition, you get the next lower condition in the sequence of conditions.
If you apply the first step of the emergency formula and you are actually in affluence, then you start up the emergency formula (regardless of existing conditions) and since you do not then complete the emergency formula, you end up in danger.
At least thats what I recall.
This is likely why wrong conditions assignments (implied by starting the formula or by direct assignment) are a source of trouble and misery.
Maria, my point was that I do not see the EP of OT 8 as an assignment of a condition of Enemy. Nor do I even see it as an implication that the Enemy formula needs to be applied, assigned or not. What I do see is what I wrote in my replies to Geir.
Actually it makes a lot of sense to apply the conditions to that level and that realization. If I were doing it I would expect to be doing the conditions in relation to self, not a 3rd or other dynamic.
As such, one would work up and at Danger figure out the policies one would have to have in place to avoid a downward spiral (like “stay away from the red switch” 🙂 ). Working out those things can greatly assist in working back to a Normal condition as OT, not to mention Affluences and beyond.
Absolutely right. Conditions may well be the exact piece of Scn tech needed. My objection was only to the idea that the Enemy formula was essentially being assigned or that it was necessarily the correct condition.
Well, I am extremely interested in learning what Geir has to say about all this, for I have only read that EP without doing any of the processes from OT5 on up that result in full experience of that EP.
I do know for sure that you can start up a condition without making a specific assignment, and without even recognizing what the current condition actually is.
From the book Intro to Scn Ethics 1967 edition:
**********************************************************
The declaration of a condition is something new in the universe. The conditions are not. These conditions are operating states and oddly enough in the physical universe there is a formula connected with every one of these operating states.
If a government knew these it would never get into a great deal of trouble, and as governments don’t know them they get into a great deal of trouble. These formulas apparently have to be followed in this universe or you simply go “appetite-over-tin-cup”.
*********************************************************
I note that Geir has found it to be an astute observation, and he DOES have that EP. That is why I posed it as a question.
You cannot answer the question on his behalf. No one can do that except Geir himself.
So please, do not attempt to word clear him on a blog! I am quite sure he knows the meaning of the words and he surely has done all the auditing required to attain that particular EP. You and I have not.
Fortunately, and to his great credit, Geir has no problem with anybody disagreeing with him and stating their understanding and giving their conclusions and viewpoints – no matter what they have or haven’t formally done,
Unlike you, I may add 😉
(as you have been the most insisting on formal credentials, experiences etc. in order for the person to be up to snuff)
“(as you have been the most insisting on formal credentials, experiences etc. in order for the person to be up to snuff)”
Not so. I have only been pointing out the correlation of people who were critical and the fact that they have little to no experience. And that, along with the fact that those who generally aren’t critical do have training and experience, seems to be an indicator.
I’ve also taken up many of the points critics claim are in Scientology when the materials as I understand them show those statements do not apply to Scientology at all. In other words, I actually have willing to discuss these things with whomever, credentials and experience or not.
Don’t ask me to cull the many, many times you brushed off another for lack of credentials.
I have eventually brushed off some people but it wasn’t for the reason of lack of credentials. It was because of losing confidence that a sincere and rational conversation could be had with them. I disagree with you quite a bit, for example, but so far I am still interested in exchanges with you because I can usually count on you to carry out a productive one.
The sum of your pro-Scientology arguments revolve around a claim that people who understand Scientology are for it while people who are against it do not understand it. All the while, you are no true-practitioner of Scientology by committing fully 1/2 the Bridge to Total Freedom — auditing — to irrelevance, and the other half, well, you are not pursuing it.
The solution to your complaint that you cannot have a sincere rational discussion of Scientology begins with your letting go of the major premise that “Scientology is True.”
Marildi, “Not so. I have only been pointing out………………………”
Thanks for pointing that out. LoLove
Thanks Dee. Sincere love back! 🙂
LOLove!
2ndxmr:
I am replying to your comments on speed of execution of the conditions. Yes, I have realized that those conditions can be completed faster than one can write them down in full.
The opposite side of that coin would be that the adoption or execution of a condition that drops one down the conditions could be just that fast too.
What I was looking at was that a condition does not have to be specifically assigned to be triggered. i.e. Senior comes along and issues orders in ones area. There is no assignment made by the senior, there is only an action taken by the senior. The act of bypass starts that condition. That is the premise of Danger Condition: Why Orgs Stay Small.
When I saw the EP of OT8 on Geirs post, the first thing I thought of was the enemy formula and what would happen to someone completing OT 8 who inadvertantly triggered the enemy condition along with the completion of the level. I say this because I know several OT8s who are bloody mess personally and financially. And I do mean a MESS! I also know of many who have walked away from Scientology after this level, certainly no longer friends and possibly even enemies. This was always baffling to me. I would anticipate a great love of the organization and Scientology and dedication to forwarding its purposes upon attainment of the highest level of auditing available in Scientology.
I do not really have any conclusions on this. I simply do not have enough data on this other than to say there is a string here. I like pulling on strings.
Got it. So an outcome of level is a person triggered into Enemy. And that could be on any dynamic.
Yet another case where insufficient hatting of the pre-OT causes a problem. It would seem like it would take only a few preparatory pages along the way to hat an individual to spot conditions assignments, whether self-generated or externally generated.
It is OK to walk away from Scientology after completing OT 8. It is called graduation. One is done with it. Now one may enter the real world to tackle the problems there.
Talking about loyalty to Scientology is like having loyalty towards one’s Kindergarten school. One has fond memories, that’s all. It should not make one an enemy of one’s kindergarten or Scientology.
.
That is an excellent analogy Vinaire. I wish I wrote that. It’s just how I feel.
Note to Geir: While I am very, very interested in what you make of this question I posed, I respect that you may not choose to answer or that you may not have any particular answer on an immediate basis or that you may have an immediate response followed by a differing response over time and as you perhaps continue to inspect the area. As you know, I am just a very curious explorer and I love to tug on little strings that hang off pieces of cloth!
What was the question again?
You finished OT8 — and the EP is the gist of the Enemy formula. Than I observed that you did a doubt formula. Then you did a liability formula.
Could it be that the very next thing was a long non-e formula, for Project Freedom?
You noted that your entire world fell to pieces, and out of that came the spectacular and wonderful changes in your life. Was this a danger formula rolling out? Perhaps this revelation you have just made is the one thing you had withheld?
I hope you wont think that I am evaluating or saying this is so, its just that this suddenly occurred to me and I would like to know what your thoughts on the possibility that such a progression has taken place might be.
I guess I am wondering about any ramifications or consequences from the EP of OT8 apparently being the formula for the condition of enemy.
Yes, Yes & Yes.
Geir: Do you think it is possible that as a result of learning these conditions, and accepting them as true, then they play out as stated simply because one now accepts them as true, thus forming a repeating pattern, including now having to apply them in the stated order or appetite over tin cup? And might this be especially true for an individual who has ramped up intention?
Yes. I believe this is true. I thusly also believe one can quite successfully violate the conditions and bring about new positive endeavours.
Isene – Like! “successfully violate the conditions and bring about new positive endeavours.”
Maria, another thing that can happen is that a being can move through the conditions more rapidly than you might expect. The real key is to be able to determine the condition you are in at the moment. If one had a cog at Enemy and quickly had cogs that brought him up to Danger, the correct hing to realize is that the current condition is Danger. It might well be wise to look at what happened at Enemy and the intervening conditions to ensure they were complete and understood but that doesn’t mean dropping the current condition (as in denying the correct condition) and assigning self the lower condition and working forward from the lower condition.
Make sense?
Hi Maria, you didn’t ask me but I wanted to answer. Yes, they are true within the framework of Scientology. Leaving this framework? Then bets are off.
The conditions are based on Life’s abilities. After clearing, only Life remains as being in its natural condition. So it’s fast. I find what Geir says also true, that is “bringing out new, positive”.
This reply is for 2ndxmr:
See my comment above at 2013-01-28 at 03:13
My reply ended up in the wrong place!
I hope this one ends up in the right place.
Take him hard, Maria! 🙂
– –
RockmyStar
With the purest way I can ask you, I am asking you now.
WHO ARE YOU?
This EP is just the general technicalwording of Scientology which has nothing to do with life or spiritual things at all. I think LRH did not know in the first place who was himself. Scientology was his Game and nothing else.
He wrote many nonsense and this point on the Bridge seems to be nonsense as well. LRH was playing games with Scientologists.
The Church is a worthy successor of him.
The sadness of this story is that in the hand of people with goodwill things could be sorted out and could be used beneficially for all.
A couple of viewpoints on OT 8:
What I got from the level was: Freedom from past.
I think that would have been a better stated EP of the level.
I needed that EP. It calmed me tremendously. It put me into the Here & Now. Excellent stuff.
If it helps: the here and now for me is in one sense the definition of ability. That is: observe, decide and act. Can happen in an instant with no-mind. Being “new” in this “state” is not obvious for others as they still see my body, past actions etc. So there is a “transition period” both for me and others. It’s a kind of continuous Pesence. Perceptions range from physical, the purest theta (seeing theta com.lines
between people) to no-thing perception. Knowingness. So “old” ways are gradually gone – for me it’s obvious, simple, natural but in the family or other groups some reactions can be expected – which can be
handled by Presence. So the individuals and the “groups” undergo
a certain Change too. It settles down.
Your Freedom project would interest me too. Geir, you are doing great by communicating! Universal solvent, is that the word for it?
I do not have the benefit of having done the OT levels, but freedom from past could be the exit point from all mind traps.
And the answer to who I Am maybe should best be left open, as it could then be created newly at each new moment in time, free from past and future.
It aligns wth my best possible (theoretical) definition of OT:
Pure creativity.
+1 ……so one is then creating….
I love the picture you created for your avatar. Nice!
Dee
Thank you! I look a little differently now due to what Ron would say that is theta, or more theta can change even the body, automatically.
Readjusts itself to a more natural form. So I am now slim, 58 kilos, face more natural too. It’s also true that with attention and postulate one can change looks. I am writing about it not because I want to speak about “myself”. Just as an example for a piece of truth.
I put the picture there as part of a game with Slack. He didn’t get the message – that is theta through the wavelength of “aesthetics/art” changes form. It all happened to me spontaneuously after “awakening”. It was interesting to experience it happening to me.
Hi Rafael! Always great to see the little mouse again! 🙂
You definition of OT seems to me to be succinctly perfect.
What is you current (theoretical) conception of how the universe began? I ask because this subject has been brought up on recent threads and it got me wondering about it again. You probably remember us all discussing it here in the past. I forget your views on the matter. But anyway, that was then and this is now. Does it still interest you?
I’m going to place my opinion here about what LRH was thinking with the EP of OT 8. When LRH was alive in the 70’s, before he started the “monthly rising prices” scheme to get as much money as he could to go on the run after the FBI raids, the Bridge was much faster and less expensive to travel. It was not to be your whole life’s work to get through OT 8.
The EP of OT 8 sets a person up to be TOLD what he really is. And it is this state which is necessary for classical brainwashing techniques to produce a strong personality shift. To have spent so much time nulling your thoughts and sensations and emotions, and getting them to “blow”, and then to have sifted away all your past life incidents and assigned them to someone or something else, and then to be told THIS EP – is nothing but classical brainwashing.
In fact, throughout Scientology there are classical brainwashing techniques applied to people to produce personality shifts.
I apologize for being so…Alanzo. But when you have studied classical brainwashing and other socially coercive techniques, and you look at Scientology, it is really hard to come to any other conclusion.
What a person puts there, and what they think they are doing in Scientology, is often very different than what Scientology is actually doing. And LRH’s explanations for the causes of what happens in Scientology are often very wrong, and are also often blatant misdirections.
I just had to put it there, one more time, because I can’t see anyone else making this point. And I believe that it is an important point to consider.
Alanzo
I have been considering this issue of brainwashing. The idea being that one strips down to a completely blank personality with no memory at all and then implants a new personality constructed by the operator. The justification for the drugs and surgeries employed is that the memories are the source of the personality, and responsible for the behaviors that are diagnosed as pathological.
The trouble I have with this is that I know many OT7s and OT8s and believe me, they are not short on personality and they certainly have memory. I have known some of these people for decades and I really cannot say that their personalities have been blanked out, and they surely do have memories of past events. Their memories really are not implanted memories unless my memories were also implanted when I was not aware of it!
So my conclusion is that if it is brainwashing, it is not particularly effective. Also, there are quite a few ex OT8s — I cannot imagine how they could have left if they were thoroughly and effectively brainwashed. But I do think that harassing people with endless crazy sec checks and RPF conditions is a form of brainwashing, again, not very effective on most people. I think that the fear of disconnection is a much more powerful and effective control mechanism myself, especially when coupled with silencing the dissenting voice.
However, I have discovered that my world and viewpoint can shift radically and rapidly depending on what I am currently involved in. Chris touched on this at one point, he said he thought he was very wishy-washy. I know exactly what he is talking about. More and more I can pick up a set of considerations and run with them in a very holistic sort of way. Makes for a bizarre kind of existence really. I wonder how many people experience this also.
Maria: Chris touched on this at one point, he said he thought he was very wishy-washy.
Chris: Maria, I’ve thought about those conversations from time to time and have come to think of the wishy-washy as a flexibility. I find it easier than ever to complete a task but at the same time am not compelled to do so; unless I have committed to do so, in which case, I am compelled to do so. Maybe commitment is the operative word. Maybe back then I felt I should “pick one” and go with it. Now I feel more comfortable with the flexibility.
In my reality, corporeal Life for me consists of being one cell on the skin of consciousness and I see you as my comrade cell in this way as well both of us part of a greater consciousness. In my present incarnation, I have a consciousness of sorts, like one of the 2-dimensional people in Carl Sagan’s “Flatland.” Yet I instinctively know and adhere to the idea that we are joined “at the hip” by a “commonality of consciousness.” I don’t particularly care whether we name this “oneness” or “unity” or what. It is just a sense that I do have communion with others. I see the structures; the constructs that I create as illusion for which I am responsible. I see other structures around me as illusion for which I am not personally responsible. I see myself always as personally responsible for how I perceive these illusions.
That “greater consciousness?” The “tesseract of consciousness?” Well, I imagine that to be the Source of this commonality; this communion which I imagine that I have with you. It is quite fractal by moment by moment; discrete; quite relative; quite conditioned; and quite impermanent.
Regarding, “who I am,” I have settled on very loose definitions of myself which I can and do “morph” as I wish with the caveat that when I commit my beingness to a certain beingness toward or for another person, then I do not morph for the duration of that commitment. It’s like a ray-gun that I turn on myself to “freeze” a valence for a duration. Then when that valence is no longer required or appropriate — “unfreeze.”What I am is a dis-solvable entity which began, has duration, and also an ending. I might be wrong. There’s no way for me sitting here typing to know for sure, but the illusion is quite real and vivid. And really, isn’t that all we ask of this life? For it to be real; vivid; lush; and exciting? When I am tempted to take myself too seriously, I think of these things, have an uproarious and hearty laugh; shake my head, then just get over it and get on with it.
Reading over this, I have no confidence that it will communicate, but I still hope it will, at least a bit.
Oh it definitely communicates — especially the freeze frame concept, committed to a particular presentation! I try to be reasonably consistent around friends and family!
And you ask: And really, isn’t that all we ask of this life? For it to be real; vivid; lush; and exciting? YES!!
P.S. I used the wishy-washy word because I knew that you would instantly know what discussion I was referring to, not because I think you are wishy-washy. I like your new word better anyway. Flexible. I am in a state of flex! Flex that interverse!
What the flex? Flex the whole flexing thing! 🙂
It communicates perfectly to me, Chris. Same ideas and use of valences / beingnesses dependent on situation.
Brainwashing occurs on a gradient. It is based on step by step agreement in infinitesimally small steps.
Attachment to one’s previous considerations is reduced while attachment to new considerations is increased. These new attachments are designed to create loyalty to Scientology .
The interesting point is that brainwashing is proportional to attachment to considerations. No brainwashing would be no attachment.
But a person who comes into Scientology is already in a brainwashed condition. He has been brainwashed by his parents and by the society. Scientology is simply shifting that brainwashing to its own brand that ensures loyalty to Scientology.
.
Vin: “But a person who comes into Scientology is already in a brainwashed condition. He has been brainwashed by his parents and by the society.”
Your statements here equate the condition normally referred to as “normal” with “brainwashed”. That’s a balloon that won’t hold much air.
Are you interested in discussing that?
.
I understand what you’re saying but you are left with no reference as to “normal”. How do you discriminate between a “normal brainwashed condition” and a “cult brainwashed condition”? You need a different nomenclature.
As I said in another post recently, there is a gradient of brainwashing, and the essential characteristic of that gradient is “attachment to considerations.” The reference is eastern psychology that you can find in Hinduism.
Western view of brainwashing is limited to a “rearrangement of the attachment to considerations.”
The original aim of auditing was to eliminate such attachment, or stuckness to considerations.
.
I am making the same point but differently.
Hubbard replaced Buddha;s mindfulness by e-meter. Whereas, mindfulness creates independence, e-meter creates dependence.
One can easily see the insanity resulting from such dependence,
.
I think Hubbard ADDED the e-meter to mindfullness. It was never intended to substitute for mindfullness, which was intended to be developed by doing TRs. The e-meter’s role was to provided information about what and where to focus the mindfullness(attention).
Alonzo,
“The EP of OT8 sets a person up to be TOLD what he really is”.
I find it to be the exact opposite of what you are saying. First, how
Geir describes the “state” he is in, being in present time, no attachment! (it simply means getting off it, no more energy put into it, not
operating from there but can have access to memories) and also native state (read his comment), also what and how he is writing about,
what is “coming through” IS the power of a free being. (sorry Geir, I don’t mean to evaluate). Having done both dianetics and scio auditing I found them a way to be more and more aware of how THETA Life is…it’s also true for my studies….never-ever experienced “brainwashing”.. Also what you are writing about assigning past incidents to someone else….please read again what Geir says in OT8. I am in a very good position of having a clear experience of
auditing and what it can do (up to a level), also true! non-method meditation. also linguistics (cognitive semantics), also what it means
to “wake up” (per E. Tolle, if you like). I am mentioning it not because
I want to speak about myself. I am writing about it because “value,
truth” whatever we name it for me is “sacred”, It can be “found”. It is
“there in plain view” (Geir).
🙂
Yes, Marianne. I understand that people get wins from their Scientology auditing. I did too.
But when you read the basic books, and then you look at something like the Sea Org, or the absolute totalitarian goals (when absolutes are unobtainable), or the RPF, or sec checking, they just don’t make any sense. They do not fit.
Why?
Alanzo
Al, please let me agree and disagree with you at the same time.
1. Possibly Agree – “The EP of OT 8 sets a person up to be TOLD what he really is.”
This is based on my reading of Marty’s post and ALL the comments here: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/truth-revealed-about-ot-viii/
His post is based on rehabbing a number of people who did “OT VIII” at the CoS. The comments speak for themselves.
2. Disagree – “what LRH was thinking with the EP of OT 8.”
I disagree with the idea that LRH had much at all to do with the EP of OTVIII as it is given by the CoS, because:
a) LRH’s OTVIII has never been delivered by the CoS. What has been delivered is “New” OT VIII which is different and is the concoction and brainchild of Miscavige, was never piloted, was released only after LRH died, and of which there are about 4 or more different versions. Karen #1 has further information and provides an email addy for accessing it.
b) The purpose of “New” OTVIII is to deliver a specific “implant” into the prior confusion (intentionally) created during NOTs. The nature of this “implant” is to make the person feel he needs to start all over again at the bottom.
Additionally, “New” OT VIII as delivered is reportedly only 1/2 the actual existing level. Perhaps that has some relevance to the perception that the EP simply dumps one down in the lower Conditions?
There is more, but here’s the link again. It’s worth wading through the comments for the information available in that thread.:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/truth-revealed-about-ot-viii/
Maria wrote:
The idea being that one strips down to a completely blank personality with no memory at all and then implants a new personality constructed by the operator. The justification for the drugs and surgeries employed is that the memories are the source of the personality, and responsible for the behaviors that are diagnosed as pathological.
These are Hubbard’s misdirections. This is not how classical brainwashing works.
Brainwashing gives you a new self-identity. A self-identity is who you tell yourself you are. Nobody erases anything. However, new memories are uncovered in auditing to get you to change your own self-identity by “uncovering” new areas of “track”.
I was born in Macon Georgia in 1954 changes to “I used to be a Loyal Officer on a star ship.” Or, “I am a past life Clear” or “I have recently arrived on this planet, looking for Scientology” Or, “that sick feeling I always got whenever I remembered my mother was a body thetan which I “blew” on the route to total spiritual freedom.” These all change who you tell yourself you are.
And yes, we are always changing our own self-identities. Hubbard just inserted himself in the process, and he inserted parts, such as goals he could control, and attitudes he could control, and an ideology that he could control.
Remember, all auditing addresses valences.
He developed the PTS/SP/Ethics tech for those who became unstable, and to get them back in valence as a Scientologist. (Think enemy formula, doubt formula, liability formula) And he developed Justice & Fairgame tech for those who woke up and cracked out of it and became a problem.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He did it very intentionally.
That’s what I see when I look at Scientology.
It is worth it to look at Scientology from this viewpoint. You learn a lot from it. And you learn a lot about what Hubbard was doing. Lots of stuff starts to make sense that never made sense before.
It’s not for everyone, though. For some people, it’s their religion and they get a lot of wins out of it.
Alanzo
You laid that out very well.
Wins are what sticks one to Scientology. It becomes an addiction.
There is definitely something wrong with such wins.
.
.
This is a meaningless statement Vinaire.
You seek wins with KHTK, wins in terms of identifying inconsistencies. Restated, for you to be free from your own addiction to your wins, you will need to adopt a point of view that any consideration is a win, (whether consistent or inconsistent) and that there is absolutely no need for any kind of progress towards anything or nothing and no need to identify and or evaluate a consideration at all. AT ALL.
Under the terms of your own blanket statement, I observe that you are wholly addicted to wins and to the process you are employing. Can you stop yourself from observing and examining considerations and inconsistencies? Even if you wanted to? I doubt it.
To my way of thinking, only death and total dissolution will relieve this addiction, and then and only then if there is such a state of total dissolution. And if there is, then you would no longer exist to evaluate it.
Never enter the ring with Maria in the other corner 🙂
Go girl.
+1
addition: Vin CAN but only VIN can without any consideration!
Alanzo – I wrote you a really good response, but it is now in the moderation queue because I put links in it and forgot to disable them. Hopefully Geir will happen by and moderate my post!
Alanzo, I really felt it wasn’t good enough just to identify elements of brainwashing, because elements of brainwashing can be found in almost every human endeavor intended to influence the minds and hearts of people, just as Vinay has pointed out.
I wanted to find out what elements or characteristics proofed an individual against forms of brainwashing do not employ physical shock, pain, drugs and surgery. My research led me to a book written in 1956 by Edward Hunter entitled “Brainwashing – The Story of Men Who Defied It.” Hunter interviewed many individuals who had undergone brainwashing techniques commonly used in POW camps. He thorougly describes the methods and then interviews many individuals who did not ever succumb, identifying the common elements that proofed them up against the mental onslaught they experienced.
Please note that it is a treatise on the psychopolitics of communism as well, and he explores what that means in terms of individual rights and liberties. Also note that these excerpts touch on his subject matter, he fully explains what he means for each term used in the book.
The book is online at: [http://archive.org/details/brainwashingstor00huntrich]
The following is extracted from his chapter entitled “HOW IT CAN BE BEAT:”
********************
The elements that gave a man moral strength were just as definable as those which gave him physical strength. Out of the experience of all these brainwashed persons came a practical and a satisfying pattern for survival against mental pressures. Such survival knowledge can ultimately destroy communism, internally and externally.
These elements can be named and listed. They are:
Faith, convictions, clarity of mind, a closed mind, purpose, keeping one’s mind busy, confidence, deceit, high jinks,adaptability, crusading spirit, group feelings, being yourself.
Certain of these labels, standing by themselves, would give too broad or misleading an impression, such as a closed mind and deceit. Within the framework of maturity and dissemblance these two are trimmed to fit within our democratic way of life and still remain practical. They are all bound up in integrity which gives them their direction and potency.
[…]
A closed mind, of course, is a radical preventative. Fanaticism can easily be confused with it, and this is not what it means. A fanatic not only closes a door in his mind, he cements it shut so it can never be opened again, and shuts every other nearby door the same way, irrespective of where it leads. An intelligent person closes the door when he reaches a conclusion, moving on to other problems, but keeping the key safely in his pocket so he can open it again if he wishes. If he does, it is by his own free will and judgment and not at a brainwasher’s insistence.
[…]
I noticed in my interviews that practically everyone who got out of the Red trap had to operate, wittingly or unwittingly, as if he had been cornered by a madman waving a
dagger in his hand. Anyone who tries talking logic at a time like that is a corpse. The fanaticized assailant has to be humored and outmaneuvered. Some would readily use the
word deceive, others prefer to call it dissembling.
[…]
High jinks was the most appropriate name I could find for a stamina-giving element that brought the full force of humor into action alongside several other stimulating elements,such as deceit and adaptability.
*********************
Maria quoted:
…Out of the experience of all these brainwashed persons came a practical and a satisfying pattern for survival against mental pressures. Such survival knowledge can ultimately destroy communism, internally and externally.
These elements can be named and listed. They are:
Faith, convictions, clarity of mind, a closed mind, purpose, keeping one’s mind busy, confidence, deceit, high jinks,adaptability, crusading spirit, group feelings, being yourself.
Scientology works to get you to turn over your own innate value system qualities as above, and adopt the ones that Hubbard needed you to have. These men fought hard against adopting the communist value system, while Scientologists willingly adopt Hubbard’s because it is the route to Total Freedom for them.
Given the basics of the subject which Hubbard laid out in the basic books from 1948 – 1956 or so, can you explain how something like the Sea Org fits into that? Doesn’t this development just seem a might outpointy, given what Hubbard said about the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology were all about?
Alanzo
I would say that most of the issues to do with the Sea Org, most of the ethics and justice materials, and the majority of the PR and marketing materials do not fit in. Not at all.
I have confirmed to my own satisfaciton that it is exactly as you have suggested, there is a demarcation point in this subject. I have traced it back to 1963.
I have reviewed my personal experiences with the auditing processes, admin procedures and philosophical materials of Scientology. In just about every case where I have done well and found benefit, they are wholly in keeping with the core and overarching principles that are pre 1963. Weirdly, the booklet, The Way to Happiness, which is the last publication from LRH is in keeping with those principles. Go figure. And those materials are in keeping with the principles outlined in the Hunter materials.
I believe that the principles outlined by Hunter explain how it is that we are on a blog belonging to an OT8 who is no longer a Scientologist! It also explains the existence of your”Alanzo crusade.”
But most importantly, it also explains what positive steps can be taken to ensure that methods of working with human beings strengthen their integrity. I broadened my view to include all psychopolitical activities, not just the C of S, with an eye to formulating a set of principles that can be forwarded to proof people up in general.
So what do you think? Do you think Hunter nailed some of these elements?
You are most probably totally right about 1963, first half year as well. .)
– –
RockmyStar
Yep. First half.
Holding out the carrot of eternal life is an important difference, as you point out. I can map my own brainwashing by increments as Vinaire pointed out. I’m going to dip into Maria’s reference to see what I can learn.
I will be most interested to here what you think about the materials. I found it fascinating and quite helpful in sorting out this whole brainwashing scenario. It probably has quite a bearing on the effects of media propaganda as well.
I like you the most in here, Maria and Alonzo. .)
Vinaire: too engineerish 🙂
Geir: not capable, really, of being:)
The others I am not sure about yet.
– –
RockmyStar
Dear God!
Vinaire is too engineerish!!? Surely you’re being too kind. After he rebuffed your offer to control half the universe he really deserves a much more demeaning and derogatory description.
That offer was very generous of you. Anybody who rebuffs the one and true God should be put in his place. I think a lightning bolt shower around him would be in order. That would be a good demonstration of your power and yet your willingness to be a fair and just God. Then these soon-to-be-sycophants would see the side they needed to choose, and fast. The returned God being here, and all. They must be brought to knee!
Alas, you’ll have to scratch my name from the list of the faithful and subservient. My weak mind has always struggled to understand the joys of subservience and causes what will I have to be willful. And the times I’ve been unfaithful! OMG!
I’m sure an omniscient god will understand my failings. I see my true place: I will remain an unworthy, an outcast, and will simply watch your conquest of the universe from the hell of my miserable life.
Lol
2ndxmr!
Fascinating id, by the way. .)
I normally go by other id’s, but I guess I need to give you some slack, 2.
I do my best to hang in here, but as you most certainly are aware of I have been totally destroyed by the first 3 life units up along our line.
Fortunately, that is.
I am now stronger than ever before with my economy as my existing ruin you could say and be very correct.
By the way, do you know if that is my 1st or 6th dynamic? Honestly.
I am happy that anyone wants to originate anything at all. I have had pure hell the first 43 years of my life, 2.
Let’s go totally wild and magically crazy.
Let me – entertain you!.
– –
I am in the middle of a new drawing. I have no clue what it will end up as. Exciting.
How many questions did I run away from now? .)
– –
Slack
Slack,
“Let me entertain you” X-factor
The get-in performance
The in-between performance
He became the winner. I will leave it up to your fantasy what the winning performance was (or you can check it on the net).
Slack,
“Let me entertain you” on…
This photo was taken 2 years ago before the “awakening”. With that I
have lost 15 kilos and 15 years. Will attach a new photo later, in the meantime you can search for me… a little clue: I have shoulder-length hair, shape of face is much softer…smile free…clothes kind of “crazy”…hope you will find me…won’t be easy…kind of big change…even for me…
Slack
You are probably reading this. I happen to agree with Geir. You know,
it is coming through. When I contacted you first I said we were on the “same wavelength”. Then, it was the wavelength of art. Find it. Chill. Get out of the “victim, junior” valences. Get into the “winner” one, or rather, the real YOU. I am sending you the winning song in this row, wishing you to feel and do the same!
I understand you are alive.
I also understand that you want to communicate with me. However, your communication is not particularly easy to understand.
Please just get in some harmony in and between your sentences. (Start with a postulate, yes.) That way you will be possible to understand.
The songclip did not touch me at all. I am glad you liked it, but I go for women voices.
– –
Slack
Slack
Got what you said completely! Thanks for your advice of harmony and
postulate, I will take your advice! I failed! This is the first time on this blog that it fully happened so. Thanks for that! I truely mean it! In the other thread you answered ” I AM here”. Right! It comes through, so
no need for me to push it further. I looked at your art – nice. Will visit your blog again, in case you put some new piece there. Also, some
music with female voices. I love female voices but in this case the winner was a guy. He had not been very successful before the show. Indeed the winning song is about it and also a dream coming true. And there he was.
Slack
It just dawned on me! You pointed out my “operational level”. You say that ” you are alive…want to communicate….not easy to understand…get some harmony in between the sentences….start with a postulate”. This is the “operational quality” of the Flow of Life. Kind of no-mind that is no postulates. Just a Flow and an Am. The “mind” wants to “understand” every-“thing” but this is a no-“thing”. The “mind” cannot “see” how it communicates because it is the exact Flow
underneath the “postulates”. It explains a lot of phenomena around “me” (people blow considerations, come up the Tone scale etc.). So far OK. But !! with the word “harmony” you pointed out something that
I haven’t been aware of as much as I am now with your help! As I am fine, almost perfectly fine, I am not so much interested in making postulates. And it is not good, as it is “irresponsibility”, kind of “no-game”
when in fact it can be “no-game AND in-game” at the same time. I see it now as very light postulates and the wavelenght of art. Thanks for communicating to me, it has been a great help!
Hehehe and more of the same hehehe.
“I am glad you know your place you low life!!” The God roared whos name we cant say.. but one letter in the name can be whispered v?
The PTS/SP course, when understood (words cleared deeper than conceptual level) restores affinity towards yourself (including your thoughts), other beings and Life as such. Real affinity which results in
real communication with what there is – works like a bullet penetrating
and so one can get even very tough guys into communication, “cracking their case”.
This is for you Marianne,
Al, as a Marty-outed OSA agent, I give you two SP demerits for this exposure of mind control! I’ll get you my pretty, and your little BLOG too!
When I behold Scientology, I see “cult fine art.” I see the Mona Lisa of thought control created stroke by stroke by LRH. It’s both sexy and plain at the same time.
And deadly. And consuming. And dividing. And ENORMOUSLY EXPERIENTIALLY MEANINGFUL to those in its arms. God DAMN it creates meaning for its followers.
If I started Scientology at age 20, I could never leave it – that’s for sure. If I did, right now, at my current age I would be spouting this:
ME AS AN LRH CULTY: “I don’t care that Lawrence Wright said that LRH performed abortions on his wives or that LRH abused Polly and Sara mentally and physically or that Nancy Many made a video stating that LRH was IN THE CAPTAINS SEAT OVER Operation Freakout, regardless what Marty and MIke say about his ignorance of the affair. He wasn’t perfect, and I love his tech IT CHANGED MY LIFE.”
What can cause such devotion?
Meaning. Deep. Heartfelt. Meaning. Meaning one can FEEL.
And God damn, we want it like water. Fuck the facts, I can fix those!
“All teachings have the same goal.” – The Lojong Proverbs.
Yes, meaning. Let’s take that apart.
Meaning is everything! And you have a choice, you can give meaning to life, or you can have meaning being assigned to you by life.
Fuck the facts?
Why?
If the facts can’t be changed, why fuck them, why not just accept them?
All of them.
All of the bad, the terrible, the insane. Yes, reports indicate all of those.
But, if I’m willing to accept that, how about you trying to accept that even a messed up scoundrel can have a desire to make things better?
I will attest to being someone he helped with this technology. More than I could possibly say.
And I’m not alone. Many, many people have been helped.
Does the help given to those who will attest to being helped outway the damage? That is impossible to answer but what can be answered is that many of us would like a Scientology without the insanities, and that is entirely possible. Easy, no. Possible, yes.
So that’s the way I see it: accept, learn, move forward. What else is really needed?
I think what you said is more than fair: “accept, learn, move forward”.
But to agree to “move forward” together wouldn’t there first need to be, on the “accept” part, some agreement that there does exist in Scientology something of value to more forward with?
I’m not sure either Alanzo or katageek would agree with that, due to the fact that they don’t trust the intentions of LRH because of his history and thus they believe the practice itself is rigged to harm rather than help. Or, the consideration is that it only works if there is “belief” involved and is thus no better than many other practices, and not as good as some others. I say this because I’ve been reading their posts for a long time now (although they’re welcome to correct me if I’m wrong).
Nevertheless, for those of us who at least agree that there is value to be salvaged, this is a great starting point: “accept, learn, move forward”. Well said!
I don’t actually suggest “fuck the facts.” I said that in the valence of what I would likely be like if I embraced Scientology at 20 years of age. I would be right along with many others who are locked deeply into the sunk cost bias.
Your analysis below was exceptional IMHO.
and all viewpoints are equal…Elizabeth
And there is something more profound out of which viewpoints arise-the core stuff of life itself, our common true nature. It gets to be very practical when one’s personal viewpoint is “gone” ( the I ) – one
gains the ability to pick up and use any viewpoint to play in a game, or just stay in a viewpoint-less state and BE. In the ” now”. It is very practical too, as then one is not giving energy to something which is gone….that is one is not creating again and again the past….the energy of the present is very fresh…alive…this is the energy that can create a new reality…for an instant…then it is gone…living in the Now
is being that energy (or rather, the potential of energy)….trying to find “meaning” is mental work, grasping on something which is not clearly seen as it is…my reality of it now.
to believe that ones viewpoints are valuable is a consideration…the value is in the ”eyes” of the creator and those who agree with the same viewpoint….as a creation goes they are all equal..and they are all created in the NOW..
+ 0 8 0 8 0………..
sorry I dont get your reality on those symbols
E.H.: “to believe that ones viewpoints are valuable is a consideration…the value is in the ”eyes” of the creator and those who agree with the same viewpoint….as a creation goes they are all equal..and they are all created in the NOW..”
I’d consider that a very valuable viewpoint. While I agree it’s easy to put too much value on one’s own viewpoint, or the viewpoint of some OL (opinion leader) or some crusade, we yet need a reference point for our goals and actions. That, in fact, comes down to a viewpoint. So while we can occupy a viewpoint, it is incumbent on us to consider the existence of alternate, equal viewpoints.
This was summed up in a lesson learned by Grasshopper in the TV series “Kung Fu”: to the cat, the rat is evil; to the rat, the cat is evil.
Out of no-thing (0) is created every-thing (8), different “manifestations” at the same time…then they are subsiding again into no-thing (0)…there is a connectivity both in 0 and in 8. Seems to me that there is only one spirit (God)…but it’s only a recent glimpse of it on my
part now…
my reality that the concept of ‘God’ is an implant. and nothing could change that reality. I can give you a phone number of on OT who had done major amount of auditing on that concept ant he have come to the same conclusion as I have.. and we are not the only two who arrived to that fact acfter auditing… But by all means.. god is your reality and that is fine.. go with it..
No need, thanks…I couldn’t use a better term for that…I could have used “infinite spirit”, ‘infinite God”, “infinite substanceless Creativity”…it’s not a concept…a glimpse of it…if it is not so, it’ll change…experience can hardly put into a word when it doesn’t come from the mind…
We dont have much in common..
For Scientologists there is absolutely no need to believe or agree to whatever concept of God or Gods or no God or no Gods. Everybody can have his/her own beliefs, and is going to get his/her own conclusions based on his/her own cognitions based on his/her own processing. However, based on my own processing, my own conclusion is that the beliefs on God or Gods is based on more than only one implant. By the way, the religious belief of each human being having an immortal soul not created by God is not new (this belief belongs to some Gnostic religions).
I am delighted to read your posting… there are implants galore on every ones track which contains the subject of god and what is….That subject holds no interest to me since those implants as creation were very limited in abilities-concepts, the creators imagination was mediocre..
Elizabeth, I have approached the concept of “God” from the viewpoint of the probable creators of the universe. This god or gods (creator or creators) would not necessarily have an interest in mankind as the main religions try to promote.
However, such beings would be hugely powerful and could potentially be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. Not that I expect they would, but those qualities are potentials that a god-creator could exercise.
The reason I suspect there may be multiple beings involved in the creation of a universe has to do with the number of dimensions expected in an operating universe. The whole reasoning behind my creation theory is that it requires nothing to “always have been”, neither matter nor the first being. Beings could have awoken from nothing and beings could create the vibrations we know as matter. I’ve covered the idea earlier in this thread and won’t be a bore about it but what I was interested in was whether you’ve come across mechanisms of universe creation or whether universes have always seemed to be in existence to you.
Considering that this universe is a mere 15 billion years old and Fac1 was trillions of years ago, there was a lot of time there for beings to figure out what it took to make a universe and how to keep it running. What is your take on creation?
2ndxmr, are you sure you mean Fac 1 was trillions of years old? In History of Man, LRH says “It was originally laid down in this galaxy about one million years ago.”
In any case, the other thing I wanted to add to your question to Elizabeth is what she may know about BEFORE MEST UNIVERSE, which LRH also mentions in History of Man. And the time track itself is said to be trillions of years old, so that would be much longer that the physical universe has been in existence, according to scientists – at least this physical universe.
Marildi I have written in this blog and in mine what I have seen, what is outside of this Universe.. this splatter of energy… The physical universe is just a tiny part of what is…
Oh yes, I remember that well. What I’m interested in now is do you have any knowledge of how it was created?
evolved.. I only have my reality..
I don’t doubt that I deny that knowledge – not at all! But that’s where I’m still at.
Your reality is what I’m interested in because you have have directly seen a lot in your auditing.
You said “evolved”. I guess you mean that the physical universe evolved slowly, getting more and more solid. This is the kind of thing I remember from some of your posts. Do you also recall how the universe, even the very light and barely solid things first got started, or how thetans came to agreements that they all were perceiving the same things?
And would you agree with scientists that there was a big bang explosion that started the physical universe?
Marildi because reading here about the BIG BANG I become curious and since I never has such a experience recalled there was a possibility I missed something so I read up on that THEORY and it did not triggered off any experience,.
By now If a concept comes into my space in that instant that concept is confronted and I see pictures, I have reality what they mean and of course the understanding of it comes in cognition.
But reading about the BIG BANG.. brought nothing.. not one picture, concept. So I decided I look for it is session because I could have miss-placed not-ised that incident existence.
I could not locate that item and I would like to emphasise here that I have eliminated by now all the secrets, the unknown, the empty, the void, the so called none existent places in which I used to hide things in order to keep them safe.
I found nothing about such a concept, I have no reality about it and I never have experienced such.
[ by now I have instant answer an any questions asked]
Elizabeth: (re: big bang theory) “I found nothing about such a concept, I have no reality about it and I never have experienced such.”
Thank you, Elizabeth. There is no absolute reason you should have track on the formation point of this universe. If it was created by a mechanism involving beings that we are not descended from so that we share some common track (or even if we were) there is no telling what the memory of the creation moment would be.
It is more likely that most of us are late arrivals to this universe. More likely that we came to play once the sandbox was built and landscaped. Maybe we even waited until bodies had developed to a point. On the other hand, maybe the havingness of a thetan earlier on the track was so high that the being could have the existence of a jellyfish and relish the experience of being eaten by a predator.
Just that nagging little problem of copies of the experience somehow getting the quality and impact of an engram to spoil it all.
*2ndxmr, thanks for the comm. Now on that I have understanding… But being descendents of being I dont… care to explain that? * *I have on OT friend who talks of such a concepts and machinery I never had reality on. on the other hand he cant see.. or understand how a fairy is, what is it made of, and what created that being-concept.. He cant compridand “magic” what is and many other ” lightweigh” considerations I am familiar with.* *If I am a new commer here to this universe that I find news because I have seen how the so called first ”brigh”’ness have come about.* *But to this smoldering pile of mass, yes I am new here, little over 2600 years is very short period as in years, and I have had about 20 life times.. the body ecperience.. * * As experiences goes… way back.. they were just that… what is bad- and what is good those concepts are very new…* **
Elizabeth, can you tell that experience again about how the first “brightness” came about? I remember you talked about light in one of your posts and I was about to ask you about that, but this “brightness” you refer to may be the same thing.
the information you seek you already have, but you deny that knowledge..
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:53 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> evolved.. I only have my reality.. > >
“”I was interested in was whether youve come across mechanisms of universe creation or whether universes have always seemed to be in existence to you. “”
I am not so sure I understand your question: if I have seen created Universes, with mechanisms? You live in one. Earth is one, everything in it is mechanically created, everything, there is no exception.
Is the MEST Universe is 15 billion years old? When there is no time existing how could be existence measured? 2 No one other than humans are interested what humans are, being human, have a human life is on implanted item. Being human contains a set of consideration-assumptions and collected agreements, and the agreements make it ”’seem”’ solid… but it is not…No consideration can be solid no matter how many agrees to its existence. When considerations-assumptions and agreement as-ised the human nature of the spiritual being no longer exist. God.. to be god like and can do what gods usually do…. those are again considerations and exist only if one believes they exist. The idea of god was created for many reasons, I could give you few dozen for starter
Power it self is a concept….to have it or not having it., others have it how much any one has is also a consideration…and they belong to the MEST because it is considered it exist..
The Spiritual Universe contains no thought- no considerations, no identities and definitely no singularity… therefore no measurement of time exist. and definitely gods are out… or never been. I have experienced many different realities… and I can clearly recall the awareness of the first light. I know what is there when one lives the Universe… not just the MEST. but all of it..
”I was interested in was whether you’ve come across mechanisms of universe creation or whether universes have always seemed to be in existence to you.”
E. I think what 2ndxmr is asking is whether you feel the universe (not just the MEST universe) has always been in existence. That’s a question I would be interested in too.
Only MEST has duration because it is believed it has, but infinite is… yet infinite too is a concept a consideration… there is no forever, eternity, there is no past and there is no future those too are concepts-considerations.. ONLY THE MOMENT OF CREATION- EXPERIENCE IS-exist that is called “NOW”. You may ask what is my experience without considerations….of death etc
*2ndxmr*: If you care to know more about gods i can give you a name of a person who has solo audited those concepts and it has taken him months about 2 session a day… you see he was not just a god…. but he has been the mighty god.. and had the power to go with that.
Elizabeth
I think I first got close to what you are doing….you find it fun to look at each concept and know everything about it. Is that right? If so, besides it being fun, why is it essential for a being (like me) to know everything (origin, who made it first etc)? Also, will you write a little about your reality of “magic”? Only if you like….
When I look at, examine a concept I look at not just what one see around here on this planet — like what is a apple means here what its purpose having it… by the time I have finished with that Item I have seen everything about that apple and I even find the original postulate where and when that apple was created way back when, in different sector of the universe and what was the reason than and what is the reason we have apples here, why it is popular and used as a product which is put into the body and what kind of energy flows it has and how that energy effects the body the being..
The magic.. what is if you would have read some of the posting in my blog which than you would know what is magic means to me.. Sabre toothed pussy cat is one of them. I will not get into why you should have auditing…
Thank you! Got me interested!
To see a dewdrop is delightful, to see millions of them in them in the meadows in the morning well they transport one into different realm, but to understand where it has originated and what was the reason it was postulated into existence. well… I cant explain how I ”feel” knowing such a information. And by now I have explored every concept I know, I could think of and finding out their origin.. what caused them to be in the first place…yes.. fun it is.
Maridi, I will answer your question… but first what is your reason you want to read it again what I have experienced?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> To see a dewdrop is delightful, to see millions of them in them in the > meadows in the morning well they transport one into different realm, but > to understand where it has originated and what was the reason it was > postulated into existence. well… I cant explain how I ”feel” knowing > such a information. > And by now I have explored every concept I know, I could think of and > finding out their origin.. what caused them to be in the first > place…yes.. fun it is. > > > > > > >
I’m interested because I know that you’ve seen things and know things about the universe that no one else that I know of has.
That is true.. but by now that should be so since no other persons have what I done. and still doing. By the way,. many occasion when I write about the track some idiot writes here and tells me what I should handle because this is out, that is out etc… etc.. and they give me a list… hehehe. the most interesting thing that those who tell me what I should handle had so far very little auditing or none at all, but they KNOW THE TECH.. . answer your phone.
Marianne: “trying to find “meaning” is mental work, grasping on something which is not clearly seen as it is…my reality of it now.”
A really good point. When you’re living in the present with a focus on creating a future, meaning is pretty much meaningless. You have to go back in time to look for meaning – mental work that distracts from present focus.
Katageek may not be entirely wrong: for some people maybe “meaning” is what they hold onto as an explanation of why they remortgaged their home to make an IAS contribution. Personally I never, ever agreed with that nonsense or many of the other “nonsenses” that were pushed at us.
I think the full revelation of any “bad” LRH did is a good thing to clear the air. It is one of the necessary steps to ensure we learn how to avoid similar problems in the future. A possible recurrence of the issues can’t be discounted and we need to evolve a way to deal with it quickly – to really evolve a Qual that has the goal of workable tech and where ethics becomes a thing a person wants to get “in” on themselves. I actually saw that sort of environment when I entered Scientology at a small mission. Not perfect, but close enough that there was terrific harmony between staff an public. If I had to hold on to a “meaning” that would be it.
But I don’t.
Marianne… long as there is the ”I self me” exist than there is the value, the belief, even the very knowledge-viewpoint that it is ”NOW” .With out the “I Me Self” than all is equal or none existent. One cant have the “I”gone”” and still believe one creates…
Since you believe in that what that guy said.. that s prove my point that you and I we have nothing in common.. And I am sure that is fine by both of us..
Yes, perfectly fine…also, it’s not “belief”…it’s experience and how I live…how life is lived…..for the time being. Also, I love this wild rhythm…just “popped up”. For a change.
Yes…. the so called life–the implants do supply wonderful pictures and stimulations.. these stimulations can be glorious.. enjoy.. they are yours. Huge having-ness.. No wonder people dont want to get into sessions… they fear they might lose such experience.
“they are yours”…not really…havingness is ” feeling, experiencing” all over without becoming that…I have no problem with being a stimulator or being stimulated…I can enjoy being no-thing, being with an “enlightened being”, being the rhythm of a music, any emotion, any elevated spiritual experience, the sound of the rain (it is raining now)….just all I can experience…in the moment…then it goes
away…being in “session” is being in the middle of an experience
and knowing that out of this no-thing some-thing is being created…the mind can label it with a concept out of fear that it will go
away or cannot/won’t be created again…or stop labelling..
one can have the REAL SENSE of being no-thing…then the fear is gone….actually there is no such thing as losing…one cannot lose something which has never been one’s own…
who goes into session, I don’t know…noone can be forced, not even asked to do so….the most you can do is be present…people then ask and may go there…may or may not stay…despite the best auditing…you know it better then I do…
one can live in the Now and Let Life create for the one….I mostly live that way…believe it or not, I have never heard this Bon Jovi song before…two concepts popped up in “my mind”, I went to google for
a minute and there it was…no effort, no thinkingness, not even intention…just sensing….I am happy to live this way….it may change, I don’t
know…what I see around me is, that it has a changing effect on others around me…as you have different reality, as you say that, no
need for you to answer.
I wonder why you are bothering writing to me: why you have and what you have do not need explanation we all done the basic courses and a bit more.. and learned about the bank- mind and how its operates controls the being.
Marianne there is nothing wrong with knowing one has the bank,,, if one is an this Planet than one has one… If one would not have one than one would not know WHAT IS EXPERIENCING MEANS. We can only experience what we have, and rain.. flowers, etc.. whatever that experience is in that moment, one only can know of it if one has those pictures and energy which they contains the energy which those pictures contain IS THE EXPERIENCE OF THE MOMENT THE STIMULATION one has. it is not crime having one…nothing wrong with having one.. the crime is committed against self when knowing about it its affects and have the tech but not using it in order to confront -understand what is there.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> I wonder why you are bothering writing to me: why you have and what > you have do not need explanation > we all done the basic courses and a bit more.. and learned about the bank- > mind and how its operates controls the being. > >
You are right! This time only because you used the word “yours” and “havingness” differently from my reality.
Great video Marianne. Thank you.
Meaning is the siren’s lure. As he alludes to, we must give it up for the higher reality to dawn.
In Soto Zen, that is in “giving up” in Zazen. Just sitting with no goal. No meaning. Reality itself embraced with no goal to embrace it.
Well, I really was not referring to an LRH description of brainwashing. I got it from this article:
From the book “Secret, Don’t Tell — The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism” by Carla Emery https://sites.google.com/site/mcrais/emery
*************************************
“…the day has come when we can combine sensory deprivation with drugs, hypnosis and astute manipulation of rewards and punishment to gain almost absolute control over an individual’s behavior…a very rapid and highly effective type of positive brainwashing that would allow us to make dramatic changes in a person’s behavior and personality…[in] a few months—or perhaps even less than that…
“The techniques of behavioral control make even the hydrogen bomb look like a child’s toy, and, of course, they can be used for good or evil. But we can no more prevent the development of this new psychological methodology than we could have prevented the development of atomic energy…
– McConnell, Psychology Today, April 1970
“When James V. McConnell announced the new method of positive brainwashing in the article quoted above, he was a famous Michigan behaviorist. In the early 1970s, he trained flatworms by electric shocks to prefer the lighted tunnel to the dark one. He edited and published both The Journal of Biological Psychology and the Worm Runner’s Digest, a radical behaviorist periodical. If anybody outside the Company knew what happened when you put all the MKULTRA research together and applied it with the goal of personality restructuring to a single subject, it would be McConnell. In that article, he urged readers to adopt
“…a revolutionary viewpoint toward society and its problems. Today’s behavioral psychologists are the architects and engineers of the Brave New World… (Ibid., p. 74)
“He suggested temporary incarceration for antisocial persons while they were being “cured” by means of this new technology. The subject would be housed in a “rehabilitation center” while experts “restructure his entire personality.” McConnell argued:
“No one owns his own personality. Your ego, or individuality, was forced on you by your genetic constitution and by the society into which you were born. You had no say about what kind of personality you acquired, and there’s no reason to believe you should have the right to refuse to acquire a new personality if your old one is antisocial… (Ibid.)”
*************************************
Plus, I have been reading on this really cool website, here is an article I stumbled on there on brainwashing, including the history of it.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2588/is-brainwashing-possible
And he led me to this article on brainwashing:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/Congress.htm
Which led me to this online reprint of a Russian textbook on psychopolitics, which incidentally is the subject and even the title of the book that the C of S published as a public service in 1955:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml
It all makes for good reading and great food for thought. Its why I sent you the links to those videos — did you ever get the links I sent you by email?
If you ever wondered if I thought your info and opinions had any merit, there is your answer — plenty enough to go and research the topics you bring up and quite extensively too!
Maria, to me, any state that departs from the native state is a brainwashed state. That is the view from eastern psychology.
A brainwashed state is essentially “attachment to considerations.” Thus, ego represents the brainwashed state. One is born with it. What behavioral psychology is doing is simply messing around with the “attachment to considerations.” By the use of electric shocks, drugs, punishments, etc. such attachments are simply being rearranged. Some of these rearrangements are radical and others not so radical. These are simply various gradients of brainwashing.
All that behaviral psychology is doing is working out how to make ‘desirable’ rearrangements of “attachment to considerations”. But the original aim of auditing was to get rid of all such attachments toconsiderations so that one could freely deal with any and all considerations.
The Scientology culture then went against the original aims of auditing. It is no longer a native state that Scientology is going for. It is going for a rearrangement of “attachment to considerations” that ensures the survival of Scientology.
.
Maria – I didn’t get an email from you.
My email is alanzojumper@gmail.com.
Alanzo
Re-sent it just now. Look for it coming in on a hushmail account.
I have added the following exercise to KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
EXERCISE 3
PURPOSE: To address a stuck picture.
CONCEPT:
Something is keeping that picture there. It may be because the picture contains something that has become scarce, and, thus, valuable. Therefore, a person cannot let go of it. Making copies of that picture may make one look at that picture more thoroughly. This may reveal why the attention is stuck on that picture.
.
1. Make sure you understand the 12 steps of mindfulness thoroughly.
2. Look at that picture. Do not go digging in the mind. Simply look at what is sitting right there in front of the mind’s eye.
3. If possible, move that picture to a comfortable distance from you.
4. Make a copy of that picture and place it beside the original.
5. Repeat step 4 making more and more copies and placing them all over. Do this until the attention starts to free up from the original picture.
Note: This may take just a few or many, many copies. You will know when you have made enough copies.
6. Now do whatever you wish with all those copies. Dispose of them in any manner you please. Burn them up; throw them away, whatever you want.
7. Check to see if you can still make that picture newly, without having the attention stuck.
8. If the attention still sticks to that picture, or to parts of it, then repeat this procedure with whatever is still sticky.
.
A version of this exercise exists in Idenics as well as in Scientology (See THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY).
This exercise is quite workable without the assistance of E-meter when mindfulness is applied.
.
2013-01-28 at 00:18
Chris wrote: “Marty has changed…He was thoroughly trashed for his recent “liberal” comments after Tom Martiniano’s letter by the truly true-believers. He’s had to back peddle but time will tell what his agenda is or evolves into. (These comments are my own opinions and not connected to the isene.me blog.)”
I don’t see that Marty has back pedaled at all. Just read his latest blog post. And he certainly wasn’t “trashed”, with the majority of posters taking his viewpoint.
However, a balanced view and one of the best comments on that thread, if not the very best, was this one by our own Valkov:
Start of quote:
——————————————————————
January 28, 2013 at 1:05 am
Here’s my take on the recent debates and discussions.
I read Marty’s “mission statement” as a purely personal statement of insight and accomplishment. It is a plateau he has reached that others may reach sooner or later.
If you see eye to eye with it, great! You can hold it as an ideal or maybe you have actually accomplished to a similar level; but to Marty,it is an actuality because he has already lived it and continues to live it.
The 3 points of Integrate, Evolve, and Transcend are right enough but there are conditions attached to the actual attainment of them and they are not in truth “states” of attainment or status,but action words that point to ongoing processes of living. One never achieves a status of “I have evolved and therefore I am done evolving. Now I’ll just watch TV and drink beer forever.”
Let’s look at the first step of Integrating. One must first Integrate Tech into himself, before one can integrate it into society. This simply parallels the dynamics. As the dynamics are somewhat arbitrary divisions of the overall Dynamic, one integrates Tech into oneself by applying it to society, if only to one individual at a time. Thus it is always “by our own bootstraps” that each of us moves on up higher. There is always a leap of faith involved, that “if I do this, this will result”. Even though we stand on the shoulders of those who went before, it is still at first a step based on faith, expectation not yet known to one’s self as fact.
This is why what Tom wrote is as right, as what Marty has written. It is neither necessary nor desirable to disagree with Tom, in order to agree with Marty. Or vice-versa.
In order to evolve and transcend, one needs to be able to integrate both viewpoints in a non-reactive way, because they are each valid at the particular level of game they are addressing.
I was born and grew up in the Far East and it seems to me the West lacks a sense of discipline. As LRH said, the dominant philosophy in the West has been to survive by “striking a hard blow”. In the East, it has been to survive by disciplining one’s self in the face of adversity.
LRH brought the very Eastern concept of discipline through drilling, to the West. Scientology training is all about “drilling”, drilling, drilling.
It’s totally parallel to Asian methods of training in martial arts, for example. One does what the Japanese call “kata” (forms), over and over and over rotely and without variation until one masters them, building on the most elementary ones towards an increasing complexity of effortless action. This is reflected in Scientology training through the Academy Levels, on to the SHSBC and then Class VIII. Each step leading to increased understanding and ability to judge accurately. Thus it is inappropriate to insist for a student auditor just beginning training on the Academy Levels to “evolve” and “transcend”. KSW is appropriate for him. One must learn to walk before he can run, much less fly.
And incidentally, the word “yoga” is derived from the same root as the word “yoke”. It denotes a discipline one assumes of one’s own free will. Thus I see KSW as appealing to each individual’s free will, asking each to assume responsibilty for executing Tech as exactly as possible, in accordance with his own level of understanding of Tech.
This is how I perceive the spirit and intent of Tom’s “op ed”.
This IS how anyone begins. This is what KSW refers to, or “Keeping Buddhism Working”, or “Keeping Kungfu Working” or whatever. But there is another aspect to this, too.
Many religions have an “outer” and an “inner” aspect. The outer aspect has to do with the idea that not everyone will attain enlightenment very quickly, if at all. For these people, a good religion provides rules and mores to follow which lead to decent social behavior and restrains contrasurvival behavior as well as constructive directions for more successful living.
The inner aspect is the actual training in the philosophy and tech of the religion for those so inclined. The CoS has failed spectacularly in both aspects.
Judging by what Sarge reported to Lawrence Wright about LRH’s state of mind in his last weeks, about
feeling he had “failed”, I think LRH saw how far short of his goals he had fallen, in establishing the CoS as a “good” church in accordance with his own ideals. But that’s an aside.
The point is one must learn Tech before one can Integrate it, and one must Integrate it before one can Evolve it, and only then can one Transcend it. Thus it does begin with KSW. It is like LRH did say, that some people have it confused with “the right to have their own ideas”. These kind compulsively “do things my own way” in opposition to anyone else’s way. This fixation of course simply constricts them and makes them unable to learn from others and leads them to reinvent the wheel over and over again. Such a one can’t learn any Tech because of a simple inability to discipline one’s self by following directions.
One cannot “transcend” by choosing Marty over Tom, or Tom over Marty. One limits one’s self by identifying one’s self with either viewpoint to the exclusion of the other. One falls away from pan-determinism by doing so. I think it’s in FOT, that “identity closes space”. That’s it in a nutshell. I think Ken Wilbur’s synthesis of Western Individual Psychology and Eastern Transpersonal Psychology into a series of evolutionary steps by which an individual, expands and rises above that from which he starts, addresses this kind of issue. In order to evolve, one has to be able to perceive and validate the rightness of what appear to be opposed or incompatible viewpoints.
Think about this – how many people in the entire world, have grasped and mastered enough of LRH’s Tech to Integrate, Evolve, and then actually Transcend it? How many, out of what – 7,000,000,000 people?
I’d guess a small handful. Only practiced Auditors and C/Ses. That’s Marty’s actual public for this mission statement. Who else will understand? ESMB? Tony O’s fan club? OSA? I think not.
Marty, I’m sure glad you’re were here to publish this, and give us all a place to post our thoughts. This blog has done me a world of good.
Tom, I’m equally glad you stepped up to the plate to write and publish your Op-ed.
Thank you, guys!
Yes that was a great write-up by Valkov!
I would add that it is pretty clear that Marty has been cracking the books and coming up to speed on current philosophical thought, religious practices and beliefs, and all kinds of cultural material. This is not an overnight project! I know, I have been at it most of my life and have been working at full tilt on it for the last few years! I have to say, he sure is a fast study!
He also has done something that I think is really smart, and that is to personally audit three people up the bridge outside of the established Church, and with none of the hide-bound and coercive strictures and behaviors that go with that culture. In doing so, he fully demonstrated to himself that auditing alone can be beneficial and in and of itself and that it does not, by itself, result in a state of mind that fosters cult mentality.
As he has gone along on his blog, he has more and more dropped any effort to put a spin on information to do with the Church, LRH, various Scientology materials and even individuals. i.e. you cannot defend the indefensible. He seems to have made his peace with that and with that he has gotten to a point where he is more likely to simply say — yep, that is what happened. Ugly as it is, Wonderful as it is. It IS what it is. He seeks to posit reasons for what happened as a possible antidote for the future, or he may provide context that he is aware of. Sometimes he gets pissed off!
I think he has come to fully embrace the rights of individuals to their own beliefs and the rights of all in terms of individual liberty.
Wow!
To you, Maria (from a post somewhere over):
Three of them can’t be said to be possible to reach when forced upon: confidence, be yourself and purpose.
I guess you are right in the middle of your own integrity. ??!!!
Correct me if I was wrong. 🙂
– –
RockmyStar
I am not sure what you are referring to so I really cannot respond!
These elements can be named and listed. They are:
Faith, convictions, clarity of mind, a closed mind, purpose, keeping one’s mind busy, confidence, deceit, high jinks,adaptability, crusading spirit, group feelings, being yourself. 3 of them is wrong, (minimum).
– –
in the middle of your integrity – I’m only asking if you feel or know or whatever Follow your heart? That’s all, Maria. nice name, by the way.
– –
RockmyStar
OT IIIII X X
Well Slack, you should read the book I excerpted from — I put the link up so people could go and read it.
I see this list as pointing in a general direction, I have not fully integrated into my own set of principles, and I will be reviewing each of the items on that list. If nothing else, it will certainly serve as a means of clarifying my own state of mind and purpose.
Thank you, one more time. .)
There is a couple of words I take full responsibility for, in and out of scientology by the way.
– They are: humble, integrity and happily unknowing
The two first have been guiding you guys away from the real concept.
– The third is a term I have created just recently. It reflects how I am right now. True – all of my reply. This time! – Lol
– –
RockMyStar: http://wp.me/p37g0E-g
Slack, OT XIII,5: http://wp.me/P2VI6K-2
.)
+1 on everything you wrote, Maria. I think I have either thought or commented on every point, including “Sometimes he gets pissed off!” LOL
You summarized the story beautifully!
Thanks! I think it is important to add that one of the people that he has audited is his wife Mosey, someone he really, really cares about. He has since divulged that her dad is a trained psychologist, and while Church policy would disqualify her as a potentional source of trouble, I believe that having her dad in the picture is of great benefit, for he would likely respond very antagonistically to a practice that resulted in harm to his daughter.
This is speculation, but it seems to me that Moseys influence cannot be discounted in the evolution that Marty is chronicling on his blog. She must be supportive, very supportive or he would not have an environment that made it possible for him to continue his efforts. So kudos to Mosey!
Oh yes, that’s another thing I’ve thought about. Mosey must be his support staff in so many ways, not to mention her spiritual benefit to him just as the being she is,
Btw, I remember a comment Marty made regarding talking to her father early on (I think it was before he had even let on about his past Scn history), asking him about his profession and finding out that his views and practice were pretty Scientological.
One thing I’ve been wondering about in recent weeks (or months?) is that Marty hasn’t said much if anything about Mosey, but I don’t read every single thing. Anyway, I’m sure she’s wearing a number of hats!
@Valkov
A superb essay, Valkov. It couldn’t be stated any better.
2ndxmr.. is it need to be hush mail..???
I do have great difficulty writting this days. About 5 weeks back I lost to many human abilities after a cognition.. I am just stating to get some connection.. I could call you on the phone.. talkig is a bit easier than writting.. Will you please give your answer endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com I have tough time finding the letters on the computer thing.. I aim for p but who knows what letter will pop up. seldome i get what I want..
Shucks, I’m surprised to find it posted over here. Thanks marildi!
I want to give credit to whom credit is due, and that is to Geir who has nurtured me from the beginning of my involvement online, through his The Scientology Forum and then here on his blog. He has consistently provided a safe environment for my posting which has allowed me to clarify my own thinking as well as learn much from all the bright and giving people posting here who have co-created this environment along with Geir.
Thanks Geir and y’all !
You did us proud, Val! Your eloquent post did a lot to tie all the different truths together and dissolve the dilemmas and schisms. And I’ve noticed that since I posted it here quite a few others over on Marty’s blog have had similar responses to it, in their replies to you. I think you have influenced the future of Scientology in no small way with your insight. All your study and reflection on Scientology and a lot of other knowledge have paid off already. Carry on! 🙂
Even though Valkov’s post was very good, people have a different opinions.
I would like to add some info about the “schism” still not covered in this thread. The best commenters are CommunicatorIC and Terril Park.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30335-Schism-continues!-Fundamentalist-KSW-Wahhabi-wing-of-IS-movement-gets-breakaway-blog!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30342-Marty-How-to-Study-Scientology-(Another-shot-in-the-KSW-Wars-)
CommunicatorIC 31st January 2013, 12:05 PM
“As I see it, this a continuation of the fight described in the thread on the Great Schism. The schism is between: (1) Marty, Mike and the (at least relatively) liberal wing of Independent Scientology (IS); versus (2) Tom Martiniano, Steve “Thoughtful” Hall, Jim Logan, and the fundamentalist, strict KSW interpretation, Wahhabi wing of IS.
As a preliminary, tentative, inexact and gross taxonomy, Tom Martiniano, Steve “Thoughtful” Hall, Jim Logan, and the fundamentalist, strict KSW interpretation, Wahhabi wing of IS:
(1) believe that everything, or almost everything, that is wrong with the “corporate” Church of Scientology is due to David Miscavige;
(2) have very little, if any, tolerance for criticism of Hubbard and policies clearly authored by him;
(3) want a strict interpretation of KSW, and try to avoid problems with the application of KSW by saying that (a) KSW applies only to red-on-white HCOBs, and not green-on-white HCOPLs, and/or (b) any objectionable policies were not in fact authored by Hubbard;
(4) at the very least see no value in and have no patience for “other practices,” and believe reading works by other philosophers and thinkers is at best a waste of time; and,
(5) while perhaps not at “war” with the “psychs” are much less tolerant of same.
In contrast, Marty, Mike and the liberal wing of IS:
(1) admit that some of the problems of Scientology arise both from policies authored by Hubbard and his personality;
(2) will listen to and consider criticism of Hubbard and policies clearly authored by him;
(3) admit some policies authored by Hubbard are objectionable, and therefore do not believe in a strict interpretation of KSW;
(4) aren’t paranoid about other practices, and indeed read and consider other philosophers, thinkers, etc. (note the authors on Marty’s recommended reading page); and
(5) aren’t at war with the “psychs” and will consider psychological and even psychiatric thought (note that Marty’s father-in-law is a psychologist, one of the books on his recommended reading page is by a psychiatrist, and another book on the recommended reading page is by a psychologist).”
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30342-Marty-How-to-Study-Scientology-(Another-shot-in-the-KSW-Wars-)/page6
Thanks, Ferenc. That’s a pretty good general summary of the schism. Perhaps a basic way to resolve this schism is the idea you and I agreed to one time on a previous thread, regarding the importance and necessity of having structure as well as the freedom and ability to go outside that structure.
Another commenter, Indie-saurus-rex, came to a similar conclusion in relation to the schism among Independent Scientologists:
“My point here is just that a person needs a solid, safe and structured foundation of LRH and his technology in order to be able to ‘think outside the box’ with it…”
Here’s an excerpt of his/her post which leads up to the above conclusion:
“ …My perspective is that I agree with both Tom and Marty. Actually, I mostly agree with Marty, in that things have come a long way and there is much to be learned and experienced from other perspectives on the mind/spirit. People should not close themselves off from looking as the truth prevails, even if it’s only ‘your” truth…’
“However, where I disagree with Marty and tend to side with Tom – and this is a perspective that I never see raised within these “Indie” discussions – is that it’s pretty easy for someone like Marty (or any other long-time Scientologist who has suffered at the hand of Miscavige’s Church) to now hold the perspective that rigidity in terms of following LRH is a counterproductive practice. I say it’s ‘easy’ because it’s always easy to know the truth when one has experienced falsity and lies. It’s easy to know white when one has experienced much black. The garbage that you’ve experienced in corporate Scientology helps clearly delineate the benefits and shortcomings of other religions and spiritual practices. What might be easy for you to spot and accept or spot and avoid might be very difficult for a newcomer to LRH’s works.
“My point here is just that a person needs a solid, safe and structured foundation of LRH and his technology in order to be able to ‘think outside the box’ with it…”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/mission-statement/#comment-252162
My take on this back in 2009. Still my view:
https://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/monopoly-on-freedom/
Aha, so it was YOU who started the whole schism. 🙂
Seriously though, I don’t think there is anything in that blog post that I would disagree with, including this:
——————–
“I believe few areas warrant a monopoly and only areas subject to democracy could be candidates.
“The military, the police and the court systems are monopolies for good reasons. They are also an agent of democracy”…
“As Scientology is intended to set people free, the technology itself should be free.”
———————-
Right after that last sentence, you wrote the following:
“I can hear readers object to this with reference to the policy letter Keeping Scientology Working…”
I had a thought that: Within a Scn “society” (i.e. a Scn group but not a Scn monopoly group) couldn’t KSW be viewed as similar to “the military, the police and the court systems”? Just as those monopoly entities, which allow no competition, are the means to ensure the continuance of a society that promotes freedom, so might KSW be considered as the means to ensure a Scn group’s continued promotion of freedom. In other words, that PL – summarized in the word “results” – could be viewed as simply “keeping order” so that freedom can be brought about.
Well – any agent of democracy can be changed – by the will of the people. KSW cannot. Therein lies a difference, methinks.
Otherwise – glad you liked it.
MARILDI HAVE ASKED ME TO WRITE THIS, SO THIS IS FOR YOU MY DEAR YOU AND YOUR BELOVED SISTER.
OK lets tart from the beginning: Before The Universe Was Created.
There was awareness and nothing more and the awareness’s experience was the Translucent Indigo Darkness and nothing more and this indigo darkness was not dark- black but beautiful translucent and now we can give a name to it: Infinite-ness and this Universe was full of itsy-bitsy light particles, and these particles had sounds to them, that is the sound of magic, I would call that when something is created postulated into existence that act would make a that sound but the ears could not hear, pick up such a sound.
So in this Indigo Universe concepts did not existed yet: or singularity, or beings.. This Universe just was.
My first experience was in session when I have seen myself becoming the LIGHT, the first light in the Universe… and that session was 30 years back so I did not understood everything what that light was about, how it become a light and why I believed that I WAS THE LIGHT OF THE UNIUVERSE…. Hehehe… by finding that incident than and believe it that it was true have boosted my ego and given me belief that I was better than others, different from others and I am more powerful than others.
About the above: that is a different topic altogether.. and the answer is yes and no, but never ever better, just different.. and about power hehehe .. you need to ask.. Otherwise I won’t tell unless you twist something and not on my body..
What happens in sessions that not necessarily the incident is totally erased at the first confronting and one will go back to the same item again and again and take off confront more; and each time see the same item in different light attain different viewpoints and as-is more mass. and have new cognition on the same item.
That is what has happened with that LIGHT I have experienced and I have believed that I have become one and I was the glorious gift to mankind: well I believe idiocy was born just about than tooooooo…. Hehehe, but of course out of ignorance….
The light, the bright-ness happened because particles touched by swirling, moving so fast and colliding and that collision caused the explosion of light, the flare up. So suddenly for the first time in the Indigo Universe was one light, one bright spot, one anchor point was born.
Any ‘’awareness’’ who were present of course EXPERIENCED THAT LIGHT and because having that experience one got stuck to the brightness: therefore anchored into it solidly.
Because one was stock to that light one believed one was the light… of course that belief come much later with time when concepts were added to energy masses and in session now when one recalls that incident and SAY: I AM THE LIGHT!! hehehe.. Sure you are of course you were..
You have experienced the first phenomenon the basic incident, the source from where everything is flowing out of. But are you real one, the light?
One’s body is full of decaying matter and you experience that decaying energy mass continually it is part of your space but that experiencing make you a piece of shit? Really, I am shit of the universe!!! hehehe.. of course you are… all concepts are equal in value….. this is fun
So you can see when one experience something with that one believes that one is and identifies with that energy mass and that belief usually is far from the truth.
To continue: how I have seen the Universe evolve: After the first accidental creation of light which was admired by who knows how many: since that time bodies not existed or shapes of any kind and all who experienced that phenomenon that creation wanted to re-new that experience again and GET THE STIMULATION AGAIN…[ addiction was born, so was lets have it bigger, better, more] and went on irritating those tiny light particles to movement fast that they would collide again and by god, we had another light-brightness born!!
There was hush in the universe, there was magic!!
The second light was the first causative action in the Universe..
Wow… now suddenly we had distance too because we had two lights, 2 anchor points [ but the title the name ‘’’ distance’’ was added much later].
But we were always been brilliant [stupidity its existence too was established much later] now we had ‘’’the experience’’’ and knowledge: if you move particles fast enough than they will collide and we have a new experience a new light will come about appear: born. HEHEHE
Yes… so the creation started and lights flared up all over the Indigo Universe and caused the our magnificent home that translucent indigo place look dark and drab.. the impression have come from that ’’’drawn by the light like a moth’’’
Because experiencing the ‘’’LIGHT”” after that the Indigo Universe looked darker and drabber in contrast of ‘’’light” and by now because of the contrast we established the DAY and NIGHT phenomenon. [ most people want to live in the city… it is brighter there, more stimulation can be experienced: the particles flow faster and faster and they collide…. Bingo: stimulation is there.. Look at sex what is: particles rubbed together and that’s creates explosion of the senses; little light particles go whoosh.
The Indigo Universe is far from drab and dark… since there are many who were not lured trapped by the light since light is a trap because in light one can ‘’see’’ pictures-shapes debts and that is the illusion.. And that Indigo Universe is the true spiritual universe one’s home.
We beings ‘’see ‘’ very differently from what the eyes see.
We all identified our self with the brightness-light, we all use it as an anchor point to this day..
And we have turned away from the infinite translucent indigo space and we believe that life exist only in the light, what the ‘’’eyes’’ can see is real and we have forgotten… you have forgotten that in the translucent indigo space in the infinite where the real life is..
The completeness, the beauty, the magic: it exists and one doesn’t need the body or have eyes to experience, to be the part or the whole-ness of the universe of Infinite.
Elizabeth, thank you so much for that incredible story of Creation! I can’t tell you how thrilling it is to have someone be able to describe it from actual recall of the experience. That’s what makes it so special! And what is really amazing too is that you have described what LRH stated in The Factors, but from you I got a better “picture” of it and you filled in some gaps for me.
This paragraph you wrote was particularly interesting:
“The light, the bright-ness happened because particles touched by swirling, moving so fast and colliding and that collision caused the explosion of light, the flare up. So suddenly for the first time in the Indigo Universe was one light, one bright spot, one anchor point was born. Any ‘’awareness’’ who were present of course EXPERIENCED THAT LIGHT”.
When we talked on the phone today, you were saying that it was TWO that met and caused the explosion that created the light and that reminded me of 2ndxmr’s comment in this thread about “yin and yang” coming together and creating the big bang.
And, btw, I imagine that someone who knows the Bible well would be able to correlate it to the story of “God” creating “the heavens” and “then there was light”. Even the part in the Bible about acquiring knowledge and thus the considerations of good and evil, light and dark, etc . It’s also interesting that Jesus said “I am the light” and “No man cometh to the Father except through Me” – perhaps by that he is referring to that “basic-basic” incident as you called it. Don’t laugh but you also reminded me of a Sunday school song we used to sing: “This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine…” 🙂
I haven’t gotten ahold of my sister yet but as I told you on the phone, I know she is going to love reading about this too! I’ll let you know.
One other thing. You wrote:
“…by finding that incident then and believe it that it was true have boosted my ego and given me belief that I was better than others, different from others and I am more powerful than others.
“About the above: that is a different topic altogether.. and the answer is yes and no, but never ever better, just different.. and about power hehehe .. you need to ask..”
Okay, I’m asking… 🙂
Thank you Marildi for twisting Elizabeth’s thingy and getting her to speak.
As I read the dissertation I could not help but think how our dear friend, the Flogger of Fractals would be kept busy chewing on both sides of his mouth with this data… In a good way. 🙂
…
More than just a confirmation of an idea, the astonishing thing is that the idea of two coming together in a creation moment is so nearly ubiquitous that its echo is seen throughout the fractal mirrors in nature. Its there to be seen, yet it isn’t.
Light and dark, Yin and Yang, male and female, the DNA double helix, positive and negative, electricty and magnetism, magnetic poles, dichotomies… how many echoes of the first pairing does it take to see the light?!!
It damn near makes a digital 1 and 0 look like an erotic pairing.
More fun ahead. Past/present. Present/future. A pair of pairings. What creations can we coallesce from those couplings? 🙂
The plus and the minus side of the universe come out of the first creation that was the second light… the negative and the positive, the pull and the push… I have seen it all how things work in the universe and here people believe there are things original but not one item belief, concept was created here. Please do not think I put down any one who think like a human.. has considerations. me to think like that and to believe in such would be I still have part of the bank therefore I would consider that item as a barrier and session I would be going.
I have no problem, with any consideration what so ever to me they are all equal but I stand up.. and I will not tolerate when somebody want to put shit into my universe… just because they can…
By the way part of the power I have or I am is that people cognate while they are reading my words.. The purity of the space allows others to comprehend what they read…. in the pure clear space the bank loses its power.. You might find it interesting tid-bit that because my space is totally empty… what ever comes into it I recognise what is.. what intentions it contains, what it is made up– happy, grief, confused what ever..
“… how many echoes of the first pairing does it take to see the light?!!
“It damn near makes a digital 1 and 0 look like an erotic pairing.
“…What creations can we coalesce from those couplings? 🙂
I could never come up with the great lines you do! So I’ll just repeat the ubiquitous, “That’s what makes the world go round.” 🙂
I have or I am more powerful than humanly y possible imagine or to believe existence of such a power. The power is not the same as in human considerations because power for humans is some energy pushing-pulling some other solid mater, causing bangs, collisions.. but the power is invisible has no mass therefore it can not be hold back by boundaries walls, distances. Power which has mass, can only go so far till something stops it.. but this power which is not gained ability but one always had it but the MEST considerations has stopped it, controlled it..and of course one has countless postulates not to have it, not to use it..given it up, given it away. never had it etc..etc..[ few of the considerations why one do not have it] lots of stuff had to be erased before one could see and understand have reality what is and how it works, how it works because one no longer having considerations blocking it. But of course the interesting part is to find out and see how it penetrates the bank others have and how it works in the Universe. But one have to keep it in mind that when one has the power or one becomes the power by than one has erased all evil overts, harmful considerations, all bad stuff had to go first because evil intentions, overts are the greatest barriers which are holding one back and the power is blocked, in fact none existent.. force replaces it. and that is not the true power…. force has limitations.
Thanks Eliz! I think I understand in the sense that an idea can’t be stopped by physical barriers because, not being MEST, it can penetrate through MEST. And also, the closer a Being is to Static, because of less and less bank, the more potential power it has. Would you agree with those viewpoints?
yes,,
Marildi.. “When we talked on the phone today, you were saying that it was TWO that met and caused the explosion that created the light and that reminded me of 2ndxmrs comment in this thread about yin and yang coming together and creating the big bang. “” Marildi when I write I see thing easier, new revelations come up.. and i was seeing those particles how they moved and exploded. Some other time if any one interested to know HOW THE SOLIDITY HAS COME ABOUT… well I have the knowledge.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:09 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> I have or I am more powerful than humanly y possible imagine or to > believe existence of such a power. > The power is not the same as in human considerations because power for > humans is some energy pushing-pulling some other solid mater, causing > bangs, collisions.. but the power is invisible has no mass therefore > it can not be hold back by boundaries walls, distances. > Power which has mass, can only go so far till something stops it.. > but this power which is not gained ability but one always had it but the > MEST considerations has stopped it, controlled it..and of course one has > countless postulates not to have it, not to use it..given it up, given it > away. never had it etc..etc..[ few of the considerations why one do not > have it] lots of stuff had to be erased before one could see and > understand have reality what is and how it works, how it works because > one no longer having considerations blocking it. > But of course the interesting part is to find out and see how it > penetrates the bank others have and how it works in the Universe. > But one have to keep it in mind that when one has the power or one > becomes the power by than one has erased all evil overts, harmful > considerations, all bad stuff had to go first because evil intentions, > overts are the greatest barriers which are holding one back and the power > is blocked, in fact none existent.. force replaces it. and that is not the > true power…. force has limitations. > >
As regards “HOW THE SOLIDITY CAME ABOUT”, I’m ready whenever you are. 🙂
By the way my dear.. the EGO bit, being this or that important, bigger or smaller than others just goes. vaporizes on the way that includes personalities, beingness -ess, and the need the desire to be something or somebody.. and of course the more of those things fall away freer one becomes and one sure don’t miss being somebody…
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:33 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Marildi.. “When we talked on the phone today, you were saying that it was > TWO that met and caused the explosion that created the light and that > reminded me of 2ndxmrs comment in this thread about yin and yang coming > together and creating the big bang. “” > Marildi when I write I see thing easier, new revelations come up.. and > i was seeing those particles how they moved and exploded. > Some other time if any one interested to know HOW THE SOLIDITY HAS COME > ABOUT… well I have the knowledge. > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:09 PM, elizabeth hamre endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have or I am more powerful than humanly y possible imagine or to >> believe existence of such a power. >> The power is not the same as in human considerations because power for >> humans is some energy pushing-pulling some other solid mater, causing >> bangs, collisions.. but the power is invisible has no mass therefore >> it can not be hold back by boundaries walls, distances. >> Power which has mass, can only go so far till something stops it.. >> but this power which is not gained ability but one always had it but the >> MEST considerations has stopped it, controlled it..and of course one has >> countless postulates not to have it, not to use it..given it up, given it >> away. never had it etc..etc..[ few of the considerations why one do not >> have it] lots of stuff had to be erased before one could see and >> understand have reality what is and how it works, how it works because >> one no longer having considerations blocking it. >> But of course the interesting part is to find out and see how it >> penetrates the bank others have and how it works in the Universe. >> But one have to keep it in mind that when one has the power or one >> becomes the power by than one has erased all evil overts, harmful >> considerations, all bad stuff had to go first because evil intentions, >> overts are the greatest barriers which are holding one back and the power >> is blocked, in fact none existent.. force replaces it. and that is not the >> true power…. force has limitations. >> >>
Elizabeth
The “power” you are writing about is the “power” of the Higgs field.
Your auditing background tells you that “lots of stuff have to be erased” before one has access to it, sees it how it operates, how it
penetrates others’ banks…my reality is (which actually happened to me) that it is perfectly enough to confront mest space (“100 %). One then has no “bank” any more but will “attract” considerations, energies coming from others into this “field”….the field has the ability to
dissolve them (they kind of evaporate, layer by layer)….so change then happens by one’s “willingness, acceptance and full ability” to operate as the “field” between the “spiritual universe” and MEST. It is
not a special “power”, anyone can have access to it…not necessarily
through auditing…as the examples of living “realized” beings show….
If someone wants auditing, it’s perfect…free choice and may have to
do with the being’s “make-up”, “spiritual maturity(earlier realizations)”…I am writing about it to “get time and effort” out of the picture….
Very intriguing, Marianne! Thanks for posting your reality too. And I think you are right that some will have access to the kind of path you followed (the ones who have the necessary spiritual level) and others, probably in much greater numbers, will be successful on an auditing path.
(But I’ll have to say good night for now.)
I know My dear that we talked about it and I dont have doubt of your attained reality but we also talked about KEYED OUT state too. Eraser happens and the item are permanently as-ised. key-ed out items will come back and they will hit the person hard. I have not studied science in this life so I have no idea who is Higgs, and I am not talking any visible power, no particles, do not have location, unless MR Higgs had sessions and recalled what was before the first light was born in the universe o he had hypnotherapy he would no about the power I am talking about… And Marianne, I have written that every one have that power.. they do not know about it.
2ndxmr
I confirm what Elizabeth is writing about the “light, Yin Yang etc.” all of it, as I happened to have “seen” it too…Elizabeth will say that I read about it (I don’t care that she thinks so) as she thinks that one can have access to it by erasing considerations…that’s HER experience,
…and it puts “time and tecnique” into the picture once again…
my experience is that we as beings are so powerful and so able that
if we honestly, sincerely and wholeheartedly ask a question with enough power, then the answer will appear (sometimes instantly, in other cases with a little com lag)….
My reality is: one “looks around” oneself and asks the question: What
do I really want? Truth? Better life? Relationship? Love? Job? etc. One then “stays” with it continuosly…life from then on will “please” you with “situations, people, activities etc.” to get closer to and finally
realize and embody the “goal of your quest”. There is no need to “repeat, put into words” the goal of your “quest” once it’s stably there in your whole beingness…you just stay aware of what is “happening, coming into your space”….no labelling…just being aware and respond/act accordingly….so, back to the “light” incident….there was a situation in my life a couple of months ago…I asked the question: What’s the source of it? I got the “answer” instantly….that was the
“light…two lights…” incident. It seems that that very simple question
“What’s the source of it?” is perfectly enough (in my case, in my reality). The attention of the being then penetrates all remaining considerations, energies like laser..and then there it is…then you let it go, do not explain it with the mind…as I find it, knowledge, truth is there and there are several (simple!) “ways” to “get access” to it…auditing is one..and it’s effective and beautiful…but there are others too…until, as “our realized ones” say, the concept of the Seeker is gone….
I agree with Geir’s “cherry picking” concept. Do you still hold it Geir?
Finishing the above post, it has just dawned on me what I have been doing here and the why. One can get stuck in a “path”, in this case the “Bridge”. It happened to me many times in life (sport, linguistics etc.) that when I got stuck somewhere, the “unstucking” happened unexpectedly, in a very different life situation (the effect of different environment). Me, putting here different “people” with different “approaches” about the “truth of our being/native state” can put scientology into its proper light, that is it can help one see where and how one is with it now….and then can decide if one wants to go on auditing or not….in the “space of truth” one can see the “cherries”….I truely wish for some of you to happen so…as Elizabeth says, to go into
session and get “experience” first hand….if you decide that. You may ask why I am not doing that…well, I put it here (a little reluctantly but here it goes…..I confronted my “film”…that it happened can be ckecked by those in scio if interested…but I don’t think they are…me neither…it was fun to see when it happened but that was it….wish any of you the same)….this is my present reality….
As you say Marildi in your last post as an answer to me, for “many of you” it is auditing….yes…go into session on the auditing path if you
feel so….whatever….first hand experience is the real fun…the way I see it now, we live in the “time” of change with huge pressure to change as human beings…scio and the realized beings are right in my present reality too…a kind of shift is happening…wrote about it earlier, don’t ask for more details now…will do that….but it’s about what one is experiences first hand and how one lives on with that
“knowledge/perception”….
Marianne: “As you say Marildi in your last post as an answer to me, for “many of you” it is auditing”.
To clarify that, I tend to think that there are more individuals who will be CAPABLE of following the Scientology path and achieve higher awareness than there are individuals who can simply read or listen to general “explanations” or “descriptions” of how to do so. And the reason I feel this is the case is because to be able follow the Scientology route doesn’t take the higher starting level of awareness that other paths seem to require.
p.s. Marianne, I should add that the reason most paths to enlightenment (the ones with little or no “tech”) are slow and difficult to follow is the same problem you have talked about too – which is that it’s a very difficult subject to put into words.
Elizabeth
Don’t bother about that “keyed out” concept…that’s Ron’s description for a “state”….concept….as well as will “hit” me….if you are right in one thing (that you didn’t mention but if you did it would fit me now) that I started not to particularly care that is a kind of true patience and silence started “happening”….may change, I don’t know…thanks for your com.
EH: Before the universe, there was no MEST – no Matter, Energy, Space or Time. But there was particles? In space? Moving… in time?
Ha ha! Good on catching that inconsistency. The following is the culmination of the search for me of what is wrong with Scientology. Now I can focus on those aspects of Scientology that are beneficial.
The Key Concept in Scientology
.
Read again, Vin….she starts….before the begining there was just awareness…the particle(s) appeared later….”my experience” too…pure potential..then “looking back” as being awareness…then the particle(s)….one needs to get it as experience as words fail to describe it. Also, that light-collision part is that explains sex, body structure, Kundalini, creativity…..also that “light” “lightening” can be seen at a theta level in the eyes of people…also in nature with a “proper view” of it…..the second dynamics, that is….then the “softer”
theta lines that happen/come into being on the third dynamics on which these “light” particles can “travel”. I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t kow how OT-s see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it…though in “other practices” they do…not because it’s “important” but why hide anything which can be experienced?
Marianne, what is the beginning of awareness? There is no awareness other than that of Matter, Energy, Space and Time.
Sent from my iPhone
Vin, “awareness” itself is not contained in the physical universe. A camera “perceives” visual images and even records them, but it isn’t “aware” of those perceptions or recordings.
Which step of awareness is the camera missing?
hehehehehe
I can’t conceive of any “steps” to awareness. But a camera doesn’t “know” anything or “understand” anything. It’s all a matter of physical universe energies impinged on other physical universe energies. And only when a being looks at the photos is there any AWARENESS or KNOWINGNES or MEANING attached to them.
No “steo
MT: “I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t kow how OT-s see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it”
It tends to feel that way and it would be nice to hear if it is just reality difference or a difficulty in expressing the reality. Elizabeth indicates her reality is different and that is fine. I’m beginning to wonder if we generally don’t perceive things differently at the theta level. Some of the things you (MT) have mentioned are remarkably similar to what I’ve experienced or cognited on and some are beyond what I’ve experienced. If we indeed experience from different viewpoints as theta then it is likely our descriptions, even of common events, will be different. The biggest problem is not to become invalidated by the way someone else views things but simply accept it as part of the process we are moving through. And by inval I mean self inval as well as external inval.
I see the current OT levels largely as pre-OT levels: cleaning up and preparing the person for the full development of OT. Along the way there are undoubtably release points which open up an OT ability for some duration, short or long. It probably requires drilling of abilities to make them permanent. I’ve heard nothing to indicate that any such drilling was done on the church pre-OT bridge.
You can ask me any question about any so called level, I will give you the answer how I see it. anything at all.. Few OT’s are willing to talk about their experiences. My sister Ava.. even to me she never ever mention anything related.
Thank you, Elizabeth. I do have some questions but this thread is getting a little long and I’m not sure of the general interest in my interest: I don’t really want to bore anyone with expansive communication.
I would appreciate it if you would establish an email line with me at 2ndxmr at hushmail dotcom. Marianne, I’d invite you on that line also and anyone else interested in discussing and developing ability.
2ndxmr, I actually found the experiences of MT and E as regards creation to be amazingly similar and, in fact, if there were any differences at all it was probably in the way each expressed themselves. The difference in their realilties seem to only have to do with how they each achieved them and the considerations thereof.
@Geir
Marianne said, “I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t know how OTs see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it…though in ‘other practices’ they do…not because it’s ‘important’ but why hide anything which can be experienced?”
So Geir, can we ask you to answer this question? Not that you have never communicated about things related to what Marianne is talking about, but it seems there hasn’t been too much said by you and not very often.
Also, I’ll be hard on it for the sake of those who like “truth”. Way back,
about 15 years ago my first profound “spiritual” experience with an enlightened being, while doing “chakra breathing” that is going on all over them and “getting out” through the crown chakra was seeing the “Translucent Indigo Darkness” (to use Elizabeth’s phrase for it). What “leaves” then through the chakra is not a being, not even an awareness unit..there is no sense of ” I “…just “perceiving”….and a “sensingness” ….”not physical sounds” too….sorry, can’t be put into words….so she is right in her “description”….for me it was a couple of
seconds experience then and that was it….later, when I asked that question “What’s the source of it” (that is the source of a present time situation) I got that incident of that “lights” appearing, colliding etc. I don’t see it clearly, but my take is that there are different “layers” of “non-mest!!!!” “spaces” that “collided”…awareness, whatever name, kind of multi-layered itself, then they “collided” out of which “light” particles “appeared”…they then collided too…that’s what I see at present….as far as Mest is concerned…
also, there seem to be different “levels”/”types” of “universes/existential levels” with different “beingnesses”…..perhaps Elizabeth knows
more about it….I am a little lazy now and not particularly interested
in them…but will be, knowing myself….also….as you know from auditing, certainty is based on first-hand experience…..for the time being my most profound experience is that nothing really exists….it is the display of potential “instant-by-instant”….and “we” are all THAT. No label for it….it’s a kind of “breating out and breathing in” (whatever experience/universes) of THAT.
Marianne thank you for sharing your experience… Key-out state is beautiful and can happen any time to any one also it can disappear the same way… close up.. With keyed out state: the why’s what is happening how it have happened one gains very little explanation.. and eraser, as-ising one gains knowledge.. total understanding..
Marianne, you say, “there is no sense of ‘ I ’…just ‘perceiving’….and a ‘sensingness’”.
My question to you is this: If there is a sense of “perceiving” or a “sensingness”, doesn’t that infer that someone or something is doing the perceiving or sensing? That particular someone or something is what I would call “the awareness unit”, or I could word it as “a being’s awareness of awareness”. I mean to say that it seems to me it is YOU (or “I”) doing the perceiving and sensing.
Marildi: “My question to you is this: If there is a sense of “perceiving” or a “sensingness”, doesn’t that infer that someone or something is doing the perceiving or sensing?”
I’ll answer on this one, too.
The best description I can give of that is being fully exterior in the between-lives duration. (I say duration as opposed to “area” as I’m not talking about “reporting in”, only leaving one body and later taking on the next.) In that duration there was only perception, not identification as an “I”. I was able to freely locate in 3-space by decision. Recall provides a perception of motion as there was intention to shorten distance, which gave the equivalent of motion. There were no words only intention and thought/postulate. The degree of perception was practically but not completely spherical. Perception distance by “sight” exceeded perception of aware volume. There was a degree of ability to compute but it was more of a realized understanding of what was being viewed than any equivalent of brain type thought.
The main point, though, is that there was knowingness but not identity.
my reality too.
2ndxmr, thanks much for that. This is one of those topics that is very difficult to express but let me add a bit more to my idea. To me, “identity” has to do with valences, acquired beingnesses, considerations, and one’s time track. When all of those are “stripped away”, even temporarily, it seems to me there is yet an awareness of being aware and an ability to perceive and intend and to postulate, and that is the basic being – an individual rather than a melding with all others or a recognition of being One with all “other”.
🙂
@Marildi
In any between-lives duration that I’ve contacted there is no sense of valences or accompaniment (such as BT’s). There was only perception.
My recall is that identity turns on at the time the new body is fully assumed (the perception volume of the awareness unit no longer exceeds the body volume). What that implies to me is that at least one amnesia trigger mechanism is the full assumption point where the awareness unit is triggered to identify with the body. That is likely the beginning key-in point for all valences that were keyed-out during the between-lives duration.
Valences would then key-in based on restimulations received by the body.
My dear 2x, this is extremely interesting knowledge you are sharing and I’m very glad you are! Please do as much as you are willing and able to do. However, I just want to know this – do your experiences seem to you to be in conflict with what I have been trying to say?
Really, all I am saying is that for me there is an abiding awareness of myself as a being – which is something apart from what has been added to that basic beingness all along the track, or what gets triggered by assuming a body. In simple words, I do not “get” that there are no individuals, no individual beings; I don’t see that we are all one.
Mar: “Really, all I am saying is that for me there is an abiding awareness of myself as a being…”
I personally recall no moments of “Oh! I’m really a being!” on losing a body. Maybe somewhere, sometime, but not in recalled exteriorizations. No reason that it couldn’t happen.
My opinion would be that, to a degree, that particular consideration would indicate introspection. It could be simply realization but it could also be introspection.
I don’t recall introspection, only perception (meaning attention was fully externalized, not internalized in any measure), intention and thought/postulate. Another thing would be lack of consideration on length of “duration” , i.e. no consideration that a new body must be picked up immediately. Choice entered in.
2x, bear with me a little longer. Either we don’t see eye to eye on this, or simply aren’t duplicating one another and its just a semantics problem:
You said, “I personally recall no moments of ‘Oh! I’m really a being!’ on losing a body.’ Maybe somewhere, sometime, but not in recalled exteriorizations.”
Nor am I saying anything like that suddenly occurring to me, on losing a body or otherwise. It’s just a kind of knowingness to the effect that I exist as an aware entity in my own right, apart from others.
In a paragraph in your post above you started off with the word “I”:
“I was able to freely locate in 3-space by decision. …there was intention…and thought/postulate…a degree of ability to compute…more of a realized understanding…knowingness but not identity.”
Seems to me there must have been a somethingness (or a “nothingness” in physical universe terms) that did the freely locating, had intention and thoughts, ability to compute, understanding and knowingness. And I can only conceive of these things as existing in relation to …a being, a beingness, an actuality – whatever you want to call it. There is an awareness entity of some sort which is knows about and is aware of having all those abilities and awarenesses. Some would say that entity is the Oneness of us all. My sense of it is that I (and others) exist as myself (and themselves) in some enduring sense.
I don’t think there was anything in the experiences you described having that would conflict with what I’m saying (in fact they align perfectly) and thus your saying them made me think I’m possibly not getting across what I’m trying to. I certainly don’t mind if you have a different viewpoint, but you better not (joke :)).
@Mar
The “I” in “I was able to locate…” was a slip of person but language does not allow for the person in a non-identifying entity. The awareness unit is not an I, you, he/she, we/they, so unless you can come up with a person that works, “I” as an understood non-identifying AU (awareness unit) is as appropriate as anything else.
As far as a connection to a Oneness – which I have formerly related to as a connection to dimension zero (which dimension exists and may or may not also be the dimension of a being or group of beings referred to as Creator), there was no “return to the Oneness” or connection to the Oneness in my recall.
Again, no reason that couldn’t occur on an individual basis by choice or programmed command (implant order, etc.) but that is not my recall.
Mar:”Seems to me there must have been a somethingness (or a “nothingness” in physical universe terms) that did the freely locating, had intention and thoughts, ability to compute, understanding and knowingness. ”
Yes, the somethingness could be seen by an external viewpoint as having a beingness (external viewpoint including reflective recall), but the beingness, at the time, was not thinking, calculating, efforting or emoting as a body-linked beingness tends to do.
2x: “I” as an understood non-identifying AU (awareness unit) is as appropriate as anything else.”
Yes, of course. I wasn’t intending to make an issue of your use of the word “I”, just meant to say that it seemed to indicate there was an entity involved – an awareness unit. And I did get that the entity does not identify itself with anything other than, you could possibly say, “its ultimate self existing as an awareness entity”. That’s what I meant when I said no valences or chosen beingnesses, no considerations, no learned knowledge of any kind – i.e. anything at all coming from the time track.
You also said, “…there was no ‘return to the Oneness’ or connection to the Oneness in my recall…Again, no reason that couldn’t occur on an individual basis by choice…”
Okay, the “by choice” part makes sense in that a being could postulate whatever. Of course, that to me implies there would be no such return or re-connection unless postulated, and no such Oneness being there all along either.
And you summed it up for me with this: “Yes, the somethingness could be seen by an external viewpoint as having a beingness (external viewpoint including reflective recall), but the beingness, at the time, was not thinking, calculating, efforting or emoting as a body-linked beingness tends to do.”
Actually, I think I got even from your first post what you were saying about the beingness at the time of full exteriorization differing from a body-linked beingness in all those ways you listed. I just wanted to know if you did indeed consider there to be “a beingness”, which I had described as the basic beingness stripped of all previously acquired “identities” or “identifications”. In other words, simply the beingness of a specific, individual, unique awareness of awareness unit. Would that last be taking it too far in your estimation?
Mar:”In other words, simply the beingness of a specific, individual, unique awareness of awareness unit.”
Yes, that looks accurate. It would be inaccurate to assume that that was the only way a being would manifest exterior to the body. That is simply the manner I have recall of.
2ndxmr: “It would be inaccurate to assume that that was the only way a being would manifest exterior to the body. That is simply the manner I have recall of.”
No-no, I didn’t mean to make any comparisons with your experience to that of what others might experience. In fact, I tend to think the experiences and abilities would be quite comparable with others if the “stripping of identity factors” were comparable. No, my point about awareness units being “unique” was in the sense of their being entirely distinct individuals. (But that’s another interesting question I have wondered about – i.e. when it gets down to “basic personality” with no added layers of anything, what kinds of differences might there be…?)
Anyway, I get that you do agree with what I am saying about beings being distinct from one another. And I was so happy today when Elizabeth told me that from my post she had a cog on it herself. So this is now a double win. 🙂
My experience is there is awareness outside mest…
Awareness of what?
Awareness of awareness.
Yes, there is…. but has no knowledge of anything, so how do you see what is that awarness aware about?
See things and to write about them is not easy. The concepts come much later…
No there were no particles at first and I have no idea how long the “earlier state existed”.. that indigo space, I call it space because I have no idea how to describe it any other way… and I said awarness because again I have no other word for it.
Where did you get the idea there was time? there is no such a thing, never existed and never will,
I am confused here. You say:
“I have no idea how long the “earlier state existed””
Then you say:
“Where did you get the idea there was time?”
From you, I guess.
Marildi, 2ndxmr
Marildi…”doesn’t that infer that someone or something is doing the perceiving”
Thanks for this! Answer: there is perceiving without the sense of the “doer” (=ego=an I in action). Also, “awareness” has the “ability” of “creating/shifting” itself into a character without identifying with it.
2ndxmr
“…there was knowingness but not identity”. Yes!
“dimension zero” Yes!
I enjoyed what you have been writing about! So nice to share “reality”
with you! I am not on any other blog/places. I feel “something” is really
coming out of our communications and being here for each “our-selves”!
MT …the communication brings no insight, or adds anything valuable what there is, so I dont see any point with continuing..
Wow! What a cat fight! Doesn’t seem to be enlightened at all. Maybe there is an illusion of enlightenment.
.
.
put your nose back where it belongs : an your face.
what you read was not a fight, far from it: simply expressing different realities..it is your reality: when you observe two persons having different reality and expressing that that they are figthing..
Ha ha!
I call it touchy, sensitive and overly emotional! Accept it.
Denial and justifications are not-is-nesses.
My reality is to see things as they are, so one may spot the inconsistencies.
.
V…. Obviously you don’t have a inbuilt alarm system because you do not hear the bugle which is sounding calling you :“RETREAT-RETREAT!!’’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am waiting for Geir’s answer and read the post; GEIR since this is your blog I need to ask if the opportunity arises again would you give me your permission to lit into Vinay? By now you know I am not a gentleman and definitely not a lady… and because of that I don’t fallow rules or regulations. And a good zesty invigorating fight have to have personality, character and that only can happen if the rules are not present.. hitting under the belt, kidney punches, biting the nose and definitely scratching should be included and ball kicking would be the highlight of the fight.. up to you!!
This idea of “zesty invigorating fight” is nothing more than a justification.
Rail and rant as much as you want. I’ll keep my comments short.
.
.
Sure. Let’s see how such a discussion goes.
Elizabeth, I have really learned a lot from you and Marianne both. And I agree with you about some things, and with her about other things. There was a time when I thought that Scientology was the only real way that a person could become enlightened, or find truth, or however you want to put it. I don’t feel that way anymore. I’ve observed people like Marianne who show in their beingness and knowingness that they have truly made wonderful gains on some other path.
Don’t get me wrong – I still believe that Scientology is utterly incredible, incomparable, and probably the best path for most people. A good session with a good auditor, or a good solo session, can be an absolutely exalting experience, even miraculous.
Nevertheless, I understand exactly what Marianne means when she says she doesn’t NEED auditing. I have said the same thing, just not to you or others who have your own firm consideration of why I would feel that way – which is a whole different reality from mine.
Mind you, if the circumstances were right and I had the opportunity to continue up to the top of the Bridge (in the Independent field, of course) I wouldn’t hesitate for a split second to do so. Irrespective of that, I am doing well in life and making progress that I’m happy with, just by doing what I’m doing on the “path” I’m on. I’ve said before, life itself is a process. And I will add that it is one that auditing and Scn study has prepared me for, IMO.
Just yesterday, I had several big wins that involved you. One was that you gave me a knowingness about how the universe began. That’s a huge one! Another big one was that I sorted out for myself the question of whether or not we as thetans are distinctly individual spiritual beings or are simply part of a Oneness. Even you, so far above me in many ways on the subject of spirituality, were inspired by the post I wrote about that and you phoned me immediately after you read it to say that you had a great cog on it. That in itself was a win for me because it demonstrated in a big way that all of us, no matter how much auditing we have or haven’t had, can have knowingness and get cogs and give cogs to one another through the simple means of communication.
One other win was when you described to me what had happened to you recently after a huge cog you had in auditing, and I asked you if you thought you had lost your anchor points. From your response, I got that you had not thought of it in that way until I said it, and I was pleased that it indicated to you. This is the type of win I have that comes from my study and understanding of Scientology principles – a source of frequent wins, actually.
So what I’m getting at is that I think it’s great that we are all free to express our viewpoints – and that we do so. Instead of quoting LRH like I usually do (LOL), this time I’ll quote one of our own discussion participants. Here is the inspiring way 2ndxmr put it:
“While I agree it’s easy to put too much value on one’s own viewpoint, or the viewpoint of some OL (opinion leader) or some crusade, we yet need a reference point for our goals and actions. That, in fact, comes down to a viewpoint. So while we can occupy a viewpoint, it is incumbent on us to consider the existence of alternate, equal viewpoints.”
What I get from that is that we do still live in the physical universe, which means we have goals and actions that give us no choice but to take into account “alternate, equal viewpoints”. And the way he topped off this point is worth repeating:
“This was summed up in a lesson learned by Grasshopper in the TV series “Kung Fu”: to the cat, the rat is evil; to the rat, the cat is evil.”
That sounds to me like something Elizabeth would say. 🙂
M.. old friend from way back… what you have writen moved me.. but hell I cant say that any more because only objects can be moved..
Love you.. Much..
But Now I am in traning… sarpening my wits, the Lord of the Manor OK’d the fight.. The ring is being set up and I am writing who is going to be in which corner.. HEHEHE..
Well E, if it’s done in the mood of humor you seem to be in, it could be fun. But don’t forget, Geir does have rules about a certain amount of politeness. He even kept Vinnie from posting for quite a while until he promised to be polite. So keep that in mind!
+1
I read your post and I agree with your reality.
Geir: “Well – any agent of democracy can be changed – by the will of the people. KSW cannot. Therein lies a difference, methinks.”
As a matter of fact, the Scientology “Constitution” (basic policy) guarantees the right of “the people” to choose or not choose to rotely follow KSW and to abide by the spirit of the law rather than the letter. In fact, a free and Independent Scientology group has even the right to abolish/cancel KSW policy altogether, should they so desire. These rights are guaranteed by policy, including HCO PL “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy” 13 Mar 65 Issue III:
“Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation…
“…Periodic sweep-outs of antiquated and didactic laws (rather than general concepts and subpurposes) must be undertaken by a being, organization, group or race or species. However, such an action must be carefully done, selecting only those laws or rules which came into being because of pressure groups or infrequent enemies or which were derived from no experience.”
That last part, about laws or rules “derived from no experience”, would allow for taking into account the experience that has accumulated since any given policy was written.
Could you go along with this type of Scientology policy application?
Great riposte but,…
Can following a policy that can cancel an uncancellable policy really make enough room between the rock and the hard place to create a consensus?
It would be nice if it did but all I can smell is the stench of stasis. If the schism shows anything it is that the middle ground is a very narrow path, an arete, not without its own forks but always with a daunting slope on either side. I wouldn’t want to walk that path without KSW as trainer but I can see its limitations as a guide: KSW dictates a stop at the plateau (OT8) but the peak is still in the distance.
The near perfect Catch-22: damned if you do, probably damned if you don’t.
About the only saving grace I can see is that fundamentalist Indies can practically guarantee a path up through NOTs. At that point the strict KSW’er will life-cycle until deciding to leave the nest. Hopefully there will be some other birds soaring to give the fledglings a reason to test the air.
The saving grace of it all is if you don’t try to “make a datum stand where a being should be” (HCO PL “OT Orgs”). And that gets us back to INTENTION. The mechanical nature of policy has to have intention as the senior factor. Is that too idealistic to be workable? I mean, that is the essence of Scientology, isn’t it? But I think Valkov and Indie-saurus-rex articulated the balance beautifully in those two posts re-posted above. Did you read them? What did you think about those viewpoints?
As for OT 8 being the top plateau, I’m far enough to the left in the liberal camp that I have no problem with seeing continued research as fitting into the context of core Scientology, and even policy.
Marildi: “But I think Valkov and Indie-saurus-rex articulated the balance beautifully in those two posts re-posted above. Did you read them? What did you think about those viewpoints?”
I think we walk the arete. You don’t do that without learning well a number of skills.
“I think we walk the arete. You don’t do that without learning well a number of skills.”
Another one of your pithy pothts, eh? 🙂
I do get what you are saying. What I’m hoping for and postulating is that there are enough people out in the Indie field who do have the needed skills as well as having the necessary intention. Those are the ones who will train and audit others who will also succeed and expand in a “free market”. Again, I might just be too idealistic, but time will tell in any case. The proof will be in the pudding, puddin’. 🙂
Btw, thanks for the relaxing bedtime video and calming background music to match. 🙂 (Awesome special effects to make your point though.)
2ndxmr if you care to hear what I seen how the SOLID is formed happy to tell you but only with talk-com… I talked to Marildi and she said you would be interested to know. she said I talk physics, as I said I never studied the subject.
I have seen how those tiny things become solid and what happens when the solid dissolve and returns to the original form the tiny thing.
I’m interested in both – how the tiny things become solid and how the solid dissolves and returns to the original form of the tiny thing.
On the second part, solid returning to the tiny thing, are you talking about as-isness…?
MARILDI I HAVE MY BOXING GLOVES AN AND I JUST SHARPENED MY WITS AND MY TEET and you want me to write about tiny lights and as-ising when I am building a pit to roast Vinay..???
LOL! 😀
Okay, but while the coals in the pit are getting hot, your mental faculties could be sharpened even more by focusing on some of the secrets of the universe.
m… To dance around the smoldering fire while ones enemy is being roasted and while one dances with that dance one thanks the gods for the juicy morsel roating .. you can have a crackling skin if you behave.. the itsy bitsy’s will not go way.. we will have them later for desert … meanwhile we need more wood, dry wood so get going..
PS; a spiritual being is a free being. can be and can do anything anytime..
Okay, dessert it is. I’m holding you to your word, Attila. 🙂
My word is good.. at the present time I am pouring arrow heads.. than they will be sharpened.
At this rate, you may have a win by default. 🙂
Great! You think it is OK, then, to throw out KSW altogether – if that is the will of the people?
Geir I have no idea why my post is printed twice in your blog.. not my doing..
np
Lord of the Manor I thank you.. and I am delighted that you are falling in with the spirit of the stimulating game of wits
The challenged is slightly bolding, slightly over weight, slightly over confident gentlemen who loves to point out the wrong in others to make himself look more important. This most learned gentlemen is Cambridge U.. trained and his whole house wallpapered with his collected diplomas… in other word he is a smart ass.
And this corner we have the challenger who is sick and tired taking pot shot from the smart ass gentleman and the challenger’s qualifications: slightly worn out skinny old thing the wind could blow her over and she hold no diplomas but she is no lady.. and that is a huge Plus.
What going for her that in one of her past life’s she was Attila the Hun.. The real thing.. also was once a cannibal that is a huge + and have total recall of the track … woof.. and that gives her great advantage over the smart ass gentlemen because she knows all the tricks of the trade and that makes her a dirty fighter.
So Ladies and Gentleman your bets will be taken by Geir as you enter the stadium.. Bring your own popcorn.
Very creative, E. 🙂 I guess I don’t need to worry any more about this turning into a blood sport like dog fighting or a cock fighting. Whew!
Nah. that would be tooo boring..
Yikes.
M.. in the ”wit” combat one aimes deadly blows to the ”ego”in order to weaken it .
In such a combat the loser is who has the bigger ego because the aiming remarks do lot of stimulation and that weakens the stance, causes confusion etc… actually it is a true blood sport and not meant for the faint hearted:who consider them self gentlemen and ladies.
He may show up after all since he has no ego. 🙂
LOLOLOLOL hehehe. he dont have on ego? than I am in deep trouble because we are not even.. you see I just went out and bought 10 pounds and I really dont want to waste it.. 🙂
I believe he will pretend to be above this. Which is a good thing. Because a way to enlightenment is to pretend one has it until one does.
LOL.. good one.. go for it.. I been looking for it for years and looked under over inside and outside of the universe and cant find that bloody thing…when you find it please write it up so I can read it. and that way it can be mine even if it will be only a second hand enlightenment, i will treasure it for ever.. 🙂
You know, I been thinking I thought I new what that was,, but in fact I havent got a clue.. There is no such a thing..not where I am at..
I am off to bed .. you been a good sport by accepting my nuty side to ..and have a lovely day!
Way cool!
Popcorn readied.
Hehehe..I wonder if he is not gone under ground.. hiding all ready in some bunker, his blanky over his head.
Isene
You asked Elizabeth…so I am speaking here. As I said, for me the simple question ” What’s the source of it?” works…you may ask that too…or whatever question you used and worked for you on the Bridge. The “being” “Life” knows…has access to it all…you know it too…go ahead and get “answers” and we can “compare” what we get….could be real fun…more…building new “reality” with our ability…me waiting for Elizabeth’s answer too…good question
from you….
I havent got the question yet.. I dont receive every email … so what is the question ?
Elizabeth
Sorry. You have already answered it to Geir.
The question was at 2013.02.03. at 13.29. At the beginning of this chain.
Thank for letting me know.. some odd reason the computer dont receive all the posting. By the way my trip was canceled. the people I was going to visit going to Australia, they had a job offer from the government.
This is in response to Marianne Toth.
.
Thank you Vin, read it, will look ! at it.
Geir, my problem is that I have not watched the words as I was writing and I have not realized because of that I will cause confusion and I can see if when reading the reader can have very different reality.
” “I have no idea how long the “earlier state existed””
That sentence do indicates existence of time.. you are right .. but I was not aware of time since outside of indigo whatever there was nothing or moving but please help me out and give me a different concept where one describes on event where nothing has happened.
Even if I write the simple ”IS” that too indicates something. If I say NOW, that too indicates time. If the word is used exist, than we talk of particles..
How one interprets event when no description, no language, no communication and sound existed because I only know as now in my recall that I have heard sound the tiny things make..
But then I did not know there was such a thing as sound. So I could not say it than I did not have thought, concepts of any kind but yes in MY RECALL NOW I can describe that event that it contained sound and I can only describe the even in the language of I speak now..
And I am very aware that is not the best.. and it is not getting any better..
I read your latest post on your blog about indigo. Never mind the words, they always fail! Instead, how about an acknowledgment in the form of a lovely video symbolizing indigo through song and image:
How very wonderful Elizabeth!
I know indigo too.
Maria Sorry I though the above comment was from MT. I am so delighted to receive your communication. I have a bad hobit not reading everything through and I miss things..It seems the communication was received the ”energy” and after that there is no interest for the words… but they do count, So do forgive…
I DO think of you aften and in fact I still hope to meet you in person. Care to tell me, when you have met Indigo or we are not talking about the sabre pussy cat? I have named him after that translucent ”space”. His fur was pure black and for a cat body his was big 16 pd and not fat. I have set up new hushmail. elizabethamre…. only one H….please write..
Hi Elizabeth — I was talking about that translucent ”space” and not the pussy cat. I thought the video had some nice visual elements that kind of reminded me of it. The words in the music in the video, not so much.
I have not been going anywhere this winter. Got snowed in! Maybe in the spring time.
Of course you know the indigo space.. The music it self not mine either but I love the rest…I have a big sign hanging out here [invisible of course, but every one knows , since reading is not a ability required] “home sweet home” that is what ”space”is to me, by the way Indigo knows you..
We only had about 2 cm snow this winter and on a sunny day crocouses open up..but we only have very few sunny days..
I will be waithing for you and I will take you for Lunch at the Tea House in Stanly Park.
After I “commanded” myself to my earliest, I wasn’t able to go “early” using “concepts” like “earlier”. However I was able to go “before” (and “before before …”) using “concepts” like “previous” (and “previous previous …”) which for me doesn’t have the strong “time” connotation. By the way, in the earliest, I perceive something like “light” and something like “sound”, but I also perceive something like “vibration”.
P.S.: What I call “earliest” is “after” what I call “earliest-previouest”.
Feri, Marildi asked the question if i have picked up -experienced any vibration from those tiny light particles I was going to say the same as I did to you and the cog…. hit me, the reason i did not pick up any vibration because I vibrate on the same level what ever that is..
By the way I have ”seen” those tiny light many times by now and always when i had a cognition.. today I realized the meaning of that..
Eliz.: “By the way I have ”seen” those tiny light many times by now and always when i had a cognition.. today I realized the meaning of that”.
Elizabeth, please say more about that. For example, are the tiny lights the same as the tiny particles? And are those particles actually beings, or beings who are in their “energy”? Possibly even those TWO very first particles were beings or the beings were identifying with or being particles? Just curious if you know – maybe such “meanings” you didn’t have back then.
m.. you are a bad-bad-bad person..asking question and knowing I dont like to write… yes the tiny things are the tiny lights who vibrates. Yes, being do indentify with the light particles… I believe those tiny things are the ”’souls” people talking about it..
Just had a cog…. the ”’soul” dies when it is turned into”solid” form.. this is incradible what I see… i dont wish to write about it now…
And you are a good-good-good person to answer even though it’s not easy for you. Thank you! I will give you a break and not ask (yet) about what happens when the “soul” dies. But it may again be what LRH says about that. You are proving his ideas quite a bit, you know. 🙂
M.. so you think if you are ”nice” you butter me up than I will write..
OK… The SOUL DO DIE WHEN BELIEVES THAT IT IS A BODY… a some body like I am a rich man, I am a pianist, I am a warrior.
When the being believes it is a concept than becomes that concept and that concept is his coffin, because he belives that what he is doing is he..
That experience he indentify with… With that he gives up the the limitless awarness and becomes the doingness. I am a doctor etc and It should be: I am doing doctoring-healing manding bodies.
Ever Since the spirit-awarness indentified him-self with the light because experienced the light… therefore believed he was one… ever since he has continued with that bad habit and he still say what he ecperience that he is that experience.
So the SPIRIT is not a spirit any more when he say.. I am a bus driver.. the spirit is no longer self, he is dead… but now he is the occupation, those concepts-considerations..
Of course he never can die, but as a spiritual being he just moved into a consideration PRISON.. that consideration is his limitation cuts him off from his true abilities. Since he is a bus driver his reality, activities seldome become different.. But there is a bit more to this… nothing is just this simple..
Wow, I’m realizing more how much the ability to postulate is a double-edged sword and cuts both ways. Thanks E.! And have a good night. 🙂
good reality you have.. yes.. the postulates do happen but by now mostly the wrong time.. good night.
Interesting. And we have the Christian saying: I am the light of the world and “This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine…” and the illumined ones and the shining ones and so on…
…and the enlightened ones
dont forget girls: light on the track alway meant purity.. and the beginning of the universe was pure.. of all considerations. Pure soul…all the saints have some kind of light painted around them and light ring around the head. indicating purity. to purity-light the power was connected, being different from others. had more power.
enLIGHTened
Feri I put this post here. I could not find latter hole.
Original thinkers who have something new to say which never been said here on this Planet has been remembered because their words, their teachings and their writings are studied long after their body melted.
These rare birds are quoted by those who want to look appear cleverer than those who do not know that philosophy, also these Birds have caused upheaval with their new ideas-thinking.
If you look over the History there are not that many..
Ferenc, that is great data you’ve just added to the knowledge of “the beginning”, including especially the perception of “vibration” and the fact that your experience corroborates both Elizabeth’s and Marianne’s.
If I remember right, you are a student of quantum physics and I was wondering if you align your early, early track perceptions to QM. If so, could you please tell us more about that! 🙂
Ferenc Thank you… I do have difficulty finding the words now more than ever.
About 5 weeks back I had a major cognition, after that i had difficulty walking, and even more difficult to drive, writing was almost imposible, it seems i have lost as-ised connections…When I walked I have heard the sound of foot steps… but I felt nothing, no movement of the body, Taking air in was like wind moving in space where the lings are..I could not judge how much preasuure I needed for the brakes in the car and I felt and tasted nothing when i was earing.. It is not easy to function here In fact I really dont want to be here any more, I have accomplished what I wanted..
Only a few days back finally i got some acnhors back… but not enough… Marildi called this exterior, I have different reality….
Elizabeth
….. the real concept of Death? If yes, can that be the real “doorstep” to the fluid stream of LIFE that you may have rejected so far? And “come back” and “flow with/by/as it is” from now on? !!! Kind
of “new life”. !!
Elizabeth
” I have accomplished what I wanted”. Ok, did you ask Life what it
wants to accomplish with you????
Now I am pouring out all my “theta anger” on you! You can call me
delusional, emotional, different reality…..I am writing it down as it is coming!
Shifts of perceptions – so SHIFT!!!
1. It’s ok what you write that the “soul dies” when identifies with a concept (e.g driver), also you can see Mest as dead…also you can see mest as fully alive….who/what sees that one way of another? Isn’t it
awareness shifting itself?
2. it’s ok that you know almost anything about mest, the universe – can be the why for your presence….is there a possibility that what you
experience as knowledge is only “part of the picture”…that is awareness has other abilities than knowing?
Could write more…but waiting for what you are saying to this.
P.S. I asked you a question earlier.
What is love? You answered…..not there. Right, I fully got it then.
Is your answer still valid in that form?
Marianne.. Pour out your reality let it flow… by all means.What life wants with me as you put it is IN MY REALITY a total idiatic remark,. and “””LIFE”” having one is a concept.. not real, it is a illusion..
MEST IS NOT DEAD.. dead -death is a concept, a consideration a idea a assumption… so is love so is driving a bus so is being born, so is knowing or not knowing, so is I know all there is to know, so is I am full of shit,
Love is what you consider love is, it is a a belief, a consideration, assumption. I have writen in my blog there is a post dedicated to that subject, love is””CONSIDERATION_ASSUMPTION” same hate.
AND MARRIANNE my reality is my reality only, it is not ached in stone and what you believe when reading what I have writen is your reality that is totally yours.
I am not writing anything to convince others that what I write it the whole truth nothing but the truth, I write what I know.. and I never ever said: I want you to believe in my belief, give up your reality and fallow my foot steps..
Hold it right there sister …. REJECTED???? I HAVE REJECTED SOMETHING??? care to explain what you believe I have rejected?
Dear Marianne it is you who have on huge MU what is auditing all about since you never had any therefore you live with MU GALORES ABOUT WHAT AUDITING DO and most of all what auditing achieves.
Auditing-confronting IS A TOTAL EMBRACING acceptance total recognition of what is, taking it in, taking it up, fully live it, total experiencing THE CONCEPT which is confronted in session..There is no rejection when one do that.
SO please gets some facts before you make idiatic statemants like that again.
Elizabeth
1.Much earlier in a post you said that you could sense people’s energies..anybody’s who came to your space. When we talked the first time I asked you what you sensed of me. You said “You are dancing in
your skin. How’s that?” EMBRACE what you sense of me now.
2. Please read over my second comment above, starting with ” I have accomplished…..”
Both (1 and 2) if you like……
Go take up a sport and punch some bags, fly a kite, go for a run, have a glass of whisky, pat a cat, make love to your husband, go beat your students,cook something.. throw ligning bolts by the way about you dancing in your skin bit… that was only in that moment it is not there any more.. you know why? not because you pisseed off because idiot you are at this moment and idiots are just that… look up the meaning. amen..
MT now what you have is called ARCB.
Elizabeth
Thank you! Real fun to read it ! Thank you for EMBRACING me !
If you find any items in it for your auditing, that’s fine ! And as I am not your auditor, there is no code that would not allow me not to respond to your comment on me. You keep saying that I did not do auditing….I did. Both as a PC and an auditor. Could spot out-tech in Class 5 (up to it). Also ocassionally in Class9…also in ethics..with ARC and ethics presence….not that it matters to you…just for the record. That you are doing auditing is your reality and I add to it that
I loved auditing…with continuous flying gains…that I stopped it is due
to only one fact: I don’t need it….
And I am evaluating you now….you said earlier that what you had achieved (native state) was just the start….you still have a lot ahead of you…..that’s my reality too…there is a SHIFT of consciousness happening and it is already has a changing effect on humans…mest…
And we can finish it now….thanks for your coms so far!
“MT What you have now is ARCB”
WHO is saying that?
Elizabeth
I’ll make it even harder on you…what you “sensed” of me is YOUR reality, doesn’t have any relevance to “me”. All the concepts in it are
YOUR concepts…won’t go into it now why as you know it from auditing…just all of them…and once again there is the item! in it because
of which you ! stopped communicating with me earlier…you stopped it, not me….here I have made another attempt. Failed. I’m totally fine
with failure. There IS different from the MIND reality….you seem to have come to the end of taking the mind apart….LIFE is not a concept…LOVE is not a concept….both are “deeper” “realities” than the
mind….(Heart that is). So here I really give up…just Stop in total, complete Affinity towards you….have been in Peace of mind and heart
all along our coms…..
Elizabeth, I think you just as-ised some of your machinery, some of your automaticities of daily living.
VALKOV…..
yes I have and I am aware of that. This is not the first time when large chunk fallen away. About 8 months back I become aware that no matter what there were no more ARCB’s, no more problems.. 14-15 years back fear was gone because values were as- ised. I do not have MEMORY, and to be without here is not easy to operate, first I thought “” old age’’ brought on the memory loss, I could no longer learn, so I audited every item imaginable having one or giving it up, what is memory.
No one can imagine how I have explored the universe looking for answers about the memory.. Memory is a machine, retaining information, holding it is done by machinery: it is a recorder.
I have none of that valuable machinery which is so useful here in one’s daily life.
At one point I even lost the machine which regulates the inhale exhale bit for the body. Now that experience was unique… hehehe, sitting here and making the body inhale exhale inhale etc… counting and giving the command to self.
Taken nearly 2 hours before the machine kicked back, but since then it is not very regular as it used to be, the main machine or some regulator must have been erased.
I have noted the changes as the mass been as-ised.. I don’t have retained learned knowledge none, what have read studied this life all have gone blown, the only knowledge is real mine which are from cognitions and that cannot be as-ised, since it is the ‘’truth’’ not altered in any way. [ about 80 thousand cog, ] How do I know that? I have reached the stage one knows.. simple as that.
There are days when I have difficulty talking, and writing sometimes is almost impossible.
But of course what I know, what I see without the ‘’eyes’’ cannot be described with words.. I have gained knowledge of the universe which is not comprehendible by human understanding.. this is not a put down in any way.. Since humans are spiritual entities and please understand I am not in any way insulting.
But long as one has reality of a human, set of thought and beliefs than the other-different reality cannot be comprehended.
I am no longer human since those thoughts, concepts agreements have been erased in sessions and many other realities which taken their place too have been as-ised by now, the basic reality what the Universe is realized.
I recall that someone said that the human knowledge is just a tiny bit in comparison what is available.. is fact..
Again this is not a put down, insult… I have no reason what so ever to insult fallow beings.[ Vinay .. well I have reason for that]
Valkov, I have done my best to convey some of the knowledge I have gained but persons having considerations thoughts concepts are barriers to them and when one believes in those than other reality will not penetrate those walls.
But of course my reality of the universe where the Earthly roles don’t apply- exist than I am free here and my reality is received and understood. One’s power is in knowledge how pure one’s information is. What I mean by these is: pure by not being altered by ‘’time’’ use and cognitions are pure.
I have seen in session while as- ising heavy mass how the solidity dissolves and the millions-billions of tiny light particles which become the item: the solid dark heavy condensed material which was nearly as old as the universe itself returned to their original form –state. Wondrous experience.
Yes my friend more than one leg is out of the MEST, I know less than one leg is in the MEST.
I had been of course diligently working to severe the connection from the body also. But the body have become totally healthy but I know I am close to drop it. Unless I would have good reason, a need to stay, by need I meant not my own since I don’t have any..
Scientologist, or people in general don’t recognise or seldom recognise knowledge if not connected to a well-known name-fame.. so I am not in demand here, of course I have no problem or ARCB’s with that because I do understand the reasons of not being recognized. [ that to been confronted in session]
So old friend.. I do know and I am delighted that you too realised what is that condition: Definitely not going dodo, insane, not having dementia.. and all those conditions to been addressed in session, nothing has been missed.
Incredible adventure so far what I have experienced taking the Universe apart, dissected it atom by atom and to see the heavy mess dissolve and knowing it is just the beginning.
there was no vibration..
E. is it possible the those “itsy bitsy particles” you perceived were vibrating? I have in mind that according to scientists all energy is vibrations, and all matter is actually condensed energy.
M… they are light paricles, tiny light sparkles, but they dont spakle sparkle like changing the light from weaker to stronger, they are constant. as I told you on the phone i have seen them many times and my first awarness was, seeing them on the OT levels…. Just had a cog. why I have not sensed vibration. i will call you..
Elizabeth
I totally get you! Impossible to put it into words, no-one has ever been able to
describe something which is outside-beyond the mind! Even simpler than that,
have you ever been able to put into exact words what you experienced in a session which is of no concrete life-situation data? Me never. Fortunately, as then they can stand in their own beauty without any labelling! Also, will not influence then anybody, so there will be no expectation! (Geir – your quest of
no label – no expectation is perfect in my view).
So happy that the two of you started to talk about, compare realities! Can you please carry on with it?
I talk and write in metaphor quite a bit. LOL
And much of the time that still goes over my head! LOL
MT thank you.
Only Geir know why he asked those question but one thing I believe it was not out of CONFUSION,
Gear also know that RECALL OF ANY KIND is the re callers reality only [ not every one has the same reality, in fact there are many different reality exist as the number of persons who recall that incident] and also he know that recall is a reconstructed concept and the person who recalls INTERPRETS that reconstructed incident in relation to how they understanding the universe at the present time, what knowledge they have.
Elizabeth
Yes, I know all of it and now that you are writing about it I have become even more conscious of it. Thanks! Also, this “first” “incident”
is real-fun havingness when interpreted by concepts. Nevertheless,
I still find it “true” though I am not particularly interested in it. Didn’t mean to interfere, will be glad if you carry on talking with Geir!
Marianne I have written about it because I was asked.. I refused at first because I am not interested in recall after I have understanding of it by having cognition..and there is nothing to carry on about..the communication ended..
Indigo loves on adventure but he is here and waiting patiently till I drop this body.. and I am working on that diligently.. unless one is sick or hit by train, or brick on the head it is not easy to stop it working. I have not found the key yet to this hip of crap.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:59 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Marianne I have written about it because I was asked.. I refused at first > because I am not interested in recall after I have understanding of it by > having cognition..and there is nothing to carry on about..the > communication ended.. > >
And Marianne go bag your own sabre toothed tiger and Indigo loves the beat of music.. http://youtu.be/fWDfxgngrNc or http://youtu.be/UpT6S9TGjpc we dont go for holy stuff. We love the fiery universe,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Indigo loves on adventure but he is here and waiting patiently till I > drop this body.. and I am working on that diligently.. unless one is sick > or hit by train, or brick on the head it is not easy to stop it working. I > have not found the key yet to this hip of crap. > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:59 PM, elizabeth hamre endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Marianne I have written about it because I was asked.. I refused at first >> because I am not interested in recall after I have understanding of it by >> having cognition..and there is nothing to carry on about..the >> communication ended.. >> >>
Elizabeth
Thank you for this boogie woogie! Love dancing and fiery stuff!
Yesterday I just wanted to help you, though I know you don’t need it.
Not that much as you wrote about it but me also have sensed not
having anchors, no connections. ( for very short periods of time)
For me it seems to have a connection to a kind of “shift”, kind of “dimension slip”…..that is if you, Elizabeth, had “gone into it” further, you may have lost all possibilities of communication with humans,even with
Ot-s telepathically for a while…kind of very different reality level..later some new way of com. may be possible. What I am writing about is not a full experience, just a very “vague” glimpse……I wonder how you see this….glad you “came back”….I feel you still have some
“job” here…
Thank you for your wanting to help… But I dont need one because there is no help needed.
Help is a very unique concept “to give and to take..”
For Geir (and of course for each of you)
OMG, Marianne, I should have watched this video yesterday before I tried to describe the same idea myself. Here is how Adyashanti explains what I was trying to say (roughly transcribed):
“You ask, what am I? There’s nothing there.
“Well, who’s noticing that there’s nothing there? So you look at that. Nothing there.
“Who’s noticing that there’s nothing there? What notices it? There’s still nothing there.
“Apparently it’s the nothing that’s there that notices there’s nothing there. So this nothing is not actually nothing… [it’s] a very conscious nothing because here it is looking at itself.”
.
Thanks for posting this! 🙂
Glad you liked it! Earlier you said “there is awareness of awareness”
as a response to Geir’s question. Yes, true, in my experience too. You said you liked me. Me too!
This talk from Adyashanti was good!
.
Yes….and enlightenment is just a “doorstep”….he “talks” about it elsewhere….
This is in response to Marildi.
.
Vin, I prefer to keep the exchange all in one place. Can you please do that?
Nope.
.
This is in response to Marildi.
.
Marildi:
Marianne said, “I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t know how OTs see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it…though in ‘other practices’ they do…not because it’s ‘important’ but why hide anything which can be experienced?”
So Geir, can we ask you to answer this question? Not that you have never communicated about things related to what Marianne is talking about, but it seems there hasn’t been too much said by you and not very often.
Me: I don’t really get a clear question here… rephrase?
Oh shoot, I can see why it wasn’t clear! I posted it here because there were so many other exchanges going on in that same long line. I believe her question relates to the similar way she and Elizabeth see “the beginning” of the track and she is wondering how OT’s see it. And she also wonders why OT’s don’t communicate about it, unlike “other practices” and why anything which can be experienced is hidden. I’ll just paste her whole post here:
2013-02-03 at 16:44
Read again, Vin….she starts….before the beginning there was just awareness…the particle(s) appeared later….”my experience” too…pure potential..then “looking back” as being awareness…then the particle(s)….one needs to get it as experience as words fail to describe it. Also, that light-collision part is that explains sex, body structure, Kundalini, creativity…..also that “light” “lightening” can be seen at a theta level in the eyes of people…also in nature with a “proper view” of it…..the second dynamics, that is….then the “softer” theta lines that happen/come into being on the third dynamics on which these “light” particles can “travel”. I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t know how OT-s see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it…though in “other practices” they do…not because it’s “important” but why hide anything which can be experienced?
MT.. if one really wants to know something, than one must find the source, the answers for self otherwise reading about other persons experience is just that… reading about it for the reader is just second hand information but not the real experience.
A great day reading the blog, however, my popcorn is still waiting to be et.
. . . mine too! hehe
Hey guys I am not the one who backed off… What I am going to do with 10 pounds of ego? The store said no retunes, so I am thinking I will spread it on the garden, use it as manure… but I dont want to poison the soils.. so it should go into hazard waste disposol?
It’s way too nuclear to put in hazardous disposal.
Sell it on ebay in DIY kits for terrorists.
🙂 I was going to let V use it for target practice that is the reason I bought it in the first place, I should just mail if off to Florida.. he lives there… a reminder..
E- Nice way to start the evening of with a genuine good laugh, thanks love.
Yes, “hazard waste disposol” 🙂
I’m celebrating, got my SP declare by mail, including all the paper work with A to E etc. Cheers!
You are a SP… how lucky you can get.. Those paper are good for wallpapering the out house? but you dont have one of those..
I wonder what is the idea doing such a thing… labeling people supresive. that is so idiatic… so utterly stupid, only out of ignorance one would do that.. [ they call that aberration] they actions exhibit that well.
E- “so utterly stupid, only out of ignorance one would do that.. [ they call that aberration] they actions exhibit that well.”
Soo right, got it girl, that’s one of their problems and why they are failing. Poor sad things, sending out their messages! Maybe some day they will use the auditing tech, but am not hopeful.
So true Elizabeth. And yet with some shame I read my own “death sentence” and felt an awful heaviness when I got my own goldenrod 20 years ago. I still remember that feeling and so though we joke with deElizabeth, I would want her to know that if she feels a bit of sadness over this “official news” that I would understand.
The Goldenrod of today is a complete joke and can be dismissed with a wave. If it brings anything it’s relief.
The Goldenrod of 20 years ago generally would have been taken to heart and the meanness, inval and wrong indications of the crap could mess one up royally.
Goldenrod lost its power over me in ’83 when the smart apples from the SO wiped out our highly productive tech and qual. Even when it was “read out” to us the crimes and the acceptance of the crimes by those people, and their agreement with the SP label, I never agreed and never after looked at Goldenrod with a believing eye.
Years later, as an exec, I was occassionally threatened with declare. My response was uniformly “Do it, or shut up!”. It wasn’t done.
Yes, well I understand. You were more sophisticated than I. I became a true believer by bits and once firmly strapped into harness would’ve pulled until collapse. Fortunately the rearing of my oldest daughter was of a more governing priority than my own personal career happiness and so reluctantly, I left. That would’ve been that. I probably would’ve remained connected to the COS but a bitter ex wife saw to it that I was hunted down and shot. 15 years of serious nose-to-grindstone wog life would pass before I would lift my head, look around and realize that I wasn’t really a member of COS anymore, except in my mind. Then began my re-birth.
Now I find not only Scientology but all religion to be a massive detour on the road to understanding anything about life.
Chris, that gives me an interesting insight into you.
.
Thank you Vinaire. I hope it does. Without the unmet rearing needs of my daughter, I would have languished in the Sea Org for years longer. Ultra-micromanaged, my own personal initiative had ground down and so that when I left it was with a sense of relief that I could simply plan my own day and work.
Long term? It took 15 years of my new wog life plus a desire on the part of my oldest daughter to be able to be in contact with her mother who remained in the Sea Org to help wake me up to the fact that I needed to pull-together the broken pieces of that partitioned part of my life. I sought and received professional auditing; word clearing; and false data stripping to a very good result. I studied Scientology by rehashing what I already knew and researched for the secrets which had been kept from me by Hubbard’s decree for so many years. I spent every spare moment and burned the midnight oil for years. Fortunately I had the love, support and even sometimes understanding of my family, which as I say was lucky for me since it was a weird time of my life. Eventually I began posting on Geir’s and Elizabeth’s and finally Vinaire’s blogs.
Until my daughter renounces her relationship with me, she will not be allowed to be in communication with her mother, who works at the International Base at San Jacinto, California. I’ve told her to tell them what they want to hear and talk to your mother; however, she rejects this having weaned herself of the Scientology way of telling any lie necessary to accomplish any mission to hand. She believes that it will be better long term to get back in touch with her mother in an honest way with her own integrity intact. I silently agree with her.
It is your story which is well and fully written. I have only a couple favorite autobiographies by ex-Scientologists and yours is my favorite. Very easy to read, human, and complete. I’m not sure if it is so poignant to me because we are veterans of the same war or if it would be as interesting to someone not familiar with the war.
Today my life is easy and enjoyable. Thank you all for reading this.
Maybe someday muse will get me to write about my 12 years in Sea Org, 3 of which were on Apollo close to Hubbard.
.
You must. Simply must. Your style is honest, warm, real, and vulnerable. It would be a crime if you didn’t do it.
Many of these things we figure out we’ll figure out and many we won’t. Your own story can only be written by you. With the amount of output that you’ve been producing, I think you can write this in a month in your spare time.
Chris, Thanks for sharing your story, good on ya!
You are welcome deE. Life is sweet !
You have an unusual ability to be your own orientation point. 🙂
2nd- I like how you thought about the golden rod. Not going into agreement with it.
Now it’s on white paper typed up with a golden crest with sea horses on sides of the double triangle S. Not familiar with that art. I said Flag Land Base, I guess because that’s where I had gone last.
Chris – No sadness just the opposite. My heartbreak was in ’84, then was out for 25 years and went back in for a year to find a whole different Church. After my disappointment and Debbie stating what I saw, I researched for answers to the many unanswered questions I had. Since I post a lot public, as part of my healing, they finally ack’d me. Yea! Special Person’s we are.
Excellent, then congratulations!
Cheers! You are in good company you dirty wog! Wait, am I violating anything by writing to you? Marildi, is there a reference barring SP’s from talking to one another? Oh wait, nevermind Marildi… Better leave that one for now!
Chris, “Can we ever be friends”? 🙂
hehe — As soon as you get your goldenrod! 🙂 Meanwhile, I don’t want you getting into any trouble! (oh wait again! worrying about getting into trouble IS PTS’ness, isn’t it? ah well, it’s complicated!) (joke)
I know. You’re a complicated guy. But Scientology can handle that. 🙂
Well, actually they already did handle me. They correctly labelled me so that I can be efficiently handled. I am one of the 2-1/2%. Now all I have left to do is my steps A-E; a couple lifetimes of shoveling concrete, and I’m good. I’ll still be barely knocking at the front door of my billion year contract.
No, I said SCIENTOLOGY can handle that. 😉
Ah yes! The Scotsman! Thank you for that reminder.
Another sly Ad Hom? 😛
Is yours a sly ad hom?
Your pro-Scientology underpinning keystone argument is textbook “no true Scotsman”. When logically cornered, your cry is, “That’s not Scientology!”
Okay, Chris, I see where the problem started. You still refuse to recognize there are different uses of the word Scientology, although I’ve repeated so many times what I mean by Scientology. So perhaps the first logical fallacy (“The Scotsman!”) was actually the fallacy of Needling:
“simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic. Needling is also Ad Hominem if you insult your opponent. You may instead insult something the other person believes in…” http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
And the other thing you’re still missing is that a logical fallacy has to pertain to “the argument at hand” (as per the above quote). So when you throw in (alleged) logical fallacies from the past it becomes in fact an Ad Hom.
Btw, it started out that I was just trying to have some light banter with you and put a little ARC back in. Doesn’’t look like you could sustain that for very long, though.
Marildi, here’s a different look at our argument: The original problem is that it is you see inconsistencies in the Tech of Scientology. Seeing these inconsistencies is inconsistent with your belief in Scientology. The inconsistencies that you see are irreconcilable with Keeping Scientology Working. This irreconcilability is the root source of your reaching for any reconciliation — even a fallacious one such as that “Chris doesn’t understand Scientology.” This is natural but opens the door to religious zealousness and thus fallacious arguments. This is no big deal. You only need to care more about trusting yourself and your own well honed ability to look. You use this very good skill to construct justifying arguments for the well worn scriptures of Scientology and they work fine within that context.
Chris, if you really mean to have a comm cycle with me, please state some specifics.
Marildi, when you say that I don’t have a grasp of Scientology and that is the reason why I point out inconsistencies in Scientology, it makes me feel that you are being disingenuous. Because it is untrue that I don’t grasp Scientology, I come to the idea that you must also see problems that bang up against and are in disagreement with KSW; that the real problem lies in your ability to see these inconsistencies but the clash between your fixed ideas and agreements with the KSW Series are overwhelming your own perception. That is how false data works.
I don’t have really anything more than this: I believe in your ability to wade through this morass of contrary data; to compare datums of comparable magnitude (meaning of the same context) and to emerge bright and new.
If you choose to Keep Scientology Working, then you shall sentence yourself to remain within the framework of Scientology. If you choose to trust yourself and your “own gut,” then I suspect you will emerge Xena, Warrior Princess par excellence et meilleur que jamais!
Chris, just before you posted this comment I posted a reply to Vinaire ( 2013-02-08 at 07:19 ) accusing him of not understanding what he was talking about as the reason for his criticism – and I gave the specifics of why I was saying that.
If I’ve accused you of not having “a grasp of Scientology and that is the reason why I [you] point out inconsistencies in Scientology” – and done so without giving specifics, then I apologize. I think we need to stay in PT from now on because just stating generalities from the past goes nowhere.
So with that in mind, if you are still interested in discussing the topics of your last couple of posts, I think you yourself can see that so far you have only stated generalities. Please give the specifics of one particular point at a time.
Your innermost questions are framed up in a way which is consistent with the context and frame of reference in which you find yourself. The exact questions are keyed in by the inconsistencies which you personally see. The answers that you currently seek can be revealed to you by yourself whenever you decide to look.
From your heart, what would you like to know?
Cool. Then do you see inconsistencies in Scientology which bang up against KSW?
I see lots of apparent inconsistency in Scientology but I believe it can be resolved by knowing how to “play the piano” (I’m sure you know that expression) and by understanding the whole of it well enough to know what to apply when. This view is based on the actual consistency of the basic principles of both tech and admin. That’s why I’ve always wanted to discuss those as I don’t see any inconsistencies in them.
I’ll also say that I’m not denying LRH made mistakes as time went on, and that those mistakes may have been based on case and/or on poor judgement which itself may have been a result of incredible pressures on him, of which there is hard evidence. But no matter which combination of factors you want to emphasize, the bottom line for me is that it doesn’t take away from my understanding and immense appreciation of the core philosophy and tech. And if you disagree with that, fine – it’s your right to. I’m no longer of a mind that everybody has to agree with Scientology as that isn’t realistic to expect. Okay?
Marildi: I see lots of apparent inconsistency in Scientology but I believe it can be resolved by knowing how to “play the piano” (I’m sure you know that expression) and by understanding the whole of it well enough to know what to apply when. This view is based on the actual consistency of the basic principles of both tech and admin. That’s why I’ve always wanted to discuss those as I don’t see any inconsistencies in them. I’ll also say that I’m not denying LRH made mistakes as time went on, and that those mistakes may have been based on case and/or on poor judgement which itself may have been a result of incredible pressures on him, of which there is hard evidence. But no matter which combination of factors you want to emphasize, the bottom line for me is that it doesn’t take away from my understanding and immense appreciation of the core philosophy and tech. And if you disagree with that, fine – it’s your right to. I’m no longer of a mind that everybody has to agree with Scientology as that isn’t realistic to expect. Okay?
Chris: Agree that when a person decides to play Scientology that they need to know how to play Scientology. Agree that you don’t see any inconsistencies in Scientology. Agree that you like to discuss Scientology and would add that it stretches over your own world view. In discussion, you stretch it to fit over everyone’s world view. Regardless, the only thing left for you to do now is play. The reason that I think you don’t is that you see some inconsistency which bars you.
If you want to call the wrong and harmful parts of Scientology LRH’s mistakes and say that they were squeezed out of him by enormous pressure, well, I’m not quite ready for that.
No matter the pressure, I would never give up my own wife to go to prison alone. LRH shouldn’t have either. He let his own wife and staff go to prison while he went into hiding. If he cared for Scientology, nevermind the people in his life, he would’ve thrown himself on that sword and martyr’d himself as that would’ve done the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. He would’ve turned Operation Snow White into public relations fiasco for the government. History is full of selfless acts like. Anyway he wasn’t even facing death but only a few years in prison. Then after coming out of prison Mary Sue was put under house arrest and granted persona non grata by LRH. I know this, I met her, and saw a broken woman not matching with the lore of her Sea Org career. This was truly the work of a Henry the VIII, not a Gandi, MLK, or Jesus de Christo. In prison, Scientologists could’ve rallied around that image forever. Instead he created a nightmare public relations fiasco allowed that nightmare public relations fiasco to go unchallenged and instead went into hiding. Find hiding on his tone scale. I have more. Lots more. But having leveled these inconsistencies for myself, I don’t want to go back to before I got this experience. Here is your leadership example being emulated by Miscavige. Scientology leaders take themselves very seriously.
On the brighter side, your Scientology views were mine a short time ago. Your faithfulness and well articulated arguments for Scientology have over these years been a major source of benefit for me. You’ve forced me to compare my own positive views on Scientology to the greater world and forced me re-think my outlook on Scientology. This is not me being snide but for reals. I have learned a lot and I thank you, again not snide — sincere.
What is 100% consistent about the practice of Scientology is its placebo- and nocebo-effects. This achieves a zero-sum game.
Chris: “In discussion, you stretch it [Scientology] to fit over everyone’s world view.”
Scientology is simply a frame of reference which, when I apply it to life, I see consistency and workability and truth. Also, when I compare it to other worldviews, there again it’s because I am comparing not merely something I’ve learned as a theory but what I’ve learned through observation and application. And because Scn happens to be the “language” I’ve learned , that’s the one I speak when I make those comparisons.
Chris: “Regardless, the only thing left for you to do now is play [Scientology]. The reason that I think you don’t is that you see some inconsistency which bars you.”
Oh, I do “play”. Just for you, tonight I finally found a description I’ve been looking for – one that fits perfectly with my experience, rather than it being true on some theoretical level only. Here it is:
“There are two distinct divisions in Scientology. The first is philosophic, the second is technical. Under the philosophic heading one discovers the ways and means of forming new ways of life and of evaluating or creating standards of livingness and beingness. By this knowingness alone, and without processing, it should be understood clearly that a new way of life could be created, or an old way of life could be understood and better endured or altered.” (Creation of Human Ability)
Note especially the last sentence: “By this knowingness alone and without processing..” etc.
Chris: “If you want to call the wrong and harmful parts of Scientology LRH’s mistakes and say that they were squeezed out of him by enormous pressure, well, I’m not quite ready for that.”
I actually didn’t mean to say that. All I meant is that the core philosophy and the tech it underlies is what I believe is consistent and contains more truth than any other system or path I know of. LRH did have a case. He did make fatal mistakes and I don’t mean to excuse them wholesale. I was only saying that at least in part it there was the factor of pressures on him – i.e. heavy counter-efforts, some of which are documented in public records, as I’m sure you know.
But even if all the things LRH has been accused of were true with no justification for them whatsoever, it doesn’t change the truths he derived. Any other viewpoint would come down to Ad Hominen.
Chris: What is 100% consistent about the practice of Scientology is its placebo- and nocebo-effects. This achieves a zero-sum game.
Well, just as you consider that I view the world through the lens of Scientology, I would submit that you view the world, including Scientology, through your own lens(es).
But I definitely appreciated the acks you gave me! Those were through the more rosy-colored glasses you sometimes view through – which I happen to admire. And not just when you use them on me (but that too :)).
Marildi: “But even if all the things LRH has been accused of were true with no justification for them whatsoever, it doesn’t change the truths he derived. Any other viewpoint would come down to Ad Hominen.”
Nicely put.
Knowledge stands by itself.
Any association of knowledge with a source is introducing the additive of ego.
Any association is secondary to ‘what-is’..
.
Well said.
Geir: “Nicely put.”
Chris: “Any other viewpoint is Ad Hominem.” Really?
Wow. One of your worst efforts but a nice walk through the garden. Is it that you don’t have a working e-meter? I will send you one. Just send email me your address.
Okay, let’s see if you can do any better. Why aren’t you auditing?
You were highly praising the results you were getting from solo auditing and after a while you posted that you weren’t doing it any more. Why not?
Marildi, Please pick one:
1. Case too snarled from out-tech squirrel auditing. Badly in need of review for out-int; out-list; and too PTS.
2. On win, taking a break.
3. Done.
4. None of the above.
Now Marildi, how are any of these answers relevant to your progress up the Bridge? If I jumped off The Bridge and told you to, would you just do it?
Joking aside and sincerity queued up, I think that you should continue on the Bridge. If you have a reason for not continuing, what is it?
Chris, you are asking me to guess the answer to a question that only you know the answer to, rather than simply answering the question. Is there some reason you don’t want to answer?
Is there?
Ahh! This is getting interesting.
.
You did it again. Instead of a true 2-way comm, you are simply being evasive by batting back the question.
In these last couple exchanges I was making an attempt to have a straightforward, sincere comm cycle with you. Is that not possible?
It is not absolutely necessary that there be a cause to every event. That there is no reason in this case is a plausible answer. Why should it be not acceptable?
.
Vinaire: “It is not absolutely necessary that there be a cause to every event. That there is no reason in this case is a plausible answer. Why should it be not acceptable?”
You should ask Chris that, Vin. I’ve tried it both ways with him. I’ve given him sincere answers, down to specifics in earlier comm cycles, and I did so mostly out of respect for what I thought was a sincere question on his part. However, he out and out refused to accept what I said. So his question seemed more like an attempt to force his viewpoint on me. His mind was apparently already made up and he was simply bound and determined to get me to see it his way. And this is in spite of the fact that he has vehemently expressed his disagreement with evaluating for others.
Anyway, since that went nowhere, I tried just not getting into it with him – but he won’t accept that either. He remains relentless about it, like he’s fixated on it. In the latest exchange, I tried to get him to put the shoe on the other foot so he could get a sense of how his question hits me, but so far he is also refusing to do that.
NO CAUSE TO A EVENT? No event can happens without cause..No event can be caused without out intention. I thought inteligent beings were posting in this blog.. Weeeeeeeeeeeell, I was mistaken again..[kidney punch]
I think that the question needs to be reformulated such that self (Chris and/or Marildi) are taken out of the picture. The possible reformulation of the question could be:
(1) Is there enough auditing occurring among non-COS Scientologists?
(2) What is needed to get more auditing occurring among non-COS Scientologists?
(3) What barrier needs to be removed?
(4) What opportunities should be created or taken advantage of?
.
True 2-way communication includes an answer to the question. This the reason for my TR-3. When you finally answer the question, I will then use my TR-4. I am not auditing you and you are not bull-baiting me. We are just talking here.
Vin asks why I wouldn’t accept that there is simply “not an answer” to the question. Well, actually I will. Is that the answer to the question? You don’t have an answer?
Otherwise, there is an answer to the question why the single most major proponent of Scientology on this blog won’t audit. Not only won’t audit but won’t go near discussing the matter.
That wide-berth is a glaring out-point like no other.
Chris, you misrepresent the facts – facts that you very well know. See my last reply to Vinaire.
Btw, did you know that “enforced have” is suppressive? It means “making someone accept what they didn’t want” (HCOB 3 Jun 72R)
Here’s something else to consider:
“A person who is connected to a suppressive person, group or thing will dramatize a ‘can’t-have’ or an “’enforced overt-have’…A ‘can’t-have’ means just that – a depriving of substance or action or things. An ‘enforced overt-have’ means forcing upon another a substance, action or thing not wanted or refused by the other. The technical fact is that a PTS person got that way because the suppressive was suppressive by depriving the other or enforcing unwanted things upon the person. The PTS person will dramatize this characteristic in reaction to the suppression. (HCO PL 12 May 72R)
How can this insight into PTSness be used to increase auditing among non-COS Scientologists?
.
How can this insight into PTSness be used to increase auditing among non-COS Scientologists?
I quoted that data for Chris to consider. If it’s true for him and he recognizes either a suppressive impulse in himself or PTSness, he has various choices he can make to handle.
Your focus on a participant is going to derail this discussion.
.
HIs continued focus on me has already derailed the discussion, as it has in the past..
You both are guilty of putting attention on the participants per my observation. That brings ego into discussion. This discussion can still be salvaged by formulating “selfless” questions that target the real concern.
I think it is a very good topic to discuss.
.
Actually, Vin, the discussion topic was ABOUT participants, as to a particular aspect. That was the topic. I’ve put all my cards on the table starting way back, and can do no more. On the other hand, I do not feel that Chris has done so. And I believe that is what it takes to have a productive discussion.
Btw, to be honest I often don’t agree with your evaluation of comments as to what is or isn’t about participants. And I see Elizabeth has just posted a comment saying the same..
Carry on then! Let’s see the progress.
I am looking at the ADMIN SCALE for this discussion. If that is properly worked out then there would be progress.
.
p.s. Vin, I was referring to this comment of Elizabeth’s when I said she was saying the same thing I was:
“no one is focusing on the participants.. we are focusing what was said the content of the posting”.
Vin: “You both are guilty…”
Sounds like a focus on participants right there, bubba. (And, ya, that was said in a condescending way, Mr. Kettle.)
WHO WINS THE BATTLE, ANY BATTLE..
Two different viewpoint will remain- persist continue as is because they have the same equal power-energy base and the words the argument is secondary to that energy mass, which on the long run totally meaningless in between the two opposing sides.
If the basic energy-mass would not be equal than the stronger heavier force would push and the weaker mass would yield and would GO INTO AGREEMENT with the stronger force… accept that viewpoint as one’s own with that accept that energy.
But in reality that weaker force still exists and still remain the base for that person. Sort of forced key-in occurred.
There is such a thing as SUPERIOR BEING or beings because those beings uses have a very powerful energy base from which those beings operates from: lighter energy has more power.
So in the Spiritual universe since there is no separate solid universe not all is equal. The power is not equal.
M… it has not derailed you… you two just have totally different reality on the subject and it show that two objects cant fit into the same place, when one wants to do that they simply collide.. Your universe has not been effected in any way and Chris’s is still the same. Only new things have been formed.. a continuum…
the focus on any discassion is not on the person, never on the person but on the reality what one has: how one sees – and understands that incoming information.
Discussion becomes more productive when attention is taken away from the participants in a discussion and kept strictly to the discussion of inconsistency.
.
It is the argument that “I know and you don’t”: which causes much friction.
This is what Tom Cruise did on Matt Laurer’s show which caused uproar.
.
.
I am glad you posted that video. It is interesting to notice the different way I view Tom’s attitude and delivery since first seeing that. As a Scientologist, I felt he projected a strong and virile image of a model Scientologist. Now as I watch it, he appears arrogant, condescending, and quite the know-best. Now it is Matt Lauer who appears balanced and granting beingness. What a difference a day makes, eh? For each time that I’ve emulated that valence and offended writers on this blog, I apologize.
When I first saw that video I thought “OMG he is in so much shit.” I figured Tom would get creamed over that. Well, maybe DM was creaming, all right, but I’d surely missed how. That, of course, was before ‘it hit the fan and we found out what was going on.
Up to that point I’d taken the good PR Tom had had about how great he was and figured it was correct. After that I wondered what was going on with cramming and drilling that would explain why he was such a bad product. Then, when he started showing off Katie… the first time I saw her indicators I could see he was going to have trouble – but I still did not know why. Even having been offlines for years I still operated off the datum that the church, overall, was doing its best to move people forward. I thought it was Katie who was the screwed-up one, not Tom (though his antics never impressed me – again “why wasn’t he drilled??!!”)
Well, we grow up, one way or another. Fast or slow. I’ll posit it’s the saner of us who do, anyhow.
Here’s to thinking like a ten year-old again and looking forward to the next growth spurt. May we all be blessed with improved sanity.
I will drink to that. Cheers!
Hey, no drinking and dialing now. 😛
The rule is : No drinking and deriving. A lesson learned from the calculus of alcohol.
LOL! But that rule has to be waived on Friday blog night! 🙂
or do you mean no drinking and deriving?
Gosh, thatsh what I thot I shed.
I know. I was so busy being clever and wanting to share my son’s T-shirt that your joke went over my head. . . hic!
oops, blurry vision – my joke undercut.
Drink and blog!
Chris and Marildi… such problems go away when one applies the discussion policy. Discussion is a cooperative effort and it should be carried out in that spirit.
People get ticked off when they see their favorite ideas being questioned. They start taking other participants as their opponent and start gunning for them. At that point the discussion is over. One is then simply trying to protect their favorite ideas by ridiculing the participant who is questioning that idea.
.
Chris, “Wait, am I violating anything by writing to you?”
Only if you are a dedicated scientologist in good standing. Then you’d be off to ethics and have no more say.
Freedom is wonderful eh? 🙂
When compared to its earlier frame of reference, the smell and taste of freedom is sweet! My hope for you is that its sweetness lingers and supplants any bitter feelings that the previous frame of reference can conjure. You’ll know when you can see the experience growing smaller in your rear-view mirror. It has taken me a long time to process the experience and to put it into context.
Elizabeth
Agreed. What I write about is experience….but also “cognitions” can come from LIVE communication with others. Also, any realization can happen any time without using any tool (method). Also, the Stop of using a method can result in a big cog or even a big realization. Also,
a really big Stop can result in the loss of the “mind” and ” I”. Perhaps there are other variations…
MT… there are many view points on the same thought.
Marianne:”Also, a really big Stop can result in the loss of the “mind” and ” I”. ”
If you know Newton’s first law, you’ll know you’ve just re-stated it in a manner appicable to the thetan.
It might be re-phrased as: A mind follows the thetan, at rest or in motion, until acted upon by some unbalanced force.
What you describe amounts to a thetan stopping and it’s mind goes sailing off into the ____. Sort of like driving along in your car, stopping your body and having the mass of the car go sailing off without any damage to you. Neat concept.
I wonder if I say this than we talk about the same concept.:
When the big stop happens the spirit gets disconnected from the MEST, loses the anchor point is MEST… if one calls the considerations the MIND than yes one loses that bag of goods.
E.:”if one calls the considerations the MIND than yes one loses that bag of goods.”
That would literally be proof that the mind was mest or mest-like. If the thetan stopped, … momentarily stopped being in-synchronization with the mest universe, then it should disconnect from the mind if the mind was mest.
Perhaps that disconnection could extend all the way to the total mind formed in this universe. If a being has been in earlier universes, with different laws, it’s hard to say whether parts of the mind from those universes would disconnect.
Another interesting concept, M.T.
2n… good thought, i have no idea if you read mypost about the brain damage I have had.. but yes everything here was gone, I had to make a new reality what IS… But even that reality has become very flimsy, I am hanging in by few treads only.. I do want to cut all and see what happens while the body is still functioning..Working on that..
Marianne and 2ndxmr, here’s another interesting datum that I think is relevant here:
“Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. It is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it.” (HCOB 6 Dec 74 “The Two Parts of Auditing”)
And I recall coming across a datum in physics about the laws of nature being nearly symmetrical with respect to particles and antiparticles.
M…. no one can convince me to have different reality.
You see the solid universe is the illusion and more one erases those lies ones reality becomes ”solid” the spiritual reality can not be as-ised.. no matter how hard one wants to in order to see if one could be wrong?
Because those thought do come as one advances and when those different realities experienced the what IF I am wrong.. etc… need to be looked at why they are there, where they have come from and what is the reason i doubt.. But
the accumulation of knowingness pushes the confusion away…
This is in response to Elizabeth Hamre.
.
My responds was for post you left here.
Scientology’s Fixation
The key concept in Scientology is that of a “bank” or “reactive mind.” Let’s take a closer look at it. I shall be using definitions from the Technical Dictionary of Scientology.
BANK: (definition #2) A colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scn are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it.
REACTIVE MIND: (definition #1) a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.
So, the problem boils down to rigid association among thoughts that channels action only in certain pre-selected manner. There is no flexibility or little room to maneuver. This inflexibility is the Reactive Mind. The solution is to remove this inflexibility.
.
Hubbard ascertained this “inflexibility” to exist at the perceptual level. This became Dianetics. Hubbard reasoned that too much perception coming in at a rapid rate, as in an accident or in a forceful event, would jam up the reasoning faculty of the mind. One would then end up with a jumble of perception waiting to be processed.
Hubbard called this jumble of perception an “engram.” This proved out to be correct. However, after clearing of a few engrams on a case, no more engrams could be found, but case problems still existed. Dianetics hit a brick wall. Per Hubbard’s theory there were supposed to be more engrams, and so it was assumed that the problem was with inaccessibility of these engrams. There was something wrong with the theory, “Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.“ Actually, there were no more engrams. So it was not the engram that was the single source of aberration.
It was the principle of inflexibility that was the source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.
An engram was only one type of inflexibility. There were other types of inflexibility.
Data gets processed in the mind in the form of following layers (see PERCEPTION & KNOWLEDGE).
1. Perception
2. Experience
3. Information
4. Hypothesis
5. Theory
6. Principles
7. Axioms
8. Self
Inflexibility may generate inconsistencies on each of these layers as follows (see KNOWLEDGE & INCONSISTENCY).
1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)
Thus, engram was one of many type of inconsistencies generated by the general principle of inflexibility. But Hubbard assumed engram to underlie all other type of inconsistencies. Hubbard brought e-meter to his aid and created hundreds of processes to overcome that assumed lack of accessibility to engrams.
Hubbard made self, or individuality, the foundation of his theory of Scientology. (see Scientology Axiom # 1). His goal became the strengthening of self by searching for and eliminating engrams.
This goal of Hubbard also gave birth to the OT levels. This was same as the age-old search for siddhis that Buddha examined and discarded.
The analysis of inconsistencies above shows that engrams are only at the surface of inconsistencies, which go a lot deeper. At the deepest level we find the inconsistency of a fixation on self, just as Buddha had preached 2600 years ago. Thus the theory of Scientology seems to look at inconsistencies in the reverse order.
The single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills is not the engram but a fixation on self. Scientology promotes this fixation on self through its OT Levels.
Until one realizes that looking at self as “something fixed” is the basic inconsistency there is no spiritual freedom.
.
The above is the culmination of the search, for me, of what is wrong with Scientology. Now I can focus on those aspects of Scientology that are beneficial.
The beneficial aspects of Scientology shall be preserved in KHTK.
.
Vinay: Here is a book for your library. I believe it will be of great interest to you in the next stage of your inquiries.
Click to access Science-of-Yoga.pdf
Maria, thank you for the link. I had studied Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras before Scientology, but I shall take another look at them.
To me persuing of Siddhis (OT Levels) is not only a lower goal, but actutally an entrapment.
.
VIn,
As you didn’t DO the OT levels (me neither) you have no experience of what “gains” can be there. “Siddhis” are just by-products if they get realized. If they do, they occassionally can be used for non-personal!! benefits. But even then a complete knowingness is needed whether it is advisable to use a siddhi,or not. Pursuing siddhis for their own sake is indeed a trap! But also it is in the nature of a siddhi that when it is connected to EGO, it will not be permanent, or will even disappear. Any fixation on the ” I am the doer” (ego) will lower any ability in the long run, simply by an energetic component in it.
Life is a free flow – the ” I ” blocks this flow. My understanding of it.
Marianne, well spoken!
On the last part, I believe you were correct to use the word “fixation”:
“Any fixation on the ‘I am the doer’ (ego) will lower any ability in the long run, simply by an energetic component in it. Life is a free flow – the ‘I’ blocks this flow. My understanding of it.”
That seems to align with what Adyashanti said on the video: “So this nothing is not actually nothing… [it’s] a very conscious nothing because here it is looking at itself.”
This very conscious nothing obvioiusly CAN look at itself – which is not at all the same as having a fixation.
There are only negative gains even at OT Levels. All abilities are part of native state. These Siddhis are chimera made up of considerations. True abilities are not stored anywhere. In native state, the abilities simply appear as demanded by the situation. Those abilities cannot be willed.
.
Vinay: This was a response to your post which you summarize with: Until one realizes that looking at self as “something fixed” is the basic inconsistency there is no spiritual freedom.
Vin, where do you get that “Scientology promotes this fixation on self”, other than perhaps with the EP of OT 8, which is apparently not the OT 8 LRH developed or, minimally, not the full level.
From deep analysis.
.
I’m assuming you want your analysis to be understandable, right? So in the following statement you made, please explain how you are using the word “self”?
“Hubbard made self, or individuality, the foundation of his theory of Scientology. (see Scientology Axiom # 1)”.
I have now posted my analysis of Scientology Axiom #1 once again especially for you. Please see below.
.
We could go off onto many tangents from that long analysis before I got a clear understanding of the word “self” as you are using it. For starters, I’m just asking you the meaning of the word “self” as you yourself are using it.
Marildi…I was not going to express my reality about your post which was about different paths..
but I can’t let it go by…. There is a huge difference of a keyed out state or the state achieved by as-is.
If you really believe that scientology auditing works 100% than you could not possibly believe that when one has one big key out that achieves the same as thousands of hours auditing.
LRH would not have emphasised the difference between the two, and by now if the keyed out state would be stable there would be no aberrated beings because one time or other one experiences that shift in reality and would remain in that state.
Look at those persons who had auditing, they all gained keyed out state every one of them but did they remained in that state?
Do you really believe scientology could be sold- bought if only would offer keyed out state?
Ever gurus offers that, and say the same as Marianne said something like this” put it out there and it will happen” Please?????? Postulate it into existence but will that postulate erase the MEST, the aberration?
Those quotes come from self-help books: I am OK. You OK. or Shirley MacLean’s book and other million books written about they keyed out experiences and the beliefs because they FEEL different and that only can be that they have achieved total enlightenment…
Enlightenment what is that, Maria has asked that once and I have written about it but since that that concept is gone.. Vanished … there is no such a thing… but it exist in teaching.. The student advancement is graded and at one LEVEL will reach nirvana.. the blessed state, my foot.. it is a level of different reality of the MEST but still is the MEST.
blessed state, holy state, saintly state, they are all part of the implants, One could by those personalities and down load them the MANUALS they contained the rules regulations knowledge.. and they were sold in VIDEO SHOPS all over the track.
By now my-self I could have written half a dozen books what is the exteriorization..
Think positive, the negative will blow sooner or later.. bah…
Valances have many faces…. All faces are valances… under the sweetness and light there is a 99 headed dragon which is the bank..
Sooner or later you will arrive on the road where it splits and you will chose than what is right the real one.
LRH is not my favorite person but I believe he was brilliant.. because he said it and others only can read it and know about it that way.. No matter where his theory come from it was he who compiled it in understandable form.. therefore it is original.
+100
Elizabeth, LRH stated that Scientology was not the only possible path, just that it was a workable one. He also said there were two ways a thetan could become free, one was by erasure of the bank and the other was to bring him to a level where he would be cause over the bank, i.e. able to handle it rather than being the effect of it. Here is one quote I was able to find:
“We can rehabilitate the preclear by raising his ability to create energy, and thus bring him to a ‘speed’ which has sufficient output for him to overcome facsimiles. We do this by erasing or reducing certain facsimiles, and, in doing so, retrain our preclear to produce a higher energy potential.” (Scn 8-80)
The above tells me LRH considered that it isn’t necessary to erase the whole bank, just enough to “retrain our preclear to produce a higher energy potential.” And since even LRH says that Scn isn’t the only possible route, for all I know there may in fact be other routes which can bring an individual up to the necessary “speed”.
Maybe it’s true that there weren’t any other workable paths when LRH made that statement, but I would just be taking his (or your) word for it if I assumed that to be true – or if I assumed there couldn’t haven’t been any other route developed since the time he made that statement – or, for that matter, if I assumed there couldn’t be one developed at any time in the near future.
The only thing I’ve been able to observe for myself is that there are other routes which at least take a person upwards, and so far I have no way of knowing if any of them take a person as far or even farther than Scientology does. Nevertheless, as I’ve said a number of times, I have far more confidence in Scientology than anything else because I know what it can do, from my own experience and what I know of others’.
It’s funny – on the one hand, I get criticized for “blindly believing LRH” about things that I myself have observed – and on the other hand, I get criticized for “NOT believing LRH” about things I haven’t observed for myself. But I assure you, I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about what you yourself have observed, I’m just telling you my own reality and why it is that I don’t take someone’s word for it (at least try not to).
Marildi: “We do this by erasing or reducing certain facsimiles, and, in doing so, retrain our preclear to produce a higher energy potential.” (Scn 8-80)”
The operative word there is “certain” (certain facsimiles). That may mean specific sorts of incidents like implants, or whatever.
That may mean the same as what you wrote: “just enough to “retrain our preclear to produce a higher energy potential.” ” but it may not mean just general auditing for a length of time.
2ndxmr: “The operative word there is ‘certain’ (certain facsimiles). That may mean specific sorts of incidents like implants, or whatever.”
I agree. My restatement of it was sloppy but that’s the way I understood it too.
M………Man is been looking for other way out and have not found it… Most auditors, tech trained people looking for the way out and have not found it… all the unbelievable way folks doing their best, drugs, alcohol, meditation, om.-ming away for thousands of years, baths, exercise, woo do, magic potions, spells, sex, just naming a few and All these practices we have recalled in session and we know not one taken us out. because we have recalled that is session and Because we zipped back into the body and we continued we looked for new way… and that too is failed.. we have failed and we used thousands of different practiced by now.
IF LRH would know any other way, I am sure he would have found it too and would have experimented on that too and written few million pages on the matter, The man did not keep secrets..
BY now I have looked too… did I ever, and not just here but other teachings other places…. No.. no way out but as-ising and Marildi it takes more than one key-out, one experience push tons of mass away.. and look at those OT’s who have as-ised tons of it and they keyed back..
You don’t have reality just how much there is to confront.. and the traps which are set up soo that one believes one is free… and hehehe. you are back in the old body before you can blink..
I will not buy any other reality… I will not going to agreement just to agree and be part of…. no…And I do not real care what he said..
I am sure he did everything in his power to erase his mass and he went out with his bag… the man had many thousand of hours auditing I am sure of that.. so you tell me a bit of key-out will give enough power to the person to handle eons of accumulated crap?
E, I wasn’t saying that key-outs are the answer. I was really only repeating what LRH said, that Scn isn’t the only possible route and that there may be routes that are workable that aren’t just a matter of getting key-outs.
The other thing I was saying was that LRH himself indicated one way to free a being is to bring his ability to create energy up to where he is more powerful than the bank and thus isn’t the effect of it. In that particular quote, I got that he meant certain incidents would need to be erased. But I was also considering the possibility of a route that doesn’t include auditing but in some other way brings the individual’s ability to create energy up high enough to be cause over the bank. I do get that from what you know this isn’t possible. Try to understand that I’m just saying that for all I know it may be possible.
Ok… if it is possible why was not found, yet they been looking experimenting hundreds of different ways… all dead ends YES? lots of smart people doing it and now to that group we can add the scientologist who do not want to get into the session but want the eraser..
Than it is not you i am making wrong but LRH… you and I we know where we are at.
implants are very complicated things and one cant locate one by ”locate the time….”and erase those things, I want to audit out the implants I have… hehehe… now hehehe. Marildi, no such a thing can be done..
Hubbard was limited by his own case. His fixation on self limited him.
.
bad for him. and bad for you..
There is nothing good or bad. There is observing inconsistencies and resolving them. We have seen in Hubbard what can happen when one gets fixated on self. That needs to be kept in mind when auditing.
.
Vin:”There is nothing good or bad.”
That sounds rather absolutist. Not to mention absurd. It would imply, for instance, that there was neither good discussion policy nor bad; neither good logic nor bad; that drinking water would not be good for your health and drinking bleach would not be bad for your health.
If those common usages of good and bad do not conform to the definitions you want to employ, then you should include the definition you want to use. Otherwise “There is nothing good or bad” becomes yet another nonsensical statement.
Good and bad are opinions that change from one viewpoint to another. What is good for the hunter is bad for the duck.
What is absolutist about that?
.
Enjoy a cup of bleach and ask me again.
It will burn my throat and would affect my health adversely.
Now you may call it bad. That is still an opinion. You are just giving it a label.
.
2ndxmr – Black and white, good or bad. Like a master I followed for awhile said, “it’s all in the grey area”
deE: “Black and white, good or bad. Like a master I followed for awhile said, “it’s all in the grey area””
Are all grays equal? No. You can have more white or more black. You can dink a glass of water with a drop of bleach in it but you can’t drink a glass of bleach with a drop of water in it. That would be a measure of sanity: discriminating the level of gray that was pro-survival for your viewpoint.
Taking some airy-fairy idea like “there is nothing good or bad” and applying it wholeheartedly to life will give you a very short life. Applying some judgement to what level of gray is acceptable in a situation should give you a much longer and better life.
Fixation on survival is also an aberration. One can live without fixation on survival. In fact, that life is much more fun.
.
A fixation on fixation may be equally aberrated.
All conclusions require evaluation and evaluations are most sanely done against known workable data.
I really doubt you would cross a busy street without an evaluation of survivability. Same as you wouldn’t drink a glass of bleach because it might have adverse effects on your health.
Sound like good common sense to me. What does one think of common sense?
Defining good and bad against survival raises the problem, “Whose survival?” Is it the hunter’s survival or the duck’s survival? Or, it it the survival of the “hunter-duck” system?
So, the idea of good and bad depends on the viewpoint taken. Hence it depends on opinion.
.
Yes, good and bad depend on viewpoint. For the most part, though, our actions are less pan-determined (pan-determined action would give equal advantage to all viewpoints) than they are advantage-determined (action taken to the advantage of one or a portion of all viewpoints). In other words, we take sides and choose actions most favorable to “our” side; we make value judgements. Minimally that makes a decision between a thing or action with some unknown value and another thing or action with greater perceived value.
However you want to call it – gray scale; workability scale; goodness scale, or whatever – we all use some value-judged scale to make decisions. It doesn’t matter whether you call it right/wrong, good/bad or valued/not-valued. If you’re honest with yourself you will see that you do that.
…pan-determined (pan-determined action would give equal advantage to all viewpoints)
To me pan-determined is:
(1) Seeing things as they are.
(2) There is no viewpoint involved.
(3) There is only a perception point not attached to any considerations.
.
Here-here! Living without attachment to survival is saying a mouthful — that is a good goal. One key that I would like to share about successfully doing this is to view one’s own life as it really is rather than what one might wish it is. This will mean different things to each person and depending on their natural means may mean re-scaling one’s life to fit one’s circumstances. For instance, my wife is big on scaling back on monthly overhead, expenses of any sort in order to help remove present time problems with finances. She pays off credit cards every month so that there is no lingering attention left over to carry forth into the next month. We drive very serviceable but old and inexpensive cars. Others might not need to do this, but for us, we are not fixated on survival and very happy because of it. I can imagine using these techniques of hers if we were living on a junk and fishing for our meals on the Yellow River if that were our circumstances.
2ndxmr – You got it, thanks for making it clear. I like your last line too. “Applying some judgement to what level of gray is acceptable in a situation should give you a much longer and better life.”
Yes, and the fixation on self as an identity or even many identities produces fixed conditions and positions which must be guarded and protected and defended and supplied and… there are enemies out there…
“I now know who I am not, and am interested in finding out who I am“
Vinay: This was also a response to your post which you summarize with: Until one realizes that looking at self as “something fixed” is the basic inconsistency there is no spiritual freedom.
(I am having trouble getting the comments to land in the right place)
Maria, You probably already know this but answering comments from your own email box rather than from Geir’s website seems to do the better job of correctly filing comments as answers under the appropriate comment being answered. If you are already doing this, then I don’t know another better way.
That requires throwingScientology Axiom #1 out the window, and truly understanding and using the Vedic process of NETI-NETI.
.
.
.
For the purposes of what you are doing, that would be true.
However for the purposes of Scientology, the following MUST be completely understood:
“And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written here Man can experience and know. And some may care to teach these things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud.” (from the Scientology Factors)
Mara, what you quoted is FACTOR #30. It is wonderful to have that purpose, but what has that to do with understanding Scientology Axiom #1, which forms the foundation of Scientology?
“Observe things as they are, not just as they seem to be.” ~ Buddha
.
Because I think it is the purpose of Scientology, the playing of a better game. From all I read of what you are doing, it appears that you are not trying to make a better game or a better game player but to transcend (for lack of a better word) the entire game mechanism. I think that life as identified in physical existence is in fact a part of the mechanisms of the game. That is possibly why neti neti — no definition possible in terms of the game of life.
I agree with that, Maria. The definition of thetan/life (static) includes having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space EXCEPT by consideration or postulate.
Marildi, that is what I have been saying for some time. A thetan or self is made up of consideration. Think of a set of considerations that are tightly linked with each other. The resultant of these considerations would be the self. Self does not exist independent of considerations.
.
Vin, I totally understand and agree with what you say about “self”. And so does LRH define it that way: SELF: thetan plus machines, plus body, plus reactive bank (Tech Dict).
But where you say “thetan or self” you are obviously equating the two, whereas from the definition of “self” it is clear that self does not equate with thetan as self includes additions to the thetan.
Your whole analysis of Scientology is based on the contradictory statement you made that “Hubbard made self, or individuality, the foundation of his theory of Scientology. (see Scientology Axiom # 1)”.
Nowhere in Axiom #1 – Life is basically a Static – is there any notion of self in the sense that both you and LRH define it. So as I see it, your analysis is based on a falsehood.
p.s. to Vin – Also, what do you think LRH means by “Life” in “Life is basically a Static”?
He was confused between life, life-form, form, static, thetan, and theta. Sometimes he knew the difference. Sometimes he didn’t. Sort of like the rest of us on this blog who chew this for years at a time!
. . . and thusly is not static.
Right, Chris – self is not static. But Life is BASICALLY a Static – which can have considerations otherwise.
Yes Marildi, this is my point. This is LRH’s confusion, not mine. He had not yet done OT8 when he wrote this about life being basically a “static” and so didn’t know what he was not.
Chris, as I’ve already noted, there is apparently corroborated eye-witness evidence that OT 8 has been tampered with. Thus, my interest in discussion is on the materials that we are pretty confident were LRH’s writings and lectures, mainly the basic books.
Marildi, is it possible that LRH himself was tampered with?
.
Very well, I will rephrase: Yes Marildi, this is my point. This is LRH’s confusion, not mine. When he wrote this about life being basically a “static,” he didn’t know what he was not.
C.T.: “Very well, I will rephrase: Yes Marildi, this is my point. This is LRH’s confusion, not mine. When he wrote this about life being basically a “static,” he didn’t know what he was not.”
Just WTF is your point, Mr. Negative273? You yammer on and on about how bad and wrong LRH was but I haven’t seen anything to show a desire for forward motion. I don’t give a damn if LRH was off by 1 x 10 to the minus 999 parts on his estimation that LIFE is BASICALLY a static. What has that got to do with moving on?!!!
If you really think that the answer lies in figuring out how close you are to a rock, go ahead and bring forth some reasoning. (Gotta say, I can sure see the resemblance some times.)
On the other hand, there’s a few people here who have a vastly different outlook based on that thing called experience. Oh, ya, that’s the thing you call lying delusion. Well whatever, while we deluded liars try and look at a way to become more deeply deluded liars, I’ll leave it to you to sort out the relation of -273.blahblahblah and background microwave radiation. Maybe you can come up with a theory on the origin of the Higgs field, now that you agree that it exists, and tie it into that background radiation. That’d be good for a warming chuckle.
I had to look up ” deluded” and I like the sound and the meaning.. also I am greatly pleased that I am . hehehe.. we meant to be deluded, again LRH said a small percent will make it out.. again the old bogger was right.
Out? hehe
Did LRH make it out?
.
Make it out with whom?
Mary Sue?
LOL! She was not the only one.
.
Very, very few ever are.
LOL! Not the picture I wanted to start my day with! Had there been Viagra in the 60’s, the world of Scientology might’ve taken quite a different turn!
Funny post 2X. If you like the language of Scientology as it is then continue. If you don’t see any inconsistencies, if you don’t see any blind alleys, if you are pleased with who and what you became are and want others to have the gains that you enjoy then simply continue. I can be positive toward Hubbard. He was right to make Scientology into a religion. To the degree that I stare into the rear view mirror of Scientology, I find it harder to drive forward into the present.
From Scientology’s Fixation
The above is the culmination of the search, for me, of what is wrong with Scientology. Now I can focus on those aspects of Scientology that are beneficial.
The beneficial aspects of Scientology shall be preserved in KHTK.
.
Philosophical failures open the door to religion.
Yes, that is what has happened with Scientology. Religion is useful for enforcing arbitrariness through inculcation of beliefs. Beliefs without understanding is a major inconsistency.
.
But it is possible to have a hunch that something is right without understanding why… and this without it being a major inconsistency.
Well there is conjecture of the scientific method. I have quite a few of them, which I test continually against consistency.
.
“Yes Marildi, this is my point. This is LRH’s confusion, not mine. He had not yet done OT8 when he wrote this about life being basically a “static” and so didn’t know what he was not.”
LOL! People forget that LRH was human, even when he painted himself to be superhuman. Many humans do that.
.
and truly there is…
“Static” is just a consideration that has been thrown around quite a bit since Hubbard considered it.
.
Just like “Unknowable” is.
😉
Yes unknowable is a consideration too. However it leads to better consistency in my opinion.
A games becomes a lot better when there is no fixation. My purpose is to get rid of the fixation, not of the game. Nirvana is just that. Buddha did not give up the game of life after attaining nirvana at age 35. He had a wonderful life until he died at the age of 80, 2600 years ago.
.
Ah! then Vinay, you are going LOVE Pantanjali’s Science of Yoga! Much food for thought along these lines.
Maria: Because I think it is the purpose of Scientology, the playing of a better game. From all I read of what you are doing, it appears that you are not trying to make a better game or a better game player but to transcend (for lack of a better word) the entire game mechanism. I think that life as identified in physical existence is in fact a part of the mechanisms of the game. That is possibly why neti neti — no definition possible in terms of the game of life.
Chris: Maria, that is a pretty good dissection and pointing out of the two different frames of reference.
At different moments I find myself either wanting to successfully play the game and at other times, I want to transcend the entire mechanism.
I am pretty sure that transcending the entire mechanism from a human point of view is physically impossible. Written another way, if there is a living set outside the physical universe, I am not aware of it (intentional double entendre).
Let me know if you see any inconsistency in the following statement: EVERYTHING IS MANIFESTED. NOTHING IS UNMANIFESTED. Also, you or anyone let me know if these statements seem tautological, and if so does it seem faulty?
Vin; So brushing off another’s idea as merely being a consideration may not be so fruitful after all?
In my view, the bottom line is consideration, whether it is mine or someone else’s. Having established that the matter now becomes one of establishing consistency.
Consistency is the product of removing inconsistencies. That has been my effort. and operating basis.
KNOWLEDGE & INCONSISTENCY
I have categorized inconsistencies as follows.
1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)
THETAN has become a fixed identity in Scientology.
.
There is in fact no reason at all “to establish consistency” or to “resolve inconsistencies”.
One may just as well, if there is a consideration that one actually exists, enjoy any given inconsistency; if there is a consideration that an inconsistency exists that is just one consideration among a possibly large aggregate of considerations.
As Geir might say, “Who gives a fuck?”
Valkov, from AP&A:
“The distinguishing characteristic of the computing psychotic is his utter inability to change his mind. He may even make a cult or a virtue out of “consistency.”
Sorry, Vin, I couldn’t resist! Just kidding! (…although I have wondered at times… LOL :D)
Really?
marildi you are very naughty. I simply think of it as “Vinaire’s Revenge” (on the Western world.)
Val, which of my naughty posts are you referring to? 🙂
The last two showed up on the email notification as replies to one of your own posts. You should just click on the reply button on the email you get that you want to reply to, and then it will show up on its own email notification under the correct comment. And I guess you can also reply on the email itself at the top where it says “respond to this comment by replying above this line”.
Garbage in = Garbage out
I give a fuck to that. Who the hell is Geir? An OT 8? Ha!
.
Vin, be careful when you choose to dine on Valkov’s red herring. Leaves a bitter after taste even when he begins with good fish.
I must say Valkov’s behavior has proved.
Sent from my iPhone
Well, that’s fine then since it is your meal.
I meant “improved.” Valkov’s behavior has much improved since his exposure to the discussion policy. But I do admit, it can relapse.
Anyway, my operating basis is to see things as they are. If Valkov has problem with that then Valkov has problem. That is all there is to it.
.
Vin: “I meant ‘improved’. Valkov’s behavior has much improved since his exposure to the discussion policy. But I do admit, it can relapse.”
By relapse, I guess you mean the way you relapsed just yesterday in using a double standard again – one for you and one for the rest of us – as in the following comment to me, blatantly focusing on the person:
2013-02-06 at 00:20 “Unlike you, I do not take take LRH’s words as gospel and repeat them without deep analysis and understanding. I do not ignore inconsistencies…”
Yes, it did relapse. The alternative would be to simply withdraw when there is no cooperation and people are simply interested in protecting their favorite ideas.
.
.
Valkov: “There is in fact no reason at all “to establish consistency” or to “resolve inconsistencies”.
One may just as well, if there is a consideration that one actually exists, enjoy any given inconsistency; if there is a consideration that an inconsistency exists that is just one consideration among a possibly large aggregate of considerations.
As Geir might say, “Who gives a fuck?”
.
If you are going to ignore inconsistencies then you are going to ignore engrams, and that means ignoring Dianetics and Scientology.
I hope you understand what you are saying Valkov. Using Geir as an authority is a big inconsistency.
.
Sorry Vin, what kind of logic is it that states that if I ignore engrams I must ignore all of Dianetics and Scientology? Thus *looks* like totally silly A=A=A illogic to me.
I can ignore engrams and yet attend to ARC, for example. Or ignore engrams and attend to the idea of the Dynamics, can’t I?
When I empty the bathtub, must I flush the baby down the drain, too?
Are you sure you are not trying to make me wrong no matter what?
And I didn’t hold Geir up as an authority. I simply made him say a bad word that I didn’t want to say myself.
“I simply made him say a bad word that I didn’t want to say myself.”
Hilarious! You and I are from the old school. I always use quotes. 😀
Valkov, please explain your statement
There is in fact no reason at all “to establish consistency” or to “resolve inconsistencies”.
I see the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology trying to resolve inconsistencies by resolving engrams.
In my view engrams are inconsistencies at the level of perception.
.
“Observe things as they are, not just as they seem to be.” ~ Buddha
The concept of an “observer” is just a consideration. Thus nothing can actually be observed, there can only be a consideration that something is observed, not an actual fact of observation. There can, however, be a consideration that there was or is a fact of observation. There is not, however, anyone considering this or any other consideration, because the existence of “someone who considers” is itself just a consideration that arises uncaused, or caused by the random interaction of prior considerations, assuming any such exist.
The “quote” above is itself simply a consideration aggregated from possibly random component considerations. We might strive to understand any possibly existing laws governing how it is that considerations aggregate, however “we” is itself a consideration having no existence in itself, no “own being”. Having no “own being”, “we” are unable to direct any such inquiry.
Such an inquiry will either take place spontaneously in accordance with the “infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters(laptops?)” principle, or it may not happen at all.
Thus anything Buddha may or may not have said, assuming an aggregate of considerations named “Buddha” ever actually existed, what he is said to have said is moot, because he is only said to have said something. Thus it is just hearsay and not admissible.
How’m I doing so far?
Three inconsistencies: “WE might STRIVE to UNDERSTAND” 🙂
fantastic… if all that would be true what was said, clamed he said than those lips would have been flapping and pouring wisdom fort by them self for the next two hundred years after the body was just dust particles
Exactly. Those are all merely considerations that things which have no “own being” do exist or occur.
And LRH gets pilloried for saying that some earlier efforts are entrapments! I take comfort in thinking that this is done by what are merely mechanical aggregates of considerations having no real existence. 🙂
Is there something that has its “own being”? There are only considerations.
Apparency of “own being” comes from considerations that are locked into each other and operate something like a very sophisticated computer program.
Thinking that there is a permanent “own being,” or thetan, is the ultimate entrapment in absolutism.
What is beyond consideration is unknowable. People just speculate about it.
Thetan is nothing more than a conclusion from the THETA-MEST Theory. But there are better theories and better conclusions from those theories.
Thetan is not something absolute. It is a relative consideration.
.
Why do you want to know that? You already know that it would be a consideration.
What is being missed here is that not all considerations are alike and that two considerations can be consistent or inconsistent.
.
Valkov: The concept of an “observer” is just a consideration. Thus nothing can actually be observed, …How’m I doing so far?”
Valkov, Why do you want to know that? You already know that it would be a consideration?
What is being missed here is that not all considerations are alike and that two considerations can be consistent or inconsistent.
.
All considerations are alike in that they are all considerations.
Any apparent difference is just a consideration.
OK, so what is your conclusion?
.
OK, So what is your conclusion?
Are you saying that there no difference between two considerations in all respects.
.
What do you consider it is that you consider I want to know?
“I” is a consideration too, and so is “know”.
.
The Chinese master Wu-men said “To have a Buddha view and a Dharma view is to be enclosed by two iron mountains.”
Robert Aitken comments, “The Buddha view is that all is empty. The Dharma view is that all is karma. One is the First Principle, the other is the Second Principle. You are caught in principles. What is the way out? The eucalyptus trees stand motionless in the night air. Only a faraway rooster can be heard.” (8)
So, do you take the Buddha view or the Dharma view, in your thinking and posting? Which ever one you choose, it will be only the sound of one hand clapping.
That is what Berdyaev calls “objectivization”, to substitute symbols for reality. To find truth, you must steer between the Scylla of Buddha-view, and the Charybdis of Karma-view. Because which ever one you choose, it will drag you down into the Abyss. But if you pretend they do not exist, they will likewise drag you down into the Abyss.
LOL! This consideration considers that your considerations are nothing more than considerations about some considerations!
🙂 What Valkov said about consideration blown my considerations to smithereens.. what next?
Should I take up knitting after all this when one dont have considerations?Attila the knitter?That dont sound to good to me…
Attila would knit chain-mail using swords as needles.
Today’s quiz: Who is this?
“What I am saying is important. What you are saying is merely a consideration”.
Oh, that is good!
Maria consider this: What if that tautology sums it up for reals?
Yes, and any conclusion I might consider I have drawn would be nothing more than a consideration itself and therefore inadmissible as evidence.
“Attila the Knitter”! I like that! It has a beautiful inconsistency about it. We will chip in and get you a rocking chair! When Vin misbehaves you can impale him with a knitting needle.
Rocking chair? Insulting Attila will get your tongue tenderised under the heaviest rider saddle…
“Insulting Attilla will get your tongue tenderized…” LOL!
We did not have MSG yet… so we had to do it the natural way.
In these modern times Attila wouldn’t choose MSG, he’d use one of those heavy metal steak tenderizers. 😀
Attila given up eating meat…
Valkov.. visualize this picture. Inside the tent Attila sitting on a pile of furs, fire smoldering and few dogs chewing bones and Attila knitting and the tent flap opens up and a really hairy, long haired person appear. And speaks: “ Attila I have seen the sweeter you have knitted for Bela, he really look cool in it, I love the way it fits snugly around his shoulders and I love the cable pattern, knit one for me will ya but in blue since that will match the color of my eyes!
Yeh! Attila in retirement, still keeping busy.
The following is for Marildi.
An Analysis of Scientology Axiom # 1
.
The very first Axiom of Scientology states:
AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
.
However, the axiom uses the article “a” before Static. It further assigns the abilities “to postulate and to perceive” to Life Static. In THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Hubbard states:
“This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties…”
When describing THETA-MEST THEORY in SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008, Hubbard states:
“In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST. Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”
The Life Static expresses itself through individuality.
.
This above is consistent with the following statement from THETA-MEST THEORY:
“Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”
It is consistent because the same fundamental characteristic must apply to all points of a spectrum. THETA (individuality) is as much a consideration as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) is. Both THETA and MEST are manifestations of considerations.
However, THETA-MEST THEORY also states:
“It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”
This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end.
MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST are aspects of existence.
.
Any spectrum, or scale, is a manifestation as a whole. It must exist within the background of ‘no manifestation’. That ‘no manifestation’ cannot be THETA or Static as implied by Scientology Axiom #1.
The Vedic Process for conceiving the background is: “Neti neti.”
This makes the background to be beyond what we can ever consider. The starting point is not individuality as implied in Scientology Axiom #1.
Here is the axiom for the background that has always existed in Vedas, Hinduism and Buddhism: AXIOM ZERO
.
neti neti translates as “neither/nor”. It is actually one pole of a logical dichotomy, the other pole of which is “both/and”.
These have long been recognized as two of the four valid categories of logic in Indian philosophy.
If you neglect one for the other, you fall into an abyss of extreme unbalance.
Really? Wow!
“Neti neti” takes one beyond logic.
.
Yes, really. Try Googling for “4 categories of Buddhist logic” or some such. You may be thinking of Western logic, Aristotelian logic or whatever. Those are different.
Well, here.This essay discusses these issues:
http://mesocosm.net/2011/06/03/reason-and-contradiction-in-buddhism/
But ultimately, “neti neti”, separately or together, are nothing more than considerations or a phrase standing for a specific consideration.
And that it takes one “beyond logic” is itself merely a consideration, possibly based on a limited (inconsistent) understanding of the existence of many different logics. Of course “understanding” is itself only a consideration that one understands some thing which is itself just a consideration.
🙂 and the hamster is running full speed in the cage..
🙂 🙂
I look at it differently. One can trap themselves in logic, just like one can be trapped by self.
.
So, how do you look at “it”, whatever “it” is?
With the use of mindfulness.
.
Thetan is definitely self.
If you like, theta might be used interchangeably with wave-function, Higgs Field, unmanifested potential, etc.,.
It’s too bad that the words thetan and theta are separated in symbol by only the letter n, and yet in concept these two are separated by an entire physical universe.
Theta is definitely not “self.” Neither does it have any quality of individuality.
As I see it, the only “individuality” that exists with a thetan is in the sense that it is distinct from other thetans, and that distinction is in terms of view-point, the point from which each views. But viewpoint itself has the additive to static of having ASSUMED a location, a point from which to view, as per The Factors. This is what LRH wrote and it is all included in the definition of thetan: no location, etc. except by consideration – i.e. a thetan is basically a static and, unlike MEST, has the ability to consider.
Marildi, per your argument, a thetan is not beyond space. That is true because thetan is the consideration of viewpoint.
.
No, because all viewpoints are remote viewpoints. A “thetan” never actually moves. There is a good “remedy of havingness” group process that can make this quite real to you.
I’ll see if I can dig up a link for it.
http://www.mediafire.com/?x0knb9i2jbb
If this doesn’t work let me know. It is a free download from Mediafire.
Valkov
“all viewpoints are remote viewpoints”…..a “thetan” never actually moves”. Yes! ” I ” experienced that much earlier. With the absence
of “viewpoints”, there is just a “Flow”, “Life”.
One can not experience what not do not exist.
The flow of life can create points of views….as long as a person creates and identifies with a point of view that point of view exists for the person and can be experienced…not to have any points of views means being Life itself. Earlier, in auditing I found that “point of view”, me, being at a “theta” level “wondering about” what “those beings” are doing “there” on Earth….that was a “remote viewpoint”. I got a kind of “evaluation” of it, namely, you “will know about it” on the OT levels…so I went to look up the references, the bulletins…when something “happened”, “Ron” gave me an acknowledgement…I had a good time with “him” then, in the “field of the MIND”…
Right, now you get it. Thetan is not a static. It is an it.
No, that is what Nikolai Berdayev called an “objectification”. It is treating a living person as an “object” instead of a “subject”.
“Objects” are acted upon. A living person is an experiencing “subject”.
Living person? is awarness is livingness?
Well, I was going to add, that many women are sensitive to being treated as “objects”….. the silly girls! 🙂
Here’s Berdyaev in his own words. Apparently the term he used is “objectivization” rather that “objectification”.
Berdyaev on Objectivization
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/qo.htm
“Freedom is more primary than being: it cannot be determined by our being; it is bottomless, foundationless.
In determination, in rationalization, that is to say in objectivization, freedom disappears. (TR, 55)
Consciousness not only orients us in the midst of this world, not only gives out light, but also creates a great quantity of illusions. (BE, 80)
Objectivization is not true realization, but only symbolization; it produces signs of reality, but not reality itself. (BE, 67)
In objectivization we may find only symbols, but not basic realities. The objective spirit is only a symbol of spirit. The spirit is real. Culture and social life are symbolic. There is never reality in an object:
in an object there is only a symbol of reality. Reality itself is always in the subject….”
Berdyaev’s language is a little different, but he is saying that when you are treated as an object, a “thing”, this ignores and reduces your most important dimension: Your quality as a living experiencing subject. You are an experiencing subject because of your awareness, a quality that a rock, for instance, does not have to any great extent.
Many languages distinguish and classify their nouns on the basis of animate and inanimate, yang and yin, causitive and effected, active and passive.
Certainly awareness is a chief quality of LIFE in the active sense. In English it’s easy to get confused because the word “life” is used for both the active sense of “living organism”, and the background field within which living organisms operate, which might be better termed “existence” or some such word.
Val, you are on one of your brilliant rolls!
I especially liked this part of the Berdyaev quote:
“In objectivization we may find only symbols, but not basic realities. The objective spirit is only a symbol of spirit. The spirit is real. Culture and social life are symbolic. There is never reality in an object: in an object there is only a symbol of reality. Reality itself is always in the subject….”
The quote and your comments on it seem to me to be just how LRH differentiates “isness”, i.e. Reality – from “actuality”, the spirit. Just different terminology.
Now that Valkov, is a gem of clarification, written in concise and comprehensible terms. (at least it is for me!) Thanks for post that!
I guess you like it better than my considerable post considering considerations?
sounds good to me… well put words how good one is with them get agreements..
Valkov I like 90% of your posting and that 10% is there because I have no reality on that subject..
I have claimed Vinay first and keep your pinkies off his carcase, Geir let me have him.. but you have my permission to torture him a bit. Do you really believe that I let all that good hot fire pit just do nothing but slowly die down? No self- respecting Hun would do such a thing… a
Here is the latest understanding from my blog:
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7754
Thanks for your feedback, Nia. You sure are showing your skills at this game of looking at things as they are, and not just as they seem to be.
Yes, mental and physical interrelate. But how?
It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them. Mental are the considerations about the physical. Logic enters at this stage and with that enters the idea of cause and effect.
Any interelated group pf considerations may be looked upon as a set of considerations. There is no separate self that gets attached to considerations. Self is simply the resultant of this set of considerations. So, I would have to redefine the old concept of ‘attachment’ from Eastern philosophy. Attachment would be the degree of tightness among the considerations in this set. This is another way of looking at condensation among considerations.
The more tightness is there among a set of considerations, the more solid the resultant “self” would appear to be. The less tight they are, the lighter the self would appear. One may say that there is a gradient of self. It was inaccurate to use the words ‘before’ and ‘after’ in relation to self.
“THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
I wrote that because according to wikipedia, the exact perceptual content survives for a duration of few hundred milliseconds only before it fades away. Desire is the driving force underlying perception. Perception is knowledge, which becomes subject to consideration within a few hundred milliseconds of being perceived. Maybe, I should say,
“THIRTY-SIX: Perception is driven by a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
But looks like I have already revised the section on KNOWLEDGE. I now have:
THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge.
There is a typo in my shell comment, which seemed to have thrown you off. What I meant was “spherical shell” I missed typing the letter “p” in the word “spherical” so it appeared as “sherical”. Sorry about that.
The “First Cause” principle is the sudden appearance of a manifestation. Here I get the picture of an “electron-positron” pair appearing from nothing. It is the opposite of electron and positron annhilating each other into nothing. In my view, what causes this sudden appearnce is some kind of “separation” because the union leads to annhilation. “Separation” is the essential characteristic of Space. So, the sudden appearance is accompanied by space. I mentioned this at
EIGHT: All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.
NINE: Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
Here I was looking at the sudden emergence of the “manifestation – perception point” pair. In other words, the manifestation and perception point appeared from nothing (or, unknowable) because of some kind of separation.
In my view, TIME is something relative. It is one duration relative to another duration. And duration comes about due to condensation as we talked about it earlier. I don’t know how durable “first principle” characteristics are, but later considerations become durable by locking into each other. So, the more attachment there is the more solid and durable something becomes.
Considerations do come about as a result of “attachment” to “first cause” characteristics. So the “first cause” characteristics may have no duration at all. And the considerations will have increasing duration as the attachment or condensation increases.
So TIME is an illusion that comes about because of attachment.
This seems to lead to the conclusion that all reality is persisting because of attachment to ‘physical’. If the attachment is not there, the physical will simply evaporate.
This is new area for me. Thank you very much for your help, Nia.
.
Vin
“separation generates the desire to know, the desire generates perception. The perception of “what-is” is Knowledge.”
Yes. I find it the birthpoint of considerations. Knowledge to me is acumulated perceptions of the past with considerations to grasp and retain the “knowingness” contained in the middle of perception.
THAT which is not knowledge, the UNKNOWABLE has the ability of knowingness, creativity, perceiving…perceiving!!! not perception….perceiving can happen in a way that there is no “label”…”concept” as a result….no past. Now. But even that is inaccurate. Just THAT. Perceiving or not-perceiving…..
THAT which is not knowledge, the UNKNOWABLE has the ability of knowingness, creativity, perceiving…perceiving!!!
That is pure conjecture. Do you have anything to support that conjecture?
I use Unknowable as an adjective and not as some beingness. There is no beingness as far as I can see. Looking at Unknowable as some beingness would be inconsistent.
.
This is in response to Marildi.
Vin, I totally understand and agree with what you say about “self”. And so does LRH define it that way: SELF: thetan plus machines, plus body, plus reactive bank (Tech Dict).
But where you say “thetan or self” you are obviously equating the two, whereas from the definition of “self” it is clear that self does not equate with thetan as self includes additions to the thetan.
Your whole analysis of Scientology is based on the contradictory statement you made that “Hubbard made self, or individuality, the foundation of his theory of Scientology. (see Scientology Axiom # 1)”.
Nowhere in Axiom #1 – Life is basically a Static – is there any notion of self in the sense that both you and LRH define it. So as I see it, your analysis is based on a falsehood.
p.s. to Vin – Also, what do you think LRH means by “Life” in “Life is basically a Static”?
.
I don’t think you fully understand what I am saying. Thetan is not only part of the machinery, it is the sum total of machinery. If you want to subtract machinery then what is left is an identityless perception-point. But, I would say that even there is the final bit of machinery. Actually, that is what rest of the machinery is built upon.
Unlike you, I do not take take LRH’s words as gospel and repeat them without deep analysis and understanding. I do not ignore inconsistencies. Thetan is a consideration of LRH. It doesn’t exist separate from consideration. It refers to the same thing as the self. There is no difference.
A Thetan does not create consideration. Considerations come together (like chemicals) to create new considerations. How they come together is a result of fractal chain reaction. Will and intention are also considerations in that chain reaction.
Life is what you perceive. There is no other life. The background against which you perceive may be considered static, but it is ultimately unknowable.
.
your reality holds no interest therefore dont wait for my visit to your bolg it not going to happen.
What? Where the hell did that come from?
.
your post to me and my answer……..the end
My response was to marildi.
.
In Scientology language, static is a precise jumping off point from MEST. The Scientology static state is nothing that we know anything about yet. I don’t plan to use the word static together with the word “basically” or any other generality until we penetrate that doubt barrier of minus 273.15 degrees celsius.
I assume that there is something beyond this “barrier” simply because there always has been something beyond the extant set of realities in which we find ourselves encased. At present, this one seems tougher to crack because we are reaching beyond the extant; the known set of physics. Well, that has always been the way of science, hasn’t it? My prediction is based on the pattern of man’s mental ability to reach and also based on my slight brush with the extent of physics and tells me that our sense of physics will expand to include new and wondrous realities. However, they will be physical.
Chris, I’m reminded of this statement from Creation of Human Ability:
“The goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates.”
It seems to me that you are basically interested in understanding the physical universe in order to understand anything beyond it, and so is 2ndxmr and and me too. Hopefully others as well. Elizabeth and Marianne in describing their spiritual experiences are inspiring ideas too. So why don’t we start a productive dialogue along those lines and put aside how LRH and Scn were right or wrong. We were into this physics subject back on earlier threads and it was pretty interesting. We should carry on with it, don’t you think?
Any time you want to set Scientology aside and discuss other things that interest you, I will enjoy that.
Okay. How about we make this “quest” idea you and Maria came up with, a quest to figure out the basics of the universe? We’ve been in fits and starts on that for the last couple of years. 2ndxmr sparked new interest in it from me. How about you? Oh, and what’s your handle, btw – are you going to stick with Flogger of Fractals or Metaphors or…?
Seriously, I think this group would make a great think-tank – since we disagree so much we probably cover every possible angle! 😀
Mar: “Seriously, I think this group would make a great think-tank – since we disagree so much we probably cover every possible angle! ”
I disagree that we could cover every possible angle. We could possibly disagree on every angle…. hmmm…. we already do that. (insert emoticon for tongue sticking out) 🙂
I was about to write back to Maria about the quest as my quest qalendar is qurrently full. Were it not that the QM drive on my starship “Mindbend” is at full throttle and aiming me at the edge of the physical universe, I’d probably be willing to take up a sword or light saber and tackle the foes of the mighty quest. However, if the quest was to rescue the ____(insert quest object) before it hits the decomposition envelope (otherwise known as the edge of the full universe), then I’ll add another string of dilithium crystals to the quantum drive and shout “Full steam ahead!” (just to irritate Chris, the manager of metaphors and father of fractal flogging).
On any other quest I may be limited to using entangled photons to be a virtual presence. The q-drive is a consideration gobbling device requiring presence of mind to keep energize. The dilithium is really just a quantum placebo, but a little lithium helps calm the mechanics, according to the manual.
At any rate, I wait ready to alliterate, rout rogues and cause whatever mayhem I can from 18.6 billion light years away.
So I take it this means your in? 😀
My collaboration contract proposal is as tendered.
It is a good idea to explore other topics.
Marildi
“…..he can regain the power and ability of his own postulates” yes, my experience of it in scio. Also, while doing Self-Analysis both as an Auditor and PC, it helped regain perception not only at physical but at theta level as well…that is theta is perceiving, not mest….certain perceptions then go beyond mest (theta lines, flitters etc.) which, in my experience then, were beyond postulates and were the exact “meeting” point of “theta and mest”. I guess, but it is just a guess, that there are processes in scio which exceed the level of postulates and eliminate the sense of the ” I “. Anyone confirming or contradicting it?
Yes, While steering clear of the tangle of language, I would confirm that.
Chris, thank you for sharing your story. Good on ya.
I can’t find the right place and comp is just too slow so here I am.
You are welcome deE. We all have our stories don’t we? Maybe each of us should write our life story?
Keyed-out
Elizabeth, you are referring to me being in a keyed-out state, which, in my case is not true at all. Let me give you a visual analogy here. Geir posted a picture in
the post Love. Also in the post The secret keys….Both the Heart and the Space in them can be viewed as an example of keyed-out…if they remain so…that is “separate” , “standing by themselves”. The “case” with me is that this “heart” and “no-thing” are “flowing” through continuously whatever they “come across” in life…..it’s like a “river”…erasing, as-is-ing anything….as all
beings happen to have the “Heart” and “no-thing” as their core, “clearing” is thus happening….
You have on MU what is a keyed out state. All that plus more can happen and it is very real and very true. But it will last only for a period of time who know how long that maybe. I keyed out state people do MIRACLES, incradible things can be accomplished. example saints.. miracle workers the history is full of examples.
.the power is real… but the mass is being pushed away.. and sooner or later it will close in again.
And I will not change my mind because I know what is the difference between those to states.
Exercise 2.6 in the following document may be helpful to Elizabeth.
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
.
.
Elizabeth
Also… you write “zip back into the body” – when one Completely “views/observes/lives/loves” one’s body, as if continuously, one cannot “zip back into it” as one is experiencing it as “flows” and “no-thing” at the same time. The body is not an “object” that one gets out of or gets back into….it’s part of “energy flows” of mest….also, “bodies” are connected by being flows….that’s why e.g. “distant healing” is possible….as well as on “mind” level with universal considerations, it is equally possible with “bodies”……”love/affinity” towards one’s own “energy” is the starting point…….all this is my experience….
Your reality is yours and I am thrilled that it is not mine. The body is a object, a machine -robot and I will not debate this issuse. You will not convince me that i should see the universe as you do.. to me is bunch of nonesense how you see things. so lets live it there. I promise I will not do anything to change your mind either to see differently.
Where one finds lot of resistance, one also finds aberration.
.
Elizabeth, perfectly OK! I have never been trying to “convince” anybody on this blog just like you haven’t either! Let’s leave it like that again! Thanks for your coms so far!
@ Chris
Let me know if you see any inconsistency in the following statement: EVERYTHING IS MANIFESTED. NOTHING IS UNMANIFESTED. Also, you or anyone let me know if these statements seem tautological, and if so does it seem faulty?
Consider this:
It is perfectly consistent, for it is created from the language of consistency. It is perfect from within its own system, and perfect so long as one works within that universe. Universes are consistent. And they are a construct.
In the interverse, meaning is as given. Meaning is not a thing.
Thank you for working on that. So we are left with consistency maximally possible within a “single” frame of reference and then deviating; becoming least possible as one compares different frames of reference?
When you write, “In the interverse, meaning is as given. Meaning is not a thing.” I see how correct that is within the definitive frame of your interverse. Within the frame of reference of MEST, I think that meaning also exists but it may be a thing.
I find that when there is an inconsistency between two different frames of references, such as, Judaism and Christianity, then there is always a deeper truth to be found underlying that inconsistency.
.
Correct, but Maria wasn’t comparing her datum about “meaning” to any other datum but only giving me a “given” from her set of “interverse.” Nothing more to say about it. This is consistent. Elizabeth’s stories are consistent as long as they remain within the domain of Elizabeth’s oration. They only become inconsistent when we try to pull them out of her context and make them fit into another reality.
The point I am driving at is that consistency can be achieved within a set. Yes, this will break down when we enlarge the set to include other sets attempting to make a more complete set. This was worked out long ago by Gödel. We seem to be able to have one but not the other. Why is this? I am just seeing how generally I can successfully apply this theorem. Heisenberg’s uncertainty seems intimately tied to Gödel’s. I am trying to be careful since I am supposedly leaving the domain of arithmetic and attempting to make it stick in philosophy. It is kind of embarrassing because I am such a novice that my questions are undoubtedly very elementary to someone better versed in these studies. They are nonetheless important to me.
I like your ruminations!
Thank you. I have an unfair advantage in this regard as I have four stomachs!
I think that there can be a confusion between the symbol, which signifies the meaning — a signal, if you will, and the meaning.
Would it surprise you to learn that agree is from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + neuter of gratus (see grace (n.))? The original sense survives best in agreeable. Meaning “to be in harmony in opinions” is from late 15c.
Opinion: c.1300, from Old French opinion “opinion, view, judgments founded upon probabilities.” Opine: from PIE *op- “to choose” (see option).
And mean? “shared by all,” from imene, from Old English gemæne “common, public, general, universal, shared by all,” from Late Latin medianus “of the middle,” from Latin medius “in the middle” (see medial (adj.)). Medial: from Latin medius “in the middle,” from PIE *medhyo- “middle” (cf. Sanskrit madhyah, Avestan madiya- “middle,” Greek mesos, Gothic midjis, Old English midd “middle,” Old Church Slavonic medzu “between,” Armenian mej “middle”
Mean, median, mode.
What we call the physical universe is more aptly described as the mesoverse.
Ha! We live in Midgard! Hmmm… Next we will need to cross the rainbow bridge to Asgard and have a word with Thor!
Has anybody seen the rainbow bridge lately?
Very interesting and well put — and consistent! As I remember it, Asgard was actually a planet and the Rainbow Bridge a type of “wormhole” transit system!
Hmmm… I think we need a quest!
I am at a flat spot and ready to climb.
Well we have a pretty good cast assembled already — a fearsome Hun, a Viking Beserker, a Feral White Russion, Vlad the Impaler, Maria the Great White Guardian, Marianne the Wise, 2ndxmr, Commander in Chief of the worlds, and many more not yet named!
Do you suppose Vinnie would like to take the role of Shiva? No, best to let him choose his own persona. Still, I favor Shiva!
Maria I am taking battle stand on facebook. I dont comment there but one idiot was writting what the church has done to his and other children.I just dropped these few lines there.
I figure with such a comment to be sure I will win the populirity contest ..hehehe. blast the bloody idiots to hell..
“” I have been reading stories what the church has done to children, and I never accoutered so many sad stories and I never ever can understand.. Oh I understand all right, that the parent have not taken responsibility for their children and for their lousy parenting, they blame the church.
And not one come forward and say.. My fault, I am to blame, I have given away my hat.
I never seen such a bad bunch of persons who claim to be knowledgeable, want to save the universe and cant even take responsibility for their own action, the suffering they have caused. Piss poor behavior from those who claim that they know.. and they blame the church because what ever.
Where is blame and being a victim on the Tone Scale?
Before they can help others they should handle their own aberration, and learn what is resonsinility means., before that happens they only cause -make mass of lifes. idiots…
I have come to realize that Shiva is a personification of, “Seeing things as they are.” He is the destroyer of illusion.
.
Perfect then.
Aye! Vinaire as Shiva! Good call.
ooooo… Would Marildi be a Valkyrie? How about deE?
Perhaps I have jumped the gun! People should really name themselves! Some have some haven’t — any more names, anyone? This must be sorted out before the quest begins!
Maria, there are various descriptions of Valkyrie, but these aren’t too bad:
“any of the beautiful maidens who serve Odin and ride over battlefields to claim the dead heroes and take them to Valhalla”
“Valkyries also appear as lovers of heroes and other mortals, where they are sometimes described as the daughters of royalty”
Or maybe I’ll go with what katageek dubbed me one time and the vote on it was unanimous:
Xena – the princess known for her formidable fighting skills used to help people 🙂
Xena the Warrior Princess it is!
Maria, what do you suggest for Ferenc? And who else have we forgotten?
Btw, who is Vlad the Impaler?
Well, Marildi, I was waiting to see who would step up to the plate and accept the position of Vlad the Impaler. Its always good to have some truly ferocious types on a quest!
How about Dragos?. I read that Vlad the Impaler was born in what is now Romania. 🙂 And maybe Dragos is Romanian for Dracula…? 🙂 Nah, he’s too nice.
Dragos, how shall we cast you? 🙂
Hey, I think Valkov may have come up with something Vinaire might like: Vinaire’s Revenge. (And for insiders only: “Vinaire’s Revenge on Scientology. :))
Btw, I think 2ndxmr should be Commander in Chief of the Universe. (Universe is his middle name.)
And for Ferenc I thought of Ferenc the Formidable. 🙂
DeLizabethan and Idealgoal already have striking names. But as you said, everybody can pick their own.
Marildiv: “And for Ferenc I thought of Ferenc the Formidable. :)”
I’m not guessing if you are trying to be funny or making fun of me. However, to be in the safe side, for you, I came up with Marildiv the Smarty Sweetie. 🙂
Aw, Ferenc, you are too kind. 🙂
And no, I was not being funny and definitely not making fun of you! I was simply typecasting:
Typecast: “to cast (an actor or actress) in a part calling for the same characteristics as those possessed by the performer”
So now I’ll have to think of a name to combine Formidable with Kind. 😉
I am toying with the idea of assuming the name “Vlad the Vinpaler”.
Alternatively I am attracted to the idea of myself becoming “Vinaire v2.0”, or “Super Vinnie”. I think it’s about time for one. Perhaps “Valkov the Usurper”?
Personally, I can’t see him as “Shiva”.
In the meantime, I remain, Yours Truly, The Feral White Russian from Manchuria.
Valkov, aka “Vlad the Vinpaler”.
You gonna drain his ochre with a Vlad’ish poker?
All these considerations to consider: good / bad, the rat / the cat,… ,
nothing ventured / nothing gained.
hehe
Vlad the Vinpaler it is.
Nothing beats dismissive logic that carries the person to nowhere to be found — except the newly born Vlad the Vinpaler, that is
Marildiv, I’m sure you noticed that I wrote “I’m not guessing” …
Oh okay, Ferenc. I had no real problem with it but I got it better now!
You are not only nicely formidable but formidably nice. 😉
The MEST universe is thought to be comprised of matter, energy, space and time by Hubbard. He did not make considerations as part of the MEST universe. He put considerations in the THETA universe, and created a games condition between THETA and MEST with his THETA-MEST Theory.
I see a universe comprised of matter, energy, space, time and considerations. I see considerations condensing into space, energy and matter. I see time as a measure of this condensation. I do not see a games condition between THETA (considerations) on one hand and MEST (matter, energy, space and time) on the other.
This spells as the death knell for THETA-MEST theory, and of the idea of THETAN (self).
Meaning is part of the considerations. It is part of the THETA. It is part of the viewpoint, and I see viewpoint as a consideration as well. Words like CAUSE, INTENTION, WILL, SELF-DETERMINATION, etc., have been created to express some meaning. These are considerations as well. There is NOTHING outside of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME and CONSIDERATIONS.
If you confine all manifestations to the universe of MESTC (matter, energy, space, time, consideration) then that is consistent. Anything that you can consider or think of will be part of this universe of MESTC. What could be unmanifested would be unthinkable or unconsiderable. I use the word “unknowable” for that.
Now go ahead and apply Godel’s Theorem to the above. I am excitedly looking forward to your conclusions.
.
Chris, you may like to have another look at the following:
Gödel and Determinism
.
Thank you, I will.
In the first place, Theta/MEST theory is/was a THEORY, it is titled so quite overtly.
In the second place, it is an intermediate step in the evolution of LRH’s thinking and he went quite a ways beyond it eventually, even by 1955.
In fact it is quite reasonable to take the view that MEST exists IN Theta, as a subset of Theta. In other words, the MEST universe
exists in, is contained in, a Theta universe. There could in fact be more than one “MEST universe” existing in a vast medium of Theta, the primordial “water” of old teachings.
In any case, here is a link to the mp3 of the “Remedy of Havingness” processing. It is a free download from Mediafire. Hopefully it works; if not let me know, there are other ways to access it.
http://www.mediafire.com/?x0knb9i2jbb
The problem with LRH was that he never updated his materials. and he instructed Scientologists to not consider any of his materials to be old and no longer valid. So Scientologist swear by Theta MEST theory even when you say that LRH went beyond it. This is just as confusing as the word “consideration” seem to be to you.
So, is Theta MEST theory correct? Or, is there a better theory? If so, what is that theory?
I do not see MEST being a subset of Theta. To me it is M-E-S-T-C where C (consideration) substitutes for THETA. Both Theta and MEST are two different aspects of a single system.
.
Yet again, Vinnie, you prove that your criticisms of Scientology are based on your own misunderstandings. First of all, LRH made it clear that the tech to be followed was in HCOB’s. And as regards anything that may be contradictory between HCOB’s, the later issue was to be followed.
Also, contrary to your misrepresentation above about “old and no longer valid materials”, here is exactly what was not allowed:
“Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as ‘historical’, ‘background’, ‘not used,’ ‘old’, etc., or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.” HCO PL “Technical Degrades”:
Note the operative word there is “checksheet”.
The inconsistency that I see is that DMSMH has not been updated even when Hubbard’s research took him beyond it. DMSMH is still being heavily promoted.
This doesn’t happen in the field of science where the focus is on knowledge. I guess the focus in Scientology is on something else.
The focus in Scientology seems to be in getting people into the fold whichever way they can and discarding them when those people go out of agreement. And when people are within the fold, they are fleeced and controlled.
That is how I see it. Scientology has not been honest intellectually. It is not a science.
.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
Valkov, you are basically saying, “I know it and you don’t”
.
Valkov, the primordial “water” of old teachings sounds like the Higgs field in the “new teachings”, doesn’t it? And many paranormal researchers concur that there is more than one MEST universe.
As to the theta-MEST theory, for everybody’s info this is from the Tech Dict :
THETA-MEST THEORY, I. a theory generated by myself in the fall of 1950 as an effort to explain (just a theory) the phenomena of an analyzer working in one direction and a reactive mind working in quite another, the reactive mind being interesting, and the analyzer being interested. (5410CM06) 2. the idea is that life is a no-substance thing, up against a physical universe which is a substance thing. Here is nothingness up against a somethingness interacting where the nothingness or the no-substance thing is actually giving orders to and handling the all substance thing, the physical universe. (UPC 3 5406CM–) 3. the idea that there was a universe and that there was thought-theta without wave-length, without mass, without time, without position in space: this was life. And that was impinged upon something else called the physical universe, which was a mechanical entity which did things in a peculiar way, and these two things together, theta-mest interacting, gave us life forms. (PXL, p. 140)
Marildi: THETA-MEST THEORY, I. a theory generated by myself in the fall of 1950 as an effort to explain (just a theory) the phenomena of an analyzer working in one direction and a reactive mind working in quite another, the reactive mind being interesting, and the analyzer being interested. (5410CM06) 2. the idea is that life is a no-substance thing, up against a physical universe which is a substance thing. Here is nothingness up against a somethingness interacting where the nothingness or the no-substance thing is actually giving orders to and handling the all substance thing, the physical universe. (UPC 3 5406CM–) 3. the idea that there was a universe and that there was thought-theta without wave-length, without mass, without time, without position in space: this was life. And that was impinged upon something else called the physical universe, which was a mechanical entity which did things in a peculiar way, and these two things together, theta-mest interacting, gave us life forms. (PXL, p. 140)
Chris: Within the confines of Scientology, this definition makes sense. The moment that we move out of the sphere and careful control of Scientology, this disingenuous jargon becomes technobabble. It is inconsistent to say that a nothingness is up against a somethingness. So how to resolve this inconsistency? It’s something but it’s really nothing while being something? It is interesting as prose but not as science. It’s major benefit is as placebo effect. All mental help has this.
“Static: the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor.” (5411CM05)
Marildi, “Is there any quality that cannot be quantified?” — Geir Isene.
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. As I recall, in the end the consensus of opinion was that not every quality can be quantified. Most of us decided that sometimes the attached significances and meanings get mixed in with the quantities and “color” them in an unquantifiable way.
I also remember that in that thread there was confusion about which definition of “quality” was being used in the OP. And I would say it was was a different one than the way “quality” is used in the definition of Static.
me no think so
Sorry marildi, me no savvy “Higgs field”, kemo sabe. That’s Captain Boson’s lingo, me no speakee.
(Cap’t Boson would be Geir.) ( I don’t believe in bosons, either. It has not been proven to me, whether physicists “discover” such particles, or create them when they postulate them…..) 🙂
Hey Cisco, I sorta remember that exchange between you and Capt Bosun. Wasn’t he saying that two bosons could occupy the same space and you had a problem with that since it violates your reality as well as the Axioms? I think we need Geir or 2ndxmr or Chris to join the party on this one. I bet 2ndxmr could even reconcile the Axioms with the QM stuff. 2X?
Mar: “Wasn’t he saying that two bosons could occupy the same space and you had a problem with that since it violates your reality as well as the Axioms?”
I wasn’t party to that exchange but I’d have to disagree that two Bosons could occupy the same space. If they did it would be as a recombined structure i.e. a single boson from two.
If you thought of one boson as one house and another boson as another house, if you try and push them together a certain amount of destruction occurs. However, if you look at the boards of the two houses as building blocks you can see that you can build another larger house out of the two starter houses. There may be a little garbage that’s left over and this gets tossed out. Essentially the same thing happens when elementary particles (like bosons) merge. New particles appear and a little garbage gets tossed out either as energy (really just another “smaller” boson) or as another particle.
Which Axioms were you wondering about as questions or answers for QM?
Val, photons (like light) are in the category of Bosons. Bosons do exist.
2X, I believe this was the Axiom in question:
Axiom 12: The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.
“Axiom 12: The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.”
That certainly works for pictures (they null on duplication). I don’t believe anyone has ever been able to do that with matter. Matter would behave as I indicated – it will rearrange into new particles and release some energy (most of the time).
From your link to the earlier thread I found Geir’s comment:
“Beside any conjectures about “mental MEST”, two physical objects can indeed be at the same location. Hubbard was fundamentally wrong on this point.”
I will agree with that as a special case, namely theta causing it. I have previously related the anecdote of a NOTs pre-OTessentially demonstrating that effect. In my first reply I was considering only the typical physical universe mechanics at work. I believe what I said would be accurate in that context. In the theta context I would say that theta has the ability (at some point) to control the wave-particle condensation cycle and actually let material things share the same space. However, in that context no “merging” would be being done at the Bosonic level i.e. particles are not merging as they would in fusion reactions.
p.s. I’m thinking Ferenc the Formidable also knows about this stuff and might even be Nice 🙂 enough to contribute to the motion.
Chris, here’s a remedy of havingness group processing session that might clarify the “nothingness vs.somethingness” issue. Of course you would have to listen to it to experience it, which naturally you may not want to do, eh? But if so, you will never know what I mean, will you?
The issue is just a re-statement of what another differentiated as “the Buddha-view” vs. “the Karma view” as in another post I made
hereabouts recently.
In this case, it is referring to a “something” which has no mass but which yet has potency. It is in fact that concept which creates a consistency which is otherwise lacking in science.
But then I don’t believe in bosons.
Thank you Valkov. Agreed — that tape is consistent within the framework of Scientology.
Ooops, here’s the link:
In any case, here is a link to the mp3 of the “Remedy of Havingness” processing. It is a free download from Mediafire. Hopefully it works; if not let me know, there are other ways to access it.
http://www.mediafire.com/?x0knb9i2jbb
Here’s that post Iwas referring to, Chris:
The Chinese master Wu-men said “To have a Buddha view and a Dharma view is to be enclosed by two iron mountains.”
Robert Aitken comments, “The Buddha view is that all is empty. The Dharma view is that all is karma. One is the First Principle, the other is the Second Principle. You are caught in principles. What is the way out? The eucalyptus trees stand motionless in the night air. Only a faraway rooster can be heard.” (8)
So, do you take the Buddha view or the Dharma view, in your thinking and posting? Which ever one you choose, it will be only the sound of one hand clapping.
That is what Berdyaev calls “objectivization”, to substitute symbols for reality. To find truth, you must steer between the Scylla of Buddhaview, and the Charybdis of Karma-view. Because which ever one you choose, it will drag you down into the Abyss. But if you pretend they do not exist, they will likewise drag you down into the Abyss.
marildi, I do not believe in bosons.
I did long ago take a position that 2 objects could not occupy the same space at the same time, but I recanted. It is one of the rules, according to LRH, of this particular universe, but only in a limited way.
In fact, I believe that 2 things can occupy the same space at the same time, but the issue of bosons was a different discussion as I remember it.
Geir believes in the existence of bosons; I’m still in a “show me” state about them. They don’t exist as far as I’m concerned and as far as I know, they play no role, and no practical utility, whatsoever in my
existence.
That does not mean Geir is wrong.
“In fact, I believe that 2 things can occupy the same space at the same time, but the issue of bosons was a different discussion as I remember it.”
Two physical universe “things”? If so, please elaborate.
M… only one energy mass can but ”it seems” more than one is but only the same mass is labeled, given different names, perceived in different reality
Val and 2x, the exchange starts here:
https://isene.me/2011/02/23/scientology-scientific-standards/#comment-3223
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
• Nature of fermions and bosons:
Matter is made of fermionic particles.
Bosons are the messenger particles, that generate the force between particles.
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/theory.htm
• Meaning of “fermions cannot occupy the same space at the same time”:
The probability of finding one fermion in an (x,y,z) spot will always be the probability for finding one particle.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24389/why-cant-two-or-more-objects-exist-at-the-same-place-at-the-same-time
• Meaning of “bosons can occupy the same space at the same time”:
The probability of finding one boson in an (x,y,z) coordinate increases when the more of them there are.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24389/why-cant-two-or-more-objects-exist-at-the-same-place-at-the-same-time
When someone offers “I don’t believe in the existence of Bosons” in a discussion relating to particle physics, I will dismiss that person as wholly ignorant in the field and tell the person to read up on the subject before engaging in further discussion with the person in that area.
Re: isene 2013-02-08 at 14:42
That’s why I posted (FF 2013-02-08 at 10:23) the link to Wikipedia’s boson (and because marildi [2013-02-08 at 08:59] buttered me).
Ferenc, allow me to clarify the English idiom with an example:
I “butter” ordinary potatoes. (literally)
I “butter up” my sweet potatoes. (figuratively) 🙂
Ferenc,
A bit back you posted some wiki links on bosons and said the probability of finding bosons occupying the same space was non-zero and increased with boson density.
While i can see cases of that occurring, I don’t beleieve it is a general case and I’d like to address some of the mechanisms involved:
1) consider that bosons have a number of dimensions
2) the 3-space dimensions x,y,z (right/left, forward/back, up/down) are part of the bosonic dimensions
3) bosons, like people may vary in how big they are right-to-left (width, x), front-to-rear (depth, y), and up-to-down (height or tallness, z)
4) there are other dimensions besides x, y and z involved in defining a boson
5) these dimensions give an overall identifiable quality to the boson just as features (height, weight, color, etc.) identify a person
6) if one boson occupies the same space as another boson it is much the same as one person occupying the same space as another: the weight will change as will the height, the width, the depth, or all three.
7) there are only a finite number of ways bosons can add and remain stable (like the number of people who can stand on each other’s shoulders before collapsing)
8) any combination of bosons (i.e. bosons “sharing the same space”) should result in a boson that is the sum of the dimensional components of the individual bosons (like the final wieght being the sum of the individual weights, or the final “tallness” being the sum of the individual tallnesses.)
The result of two or more bosons sharing the same space should be something that looks different from the original bosons. This would follow from the mathematics of linear algebra, let alone the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
OK, I reviewed this discussion.
https://isene.me/2011/02/23/scientology-scientific-standards/#comment-3223
Then I went to the Wiki post about “Boson” and guess what? It appears Geir was in error about LRH being in error about the “2 objects occupying the same space at the same time” thing, because the Wiki on Bosons states quite clearly that matter is thought to be composed of “fermions” which explains the apparent rigidity of matter because “fermions” cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
So “fry”‘ on you, Captain Boson!
Sincerely and eternally yours truly,
Captain Fermion
Marildiv,
Thank you for buttering me up again (2013-02-09 at 06:35) 🙂
After posting my comment (2013-02-08 at 19:16) I realized I forgot the “up”, so I was expecting some funny comment(s). 🙂
A lucky mistake. I enjoyed likening you to a sweet potato. 😉
p.s. Sweet potatoes are a favorite of mine. 🙂
2ndxmr,
It looks like you didn’t realize that I didn’t write “the probability of finding BOSONS [MORE THAN ONE] occupying the same space [at the same time] was non-zero and increased with boson density.” (2ndxm, 2013-02-09 at 07:23).
What I wrote (FF 2013-02-08 at 11:38) was “Meaning of ‘bosons can occupy the same space at the same time’: The probability of finding ONE boson in an (x,y,z) coordinate increases when the more of them there are.” (I was assuming that the (x,y,z) coordinate has a Planck Scale precision).
In plain English, what I wrote means that “bosons can occupy the same space at the same time” is just a metaphor.
2ndxmr
Your comment to Ferenc on bosons aligns with my experience. Points
6 and 8 are that account for the “shift” that is happening now concerning the 4th and 5th dimensions. (there are 12)
“The result of two or more bosons sharing the same space should
be something that looks different from the original bosons”. Yes, this is the “doorstep” to the 5th dimension. The “sense” of it is the loss
of solidity, superfluous, love, space,no need to confront no-thingness as it is constant, ability to function as the “Higgs field”, also the ability to create whatever instantly….also, creations in the 5th dimension are different from those in the 4th…just started to see it and perhaps live
it….
Marianne: “ability to function as the “Higgs field”, also the ability to create whatever instantly….”
Yes, that is alchemy at its best: a simple condensation of the Higgs field directly into the desired item.
Maybe not a “simple” condensation, but that should be possible at a point one can sense the Higgs field.
You indicate a sense of 12 dimensions. I’d like to hear more about that and your idea of creating in the different dimensions.
Here is the actual Wikipedia reference:
BOSON wikipedia
two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, resulting in a “rigidity” or “stiffness” of matter
which includes fermions. Thus fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, while bosons
are said to be the particles that transmit interactions (force carriers), or the constituents of radiation.
I am not well known under the name of Elizabeth and my findings are not written up in Wikipedia and my name is not soaked in fame but my 2 cent is good as theirs who has.
I have seen and handled huge amount of energy masses but not once I have seen and experienced that two energy mass of any kind could occupy the same place, just can’t be done.
Example: There is a board smooth flat, its energy is intact than a nail hammered into it, if one could see without the eyes one could observe that the woods energy is changed.
Now has a hole in it and where the nail has punctured the wood pushed the wood mass together and that energy around the hole vibrates differently as the rest of the plank.
One can see that effect how that works with looking with the eyes. Where the branches grow out of the three, the woods texture changes: the wood texture shows rippled effects.
The nails energy is a heavier, denser, particles are condensed therefore less room for wiggling, it has less vibration.
The nails energy was not affected by the woods energy at the impact.
Other example: when listening to music the sound does push away the thoughts. One seldom thinks when listening or if do thinks, than the background music is not strong loud enough to push away the thoughts.
Healing happens the same way; a good healer can push away the bad energy. Drugs do the same; they have heavier vibrations than the so called sickness-energy.
Better than 2 cents.
Wow, very interesting, E.
One thing I’m interested in is exactly how a good healer “pushes away the bad energy”. I’m guessing that it’s probably not by force in some way (like pushing it away) but by the healer’s energy changing or combining with the bad energy somehow and thus changing the bad energy’s vibration. Can you explain it more?
And how do drugs do the same due to having, as you said, “heavier vibrations than the so called sickness-energy”.
CT: “that tape is consistent within the framework of Scientology.” This statement is a good illustration of the sound of one hand clapping.
It’s not actually very informative, because it does not include, exclude, or preclude it from being equally consistent in other frameworks as well.
Valkov: CT: “that tape is consistent within the framework of Scientology.” This statement is a good illustration of the sound of one hand clapping. It’s not actually very informative, because it does not include, exclude, or preclude it from being equally consistent in other frameworks as well.
Chris: In my view, life passes moment by moment. Each moment is its own frame of reference. Each moment of mine is similar to the moment nearer, and then more dissimilar to moments interspersed by other moments. In my view, each near moment is similar but not identical. The iteration of moments is recursive and similar. At moments, the iteration tends away from the extant set on a tangent which leaves the set and never returns becoming forever dissimilar. In this statement, I mean to communicate not just apparent randomity, but true randomity. To be more precise about “true,” as true as “randomity” actually can be.
Written again and directly at your comment, Scientology is consistent within itself but necessarily incomplete.
That is an interesting application of Godel’s Theorem.
.
Valkov: It’s not (Chris’ statement) actually very informative, because it does not include, exclude, or preclude it from being equally consistent in other frameworks as well.
Chris: Within itself, Scientology is consistent but necessarily incomplete. As I move outside the set of Scientology and as I look at the larger view, Scientology becomes necessarily less consistent. The bigger the view, the less consistency I see.
Chris, that is good looking.
.
Thank you Vinaire, but as you said in your “hunter-duck” example, it would NOT be good looking from within the set of Scientology and would and should result in a committed of evidence and a hanging. That is the understanding I get from applying that mechanic of Godel’s.
LOL!
.
2ndxmr
That there are 12 dimensions is second-hand information. This was the first second-hand information I put here (so I have no experiential basis beyond the 5th). The information is from an authentic (not authority) source. I put it here because I “operate” quite intuitively and I felt that it had to be put here for a reason I have no knowledge of yet.
One thing is clear still – I like you for your “wanting” truth, knowledge,
experiences, like what and how you are sharing “where you are” “with them”. So I write because sometimes it takes only one piece of “information” that helps “re-adjust the picture” or “see the full picture” or “get to a different awareness level”. (The “One” includes it all.) 5th dimension – just big glimpses of it. It’s not the “be-do-have”.
“Creations” are different as I said – sorry, I still see it very little and I haven’t yet found a way to “communicate” it. Sorry, I don’t mean to cause here a “mystery”.
Marianne,
Yes, you are right, sometimes it only takes another viewpoint or bit of information to improve understanding.
I view an understanding of dimensions as a needed aspect of understanding matter and energy. While I have no problem understanding the mathematical relationship necessary to describe dimension, I have been wondering about the “quality” of the dimensions. For instance, electro-magnetic waves possess a mathematical relationship that describes 2 dimensions very clearly as the electrical and magnetic components are in planes that are at right angles to each other. The “quality” seen in each plane is different: in the electric plane we see the quality of charge (positive and negative) while in the magnetic plane we see the magnetic pole quality (north and south).
In 3-space each dimension has the same quality. Time is called the 4th dimension and it has no “quality”. I had thought for a long while that gravity would be a likely candidate for a 5th dimension. However, after considering how a group of thetans could cause the conditions necessary to form a physical universe I am looking at the quality of dimensions for a new viewpoint.
The “quality” a thetan can produce is space. A thetan could produce 3-space by expanding spherically. Or the thetan could produce 2-space by expanding like a disc, but without thickness. Or the thetan could produce 1-space by expanding as a line. Of course we also have the thetan contracting to zero to create a zero dimension.
So, the question is, if a group of thetans were to get together and expand and contract in a combination of 1 sphere, 3 intersecting discs at right angles to each other, and 3 intersecting lines at right angles to each other, and the common zero point, the number of dimensions that could be seen to be created by this would be 3 (sphere) + 3×2 (disc) + 3 (line) + 1 (zero) = 13. If one looked at the zero point as common to all dimensions, which it is, you could look at the number as 12 dimensions.
So that would be one way that a common means (expansion / contraction of space) could give rise to all the dimensional qualities that are needed to define this universe.
2X: However, after considering how a group of thetans could cause the conditions necessary to form a physical universe I am looking at the quality of dimensions for a new viewpoint.
Chris: I liked your post. After demonstrating your concept to myself, I failed to see more than 3 dimensions. What am I doing wrong?
@Chris
There are a few more aspects to the model to consider:
1) the rate of eXpansion and Contraction (X-C) of the sphere dimensions could (probably would) be different from the X-C of the disc dimensions and different again from the X-C rate of the line dimensions.
2) Consider the disc dimension in the X (eXpanded) state. If you spun it on a diametrical axis (an axis through the diameter) it would look like a coin spinning and would also take on a spherical look (to the human eye, at least, the coin / disc if spinning fast enough could look solid). Now consider each of the 3 disc dimensions to be spinning around their diametrical axes – the diameters that are at right angles to each other. Now consider the discs eXpanding and Contracting as they spin. The result would be a very odd looking path, not spherical but maybe more like a Calabi-Yau manifold:
3) Now consider the lines with an X-C in just one dimension (X-C 1D). Again, spin this – first around the center (zero) and you would create a disc-like X-C that would have lobes and notches (maxima and minima) that would correspond to the parts of a rotation that were expansion-phase and contraction-phase.
Now take that spin structure (disc-like spin) and spin it on a diametrical axis as you visualized with the disc axes. The result becomes another set of spherical X-C dimensions that is distinct from the disc dimensions (X-C 2D) and also the simple sphere (X-C 3D).
4) If all these X-C actions were going on simultaneously but at different rates then they would be definable as separate dimensions.
5) One of the key mathematical relationships that emerges in any math describing QM is the “imaginary” axis. This axis comes about due to the presence of the negative root* (see below). This axis becomes explainable in the dimension structure that I’m describing. In dealing with radio wave transmission the same problem emerges: the math leaves this “imaginary number”. The solution happens to duplicate what really occurs in the physical universe (PU): what we see is that in any radio wave there is an Electrical component (E) and a Magnetic component (M) which are measured to be at right angles to each other. So basically, where an “imaginary number” occurs in QM math, we should expect an X-C at right angles to the axis being defined by the math.
This could mean the total number of dimensions that would exist to describe the Higgs field (which would be the result of all those different X-C actions) would be the sum of the “real” dimensions and the “imaginary” dimensions. Depending on how you look at dimension zero (can there be a “minus” zero side to zero and a “plus” side to zero? or a “real” zero and an “imaginary” zero?) the sum total of dimensions would be 12 real + 12 imaginary + 2 zero = 26 dimensions. That happens to be the number that comes up in the math solution for Bosons.
I’ll let you digest that for a while before getting into the relationship to the Planck units.
*Negative root: to understand a neagative root:
1) consider a square (a drawn square). The sides are of equal length. The area of a square is the length of one side multiplied by the length of the adjacent side (a side at a right angle to the chosen side) . If the sides are 2 inches long the the area is 2 x 2 = 4 inches square. If we start with a square that has an area of 4 sq. in. and we ask “what does that make the length of a side?” then the answer is 2 as 2 x 2= 4. In math the answer (2) is called the “root of 4”.
2) In math there are positive and negative numbers: we can have a +2 and a -2.
The multiplication rule for numbers results in the following products:
+2 x +2 =+4
+2 x -2 = -4
-2 x +2 = -4
-2 x -2 = +4
3) +2 x +2 = +4 = -2 x -2
A square has equal length sides. They could be +2 units or -2 units.
A square cannot have one side of +2 and one side of -2
Therefore +2 can be a root of 4 since (+2 x +2 = +4)
or -2 can be a root of 4 since (-2 x -2 = +4)
When we encounter -4 (or any negative number) we cannot come up with one number (like +2) that multiplied by itself (as in +2 x +2) that would equal -4.
The math trick used to solve this is to invent a number and call it “the root of -1)” or the “imaginary root, i”. The “root of -1” (i) can’t be solved but now we can write;
root(-4) = root(4) x root(-1)
re-written again: root(-4) = root(4) x i
since we know both +2 and -2 could be roots of +4 we end up saying
root(-4) = +/- 2i
(Apologies for the length of the post.)
This would not make up for more than 3 dimensions.
There is no way you can take any number of objects of dimension N and create dimension N+1; rates, spinning or otherwise.
Geir, this may not be a correct interpretation, but on point (4) it seems to me that there is an idea of different rates of time, i.e. different “Planck-type seconds”, and thus there would be a whole new dimension, a different space-time. Here is that point (4):
“4) If all these X-C actions were going on simultaneously but at different rates then they would be definable as separate dimensions.”
No. Not more dimensions. Different rates, blinking, etc. But no go.
Or even interlacing of universes if you want. But still 3D.
“Or even interlacing of universes if you want.”
Yes, that was my concept. And actually, I haven’t been able to think with different dimensions in any other way than as referring to another 3-D universe (Flatland notwithstanding :). But this probably isn’t what 2ndxmr has in mind. Let’s see what he has to say…
isene:”Or even interlacing of universes if you want. But still 3D.”
That’s the apparency, I agree. But functionally (mathematically) I think it will be different.
The Calabi-Yau manifold is mathematical representation of folded 6-space.
2x, I take it back about not being able to conceive of anything but a 3-d universe.. By your model I guess there could be interlacing 2-d and 1-d universes, even zero point universes – which is what Marianne and others might actually be talking about when they refer to the 5th dimension.
Mar:” By your model I guess there could be interlacing 2-d and 1-d universes, even zero point universes – which is what Marianne and others might actually be talking about when they refer to the 5th dimension.”
I think our concept of space may have to change a bit. An ability that seems native to a thetan is the ability to create space. Whether or not the spaces created by all thetans are equal (i.e. co-joinable and indistinguishable) or whether there can be a uniqueness of a spaceis a challenging question. If we take one thetans space created at a vibration rate equal to yellow and another thetan space created at a vibration rate equal to blue and merge the spaces, do we get a space colored green? If space were equal to radio waves I’d be confident of the answer but it need not be.
When you start intersecting things at right angles the result can be very different than you’d expect. Take 2 sheets of paper, lay them one on top of the other and from a short distance awy they look like one piece of paper. Make them intersect at right angles and the are fully distinguishable as separate pieces of paper and are viewable as dimensionally different. Make the papers different in color and they will always be distinguishable. That’s what different rates of X-C of space could do, especially when interjected on one-another at right angles.
isene: “There is no way you can take any number of objects of dimension N and create dimension N+1; rates, spinning or otherwise.”
Another thing to consider is that we assume space to be vacuuous, open, nothing there.
But what if space is as much a something as an “object”. You know what happens when you try to get to objects to share the same space. You get a very big explosion. Nuclear.
So making the assumption that spaces can be directly added to make another space (a space of what volume??) may be a fallacy. If space is space and hydrogen is hydrogen, why assume space + space = space when you know hydrogen + hydrogen = thermonuclear boom?
What you propose is not more spacial dimensions. I do find it quite easy to envision up to 6 dimensions of space (true dimensions). What you are proposing is not.
Geir, how would you describe the way you envision 6 dimensions of space?
I may do that one as a separate blog post – it requires some illustrations to make it clear. I used to play 4-dimensional games with a friend of mine in high school (mentally on the way to school). We even tried playing the games in 5 and 6 dimensions – but it becomes hard to remember the placement of the pieces when the board gets to be 5^6 (15625) number of spaces.
I would love to see that blog post! Why not now? We need a new “heavy duty” post to chew on. 🙂
I have another – more heavy duty (in another aspect) blog post to release first… 😉
Okay, that one “first” implies that the one on dimensions will be second. It’s a deal!
isene: “What you propose is not more spacial dimensions. I do find it quite easy to envision up to 6 dimensions of space (true dimensions). What you are proposing is not”
Can you come up with a model that would describe the origin of the dimensions you can visualize? I take it you would discount spacation as a sole means.
2x please say which definition of “spacation” you’re using.
I need no model to account for creations of more than 3 dimensions of space. Why would I?
2ndxmr, let me see if my simplified understanding of what you’re saying is correct.
What I got is that there are three thetans, all of whom expand spherically from the same zero point into a coincident sphere. A sphere is 3 dimensional and this is the first 3 dimensions.
Another 3 thetans, from the same zero point as the above, expand into 2-dimensional discs which extend to the far limit of the sphere (or whatever the geometry term is for that “far limit”). And since the 3 discs are at right angles to one another, they are thus on different planes and therefore we have 3 additional dimensions (or “qualities of space”). As a result, we now have 3 (thetans) x 2 dimensions (each) = 6 more dimensions added to the 3 of the sphere = 9.
We also have another 3 thetans, each of whom expands as a line, again from the same zero point, and these lines also reach to the outside limit of the sphere. Each of the lines is a single dimension since, once again, they are on different planes. So that adds another 3 dimensions (i.e. another 3 qualities of space) – 1 for each of the 3 thetans. And when we add those 3 dimensions to the previous 9 we get 12.
M.. I just found your questions. Let me know if this what you looking for?
M.. The healers energy works by pushing away the heavier ”sick” energy, IFFFFFF the healers energy is better= lighter stronger than that can happen. But here is the thing, a thing is always there..
The ”sick” person cant have a counter postulate,, but of course he has one that is the reason he is ill because that postulate is stronger and of course it originates way back… but the GET WELL postulate is NOW… just think dear, how much power that postulate holds when he TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE IS SICK?
Of course there are always incident when the healers energy do causes the healing and can over ride the sick persons postulate.
Drugs are believed in.. they too come from the track and they were invented to ”alter” and people know that.
.BUTcancer is a ”beingness” it self.. That body, their body is made out of cancer cells..and of course many of us had that body in the past-track,
I have located those incidenst on the track and have erased dozens of items and they were mostly in the head, an the head, and from there they have spread into other part of the meat body. The ”cancer cells”=body is a much stronger mock up than the meat body are here so when the person is re-stimulated into that incident those mental pictures become reality here in the meat body. But in session of course anything can be erased. Cure will not be found..since ‘ cancer is a mental picture.
@Mar
Yes, except I think the spherical expansion could be handled by on thetan.
Marianne,
You said the information about the 12 dimensions was from an authentic source. Is there some video or web page that you are referring to and if so, will you please say what it is. Thanks!
2ndxmr
Thank you! Got it! The “zero dimension” can be very interesting. An example came to mind, I wonder what you will answer to it. It’s from my life. Not that I wish to speak about “my life” but cannot give an example without doing so. Before the “awakening”, two years ago, myhusband stopped doing “mest job” (profession). “Everybody” said he was “lazy, irresponsible bla.bla.”. I still had the viewpoint of the ” I ” then but just instantly picked up a “viewpoint” that me now will be producing as much “energy” as I can, as this is a kind of “help” from him for me to be completely autonomous. (I gave a fuck to each and every consideration coming from others or me generating some then.)
It put me into a very concrete position of mest (business went better, more money, bought a car etc.). As for its “result”, I will put Adya here,
as this is what happened to me. Then, with the awakening, something very interesting started. My husband started to “create” with another,
that is a zen CD. They have finished it, it is in the process of being put into the “market”. When this “zero” dimension started and then the Flow, life started to be Creative both for “me” and “others” around me. As there are no “set ways”, it is both easy and “difficult” for some to “live/be” with “me”. Change – with its “consequences”. There is also an interesting phenomenon, I don’t see the source of it yet. Whenever “me” is on the “borderline” of “leaving” the “gravity” of this “universe”, there is an excess of “particles” moving (phone calls,more jobs etc.etc.) “trying” to pull me back…also there is a felt sense of them being “scared” that “me” won’t be “there for them”. Kind of “me is generating fear in them both towards their survival and their joy towards me”. All this I “observe” and “feel” at a very subtle energetic level (also theta perception of it). Life, how it turns is funny and with less or no mind…..see Adya (was before but fits here for “my life” and also what it takes to be “creative” and get “others” to be “creative”.
“My goal” , its “realization” on all possible “levels” of consciousness…
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=44
That is a very wholesome way to approach living.
Chris: ” Within itself, Scientology is consistent but necessarily incomplete. As I move outside the set of Scientology and as I look at the larger view, Scientology becomes necessarily less consistent. The bigger the view, the less consistency I see.”
OK. I see the problem here. It is that I have no clue what you conceive the “set of scientology” to be; thus we are not really talking with each other.
1. Draw circle.
2. Put Hubbard’s life’s work inside circle.
3. = set of Scientology.
And in my lingo, the set of Scientology is synonymous with the frame of reference of Scientology. Then my comments mean that what is inside the circle can be made consistent within itself. Inconsistencies arise when trying to plug outside data into the circle and also in reverse. Not on a one-to-one basis but overall consistency. Such as word clearing can be brought out of the circle and seems to retain its consistency. OT materials not so much.
2ndxmr
Reading your answers on dimensions I feel that your “space” is contracting….the analytical mind is just a tool….mathematics has limits…EXPERIENCE…..YOU look at (as kind of observing the “results” mathematics can give you from a distance) the “possibility” of other dimensions beyond….you are close to see that….don’t contract, don’t let yourself to be influenced…..I trust you. Will see what you will get…
Chris: “In my view, life passes moment by moment. Each moment is its own frame of reference.”
This of course obviates the validity or necessity of any consistency, does it not?
Consistency is just a pretense, an agreement or series of agreements held for some purpose, perhaps just for fun, or just to have a game.
Consistency has value only as long as it provides some interest or entertainment; it can only serve the function of barriers within which freedom exists.
This is perhaps what you mean by “sets” or “frames of reference”?
To me, the universe is made of moments.
And we? We live in some of those moments.
2ndxmr
Great job with the dimensions! Carry on! More to it….I am sending it as a postulate….
I have just added the following exercise to KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
EXERCISE 2.7
PURPOSE: To address those things one has been told not to look at.
CONCEPT:
One’s attention is usually stuck on those things one has been told not to look at. One was told that looking at those things would be bad or dangerous. This might be so, but it is better to look and handle whatever is bad or dangerous there.
Going back and looking at those things, which one was told not to look at, might release that fixed attention.
There is one caution. One should not just start to think about such things randomly. One needs to pick up one thing at a time and contemplate on what the mind brings up.
.
1. Make sure you understand the 12 steps of mindfulness thoroughly.
2. Look at the following question,
“Is there something you have been told not to look at?”
3. Look at the response that appears in the mind per the 12 steps of mindfulness.
4. Contemplate on what is bad or dangerous about it per the 12 steps of mindfulness.
5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 until no more responses to the question appear in the mind.
.
@ Elizabeth — you said: Maria I am taking battle stand on facebook. I dont comment there but one idiot was writting what the church has done to his and other children.I just dropped these few lines there.
I figure with such a comment to be sure I will win the populirity contest
No you will not win a popularity contest. But its not like you really care about that anyway! 🙂
Yes, the events that have taken place in the C of S as regards the mistreatment of children were pretty damned bad and the ongoing situation is far from ideal!
What they all they all need to think about is your cognition on MOTHER and the impact of family on a child’s reality.
Consider that many of these children did not come to Scientology as fully functioning adults who are choosing their belief systems. Instead they are raised as Scientologists, whatever that may mean to Mom and Dad and their siblings. I have seen this dramatized in Scientology families as Mom telling a child — no case on post or you are a downstat, get your stats up or knock it off (the dramatization) or he is just PTS, and on and on it goes. The child is not learning from a reasoned study, he is learning by MIMICRY from the most extreme source of influence he will ever have in his entire life. He is COMPLETELY at the mercy of his little family group and his group is fighting the good fight for Scientology the good, the brave the fine the wonderful that will change all the world and make it finally, after a millenium of slavery, a new civilization. No big surprise that they sign up with the Sea Org early and young.
I encountered this raising my own, exhortations from staff members to buy auditing on my own’s behalf, insistence that my own had to be a Scientologist because I was and that’s just how it was. The Sea Org would show up to recruit at the private Scientology school without so much as a by your leave from parents. My own were lucky, the school Ethics Offcers screwed up so badly that they didn’t want anything to do with Scientology and regarded it as something painful and to be avoided at all costs.
There is NOTHING in Scientology that addresses the impact of such an upbringing or even makes provision for it. NOTHING.
The original premise of auditing is that it must be undertaken on a self-determined basis. Is a child raised that way actually self-determined? Can they ever be? Does it make a difference? I think it does.
And I think the failure to even consider the impact of MOTHER the Scientologist has been DISASTROUS.
Thankfully the Sea Org does not allow Sea Org members to have children any more. That’s a blessing not a curse because if they want to have children they leave and they break the chain of madness.
M.. I have forgotten to mention, there is one more element and you know this too, every problem has a solution, I think all these were created in one really well done implant.. some of them were just brilliantly made-thought out. We really are brilliant and no doubt about that..
Like your post Maria!
Maria, as an adult woman, my eldest daughter has repeatedly thanked me for taking her out of the Sea Org for in her own words she “only ever thought of running away.” This aversion to the physical and mental abuse that she received from her “handlers” was viewed as a desire to “blow” and a clear indicator of out-ethics in the Sea Org.
I’m not sure how my comment ties into the OP — may the pretense under which I was recruited and how much better and sane that my family life was going to be within the Sea Org is similar to the broken promises made to Scientology public that if they paid enough then they would finally arrive at the state of übermensch that had been promised since 1950.
Maria, I have found auditing so far the best adventure I ever had-created and I have had few so far…. hehehe
One of the intriging thing about it is if one has a question than one knows the answer already.. the other is that no matter what one have done one can find justification for that ”doingness”.
and the creation continues because of that..
What is confusing about considerations is logic.
When you apply logic to considerations you are going to get lost.
Looking is more workable.
.
.
AND “”LOOKING””is not a consideration?
Logic is nothing in itself. At the most it tells you where to look, but it cannot do the looking for you. So, if one concludes something logically, and says, “This is it”, he is one step short.
Logic must be followed by actual looking.
.
“Looking”. Ah, yes.That would be the consideration that one is able to actually “see” or “perceive” something, when one “looks”?
However, just below is a post stating axiomatically that “What is out there that triggers perception, we do not know. For we only know the perception that get triggered. Perception is our assessment of that trigger, so it is a consideration.”
Therefore, is it not true that “looking” only results in a kind of tautological formation of a consideration based on the reception of a “trigger”, and no actual perception of “whatever is out there” that triggers the consideration that one has “looked” at something and “perceived” it?
OK, I feel almost ready to assume the mantle of “Super Vinnie” here.
Who is the real black belt “Master of Bull Shit” around here, eh? Oh, my ego is getting SO BIG!
There nothing wrong with considering. All considerations are relative. and in that relativity there is consistency and inconsistency. There are no absolutes.
I am interested in looking at and in discussing inconsistencies.
What inconsistency do you see here?
.
I don’t think there is anything perceived that is not a consideration, and anything concluded that is not a consideration.
So, anything you consider about it would also be a consideration.
Consideration is the basic fabric of this universe, and on this fabric we build with further considerations.
That is the is-ness, no matter what you consider about it.
.
What is out there that triggers perception, we do not know. For we only know the perception that get triggered. Perception is our assessment of that trigger, so it is a consideration.
Consideration is a general word, just like matter is a general word. But as there are so many different categories of matter, there are many different categories of considerations too, such as, thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.
It is an error to look at considerations in a monotonic manner.
.
OK, I’ll bite. How do you know this?
It is a conjecture in line with what is consistent to me. It may not be so for you.
.
This is in response to Isene
Today’s quiz: Who is this?
“What I am saying is important. What you are saying is merely a consideration”.
In my view, focusing on “who” is the basic error. One should state the inconsistency. Only then a proper discussion can take place.
By focusing on who, one is simply putting one’s ego there.
.
I’ve already commented on your obvious focus on “who” in the following comment. But possibly the more more glaring output is on “putting one’s ego there”
:
2013-02-06 at 00:20 “Unlike you, I do not take take LRH’s words as gospel and repeat them without deep analysis and understanding. I do not ignore inconsistencies.”
Yes any focus on who is unproductive whether I do it or somebody else does it.
That has been my experience.
.
“In my view”? “IN MY VIEW”? Your post begins with “IN MY VIEW”?
Whose ego is speaking there?
It is my ego. 🙂
.
Can’t pass this up, sorry.
Vin- “By focusing on who, one is simply putting one’s ego there.”
Yes, who’s?
Any ego. Focusing on “who” is focusing on ego.
.
Look out Dee when driving dont run over the egoes, those blasted things are all over the place.. they run wild and form packs… the conditions are getting really bad. I think the Congress should pass a law banning egoes..
Vin: “This is in response to Isene
Today’s quiz: Who is this?
“What I am saying is important. What you are saying is merely a consideration”.
In my view, focusing on “who” is the basic error. One should state the inconsistency. Only then a proper discussion can take place.
By focusing on who, one is simply putting one’s ego there.”
And I tell ye all: THAT IS IMPORTANT!!
What is IMPORTANT is also a consideration.
.
I will await the day when you bring something fruitful to a discussion other than extending the discussion itself.
I am being very fruitful on my blog. Maybe the environment on your blog has a different idea of what fruitful is.
You have tried to ban me from your blog many times because of your own ideas of what fruitful is.
I guess our logics are quite different and I should recluse myself from your blog.
.
I do not appreciate your twisting the facts. I have never banned you from my blog. I have put you under moderation a few times – due to you being a jerk toward commenters on this blog. I understand that you want to draw attention to your blog by posting here. I would, however, like to see more genuine interest in other’s points of view here rather than almost constantly dismissing theirs as “considerations”. Could you? Please?
“””FRUITFUL”” We are doomed, your thought are HATCHING !!!!!
I would say it’s a form of Q&A. Vinnie just needs to do the anti-Q&A drill.
VINAY…. why do you speak? why bother? no matter what comes out of your mouth is a “THOUGHT” since thought are ALL considerations why bother to voice them at all? You continualy point out that they have no value!!!! [ bellow the belt line punch,]
Eliz to vin: “You continualy point out that they have no value!!!! [ bellow the belt line punch,]” Funny you should mention that. How true it sound to me and that’s my consideration.
Geir ‘ you need to lock up your ego… what is the matter with you letting it lose? no responsible ego owner do that. and you need to get a licence for that ferocious thing… Vin’s ego is totaly controlled, we all should learn from him he gives lesson how to train a ego to be a well behaived and be invisible… as all good egos should be..as his is..
Oh yes. No one should be allowed to have any display of ego – such as what Vinaire does not have. And the result is this marvelous condition where what he says is important and what others might happen to say is merely a consideration put forth due to Ego and self-aggrandizement . He is perhaps the Only One enlightened among us. I shall give my utmost to curtail me Ego and become as bombastic as Vinaire.
EXPERIMENT I DID ON VINAY…
I did on experiment in my blog with Vinay… But of course he did not know what I was doing.
While he was commenting there after a while going and forth dozens of time with I got tired to be wronged no matter what I said.
So I copied some of his earlier answers from different places in which he pointed out as the RIGHT ANSWER, and posted those ‘’right answers’’ as mine… HEHEHE . he pointed out very swiftly that they were wrong and why..
OF course the learned smart gentlemen did not realize his knowledge was tested and that he failed the test.
I did not have the heart to tell him than but I told him go post some other place and I have erased his footsteps in my blog.
But because the TEST, I have learned that I was right about him… Vinay is not here to learn but to make others wrong and by doing so he gets his ego a boost..
Till this experiment I thought Vinay was brilliant.. but now I know he is a well-educated all right but parrots can talk too and repeat what they learned..
The experiment was the BELOW THE BELT PUNCH when that PUNCH is delivered as in now: lives the receivers EGO gasping for air.. Vinay… put this in your pipe and smoke it..
Eliz, after reading about your Experiment…. Laughter! What a brilliant game.
Hi Dee. I am sorry that it had to go so far and he is nothing but a low tone individual, but he come to the blog with one intention, to make wrong by pointing out and prove it that auditing do not work, scientology do not work and because of that I WAS nothing more than “inconsistency”.
He knitted into the wrong bunch of “considerations”….
No one can tell me that auditing do not work.. and definately him who never had any..
I think it was a brilliant experiment. 🙂
Thanks Feri.. I was going to keep it to my self because knowing what he was doing I understood his motive and where he is at.. But he kept on and continued with making wrong no matter what I posted and he is doing it to Valkov and Geir.. I know they dont need defanding. but he is a pest..
I find that the true concept of NOTHING does not exist in Scientology. The concept of THETA consists entirely of considerations.
.
Ego, self, or thetan is the resultant vector of a grouping of interconnected considerations.
As long as there are interconnected considerations, which determine logic, there would also be ego.
Just as there are different groupings of interconnected considerations, there are also different “logics” and different egos.
Interconnected considerations, Logic and Ego form a triangle. They go hand in hand.
.
Vin: Ego, self, or thetan is the resultant vector of a grouping of interconnected considerations.
Chris: This might be a good clean statement of the mechanic of the “reactive mind.”
There are a set of evolving considerations, the resultant of which, one may say, is the ego called Vinaire.
So, yes, there is a self, ego, or thetan called Vinaire.
Ego is inevitable but it is not permanent, just as the interconnected considerations or the logic they entail is not permanent.
It would be inconsistent to consider that these things are permanent because there are no absolutes as far as I can see.
.
Engram was an attempt by Hubbard to handle inconsistencies in life. Laying out axioms and logics of Scientology has been an attempt by Hubbard to establish consistency. For Valkov to say, “There is in fact no reason at all “to establish consistency” or to “resolve inconsistencies” seems to me to be a rejection of Hubbard’s intent and work.
Maybe there is no reason for Valkov to address inconsistencies. My logic is different.
.
V….. without LRH and his writing-scientology you would not have a blog not the kind anyway as you have.. So you should give credit when credit do..
E, I think you are right. For the most part, in Vinaire’s philosophical theorizing, Scientology is his orientation point\! Or, more correctly, anti-Scientology is his orientation point.
I have several times recommended to Vinnie that he needs to develop what he is doing WITHOUT reference or reliance to Scientology or to Buddhism Its good work and it has its own place. For me, the continual comparison to Scientology or Buddhism just clouds what he is examining and offering. I would even recommend that he choose words that are not in thorough use in those subjects, such as the word consideration or dukkha.
If you take a look at the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT you will find that my work has beginning to develop its own originality.
PHILOSOPHY PROJECT
I don’t see why the words ‘dukkha’ and “considerations’ cannot be used.
.
What I see is that by relating his ideas to Scientology and Buddhism so much, Vinaire opens himself up to others’ disagreements with what with he is saying about those two subjects – and thus he gets disagreements with his own ideas. You may mean something similar where you say it CLOUDS what he is examining and offering.
I see it as the general confusion blowing off.
To me all knowledge should be consistent regardless of its “source”.
.
Language itself is prone to ambiguity, shift in meaning, subjectivity and thus poor comprehension. Clarity of terms is essential for any meaningful discussion or learning, poorly defined or ambiguous terms are in and of themselves a source of confusion.
To my way of thinking, blowing off confusion that stems from a lack of clarity of terms is not progress at all, for all that has happened is that the poorly clarified term has PRODUCED confusions that may or may not have anything to do with the effort to follow a thread of knowledge or truth.
This is especially true when a term is chosen that has a grooved in meaning for a particular group, I think that it is pretty obvious that they normally will not accept the shifted meaning. This is because that meaning is used withing their practice and philosophy in a particular way and shifting it can be seen to degrade or distort the clarity of their practice or philosophy.
For example, the term ego: This word has a very specific meaning in Freudian works, a different meaning in Eastern works and a different meaning in the New Thought movement. To add to the confusion, we have egoism versus egotism and the modern meaning of self-interest. conceit, and selfishness. All of them different. The consequence is that every single time this term is used it introduces unnecessary and counter-productive ambiguity and often misunderstanding.
ego
1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. Psychoanalysis . the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment. Also: the conscious mind, based on perception of the environment from birth onwards: responsible for modifying the antisocial instincts of the id and itself modified by the conscience (superego)
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
5. ( often initial capital letter ) Philosophy .a. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience. b. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.
Cambridge dictionary defines ego as, “your idea or opinion of your own self, or a great feeling of your own importance and ability”,
“Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events…” (from “An Overview of Buddhism” by Mike Butler) And with this definition, we get: “The deepest meaning of ignorance is the believing in, identifying with and clinging to the ego, which as we have seen, is nothing but an illusive mental phenomenon.” (“Ego and Desire,” http://www.mathri.com)
I am sure you could offer yet another variation of this term EGO and that would just introduce even more confusion.
And then to add to the confusion, this gets defined as self, and then Geir finds himself trying to figure out what the hell you are referring to and just how it is that you think you know who he is in the midst of all of this.
Derailed much?
LOL! Maria, you must be part sheep dog because you sure have a way of rounding things up.
I shall let the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT define it.
That and the “12 steps of Mindfulness” are going to be the key documents of KHTK.
I am reluctant to invent new terminology. If bad comes to worse, I shall use the ancient Sanskrit terminology.
.
.
Maria, I couldn’t agree more about clarifying terms!
You said, “This is especially true when a term is chosen that has a grooved in meaning for a particular group, I think that it is pretty obvious that they normally will not accept the shifted meaning. This is because that meaning is used within their practice and philosophy in a particular way and shifting it can be seen to degrade or distort the clarity of their practice or philosophy.”
True, and there is also a slightly different problem as well, which is to take a term that has been coined to have a certain meaning and use it in a wholly different way. This has been done with the word “thetan” by Vinnie. He doesn’t agree that there exists such as thing as defined by LRH, because he thinks there is no such actuality. So he uses it to mean the concept HE has of the actuality and equates it with his concept of self. Then the discussion gets off into how a word is being used incorrectly and this just makes for more disagreement as well as confusion.
Hubbard did that before me.
.
How so, Vin? Please be specific if we’re going to have more clarity in our discussions.
Hubbard talks in DMSMH how he had to take regular English words and use them in new meanings. Take the word “Clear”. Dianetics and Scientology has its own dictionary even.
.
Vin, got what you mean about taking regular English words, like “clear”, and giving them a new definition. No disagreement with you on that.
The word “thetan” is in a different category, however, as it isn’t a regular English word. In fact, the whole reason LRH coined it was because of all the different meanings and connotations of “spirit” and “soul”, and he wished to avoid the disagreement and confusion that is caused by using them.
So when you use thetan in a different way than how it is defined, you get the same result – disagreement and confusion. Your definition of “self” or “ego” is clear and I think you should stick to those and not cloud the subject by saying that the meaning of thetan is the same. Obviously, you are free to discuss your disagreement that there is such a thing as thetan, as it’s defined. But I agree with Maria that It’s better not to set yourself up for disagreements from both the critics and the proponents of Scientology.
Even if I don’t equate the word ‘thetan’ with self or ego, and just look at it for what it is, I find an inconsistency in its definition. But we can take it up separately.
.
Okay, Vin. Let’s take it up. I’m interested in what you see as inconsistent in the definition of “thetan”.
Again?
Please first review my past posts on this subject. Some of them are on this thread. For example,
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-28770
In this url you may insert comment -29043
There are other posts on Vinaire’s Blog.
.
Vin, that was my misunderstanding – I thought you meant that LRH was inconsistent in the way he defined “thetan”, i.e. that the definition or definitions (plural) he gave were inconsistent.
As for what you believe is inconsistent about there being such an actuality as a thetan – that is a different subject matter based on your own assumptions/observations compared to LRH’s, which you’ve already explained.
So Vin, you agree on this, and your only response is that Hubbard did it before you did?!? Therefore you ought to do it too?
I can’t think with this.
Right you are, Maria. That’s the relevant point. I was just interested in what he’s referring to.
I don’t like word “agreement.” People try to force their own reality this way. As I see it is too early for KHTK to have its own vocabulary as it is still very much a developing subject and far from finished.
I wonder how many people here have really read and understood the two key documents “12 steps to mindfulness” and “PHILOSOPHY PROJECT,” or have done the KHTK exercises to be talking about confusion with KHTK.
.
I could not have organized it the way you have; however, it closely follows my natural inclination to look and to query. I use it all the time. Especially the Mindfulness.
Vin- “I wonder how many people here have really read and understood the two key documents “12 steps to mindfulness” and “PHILOSOPHY PROJECT,” or have done the KHTK exercises to be talking about confusion with KHTK.”
I will speak for myself as a student of scientology and many other studies of the mind and spirit. Seems to me that you can only communicate through your own made up exercises and if I don’t study those then we cannot communicate. This I have seen through comments because I don’t know where you are coming from. I refuse to have to study another’s view just to communicate sensibly. So from your inability to be understood by me, as a normal human I wonder about your practice and promotion of your stuff. Therefore we are out of communication a lot. But then that’s just me and I don’t really care enough because I look at the larger picture of importance. However, I think you are funny at times and again also have some good things to say. When you point me to another study is a different matter. 🙂
Dee, I like you. 🙂
.
Maria and Marildi
+1
also, Geir used the concept “cloud” for labels, words….when one is in
the “mindset-experience” of scio, or in Buddhism with other people, one can have agreement-disagreement in those “circles”. One can invent a new “circle”….still a circle. One can enter any circle without having any!!! viewpoints and kind of just “play” while there. This is
non-duality. No division. I find pan-determined still “mind”. Non-duality is “deeper”. Google nondualism if you are not familiar with it and if you like.
Vin,
How is your day so far? Me off for a while, see you in the evening! Have a nice day! Looking forward to your answer!
My day is fine. I shall be focusing on my blog for a while.
.
Hi Vin,
Happy that your day is fine! I read your discussion with Geir. One remark. The nature of the Flow of Life is that it “embodies” “experience”. In multi-sided ways.
See my earlier post today (Flashdance). Wish you would show some of your sides, like you did with the poems. Or practical stuff. Spiritualism is not a goal as separated. All is “spirit” at all levels of awareness/consciousness from the
subtlest to the materialized letters I am just writing down. You helped me see things in a different view many times. In return, let me ask you to watch Flashdance and dance to its rhythm as you like. Or some other music!
Marianne, I am more of a “Footloose” kind of a guy! Dare you to watch this without at least bobbing your head!
Head bobbing? I don’t see how that video can keep anyone in their chair! 🙂
Like Footloose! (“kind of guys” too!!)
I agree. Vin has helped me see things in a different way too, and I know it’s true for others as well. That’s why we all want him to smooth out the rough edges of his manner of discussion! I’ve been in his spot myself until I realized that there was “something wrong with this picture” where everybody was “agin” me. 🙂 And of course it’s possible that a person is right in his viewpoint, even though everyone seems to be against him. But there is probably still something in the presentation of it that needs to be “looked” at. What do you think, Marianne?
Marildi, How so has Vinaire helped you to see things differently?
This is in response to Isene
.
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29216
Knowledge stands by itself.
Any association of knowledge with a source is introducing the additive of ego.
Any association is secondary to ‘what-is’..
.
When one thinks,”I won’t look at that knowledge because it is on Vinaire’s Blog,” one is putting the additive of one’s ego.
When one thinks, “Vinaire is putting a link here because he wants me to go to his blog,” one is putting the the additive of one’s ego there.
.
So one ego here one ego there, there are billions of egos on this planet… The plants seems solid because of ego… so who really cares about the ego?
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29152
It is the argument that “I know and you don’t”: which causes much friction.
This is what Tom Cruise did on Matt Laurer’s show which caused uproar.
.
The argument “I know and you don’t” brings one’s ego into the discussion.
.
The thought, “I know and this person doesn’t” brings one’s ego into play.
The thought, I am a scientologist therefore I know; and that person is a wog and he doesn’t know,” brings one’s ego into play big time.
.
The thought, “I know because I am going by LRH, and this person doesn’t because he is not going by LRH,” also has one’s ego into play big time.
.
The one who goes and quotes Buddha at the drop of the hat believes that he is in a supperior position because knows how to quote, That quote proves that he can quote.. but nothing more.
If that Quoter would really know that for self than would not have to quote.
You are barking up on the wrong three…you are here for one reason only:to make others wrong.
You been found out..
The thought, “I am right and this other person is wrong,” not only have ego in play, but it also contains egotism
.
Than by continualy pointing out inconsistencies in every persons post with that you demostrate beautifully that you are sitting on a gold mine the mother load of all egoes.
Back to the OP: The 900 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room is, “Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?”
Money?
.
Possibly. But Indy Scnsts don’t charge very much and are flexible being under no one’s jurisdiction for rates. My Indy friends are very flexible and interested in seeing people get better. Skype is available to substitute for travel if necessary.
How can e-meter be used when on Skype?
.
I’m not sure how, David St Lawrence is one who has that ability. oldauditor@possiblyhelpfuladvice.com if I’m wrong please correct me.
I think one should look more closely at how David St Lawrence is able to run Scientology processes on Skype.
.
I have read David’s explanation of how he audits and can accept it as valid – for him. I would happily receive auditing from David and probably already would have except for scheduling difficulties.
As for auditing the way David does on Skype, very few auditors would have this ability until they had drilled heavily and become very certain of the required ability.
It is much more than just reading a meter. I do think that Skype auditing has a future, but like anything new it has many kinks and is far from suitable as a general tool i.e. it cannot be used with all pc’s.
Alright! So, use of Scientology is limited on Skype. That’s a bummer.
.
Yes, currently limited but open for exploration and development.
One item in particular that would help would be a meter that would give the auditor proper feedback as to the instantaneousness of the read. This could be done with a new meter apparatus that worked as follows:
1) session set up with pc and auditor having camera on each other, viewing each other
2) auditor has a receiving meter, pc has a meter-sender.
3) sending meter sends both the electrical response by the pc and a copy of the auditors voice. Thus reads can be shown at the auditor station as time-coincident with the auditing instruction
4) the auditor’s receiving meter would be largely or wholly digital. An analog meter movement may be somewhat preferable to a computer display but the computer display (as a meter movement) should still be there.
5) the method currently used on computer displays includes a waveform graph of the preclear response. This is a tremendous additive to the whole meter idea but needs a finishing touch:
6) included in the display would be an additional graphic of the auditors voice as it is “heard” by the preclear meter device. This would allow the auditor to visually compare the “needle” response of the pc to the auditing command and give a verifiable measure of the instant read.
The combination of measures that confirm the read as instant, or not, will open the door to many more auditors and pc’s. That would be a worthwhile task for some of the electronic and internet gurus to tackle.
I remember Ralph Hilton putting together an e-meter that could display the needle reactions on the computer screen. The PC could use the meter at his end and the needle display could be seen by the auditor at the other end.
This was over 5 years ago. I wonder what happened to that project. Did it work out or not!
.
The problem with the Hilton attempt was the latency of voice/video. There was no good way for the auditor to tell if the read was instant.
I guess we’ll have to do Scientology without e-meter then, if we have to clear the planet.
.
🙂
You’d better not sneeze, Vin, because with your tongue poked that far into your cheek there would be tongue shredding to rival Attila’s tongue tenderizing routine. 🙂
While it sure wouldn’t hurt anyone anxiously waiting for auditing to practice KHTK, I think we can come up with an internet meter to handle the main technical problems.
The big problem would be pc willingness to confront. A pc who has trained and solo’ed on something like KHTK would be much better prepared for the hat they’d have to wear in an internet session.
Skype type auditing is just another skill to practice. I don’t see it as a big deal. For instance, when I first spent much time researching on a monitor as opposed to in a book, I lamented that my eyes hurt and etcetera. But with practice, my eye muscles got used to the new medium and voila, I soon didn’t mind so much. Now, my word chains are so very much easier to run on the internet that I wouldn’t consider wanting to go back to card files and bookshelves.
That’s good. KHTK is up to that task. 🙂
.
All lower grade processes of Scientology can easily be done with KHTK using the 12 steps of mindfulness all by oneself.
I just have to put them together in a KHTK Exercise Set.
.
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2 will give a good taste of what is yet to come.
.
2ndx, I have forgotten to mention on purpose of course, that the tongue when tenderized the body was still attached…. oooh the good old days.. But of course the history was written by the losers so I was painted really black and so was everything else.. but no such a thing as ”only black”’ mind you I had lots of auditing and that ”life time”.. was most interesting to confront: there were lots of conflicting realities.
Here’s an excerpt from a post by David St. Lawrence titled “Auditing over Skype – a quick tutorial”:
———————————————-
4. The pc holds the cans and is using a Virtual Clarity Meter or a Theta Meter which is plugged into his pc. The auditor sees the meter and the pc and can adjust the meter as required. This is the method I have used for several years. The graphical interface presents a 30 second history of all reads and makes it almost impossible to miss reads even in the presence of Internet time delays. I have written several articles describing this technology on icans.com and workabletechnology.com
The meter sensitivity and read history make auditing almost effortless. Even so, I cannot imagine someone auditing NOTS confidently without being able to see what the preOT is thinking and looking at.
http://workabletechnology.com/?p=485
——————————————–
Chris: “Back to the OP: The 900 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room is, “Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?”
Maybe they are. But this time starting from a new viewpoint. One of personal exploration based on personal understanding.
One of the modern teaching paradigms is to take a segment of study – like a chapter of a text book – and more or less scan through it to get a general idea of where you’re heading. The next step is to read it more thoroughly and then at least another pass through to drive it home.
I’m looking at Scn, or the bridge, or my future auditing path from that perspective. I’m looking at all the facts I can gather and sorting them out as they align with what I know and expect. Vin would rightfully call this sorting out the inconsistencies. A workable term.
The point is, I am approaching it from know (as much as possible) before I go. A concept known to most Scientologists as “know before you go”.
My concept of the physical universe and its origin has expanded dramatically over the last few years from the accumulated data and interactions (formerly forbidden) with others. This period of time has been as personally valuable as I expect another 5-6 years of hard work in the org system would have been under good circumstances, let alone the miserable circumstances that exist today.
In short, I claim the right of patience to proceed at a pace of my choosing.
2ndxmr: “One of the modern teaching paradigms is to take a segment of study – like a chapter of a text book – and more or less scan through it to get a general idea of where you’re heading. The next step is to read it more thoroughly and then at least another pass through to drive it home.”
That’s exactly how I study and always have – and even how I studied in the CoS (without letting anyone know, of course). And the rest of your post, which parallels that method in terms of how you currently approach Scientology, is what I’ve tried to say but in different words – and I mean every single thing you said.
Bless you for saying it so well!
2ndxmr, good post!
That is what I did during 80s and 90s. I went through all the materials of Scientology with a tooth and comb.
.
To understand a subject, the place to start is with the basics of that subject, fully understanding it, and clearing up all the inconsistencies as they arise. The inconsistency may not necessarily be due to something in the subject. Most of the time it is because how one interpreted that subject.
The biggest crime would be to ignore an inconsistency.
.
Vin: “The biggest crime would be to ignore an inconsistency.”
I wouldn’t agree with totally ignoring an inconsistency but sometimes an inconsistency cannot be resolved with the data at hand. In such a case what I have done is to table the inconsistent data and leacve it tagged as inconsistent, awaiting further data to confirm or deny it.
There may be cases where that method may not be applicable but I found it generally workable.
The approach to inconsistencies in life should be made in the same manner as misunderstoods are approached in study and clarified.
For this we have our experience and the whole Internet to consult with the help of mindfulness, instead of a dictionary.
Keep in mind that inconsistencies will be a function of the viewpoint one is using. The dissolving of an inconsistency would require a closer look not only of the situation, but also of the viewpoint.
.
Thanks 2ndxmr for giving me a new thought. 🙂 I’m building my own bridge out of the materials I know and add to every day, a pretty nice bridge with resting stops here and there to contemplate my actions and plan the creation thereof. How’ that?
deE: “I’m building my own bridge out of the materials I know and add to every day, a pretty nice bridge with resting stops here and there to contemplate my actions and plan the creation thereof.”
I’d call that another good answer to the 900lb gorilla question.
Glad to hear it! Create!
Let’s get back to the 900 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room.
“Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?”
.
(and let’s not make it personal this time.)
Vin- Because it has potholes, pitfalls, not secure. Or, it ain’t was it used to be! OR no longer available to the person.
Marildi will probably argue against those reasons. As I understand all the LRH materials are available in the field.
.
Even by just cleaning any out-tech and getting in the lower grades for real, with training on lower grades can make a huge difference.
.
The grades processes have results that cover very well getting along; living life at a high level of enjoyment.
Vin, please refresh my memory on who asked this question in bold. “Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?” . (and let’s not make it personal this time.) Also I seemed to have missed your answer. Please repeat what your answer to that is, thank you.
This question was put there originally by Chris Thompson.
As far I am concerned I thoroughly studied the basic books in the 80s after leaving the Sea Org in 1983 and had wonderful relief from studying Scn 8-8008 and The Phoenix Lectures. Over the years I have been able to shed the mental enslavement, either because of social conditioning or because of the conditioning in the Sea Org. I went back to Flag again in 1998 to get re certified as a Clear. Then I redid the Full Student Hat and Ethics Specialists Hat. Then I couldn’t stand the inanities at Flag and at the Tampa Org any more, and left for good. Soon after that I was declared because somebody at Flag found out that I was studying Ekhart Tolle.
However, I have learned well to get the best out of LRH materials for myself. The methods I used to make progress with myself and many others are now being developed as the KHTK approach. This following document summarizes the substance of KHTK.
What is KHTK?
.
Vin – Thanks for sharing, hadn’t heard before and I can relate to that quite well.
“This question was put there originally by Chris Thompson.” – Thanks
“As far I am concerned I thoroughly studied the basic books in the 80s after leaving the Sea Org in 1983 and had wonderful relief from studying Scn 8-8008 and The Phoenix Lectures. Over the years I have been able to shed the mental enslavement, either because of social conditioning or because of the conditioning in the Sea Org. I went back to Flag again in 1998 to get re certified as a Clear. Then I redid the Full Student Hat and Ethics Specialists Hat. Then I couldn’t stand the inanities at Flag and at the Tampa Org any more…..”
Regarding this question reposted:
“Vin- Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?” . (and let’s not make it personal this time.)”
I can surmise an answer from you but it seems personal, So what would you say as to why?
BTW I used to enjoy Ekhart Tolle, had almost all his stuff and benefited from it. I’ve got material if you’d like some free. I’m clearing house, so to speak.
Dee, I can answer that question with certainty only on a personal level, which I have tried to do. On a general level, my answer would mostly be a conjecture.
To me, auditing is LOOKING. I have continued with that and have never stopped. I am not restricting myself to the “Scientology way”. I am even documenting what I have found successful as KHTK.
The question from Chris Thompson refers to those Scientologists who do not want to deviate from from the path laid down in Scientology. The inconsistency he is looking at is. “If that path is very workable, then why not those scientologists, who swear by that path, moving forward on it, now that they are out of the control exerted by COS?”
So, the points to look at are:
(1) Is the Scientology path really workable as it is made out to be?
(2) Can it be done on ones own; or does it require a big organization to be workable?
(3) What are the problems facing ex-COS true believers if they are not moving up the Bridge?
My conjectures are:
Scientology path is not workable without an e-meter, a lot of training and an organization. Those seem to be the hurdles.
I am trying to overcome these hurdles through KHTK, which replaces e-meter by “mindfulness”, does not require any other training beside “mindfulness”, and it can be done by oneself without depending on any organization.
.
Vin – “The question from Chris Thompson refers to those Scientologists who do not want to deviate from from the path laid down in Scientology. The inconsistency he is looking at is. “If that path is very workable, then why not those scientologists, who swear by that path, moving forward on it, now that they are out of the control exerted by COS?”
I think I understand and the question is irrelevant to you, therefore you cannot give a viewpoint without your personal take and just state it? Fine with me. Thanks for the comm.
Focusing on participants is a great way to derail discussions that could otherwise be very productive.
.
no one is focusing on the participants.. we are focusing what was said the content of the posting.
I think the 900 lb gorilla is metaphor for the tooth paste being out of the tube.
Tooth paste being out of the tube is metaphor for “new frame of reference.”
Sometimes I think people change and they don’t know it yet.
I think that lower grades are pretty effective in Scientology. When they are applied properly using the Scientology procedures, or the KHTK approach, a big improvement can be affected.
.
My own experience using the grades processes on myself is that using the concept of mathematical iteration, a person can be recycled to achieve improved and more finely tuned results as long as the person was winning.
Several iteration of lower grade processes is necessary because a process that may not bring up anything in the first iteration, may really light up in subsequent iterations after some other processes have been run.
It is much easier and faster to run Grade processes with KHTK.
.
KHTK Exercise 2.1 presents a good example of how KHTK approach may be used to run a grade process.
.
With KHTK, the primary intention is to provide a set of exercises, which people can use and benefit from. The primary tool that is being used is “mindfulness.” There is a single document that summarizes the concept of mindfulness. It is not very complicated. A lot of time and study went into preparing that one document. It is still open to review and improvement.
The other part of KHTK is simplifying the inconsistencies in the fundamentals of knowledge as I see them. The simplified form is being expressed through the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. I am using “perception” as the guiding criterion and the reason for this is taken up in that project. Right now I am looking at the area of CONSIDERATIONS and SELF, and clarification is taking place in this area. As concepts get firmed up they get documented in the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. Hopefully, with clearer concepts, better KHTK exercises shall come about.
So, if anybody has any questions about KHTK, one should carefully study the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT and question it. The dust is still settling in the current discussions on CONSIDERATIONS and SELF. I keep reviewing my own materials again and again. This is a huge area and I do not want to rush through it.
Credit goes to all the extant knowledge of Mankind. As far as I am concerned, “source” of knowledge is there for reference purposes only so that one can go and look at additional material associated with that source. Beyond that, KNOWLEDGE should be looked at for what it is regardless of its association with any source. That purity is essential to the examination of Knowledge.
To summarize, the communication of KHTK is occurring through the documents listed at the top (KHTK 00 to KHTK 04) at KHTK Looking . If you need to examine KHTK, please examine these documents.
.
Okay then, I would start by removing this information at the start of the materials:
“The organization of basic knowledge in the subject of Scientology (a word, which means “knowing how to know”) is definitely impressive, so that might have something to do with it.
The organization of knowledge in Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard was followed by a simplification of that knowledge in Idenics by John Galusha. Both Scientology and Idenics are inspired by Buddhism. So, after an exposure to Scientology and Idenics, an examination of Buddhism led to the development of KHTK.”
I suggest you do this, otherwise you immediately open up a can of worms that does not need to be opened.
– there are those who do not consider that Scientology has any value or that it has negative value.
– Taking my own understanding of Scientology, I disagree that it was inspired by Buddhism. I think it came up the line of Korzybski and what is called the “New Thought” movement. This was then examined by using Volney Mathison’s galvanometer methods, and influenced by early Western translations of the Vedas. The meter was the research tool that was used to refine and develop the various efforts
Argments aside, do you see that by including this unnecessary information, which is your opinion only, you introduce argument at the outset.
What you think of prior subjects is your opinion, and the route by which you arrived at these drills is YOUR route, refined by examination and discussion over a very long period of time, and as modified by your and others studies of many different subjects. But that should be the subject of a separate post, clearly identified as your route to get to the current set of information. Bibliography. Acknowledgments.
You may wish to have a separate section for ex Scientologists, because they probably will not be able to bridge from Scientology to KHTK without some kind of aligning / differentiating process.
For this new set of processes to be easily offered to anyone else, it needs to stand on its own. Get it out of the road of all the controversy and nonsense that goes along with associating with past practices!
Don’t repeat LRH’s mistakes. I believe that it was a serious mistake for him to continually mix in his opinions with the valid processes he discovered and the result is one hell of a mess. Carefully label what is your opinion as your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion BUT it can act as a barrier to looking for someone else.
This is a valid warning.
Vin: you ask why ex Scientologists don’t continue doing their bridge outside of Scientology. These are the factors I have observed in myself and others:
– Many have ongoing relationships with individuals who are still connected with the Church of Scientology. They don’t want the trouble of dealing with the inevitable turmoil that would follow their accepting service from what is labeled as a suppressive squirrel group. The alternative is disconnection and they don’t want that either.
– Fear of doing the wrong process, and caving in or having something bad happen to them. This can be as mild as being keyed in and enturbulated to as dreadful as ending up so unaware that one becomes a completely degraded being serving as a body part or a rock for eternity.
– Fear of the unknown and untested. Most people who did continue in Scientology had confidence that others before them had success, however limited, based on personal testimonials.
– Fear of having one’s pc folders in the hands of someone who may or may not respect confidentiality.
– Fear of becoming brainwashed, self-deluded, or unstable at the hands of someone who has been declared suppressive by the Church.
– Refusal to be associated with Scientology, inside or outside of the Church because of its negative press and media.
– Broken trust.
– Broken trust.
– Broken trust.
Add to the list:
– Fear of being attacked.
Maria
What is coming through is fear…fear…fear….the exact opposite of Life…do you know/see what the root of ALL fear is?
Separation
Thank you. What causes separation?
separation of what?
Sorry I were not talking to me.. I am out..
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> separation of what? > >
I have written that wrong: YOU WERE NOT TALKING TO ME ..it should have been.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Sorry I were not talking to me.. I am out.. > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, elizabeth hamre endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com> wrote: > >> separation of what? >> >> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Geir Isene > > wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Marianne Toth commented: “Thank you. What causes separation?” >>>
A what does not cause anything. That’s the problem. I think perhaps Marianne, you have misunderstood my answers to be me attempting to run a process. I am not attempting to run a process. I would prefer if you simply offered your own viewpoint rather than asking me to answer it for you or attempting to lead me to a cognition. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are doing here and maybe you are only trying to understand what I am saying but I am not so sure that I can actually answer the question you have posed the way it has been posed.
I am only examining what I see must be addressed for people to move on from their experiences with Scientology.
The antithesis of separation is connection. And one of the primary aspects at the heart of the situation in Scientology is the fear of disconnection. Of course, this is a much deeper problem and it comes down to not being able to connect with others in a way they can perceive and respond to. And that ties into annihilation, the prospect of losing all awareness, consciousness and any means to rehabilitate those abilities. i.e. lost forever. This is the essence of nihilism, passing completely out of existence in terms of any universe anywhere anyhow anytime. Forever dead. Even hell is better than forever dead — at least you have some possibility of redemption, of rehabilitation, of response.
(The comment below should have been a reply to the above comment so I’ll repost it here.)
Maria, that’s a good point about being asked questions. I guess people who are like Socrates can get away with it because they have already been granted that “altitude” by those they are asking questions of. To Marianne’s great credit, at least she offers more ideas than questions. From what I see she gives her heart and soul to try to help people understand something she has found to be an ultimate source of joy. I’ve been learning some things from her and always look forward to her posts.
I’ve learned valuable things from others here too, definitely including you. In fact, I recall that you have been one of the people (there have been others too) to point out that we are all here trying to help one another! Probably more so than trying to learn something for ourselves. And one thing we’re still learning is the best way to go about trying to help. So I’m glad you brought the subject up!
Actually I did not do OT5. I stopped because there seemed to be something out, and as it turns out, I was right about that.
I am not attempting at this juncture to answer the question(s) you posed or to continue the chain of cognitions as you suggest.
I offered a number of observations I made about my self and others in response to Vinay’s question: Why ex Scientologists don’t continue doing their bridge outside of Scientology.
The factors I listed are those that I have observed in myself and others:
None of the factors I listed are issues for me anymore. They are factors or issues I resolved along the way to today. Along the way I lost interest in doing the OT levels. I do not need an EP of cause over life, nor an EP of being interested in who I am. No interest items. I have been using my own variation of what Elizabeth does and what Vinay does. I consider my life to be my indicators. I get reads all the time and address them.
I am interested in what Vinay is doing because I do understand what he is trying to do — make an easy to use set of processes anyone can do that may or may be as fast or exhilarating as Scientology processes but have the advantage of being easy to learn, no requirement for training auditors, no need for e-meters, etc. Its a really good effort and intention.
I see that Marildi felt that I was maybe upset or something like that, so for the record, I really appreciate all that you share Marianne, very much and I always look forward to reading what you have to say or offer. 🙂
Excellent.
But identity dies completely… that includes both body and soul.
Death
At death, the body disintegrates into physical particles (atoms and molecules), and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.
However, the particles and considerations remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” configuration. There is infinity of such recombination.
What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.
Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like de-condensation of CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of attachment to considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.
Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.
Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.
The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.
.
Do you see nirvana as entropy of the self?
Entropy function is Q/T. It is the disorder built into the reference point itself. In Nirvana there is no reference point. The reference point of the self is gone.
The question naturally arises, “What is left then?” The only way I can answer that question is by stating, “There is no fixation left.” I know that is a negative answer because that is the best I can do. Identifying anything positive would be a fixation.
.
“There is no fixation left.” Than for you nirvana is out of reach since you are totally fixated on every ones”” inconsistencies and your blog”’
All roads lead to Vinay’s blog the center of the universe where total knowingness awaits the weary traveler.
To recognize what is wrong in others than one has to have that in their universe first: and me saying that because I know that from my experience reality about self.
Please don’t trouble yourself to point out my inconsistencies, I don’t deny that I have them.
Vin, When I asked “Do you see nirvana as entropy of the self?”
You answered, “Entropy function is Q/T. It is the disorder built into the reference point itself. In Nirvana there is no reference point. The reference point of the self is gone.
The question naturally arises, “What is left then?” The only way I can answer that question is by stating, “There is no fixation left.” I know that is a negative answer because that is the best I can do. Identifying anything positive would be a fixation.”
Chris: I’m not following what you mean by reference point. About the self dissolving, I want to ask then about “what is left” is it not inconsistent that the expression which used to be the self, equalizing and finding equilibrium, has not reached the null state we call entropy?
By reference point I mean something like a stable datum in a confusion, or what you call a ‘frame of reference’. The last reference point is the self. When that reference point is not there one feels totally naked, helpless, and swirling around in a confusion if the considerations are still there. In this case, the reference point is very likely being not-ised.
The as-is of refernce point would also as-is all the associated considerations. It would be a scenario akin to zero divided by zero. The status of entropy (Q/T) in this case would be hard to determine.
Self is like the donut hole where the donot is made up of tightly interelated considerations. As-isness of self can only occur along with the as-isness of the “donut” of considerations.
A not-isness of the “donut hole” will get one feeling totally lost.
.
This time what I’m posting here is not a criticism. These are some links to sites having to do with Gestalt Therapy and the idea of the “fertile void”. Gestalt Therapy was popularized in the 1970s by Fritzs Perls.
A lot of what Vinnie posts reminds me of the Gestalt viewpoint, like the stuff about donuts and their holes. Perls called it “figure/ground”. I think what Gestalt adds to the discussion are the concepts around “the fertile void” and creativity.
Gestalt goes back to the 1970s and owes a lot to Zen and also to the idea of “mindfulness”; it’s existence is one of those things that keep me thinking that Vinnie is just reinventing the wheel. It’s better to know well what has already been done. This is not a criticism as such; I hope this will help Vinnie progress with what he is doing.
I hope also that others, Chris, Maria, marildi, MT, Geir, also get something out of the Gestalt ideas. Ken Wilbur, for example, stands on the shoulders of Gestalt. And, Gestalt offers a lot of practical application that I’m not sure Wilbur offers.
Click to access SpiritualityandGestalt-AGestalt-TranspersonalPerspective.pdf
Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change – The Gestalt Therapy Network
http://www.gestalttherapy.net/writers/herb2.pdf
http://www.fritzperls.com/gestalttherapy/
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy
I will also add that to my mind, the very concept of cause and effect is at the heart of this fear of separation and annihilation. Must be cause, can’t be cause, must be effect, can’t be effect. Must cause something, must not be effect, on and on it goes. And round and round it goes. But it seems to me that the chain is made of cause and effect.
Maria, if you want to get to the heart of this problem by yourself, the way I see it at this point is 1. to carefully read over what you have been writing about 2. write on as long as you have a “cognition”. 3. you did it up to OT5 (if I am correct). If so, recall and have that “win” you had when you ended the level – do the points 1-2 from that “win”.
Maria, sorry…do that only if you like….or you will know how….you have the KEY to it!
Yes, I asked you that question because it is indeed an area to be handled…that is YOU can handle it….your share…..releasing some energy…there will be “visible” results in life. You see, you got to the
point of cause-effect……write on (if you like).
Also, I have come to realize that the question is as important as the answer.
Elizabeth made a remark the other day that whenever you pose a question, oddly enough the answer is available.
Thus leading questions can be a source of trouble. An individual may not have an answer because it is not his question and so then he will likely answer I don’t know. I don’t know is a negation of know. I suspect you could run somebody into the basement with leading questions that they are not ready to answer especially if they think they should have the answer and they do not have the answer.
Maria, that’s a good point about being asked questions. I guess people who are like Socrates can get away with it because they have already been granted that “altitude” by those they are asking questions of. To Marianne’s great credit, at least she offers more ideas than questions. From what I see she gives her heart and soul to try to help people understand something she has found to be an ultimate source of joy. I’ve been learning some things from her and always look forward to her posts.
I’ve learned valuable things from others here too, definitely including you. In fact, I recall that you have been one of the people (there have been others too) to point out that we are all here trying to help one another! Probably more so than trying to learn something for ourselves. And one thing we’re still learning is the best way to go about trying to help. So I’m glad you brought the subject up!
YES ! Ask YOUR question! You can just “keep it there” until you have a “cognition”. (yes, asking someone the wrong question can have several consequences).
The answers are alway there, but the answer not necesearly wanted, or blocked, but they are there..
I had a question in 76 and I could not find the answer till 2010. and I looked and looked.. it was not awailable because I really had difficulty accept some fact about my self. I just did not wanted it to know that is was possible.
Maria, affirmative.
Annihilation
VALUE……. fear of losing something which one believes is valuable, cant or dont want to do without.
ah. Good one!
In his last post Geir he told us what he hold the most valuable, more than his life.. therefore fear of loss: value-fear go hand in hand.. twins.. the twins of MEST universe, ,”””the most powerful motivators””” without out them there is no game condition.. since value have to be there in order to want something, than fear steps in we when we have it than fear steps in we can lose it, and we always do on the long run.. because value is intangible.. very intangible, and we do change our minds easily.
Annihilation Fear of that is there because one all ready believed that VALUE was there.. without value one do not feel fear. Example; you would not fear beforehand that my house will be robbed if it is not locked. You have no reason to fear since you have no value in connection with my house. But you believe your house is valuable so it is insured etc..
Elizabeth, I am talking about the deepest fear of all, that if all the things went away, valued or not, then there would be total oblivion and no return from oblivion, forever.
Maria, I have REALY looked at that and trust me on that. I have explored every possible avenue.. no such a thing as eraser of all..
But there are very special implants which were given as punishement and in those implants [there were many who thouched the same subject] yes the idea is implanted that you are no more for ever gone, nothing existhing etc..etc.. plus few dozen other thoughs, That word that idea is the core of the implant a beautifuly created trap. yammy.. what fun i had taking it apart. wins galore.. cognitions poured out even from my ears hehehe.. good stuff.
Maria, as far as I am concerned I am prepared to let go of the self,
.
Also possibly their “Scientology iteration” has simply physically passed. This is an example of a shift in life which will never be undone. There are many such as birth, losing baby teeth, and death. A person can cling to an idea of themself as someone they used to be even when that idea exists only in the past.
Chris, that is the way I have seen it.. those who were ready for it for them there is a future with continual auditing- scientology aplication etc.. but most were not up to par to confront the track… not now, not yet.
Thank you Elizabeth.
Marildi
’12 dimensions’ video….sorry, no. That was ‘live’ that is in personal conversation. But I’m sure you can find something on the net if you google.
Nondualism is always a key concept in it.
Thanks for the data. I’ll try that.
Maria
Thanks! Me also waiting for your posts! I like all aspects that you approach a “question/issue” with. Also, when you write about yourself, your experiences.
Also, the music videos! So – all!
This response is to Maria.
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/comments-to-communications-on-other-blogs/#comment-7871
.
Please first review my past posts on this subject. Some of them are on this thread. For example,
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-28770
In this url you may insert comment -29043
There are other posts on Vinaire’s Blog if you are interested.
.
In response to Valkov:
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29722
.
Here is what I get about Gestalt Psychology from Wikipedia:
(1) Gestalt theory allows for the breakup of elements from the whole situation into what it really is.
(2) The operational principle of gestalt psychology is that the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies.
(3) The principle maintains that the human eye sees objects in their entirety before perceiving their individual parts, suggesting the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
(4) Gestalt psychologists stipulate that perception is the product of complex interactions among various stimuli.
(5) The phrase “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” is often used when explaining gestalt theory,
(6) Though the original phrase was, “The whole is other than the sum of the parts”
You may compare this to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT on my blog if you are interested. The effort of KHTK is much more comprehensive.
ONE: There is looking and perceiving.
TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.
THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.
FOUR: Physics is a study of manifestation.
FIVE: Metaphysics is a study of perception.
…
From Wikipedia.
Gestalt therapy is an existential/experiential form of psychotherapy that emphasizes personal responsibility, and that focuses upon the individual’s experience in the present moment, the therapist-client relationship, the environmental and social contexts of a person’s life, and the self-regulating adjustments people make as a result of their overall situation.
KHTK is something very different, simple and concise.
.
I think Bill Robertson explains the phenomena of what is going on best. Here is an exerpt:
“Well, what’s beyond the Physical Universe anyway, and what happened before the Physical Universe? These are two very interesting questions.
If your Bridge, that you are on, can’t answer this with certainty and processes to resolve it with big cogs and gains, well, I’m sorry, you must be on a FALSE Bridge. These little questions are resolved on the ACTUAL Bridge very simply at OT 12-13 and most people know a lot about it, even before they get there.
Well — if your case progress is stopped by Body Problems, Somatics, High-Stuck TA, Headaches, Grief, a “not being able to get through it or audit”, or some Unreality, Funny Thoughts, Evil Intentions, Unclear feeling, Illogical Compulsions, Feeling of “being on Two Time-Tracks at once”, etc, etc, — then come onto the ACTUAL Bridge and find out what the Game is all about.
You can, of course, choose another one, or wait for a very “reasonable sounding” one, that might come out soon, but realize: WE ALREADY KNOW ALL ABOUT THESE BRIDGES AND WHY THEY DON’T WORK.
The most effective in stopping you, of course — that we know of, is a FALSE Bridge that promises you a way to OT, that is very expensive, and gets you to a state — well — where you can’t ever report how you have been trapped. But, of course, FIRST they will make you MONEYLESS and in a condition of INDEBTEDNESS. But then they will get you to the state where you can’t ever report how you have been trapped and it will exist for longer than ever before and you might even become “One with the Physical Universe”. And, of course, that isn’t saying very much at all, because look at where the Physical Universe is on the Tone Scale! Well, that’s the kind of Game that nobody wins, except the Implanters. So don’t fall for that one.
It’s a Bridge that makes you feel good to be “in debt and out-exchange”, because you are convinced you can soon “Blow” to OT and not have to pay back the money. You will, of course, also drop the body to “Prove it”. The proof is: of course I went OT! I didn’t have to pay the money. Anyway, some people are expecting something like that, and they are waiting for it. And what a great way to go! Ha! Use up all the money, have a good time, and then drop the body and never have to pay it back. Little bit out-exchange, though. But they think that doesn’t matter, because “I’m going OT”. Well, eventually we find them on the bridge, you know? They are not OT, they are stuck in the Mest Universe. It’s the worst fate that could happen to a thetan.
Well, you say: “What! How do they know all this?” Well, we know it’s a FALSE Bridge — that one I just described — because it’s been done before. And by going up the NEW ACTUAL Bridge we have, you will find these thetans and free them. They were caught in it, trapped forever, and they were still trapped, until we showed up. And many, on being freed, stated, as their first words they have been able to communicate in eons and eons and eons:”WOW! What a TRAP! I want my money back!”
And, I’m sorry to say, there wasn’t anybody at all on levels past that had actually completed anything. I mean, there were people that were stuck there. And there were beings that had gotten into other practices and maybe thought he was there, but he was really stuck well into the Mest Universe, and into the Games.
Well, I’m sorry to say, there isn’t any other way out. The only being that we did find, and you will find, on going on up there (besides the other people that have already gone up, of course) — you will find Ron there, because he is the one that left us the Road Map for the way out and he and I and any OT invite you all to do the ACTUAL Bridge and Play a better Game.
http://www.ronsorg.org/tableofcontents/ab2.htm
Except there is no evidence in sight for BTs – or that that the CBR Bridge isn’t also a False Bridge for that matter.
The history is that there was suppression happening in the church that was getting out of control. Story is LRH asked Capt Bill to preserve the tech outside and this is what he did along with improvements, which were/ are needed, all of LRH’s works were not perfect and so with experience it is only logical to make good repairs. All that leads me to want to know more. I doubt I have much to lose. I know I nor anyone else is going to find freedom crying in their beer or watching the boob tube, praying to the gods, disconnecting from the whole idea of not gaining the spiritual answers they are looking for, living in regret, or anything else I or they’ve probably tried for the last eons of years. So that’s my answer to that question. http://community.freezone-tech.info/success/2012/07/27/success-stories-on-excalibur-from-rons-org-europe-russia/
Rons Org Bridge and why I moved onto it
by Michael Maylam
Introduction:
I first contacted and became involved with Scientology in 1962 in Africa. From 1962 I was contracted staff, in the Sea Org and finally out of the Church. I trained as an Auditor and held many posts from Exec Council AF, ED and below.
I audited many hours and trained many people. I also worked in the Public divisions and brought in a lot of new people as well as opening up new orgs and other centres. After leaving the Church in 1978 I did the OT levels to III and some audited NOTs in the AAC. In 1996 I came to England. In 2006 I contacted Ron’s Org (RO) Vast in Bristol. I had spent many hours trawling through the net getting as much information as I could. I met Clive and Tasha Nicol in Bristol and learnt a lot more about RO.
I then had to decide if I was going to go up that Bridge.
The following is what I found. The knowledge was gained over a period of three years and luckily it all confirmed my initial assessment and decision.
1. The people
1. ARC
I have met and been around several hundred people involved with RO. They varied from those at the top of the Bridge to many working their way up. It included a lot of ex scientologists, but there were many who had never been in a Church.
I found a very high degree of ARC. Very different to the people in everyday life and different to the relationships that I had in the CofS and the AAC. It was a new quality that surpassed all previous ARC or what passed for ARC. These RO people were OT or on their way to OT. Of all the factors that influenced my decision, this was the most powerful. Nothing that has happened since that first decision has changed my point of view.
LRH had that level of ARC and above. Listen to his tapes, read his policy and Bulletins. Don’t listen to any other reports or hearsay. He was OT. He worked 16 hours a day for 40 years or more and did all the research and ran the organisations. That was an OT in action.
2. The Organisation
2.1 Self regulation
I believe that the Free Zone is self regulating. If those people or groups in the FZ are not inceasing self determination, ARC, Freedom etc. in the people in their group, they will eventually disappear.
2.2 Expansion
Over the last 25 years or more Ron’s Orgs have been expanding consistently until they are now probably larger than the CofS in terms active people and functioning centres. (See the Map in the RO magazine “Floating Needle”). This is a vital datum. Expand and prosper. They are the only group in the FZ that have accomplished this. They are in Normal Operation, probably moving into Affluence and above. The CofS is in Danger approaching Non Existence.
This RO expansion has occurred in spite of the CofS, media, Government and some FZ attacks. This is remarkable. In fact they have developed good relations with the media and Governments in some areas.(See the Channel 4 (UK) documentary). They have done this easily, despite CofS/OSA false reports to the Authorities.
3. The Bridge
3.1 OT abilities
We are all using OT abilities everyday and every lifetime. It is called operating a body. The so called OT abilities such as telekinesis, remote viewing etc. can be learnt by searching the web or travelling to some remote eastern monastery. This is not what the OT levels are all about. More than anything, they are about ARC, which is the basis of all OT activities. If you are not increasing ARC in all Universes, then you are not on the route to OT.
Many years ago a friend of mine asked, if LRH was OT, why didn’t he make all weapons inoperable and so bring peace to our planet. Well, of course, people would use whatever they could to carry on fighting, fists, feet, sticks, stones etc. The only way to stop conflicts is with ARC. So the important test of any freezone group is what is their ARC like?. The CofS as an organisation is very lacking in this area, despite any apparencies.. We must ask this question. Do the people moving up any particular Bridge show increased ARC? This means genuine ARC, not some low toned dramatised version. Ron’s Orgs have outstanding levels of ARC.
This is what LRH says:- 070863 SHBC 321 R2H Fundamentals
“And if you discharge all of these crossed bypassed charges off of present time, theoretically you could run him all the way to OT without him ever going backtrack to amount to anyone. He just picks up this item and that item and that incident and that incident and this one and straightens them out, and his pictures are getting better and the track is straightening out.
And the next thing you know, he’s eight feet back of his head saying, “What do you want done with these between-lives guys?”
Livingness – degree of livingness is measured by ARC. How alive is somebody? It’s how much ARC is he capable of. That is the test. So R2H considers and conceives that the reactive mind is a reservoir of ARC breaks.
3.2 RO Bridge
Thank goodness I found Excalibur. I had had audited NOTs in the AAC and gotten wound up around the proverbial telegraph pole. Bill Robertson(CBR) was a trained Engineer and so am I. His briefing on NOTS/Excalibur aligned a lot of the data for me. The result is that I have confidently moved through NOTS to a very good conclusion. My opinion is that anybody who is on NOTS, who does not have the Excalibur data, will have trouble – probably a lot of trouble. Actually the data on excalibur is in the NOTS pack but you have to know relative importantance of the data.
The interesting point is that whatever is in the RO/CBR Bridge can be found in the LRH books, lectures etc. There is nothing new. It is amazing how much of the OT levels LRH slipped in. It is all there. I have been over the CofS OT levels written up on the web and if they are accurate, then they do not go anywhere near handling what needs to be handled. And these things need to be handled and are handled on the RO Bridge. What needs to be handled? I can only refer you to the LRH materials. It is all there. Read History of Man and listen to the associated tapes. Study all the materials from 1950 to 1954. It is all there. Of course, it is easier looking back to spot this. In fact LRH talks about it all the time in all the materials from 1950 to 1980. You just need the knowledge to spot it. See the quotes above from just one tape.
4. Summary
1. High and increasing ARC in people on RO bridge
2. Expansion and good indicators in RO centres for over 20 years
3. RO Bridge from LRH data
4. Spectacular Personal gains in ARC, granting of beingness and knowingness.
I see similar wins from other religions – many Christians report outstanding miracles from practicing their religion. Same with people practicing Wicca, etc. Why would you single out the CBR bridge as the True Way?
Christianity called itself a true way too. So there is an inconsistency here.
Sent from my iPhone
>
The inconsistency seems to be in the general assumptions regarding the word “true.”
To resolve this inconsistency one must look at the successes from Christianity and also from Scientology, and then look more closely at the common denominator to all these successes.
________________________________
When we remove the evaluation of “true” from our philosophies, we remove a major stumbling block — a major inconsistency, and we can begin to look non-judgmentally.
Personally for me, easy answer. The Christianity religion did not work for me. I was a real mess, lots of circuits, int was out, depressed, angry most of the time, definitely ready to cash in. I visited many religions looking for the answers to no avail. Scientology auditing and assists and ARC handled all of the above, including even my ARCX with God because I felt betrayed by my Christian friends who went against what they said were their beliefs (they introduced me to drugs right after a prayer meeting). No matter how hard I prayed or studied the Bible I got no long term relief. I won many awards for memorizing verses, went to a Christian school and college. Great people, love their compassion, they in this way are way over the top better than todays church’s SCN’s. However, Christianity as most other religions are, a belief system, a faith system. A person reads and learns the Bible and agrees to make changes in their life. Sometimes people make some pretty good promises to themselves and keep it, but the fact of the matter is, they still have those irrational and aberrated viewpoints and urges, they have just decided not to give into the whims of their damaging ways or if they do they go in like the Catholics to ask for forgiveness. But they are still not a different person, just one under more control. With Scientology, it makes TRUE, lasting changes WITHIN the individual. If it did not you would not be reading over and over and over again of the wins people had in SCN or when LRH was alive, but that they are upset with the organization and the tech being altered. They’ve had a taste of success spiritually and they want MORE. So this is why I am in favor of doing the bridge through RonsOrg. Hell it could be the wrong path, but the way I look at it is I KNOW the other paths aren’t it. Life is a game. That’s what I learned in SCN. The Church got taken over a long time ago and traps were set, they got your money, and they got you, okay so you lost that game. Move over to the next place that looks promising and work to reach the spiritual goals you originally set out to reach. Don’t give up so easily. Hell you should be in better shape mentally and spiritually than I am since you are an OT and I am not, why are you so against continuing on the bridge for truth? Thank goodness LRH gave the bridge to Capt Bill to forward on. Among all types of suppression financially, emotionally and probably even physically he got the bridge in the hands of people willing to do it. It took a strong person and is taking incredible amounts of integrity to stand up to the church and apply what one knows is right. Not everyone has made it. RonsOrg and independents have been under huge amounts of suppression to move forward with the goals of LRH. All you have to do is read RonsOrg wins to understand they made it through to the other side, or have you spoken to a few? Max is awesome, there have been absolutely no ridges on him when I have asked him questions and I have asked him a lot. Have you spoken to Anita Warren? Wow, same thing, and super high ARC. Love it, I have nothing but true admiration for her and it makes me reach stronger for the bridge than any other time in my SCN life. It is just as I remembered people to be in the 70’s when LRH was alive.
Truthfully, only the strongest have survived, the suppression is heavy and there is no guarantee that the church won’t wipe out the only hope that man has ever had, Come back next life time and with all the alterations in the vault, that’s going to be it. Wow. Twisted. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I wish the best for you, everyone has a right to play and choose whatever game they want, I can respect that. Just giving you a viewpoint to do or not do with whatever you wish.
It seems that your assessment of Scientology and Christianity is based on what you got out of it. Somebody else’s assessment from what they got out of either subject can be totally different. Such assessment are, therefore, subjective, flawed and inconsistent.
One should look at the common denominator between Christian prayer and Scientology auditing to understand what truly works. If you look at it closely then you will find that it is MINDFULNESS (seeing things as they are without assuming).
You can learn more about mindfulness on Internet and on my blog.
.
Barney: . . . Scientology auditing and assists and ARC handled all of the above, including even my ARCX with God . . .
Chris: Then be happy that you have found the metaphor with which you are comfortable and works the best for you. Help others using the best of what you can apply of Scientology and be happy. Be mindful that no religion works outside its own purview and no religion is universal. Religion defines the mechanics of the world, the flaws of the world, and the method to guide one toward relief from these flaws. An important mistake that one can make when applying a religion is to attempt to address the world outside its frame of reference. This will fail every time and result in strife and intolerance.
Barney: . . . But they are still not a different person, just one under more control. With Scientology, it makes TRUE, lasting changes WITHIN the individual. . . .
Chris: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Western Religion members disagree with you Barney. Your use of the word TRUE is not improved by capitalizing each letter. You are not even on a slippery slope with your entire post, you have slid off and into the bog. (I so love a good metaphor!)
Barney: If it did not you would not be reading over and over and over again of the wins people had in SCN . . .
Chris: This is not the evidence of OT that you claim. It is the same anecdotal evidence that each religion and club member gives to promote their cause. Each person who ever experienced success with anything and was consequently asked to mention it does this.
Barney: Just giving you a viewpoint to do or not do with whatever you wish.
Chris: Really? You think you’ve done this? Given us a chance to make the right choice? You don’t view your own comments as rank condescension? You don’t feel condescending toward the dirty masses who do not have Scientology?
Putting lipstick on a pig does not alter the underlying pig. But in my opinion, it is a nice thought.
LRH – CofS:
HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”:
“I have been engaged for some months now in a round-up of out tech issues.
And I have found, I am sorry to say, that mice have been gnawing at the pillars of the Bridge, putting up traffic barriers and false detour signs.”
Barney, you and LRH do a mean disservice to the men and women who for decades have dedicated all that they are and all that they are ever going to be to Keeping Scientology Working. If there had been substantial “pillars” of Scientology Technology, no amount of mice gnawing at them would have made any difference. LRH’s foundation for Scientology is soft and so he blames mice. This is typical LRH. Try not to allow him to continue to rule your thinking.
“typical LRH. Try not to allow him to continue to rule your thinking.”
That’s probably one of the last things to go, sorry to say when one is trying to think for themselves. Hey, didn’t Ron say that somewhere? Therein lies a danger of trying to emulate another instead of the diversify of many, pulling what fits for you. Being yourself and knowing who you are…. Right, a conglomeration! A life’s adventure eh? 🙂
Yes deE. The way cult think worms into and roots itself in our heads is difficult to undo.
“. . . Didn’t Ron say that somewhere? ” Priceless!
Bad thing.. to have mice about.. get the traps out at once… My brother in law uses peanut butter and I have seen the results, dead bodies of mice… So go by traps, and peanut butter! Lets clear the planet once and for all, of course need a bigger trap for rats and bigger amount of peanut butter…. 🙂 This advice is from Attila the Hun! and the Huns knew how to deal with rodents.. the BRIDGE must be saved at all cost. 🙂
PS; did I just write the above? rats …. V… must be right I am suffering from delusions… 🙂
Barney… when I read your post. I see the trap your Bridge is holding you in. Long as you listen to others and believe that that they know more than you and you are still a follower, walking in other foot step. Evaluation ?… sure is… find you own reality through your own experiences and that is freedom. Best to you and don’t forget to take on elephant gun in order to shoot that elusive freedom! good luck..
Barney… have you ever wondered why people have problem crossing that Bridge? reading your comments and quotations I feel this tornado of words falling around my and burying me alive!
One gets totally overwhelmed and cant move an… Life experiences become very simple when all those significances are erased and one can see clearly than. My reality. 🙂
“Chris: Really? You think you’ve done this? Given us a chance to make the right choice? You don’t view your own comments as rank condescension? You don’t feel condescending toward the dirty masses who do not have Scientology?”
No not at all and I hope that others have not thought this as I have shared my viewpoint from my experience and research. I feel I am a kind person who wants everyone to have the wins I have had, to keep searching for the reasons they got into SCN. I don’t look down on non-SCN and have in the past been a very good FSM. Never for commissions but for helping. So your statement is really out in left field as far as I am concerned. I believe we should be more pan-determined and do everything we can to fix the problem or look for alternative solutions. All one has to do is look around to see the devastation on planet earth or to listen to the news and watch the murdering and mayhem going on to know people need the good parts of SCN. There is more good than bad from SCN and LRH and it is this that should be focused on in our future and in particular should be more pan-determined should we wish to survive and reach spiritual freedom.
I often hear scientologists or other peddlers of ideologies trying to sell people on how bad off Earth is. That we need to salvage the planet or Mankind. But this is not the truth. We are not bad off. There is less mayhem and horribilities plaguing this world than ever in history. Except for the dangers to our climate, and that is one area where LRH has no solution in sight.
Watch this and be amazed: https://isene.me/2012/03/17/selling-a-world-in-trouble/
Gier,
This link at https://isene.me/2012/03/17/selling-a-world-in-trouble/
was SUPAH! I hadn’t read it before. I admit to not having read all your past issues since I had found your blog. So thank you,
it was right on.
‘Except for the dangers to our climate, and that is one area where
LRH has no solution in sight’.
What makes you think that?
Marianne: “What makes you think that?”
Isness and mindfulness. There is no real substitute for these things.
People usually substitute Isness with assumptions and speculations.
The key lies in how one separates isness from false assumptions.
That is mindfulness.
‘The key lies in how one separates isness from false assumptions’.
Can you give a concrete example for that?
Take a look mindfully. 🙂
________________________________
I just ‘hung up’ why you write ‘false’ assumption. As for me,
being mindFUL is more than separating an ISness. It goes
right into blowing the consideration in an isness by which the original creation comes into BEing.
That is too complicated.
Mindfulness is separating ‘isness’ from what you think it is.
________________________________
To make it more clear, mindfulness is separating ‘what it is’ from ‘what you think it is’. The filter here is ‘you.’
________________________________
“Blowing a consideration” = “realizing the falseness of a consideration.”
In mindfulness, one realizes the falseness due using the filter of “self”.
________________________________
Right, thanks. What i had in mind is the following, giving a concrete example.
That ‘you’ is Source, God, Consciousness’, whatever name.
That ‘Source’ once created ‘Earth’, its climate, plants, animals
etc. in a condition in which life can be lived without much harm.
In my view, that condition can be ‘put back’ by stopping the harmful actions, doing the ‘repair’ actions, also ‘getting the
considerations out of the way’ and allowing ‘pure life energy’
flow into this 3D creation. That live energy is going to do the
healing. I know of concrete examples where the ‘soil’ was healed
in this way, that is its original fertility power was restored. I believe
the same can be done to the climate as well, given enough beings
with the purpose and skills to do so.
No, it is not complicated. One can say Yes to an Isness. When
that Isness is ‘destructive’ from the view of the ‘YOU’ (Source),
one can ‘view through’ the consideration (continuous postulate)
which has brought about the alter-isness of the original postulate.
In this way one gets the original creation and also the Creator.
You are using the filter of ‘you’ here in your argument.I don’t think that you fully realize what mindfulness is.
________________________________
‘one realizes the falseness due using the filter of “self” ‘
yes…which means that there is no ‘self’ in mindFUL observation/viewing….which means that ‘self’ is also an
illusion….there is no ‘entity’ as self
that is why i posted Adya to you…i have the same experience
as he has
So, you should understand what mindfulness is!
________________________________
MT.. that was what the spider said to the fly! looking over the comments I have observed how the spider, was weaving his web around you…. Or can I call that a big bad wolf as in the fairy tale? 🙂
The goal LRH was striving for was to create more sanity, making individuals more clear in thinking. It makes sense that if enough individuals were able and aware they would want to save the earth and make it a better place to live.
Barney
What is YOUR goal?
To be the best that I can be and if I can help along the way even better. What is yours?
Thanks Barney. Do you mind if I ask you first before I answer your
question regarding me?
‘To be the best’. What do you mean by it? As a person? Or in
a doingness? If so, what is that?
That goal of more sanity has been there, since there has been civilized man.
Read Plato.
________________________________
Mankind needs to continue the course it is on (ref. the video in the linked post). According to Hubbard’s Conditions, Mankind is in a Normal condition – and thus no big changes are needed. So Mankind, please carry on.
There seems to be no silver bullet for the progress of all. And LRH or CBR certainly cannot claim a monopoly on progress. The jury is still out on whether they contributed to any real forward progress for Mankind. Those claiming that they did need to come up with some hard evidence, not just subjective claims, anecdotal evidence or sales pitches.
Right. One evidence is You. That you are no longer polluting human consciousness with harmful thoughts and its living conditions with harmful actions. You have been helping lots of others to improve their lives and those of around them.
I am no evidence of the efficacy of Scientology. That would be a misuse of the term “evidence”.
Marianne, this response of yours to Geir lacks mindfulness. How does the following proves that Scientology is the only way to improve oneself?
(a) Geir no longer polluting human consciousness with harmful thoughts and its living conditions with harmful actions.
(b) Geir has been helping lots of others to improve their lives and those of around them.
Geir has improved, in my opinion, to the degree he has used mindfulness, and continues to use it.
Mindfulness is the general principle that Scientology seems to be using to some degree, but Scientology has failed to emphasize it. And, therefore, results from Scientology has been spotty.
________________________________
If you want to do more, do it. Go and educate the young, the students, like in the vid. Or travel and share the skills like
you did in Tansania. Or meet those who need more awareness
and skills in helping change the climate. You have all what is
needed for that to make it happen.
I call this response of Marianne incoherent and going on a tangent. How does that relate to the progress mankind has made with or without Scientology?
________________________________
Vin: How does that relate to the progress mankind has made with or without Scientology?
DeE: Good question.
UGGGGG. that is a hell of a lot of evaluation… 🙂 and evaluation is from ones personal reality. Evaluation show where the person is, what believes in, how he thinks. in other word: shows where the dead body is buried. 🙂
Barney: “I feel I am a kind person who wants everyone to have the wins I have had, to keep searching for the reasons they got into SCN.”
DeE: This is what i find very egotistic in scientologists under the guise of kindness or wanting to help. They want them to have wins They had. Well other people in other practices have different wins and most Scio minded peeps don’t allow or recognize those wins to be as great or greater than in Scn.
Why would/should a person have to keep searching for the reason they got into any religion, organization or group?
Regarding not getting the gains promised in the church for the OT levels you may want to read this: “When we examine the Bridge to Total Freedom, in use currently by the Church of Scientology, we find a significant deviation from the Bridge developed by Ron Hubbard as described in RJ 30″….http://scnil.org/english/ot-levels/ I believe it is more that the bridge was altered to prevent you from obtaining your goal rather than the reason that they don’t work, that was never LRH’s intention however it has been the intention of evil entities that over took the church and altered it to harm. I’ve watched and read information from OT’s in the early 70’s and found them to gain great abilities and were quite pleased with their results.
But I am pleased with the results I got from doing the Bridge. Very pleased in fact.
My point is that there is no reason to sell Scientology above any other practice or belief. There is no evidence that it is more effective than Buddhism or Christianity for example.
I answer here. ‘I am pleased with the results I got from doing the
Bridge. Very pleased in fact. ‘
You said earlier: ‘ I am me.’ You said that ‘it is the nativest state
before potential.’ So one result is that ‘ I am me.’
So yes, that ME is not evidence of the ‘efficacy of scientology’ as
it was that ‘ME’ during processing which was doing processing and was waiting for its ‘acknowledment/realization’, whatever word
all along. Is that right?
Marianne, saying that Geir’s gains are entirely from Scientology is not a mindful conclusion. There were many factors here:
(a) First and foremost it is Geir’s ability to look with mindfulness.
(b) Scientology has its own theory about entities, but I doubt if that contributed to Geir’s gains.
(c) There is some guidance from Scientology but it is of a very general nature. Guidance from Scientology does not work when a person is not being mindful when looking.
________________________________
Dear Vin
Please read my comment, as there is no conclusion intended in it.
Just the opposite!
You come across as confused and unfocused. Please clarify what you are arguing about or trying to discuss.
You certainly are not on the same wavelength as Geir, or myself.
Perceiving and knowing. An example. Situation: me and a singer.
The singer is wishing to improve her performance.
Me: perceiving (co-creating, fully duplicating her singing). As a result, there is a ‘stop’, a ‘zero’ created in ‘me’. At that instant,
‘knowingness’ is born, what to do, how to do. ‘She’ instantly ‘gets into’ that ‘stop’ too. Says: ‘Aha’. And starts to ‘move’ the energy of singing in that way. A ‘new creation’ is born. ‘Art’. Now she knows how to ‘listen to=pay attention to’ this ‘zero’. She can improve her performing. Gets on stage and sweeps the audience
with her singing.
I have never learnt how to ‘teach’ singing and singers. What/how to ‘do’ it arose from the moment. We communicated about singing
but now from a ‘common ground’ of ‘knowingness’. It’s a joy!
Marianne, I am going to stop at the first thing I don’t understand.
How is perceiving the same thing as co-creating? What is your concept of creation if there is no permanent self? Is the self created at the moment of perception? Or, are you assuming a permanent self?
________________________________
Marianne, I am going to stop at the first thing I don’t understand.
How is perceiving the same thing as co-creating? What is your concept of creation if there is no permanent self? Is the self created at the moment of perception? Or, are you assuming a permanent self?
Vin
Who is mindful? Is there a word for that?
Whoever or whatever you may think of as being mindful is not something permanent. It may be a node around which thoughts gather. It may be something like a “center of mass” as applied to thoughts. Whatever or whoever it may be, it is itself changing from moment to moment. There is no permanent identity that is being mindful unless it is a fixed idea. But even fixed ideas dissolve though with some difficulty. They are not permanent either. Here we are using some of the ideas from physics. One may see a wheel, and take it to be an identity. But wheels get damaged and can be changed in form. So, it is not something permanent like the body. Then one may that it is actually the center of the wheel, which is the true identity. It looks much more permanent than the wheel. You then find that this center shifts to as the wheel gets distorted and changes its form. The center may shift only slightly, but it is enough to make it impermanent.
So, one may want to think that there is a permanent self, but the giants of thinkers from the east have found “self” to be impermanent.
Mindfulness boils down to “lack of inconsistency” among thoughts. It is not dependent on some who or what,like the “center of mass” of a bunch of thoughts. Awareness lies in the thoughts themselves, and not in some “center”.
There is no permanent source as you envision.
________________________________
Whoever or whatever you may think of as being mindful is not something permanent. It may be a node around which thoughts gather. It may be something like a “center of mass” as applied to thoughts. Whatever or whoever it may be, it is itself changing from moment to moment. There is no permanent identity that is being mindful unless it is a fixed idea. But even fixed ideas dissolve though with some difficulty. They are not permanent either.
Here we are using some of the ideas from physics. One may see a wheel, and take it to be an identity. But wheels get damaged and can be changed in form. So, it is not something permanent like the body. Then one may that it is actually the center of the wheel, which is the true identity. It looks much more permanent than the wheel. You then find that this center shifts to as the wheel gets distorted and changes its form. The center may shift only slightly, but it is enough to make it impermanent.
So, one may want to think that there is a permanent self, but the giants of thinkers from the east have found “self” to be impermanent.
Mindfulness boils down to “lack of inconsistency” among thoughts. It is not dependent on some who or what,like the “center of mass” of a bunch of thoughts. Awareness lies in the thoughts themselves, and not in some “center”.
There is no permanent source as you seem to be envisioning.
Marianne..
HERE IS VINAIRES GAME.
He goes into different blogs and point out to people that they are wrong in their belief and why. He quotes famous persons and because they are famous that gives Vinaire CRADIBILITY and proves what he is saying is truly right because these well known figures saying the same is him and your belief are totally wrong.
He will hook into you and every time you comment he will point out that you are erred again… this is his way to wear you down and to finally feel so wrong that you go to his blog and start to take lessons from him..
You see Marianne, by than you have looked over his blog and have seen for your-self that he has challenged every great intellectual in the history and pointed out where they went wrong and how he is right… Because what he is doing is the only way to know the truth.. his way…
He even goes further by inviting to you to comment in his blog and that ‘’’feels’ ‘like a compliment because after all you could see for your-self how brilliant he is and you can learn the right way to think!
But when you start to comment in his blog every of or your comment will be pulverized by him and if you rebel, protest in any way he will point out that you are not fallowing the rules, and will really tell you what he thinks of you but of course that will not be printed in his blog. Than he will lock you out as a punishment for not behaving.
This is my reality which I have gained from experience. He must control at all cost. and when you go into his blog you can read that your self.. He made every great intellectual wrong.
He makes one big mistake, believes that he knows better and more than any other person on this Planet.
Fairly accurate assessment IMO.
🙂 it has been a good learning experience.
Marianne, you seem to imply that looking through self is like looking through a filter. But then you go ahead and use the filter of self in your example. That only tells me that there is confusion surrounding what you write.
To seems to me, a confusion of who is speaking. Or is that what you mean by a filter Vin?
Hubbard called it glibness.
________________________________
Glibness, I see. Thanks. Mindfull to me would be like sincere, honest and open. Close?
To me, mindfulness has the following characteristics: * Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer. * Observethings as they really are, not as they seem to be. * If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place. * If something does not make sense then do not explain it away. * Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe. * Let the mind un-stack itself. * Experience fully what is there. * Do not suppress anything. * Associate data freely. * Do not get hung up on name and form. * Contemplate thoughtfully. * Let it all be effortless. Mindfulness spots inconsistencies and resolves them.
________________________________
Vin: To me, mindfulness has the following characteristics:………”
Thanks Vin, I understood these and they are very helpful.
I glib understanding of self is still bound to self while asking you not to be bound to self.
________________________________
Vin, Glib in a Thorndike dictionary #2. speaking or spoken too smoothly and easily to be sincere.
Would you be so kind as to say your last answer differently for me? I can’t seem to relate this one.
I was using the word “glib” in the sense that Hubbard used. There is lot of “spiritual advice” floating around that sounds good. But when you look at it closely it does not make much sense. It is too subjective. Advice regarding the self is such. People repeat it to others without understanding it themselves. This is the case I find with Marianne’s advice. She is advising others about self, but her own example shows that she is confused on that subject.
On this subject I would go to the original masters of the East, such as Buddha, and ignore all western interpretations.
Sent from my iPad
>
Vin, now I could understand that very well, thank you. That’s a good look, and it makes a lot of sense. The only definition I could remember of ‘glib’ from Hubbard was the idea that someone would just study without comprehending and pass over the words. So I looked in the simple dictionary I use for help.
I cannot relate to all the fuzzy words used my Marianne which don’t make sense to me. She certainly creative in writing. Art is in the beholder’s eye, eh?
Western interpretations of the East. Got it!
Now I am in the West, and I am providing a western interpretation (or analogy) to eastern ideas but only after understanding those ideas in the eastern way.
Please look at the analogy in terms of a “center of mass” given in the discussion with Marianne. A “center of mass” appears to be more permanently there than the object, but even that doesn’t exists when the object ceases to exist.
Similarly, self may seem to exist more permanently than the whole person with the body, but even that does not exist when the whole person with the body ceases to exist.
There is no absolutely permanent self or Source.
Vin
I understand why you say there is some confusion. It is based on
the word ‘me’. Here is my clarification based on perception and
experience.
1. Source, God, consciousness, ‘ME’
2. Spirit ‘layer’.
3. Thought ‘layer’.
4. Emotion ‘layer’.
5. ‘Solid’, ‘matter’ ‘layer’…..bodies, objects…
2-5 are extensions of Consciousness, of ‘ME’ having different
vibrations, frequencies, ‘forms’. When we get to a ‘human being’,
it is the ’embodiment’ of this ‘ME’. It can be considered as a ‘separate entity’ but it is not so. Everything ‘vibrates’ and there is
a connection on and between each ‘layer’. Their ‘energy’ is the same ‘pure energy’.
When one ‘awakens’, there is the perception of ‘everybody’ and
‘everything’ is ‘ ME ‘. Different forms of the same ‘ME’. If we were
talking now in person and were looking into each other’s eyes, this ‘me’ here would see ‘me’ in your eyes.
In the East some use the word ‘ THAT’. As there is no word for it,
which is pure, alive… I am not wiser than them, cannot describe
it better than the above.
When I say that there is no ‘self’, it means that the ’embodied’
‘me’ is ’empty’ in its core….it is ‘connected to Source’ by a ‘stream/flow’….any ‘knowingness’ is the result of this connection
to the ‘Source’.
Actions and speech are mostly spontaneous, natural and ethical.
The affinity, love for Life is strong.
I wrote my above comments to Geir in the light of this. Based on
what he writes and what I perceive from the energy flows. I hope
I succeeded in dissolving the confusion I have caused. If not, please say what is still unclear.
This above is part of my present perceptions on my present awareness.
Marianne,
There is a danger in your explanation, which relates everything back to ‘ME’ without defining what ‘ME’ is. If two people have to figure out ‘me’ by looking into each other’s eyes, then it is subjective. It leaves any understanding open to assumption. This is neither scientific nor mindful.
What is this ‘Source’ that ‘me’ is connected back to? Is it something absolute? There is nothing like this in Eastern philosophy.
“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” – Buddha
What ‘comes through’ as ‘glibness’ is not that. I am quite aware
that I need to clear some concepts. Also aware that I cannot use
parts of logic at that high level You, Geir or marildi do. Take it
as a heartfelt acknowledgment from me, as I am always in awe
when you are using logic in your discussions. I have been learning a lot from that. Though this is the case with me, which
has been improving, there is another side of it.
When I use the word ‘flow’, it means ‘life flow’. As such, it is able
to directly perceive and ‘know’. I live ‘by’ this flow. It does not need
the mind as a ‘tool’. So yes, I cannot express what it perceives
sometimes. Thanks for your observations Vin and Eliz.
I apologize for being harsh with you, Marianne. It is not my intention to put you down in any way. The logic that you seem to feel in awe about is also very limited in nature. You are not missing anything in that department.
I am not criticizing you for any lack of logic. I am criticizing you for forwarding beliefs that are not well defined, and you are making no attempt to define them properly. It seems like a one way flow coming from you on this blog. I simply want to engage you in a discussion so I don’t go into a spin by reading your stuff.
I can’t make head or tail out of what you mean by the following.
” When I use the word ‘flow’, it means ‘life flow’. As such, it is able to directly perceive and ‘know’. I live ‘by’ this flow. It does not need the mind as a ‘tool’.”
What is a ‘life flow’? How does it perceive and know? How can it not be a mechanism of the mind?
http://www.the-tao-of-flow.com/flow-and-acceptance/
Marianne, I want to engage you in discussion and not somebody else. I read the first few lines of what you referred to me and felt confused.
Please summarize for me your understanding of the reference that you provided. Thank you.
Sent from my iPad
>
Vin
I wish to close this cycle. It started by me giving two responses to
what Geir wrote. There was one question to him. He did not respond to it, which is absolutely fine with me. You did. You gave your own answer referring to isness and mindfulness. It is also fine with me as it is your reality and I gave examples of some of
the experiences I have had so far. Experiences. I added a link and
previously a vid by Adya because what they say, write is crystal
clear to me as I share the ‘ground’ of the experiences with them.
I could say I am ‘aware’ of the ‘ground’ and also most of the experiences.
I went through our cycle and still hold what I wrote. You may say
‘subjective’, not ‘mindful’, ‘glib’. It’s fine with me, I am sorry if
I caused any ‘confusion’ with what I wrote and some words-concepts are ‘fuzzy’, as Eliz says.
I cannot and wouldn’t write more at this point. Two things which
I want to clarify though, as a round-up.
I nowhere wrote that there there was such an entity as ‘self’ while
you write that I did so. The other is that when one sees in the
‘other’s ‘ eyes that the ‘other’ is ‘ME’, it is not ‘figuring’ it out, as
you say. It is a direct, complete, unshakable knowing-experience,
whatever word for it.
That is part of the present awareness here. I posted lots of vids
of those persons whose are the same or similar. Spontaneously,
out of good-will, never wishing to give advice but with the purpose
of enrichment.
Thank you for reading what I wrote and thank you for sharing your
reality with me.
Finally: I still have no idea what Geir would answer to my question
and I did not think about the ‘mechanics’ or reasons of why he
did not answer which you did. So, on my part, it is the closing up
of this cycle between you and me.
I apologize for any consternation I may have caused. This is just the scientist in me.
Vin
You did not cause anything. I can clearly see now that it is futile to
use words, concepts to describe certain experiences. They can at
best be treated as ‘pointers’, in some cases they are even misleading. In my view, the key is in ‘doing’ and ‘being’.
Example: I have recently started kung fu. After seeing it in movies,
in some shows, reading about it, the experience is not even close
from ‘inside’. It is about handling and preserving Life. Life energy.
I used to do some sports. This time the experience is very different from any other sports activity. Even after this short time
practising it I am in awe of those many-many persons who practise
it in its real spirit. As by doing so, what I see now, they are contributing to the ‘aliveness’ on the Planet. I mention this as there are, there can be so many types of activities which bring about aliveness but I haven’t seen their true value yet.
Vin, I like, have always liked what you write. I can also tune into
the scientific mode and enjoy that part of human life.
Thanks for this cycle, I have learnt from it.
Right, how effective auditing is or can be, only one person could know, have reality on: the one who is getting the sessions and confronts self’s realities-belief.
PS: have I achieved my dreams, have my realities changed, have my life changed because of auditing? Words cant describe the changes and the understanding has come because of confrontation not just self but the Universe also. 🙂
Gains come from the ability of the individual to look mindfully. If a person is not able to do that then none of the Scientology processes shall work.
People have been able to look mindfully through other guiding principles too as in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
”Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc” The universe was here established long before any of the concepts of these dogmas come to be.. even mindfulness is just a recently established idea.
Any one who really want to know the origins of these concept should be looking a bit earlier and look for the source where they have come from who were the Entities who brought these thought with them and what was the reason for their thinking, believing that these belief are true and fact.
The universe is infinite… and the teachings are, what : few thousand years old?
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, interesting.
hello dear Rafael…. long time no talk! happy to share communication with you once more… please give your brother my best!
You commented” interesting” and because spirituality- its concepts, beliefs I have found ”interesting, I was very interested to find the source of such a belief.
Since nothing is original on this Planet everything dribbled down on the pike so where is the origin of these belief?
Why the blind belief that it is TRUE and THAT IS SPIRITUALITY….. that is not my understanding,
The cognitions regarding the spiritual beliefs what is, put me into shock for a few hours till I was able to accept the reality of the cognitions.
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, my Bro sends you his best wishes. About real spirituality, I guess it is the field of life transcendence. What practical doingness do you have to achieve this so wished and sought consciousness level.
Rafael, it is personal, yet communal and it is outside of the beliefs which holds the MEST U. in place.
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, a practical doingness which is ” personal, yet communal and it is outside of the beliefs which holds the MEST U. in place.” sounds like there is no practical doingness to learn in the first place.
Rafael, true spiritual experience can not be described with words or have a manual to fallow. It can not be described simply because using word are best when they point toward solid object.
Rafael… been thinking, now the practical doingness what is how you see it, how you would fallow that instruction would be your understanding and what you would achieve with that doingness, the outcome again only would be real to you.
Rafael you wont find the truth when examining what others say or right, You might agree to those concepts but still that will only be on agreement.. In order to find what true for you, you need to examine your universe and find what you really looking for. But, keep it in mind looking over one life time worth of experience will not give the same understanding as when one examine ones existence in the universe.
Eliz
‘who were the Entities’…..’what was the reason for their thinking’….
Very useful comment. Thanks.
V….””The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” – Buddha””
Can you prove it? Could he prove that, can others prove that?
Sounds so smart but is it true? I believe Gautama was looking through many filters him self.. Just words, nothing more.
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, you got my attention, you say: ” I believe Gautama was looking through many filters him self.. Just words, nothing more. ” . This comment looks like a very honest one.
Rafael… My reality… when one is in the MEST universe… have to have some crocket, altered reality from what really is. He was anchored to a body.. for the starter right there is that good old GE… than comes the up-bringing which is solid as a door to the bank vault. Than comes other agreements if these are not filters what are?
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, you talk about the good old Genetic Entity, is it real and proven or just one more fictional filter ?
My dear Rafael… no one can prove anything to any one.. We all have to find the truth for self.. To me it is, but that is my reality and that reality come from experience.
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, it seems to me like the best answer, thank you.
Rafael PS: everything which is not solid in form is a illusion, a imagination, even the solid forms represent those illusions-imaginations and the solidity is only a illusion hehehe you are looking for the truth?
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, yes, just like everyone. Truth is for me the key for a bigger consciousness timespan.
Perfect viewpoint 🙂
Rafael in my above comment should be others SAY OR WRITE, not right. to a Hungarian ear the two words sounds just about the same.
V… “Gains come from the ability of the individual to look mindfully. If a person is not able to do that then none of the Scientology processes shall work.””
Very good, you have demonstrated what real is to you. Scientology auditing did not work for you, mindful looking was not there. And I am sorry that it was your experience. But yes, confrontation works.
V…..””People have been able to look mindfully through other guiding principles too as in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.””
over the centuries the above teachings were beaten to death, filtered out thousands of times and only what people could tolerate , confront was left… and even that filtered, altered reality causes problems between groups who believe in one or the other. The killing have not stopped.
Geir, I am sure you have noticed that Vinaire never admits he is wrong, he never looks into to his own beliefs but only questions others what they believe in and points out why the they are wrong, and of coursed all these he do in the NAME OF KNOWLEDGE, TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE BETTER.. I never seen a bigger lie, a justification to make others wrong and the self right. Once one is being lured into his blog he puts that person under his total control.
He said my way was questioning the universe not valid because I was under hypnotic influence and delusional.
But when I asked what was the difference him questioning the realities of the universe or me doing the same.
AND Why his questions lead to discover the truth and my questions lead me into hypnotic trance, he would not answer. I have asked the same question 6 times but after that he told me off and locked me out of the blog saying that I am not ready to learn, when I will be he will let me back.
I also pointed out to him that he never questions his own beliefs but the most learned persons on the planet and point their wrong out..of course that is according to him and I only questioned my own beliefs since I know I can be very wrong and I have proved that to my self for 40 years in session. no comment from him.
It was on interesting experience.
EH: “Geir, I am sure you have noticed that Vinaire never admits he is wrong,…”
Yes, I have noticed.
It is very easy to make others wrong since this universe is set up that way.. but you had and any one who held the cans in hand learned to make self wrong, and that was the reason one went into sessions to find the right answers.. it takes guts to admit yes, my viewpoint worth just about a bucket of hot air..
This universe is indeed an incredible place to have fun! Reading what you write Eliz, anyone who feels like going through this com cycle started by Vin has a good chance to get ‘enlightened’ about
what game and no-game mean. Based on what you write your experience with Vin has been, from one aspect it can clearly
be seen that he has been playing a good service to those who want to see through duality (dichotomy) as such. Me-you, right-wrong, good-bad, here-there etc. One cannot fall prey to being made ‘wrong’ without asserting one’s being right and/or feeling subconsciously that one is wrong. So one will attract to oneself
one’s subconscious counter-part manifested so as to confront it.
Then the duality, which is a mind-construct based on a judgemental thought is gone. One is then ‘zero’ with the ability to
be or not be any point of view, any thought, any emotion, any…..
So, each ‘one’ of the ‘ONE’ is doing a service to each ‘one’ and when ‘one’ gets aware of the ‘value/worth’ of that service, the real
value/worth comes to light: LIFE’s service to itself by creating beingnesses while with a closer look Life sees that these beingnesses have no substance…it is ‘zero’ all along…..but what
a ‘zero’ when one is in the midst of an experience…! I so love seeing it! It is ‘source’ ‘me’…..this is the experience here now.
Thank you Eliz for your com! I am learning…
Love you back my dear!. Yes games are fun.. by now I have learned that in session through cognitions that there is much more to learn if one is on the losing side.. much much more. and that makes one a winner. By now the duality of the universe has vanished because I see no matter what I experience I have created that experience so how could I be a loser? Yes, Marianne you are on the Path.. we all are but it makes the difference when we know that. 🙂
Marianne if you are interested to read my take on Karma I have put a post up in my blog. If any question, you have my email.
Thank you Eliz. Read it, no question, what you write about is clear.
Have a lovely evening!
i agree. i had done the ot levels out side the structure of the church up to and including ot 8 (although the processes described by the author above were different). the gains were phenomonal. i then acquired the super power processes. again phenominal. my viewpoint is taking responsibiliy for your own (and then others)creations whether they caused a good effect or bad. remember “before the beginning was the cause and the entire purpose ot the cause was the creation of effect”…..soooooo who is cause???? I AM
Hi Ed. Welcome 🙂
tools were given paid for and I assume understood too… By the looks of what i just read that was not Understood by the majority of the so called OT’s so why not those who felt there was more have continued. I have continued and I DO KNOW WHO IAM AND WHAT I AM AND WHAT ARE MY POWER, what KNOWLEDGE I GAINED< AND I DO KNOIW WHAT IS MY FUTURE AND WHAT I CAN DO HOW I USE THAT POWER I GAINED!
I recently got ahold of a 1970 version of ‘Scientology 0-8’, because I wanted to read the scale of awareness. But by the way, I browsed through it all over again. It’s quite different that the version I had read before.
The EPs of OT 6 and 8 read so great. But it makes me think ‘if those people have had those EPs, why the hostile or covertly hostile attitude, I noticed in some occasions’?
I mean pan determinism is a huge concept. And the way I see it now, it isn’t that a being determines other beings, but it determines itself –being ‘other beings’ too. So then, those ‘others’ aren’t really so ‘others’ from such a perspective. Do you see my point?
Also, I read the factors again, and they make sense now. Not because I’ve read more SCN. I haven’t. The thing is SCN is contained elsewhere too. It’s claims are not anything new. It’s ancient. It’s terminology and processing tech is, and makes it appear different. I’ve found some really good stuff in some Buddhism and Hinduism as well as in people who are somewhat related to them, but don’t belong there.
Spyros, here’s my understanding. In 1970 the OT levels from IV-VIII were completely different from what they are now. Those were the Original OT levels (sometimes called the “old” OT levels). Around 1978 LRH discovered the “NOTs case” and not long after that OT levels IV-VII were all changed to NOTs levels (different NOTs rundowns and training). LRH had discovered the “NOTs case” in 1978 and made NOTs auditing a prerequisite for OT VIII as that was apparently the barrier to getting the full gains from OT VIII.
There was never anything in writing from LRH that said to cancel the original OT levels or even to replace them with the NOTs levels, but that is what occurred and it was supposedly Miscavige who did it. I’ve heard that some Independents are doing both the “new” and the “old” OT levels.
Also, according to someone I know who did OT VIII when it first came out in 1989, pcs were having trouble with it. Some Independents say this was because they had not done the original OT levels and/or their NOTs auditing wasn’t done standardly. In any case, OT VIII was truncated by Miscavige in a matter of months after it was released – as a “handling.”
Yeah, I’ve read about this (more or less) before. I just hadn’t noticed how ‘high’ those old EPs were.
OT VI:Ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pandeterminedly; extends the influence of the thetan to the
universe of others
OT VIII:ABILITY TO BE AT CAUSE KNOWINGLY AND AT WILL OVER THOUGHT, LIFE, FORM, MATTER,
ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME, SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE.
That’s some wild stuff!
Also I read the reason for those physically troubled OTs wasn’t processing, not matter how good or bad it was. I don’t know whether I should mention it. I’ll ask my magic ball.
What “physically troubled OTs”? Are you talking about some OTs who did the “old” OT levels, before NOTs came out – or some new OTs who had done NOTs but not the old OT levels?
“Also, according to someone I know who did OT VIII when it first came out in 1989, pcs were having trouble with it.” <– I think it must be about that–those dates. It was how the 'NEW' levels came out afterwards.
The NOTs rundowns were already being done for a decade before OT VIII was released, as pre-requisites to it, even though they weren’t called OT levels. So I can’t see how making them into OT levels would have any relationship to pc’s getting sick or not getting sick.
I can’t tell what happened with any certainty. All I know is from what I’ve read second or third hand. But yes, it’s not logical that so many dropped dead on the same time, because of processing that was being deliver before.
Another thing on your first post above that I wanted to reply to was your last paragraph:
“Also, I read the factors again, and they make sense now. Not because I’ve read more SCN. I haven’t. The thing is SCN is contained elsewhere too. It’s claims are not anything new. It’s ancient. It’s terminology and processing tech is, and makes it appear different. I’ve found some really good stuff in some Buddhism and Hinduism as well as in people who are somewhat related to them, but don’t belong there.”
It may very well be true that the knowledge in Scientology isn’t new, if we can believe the spiritual teachers who say that the ancients already knew all the basic truths of the universe. However, this means that no other modern philosophers or psychotherapists came up with any new truths either. We should say as well that Scientology presented those basic truths in a new and succinct way.
On top of all that, the even more significant contribution is the value of the many pieces of tech that apply those basic truths so as to assist people in realizing them – even if only partly so, as it seems to have turned out. So I wouldn’t just mention this unique and considerable contribution “in passing,” the way you seemed to do. 😛 😀
It is a matter of viewpoint whether you will interpret what I wrote as ‘in passing’ 😛
What I wished to point out was the potential for those prinples to exist elsewhere too–even in places that have nothing to do with SCN. I like that.
I know an author who is a psychologist, and I read her article today, and I was stunned…
Remember, truth is timeless and also indentity-less 🙂
“It is a matter of viewpoint whether you will interpret what I wrote as ‘in passing’ 😛 ”
I know. It was just fun to put it that way to emphasize the point. 😉
“What I wished to point out was the potential for those principles to exist elsewhere too–even in places that have nothing to do with SCN. I like that.”
Me too. And some of the observations LRH made, others have now observed – up to 6 decades later.
“Remember, truth is timeless and also identity-less 🙂
Gee, I’m glad you reminded me. 😛 😀
While readin LRH, or Mooji or others, it was often like they expressed viewpoint that I’ve had myself, prior to covering them with other’s viewpoint. So, you see, I don’t even think it is needed for one to borrow ideas from Buddhism or elsewhere to form something like SCN.
So true. This is the other reason why it’s rather hypercritical for people to say “LRH didn’t come up with anything new! Everything in Scientology was copied!” 🙄
Maybe he copied another who had such cognitions 😛 😛
Kidding, OK. I don’t know. To proove LRH was true or not is not a game I want to play.
Yeah, right. And he copied The Factors, the Logics, Pre-logics, Axioms and all the Scales – just to name some of it. He was a total fake, right? 😛
Just kidding you back. You aren’t someone looking for ways to make Hubbard wrong. I don’t even remember you criticizing anything about him or Scn. One thing I could criticize would be his missing the principles regarding ego – for himself and for others.
I’m not sure what each one means by ego. But I think so as long as you know some guy Spyros, you will know some ego.
‘Ego’ means ‘I’, in Greek, btw.
You Greeks have all the good words. 😛
“Ego” is a word like the word “self” or the word “I” – all of these have several meanings, depending on which school of thought. Usually, “ego” refers to the accumulated personality, and so does “self” sometimes. But other systems of thought differentiate the ego/self from the “real Self,” the absolute Self – which is a pure beingness/awareness, as I think you know. The word “I” can mean either the ego self or the real Self – as if we need more confusion on the subject. 😛
Yes, I know some guy named Sypros, and I think you’re right that some part of the ego will always be there – as long as we are interacting in this universe. Even liberated Masters like Mooji or Adnashanti differ in their worldly beingnesses. 😉
Wrong spelling – that should be Adyashanti.
It seems present language wasn’t made for this kind of things. Perhaps I should learn Sanskrit 😛
I know ‘ego’ was used by Freud. But I don’t know how he thought of it, exactly. Maybe spirituals adopted it afterwards.
But to get back to what I said. Without a human self, Hubbard wouldn’t be Hubbard. He just wouldn’t exist. I guess by ‘ego’ you mean some sort of case, identification.
What I think you and others don’t understand, is that when you interact, communicate with others, no matter how clear you are, you also receive what they send, in your U. You have to be willing to be constantly at cause over a whole group, if you want to be in comm with it, and still be perfectly cool about it, if other beings are not perfectly cool about it. I myself left it. And maybe both me and him were wrong for doing so. But how could I demand that another shouldn’t, while I myself left too?
If you expect from another person, you could wind up being at effect, if he used that. So, I wouldn’t want to expect from him, nor anybody else. I don’t think anybody ought to be more responsible than me, specially about me.
If he granted them their self determinism, he’d want them to deal with it themselves.If he didn’t he’d be a slavemaster. And then yes, he could be blamed.
Anyway, I said all that based on own experiences. I don’t really know what was going on. I have some vague idea.
But obviously, the FOT book says that counter-creation brings about chaos, not destruction (as-isness). So I don’t think, after what he had written, he would be coaxing people to counter-create the way they did in the GO, and I don’t know where else. That would be contradictory.
What you wrote in a comment above – that “Hubbard wouldn’t have been Hubbard without the human self” – is obviously true. And that’s a pretty good definition of ego – “the human self.” You may run across a few other ways people use the word ego, including Freud’s original definition of it. But for the way you and I are using it, here’s a definition from the online Urban Dictionary, which is more of an Eastern non-duality viewpoint:
“The part of you that defines itself as a personality, separates itself from the outside world, and considers itself (read: you) a separate entity from the rest of nature and the cosmos. Perhaps necessary for survival in some evolutionary bygone, in modern times it leads only to (albeit often disguised) misanthropic beliefs and delusion. In short, “I.” [Example sentence:] Ego is responsible for hate, fear, and delusion.”
As for what Hubbard wrote in FOT and elsewhere, we could call all that his non-ego views, insights from the “real Self.” He obviously violated those non-egoic principles, according to quite a few eye-witnesses. This is why I say that ego seems to have brought about his downfall – although we will probably never have the whole truth about what occurred.
Got it about ego.
I am very allergic to bullies, and even more to bully superiors. I wouldn’t justify such attitude, no matter the ‘good reasons’. Same goes to forcing or tricking people to be controlled.
I think he could be tough and outspoken. He suggested to others to be like that too. But I don’t think he was any bossy bully.
Somehow, that indicates to me. But I can’t back it up with the known data. 😦
Well I can’t ague having no data. But it would be very ironic considering he helped me break my own getting dominated.
Handbook for preclears page 26 “And the funny part of it is, only those
who have a long, long list of things to hide would even begin to reprimand you.” <– It's about making somebody guilty.
Also, you can go here
Click to access 213080830Self%20Analysis.pdf
hold the 'ctrl' button and press F. Type 'list 11'. press enter twice and read 😛
I read. Great stuff. Have you ever done that list or other lists in SA?
SA was the book that started it all. Yeah I’ve run that list and some others and some ARCSW.
“SA was the book that started it all.”
Awesome. For some people, SA would be all that is needed to get a mini-awakening – known in Scientology as a “release.” I”m guessing that in your case, one or more of the definitions could have applied.
RELEASE, n. 1. one who knows he or she has had worthwhile gains from Scn processing and who knows he or she will not now get worse. (HCOB 9 Aug 63) 2 . a person whose case “won’t get any worse.” He begins to gain by living rather than lose. (HCOB 17 Mar 59 II) 3 . a person who has been able to back out of his bank. The bank is still there but the person isn’t sunk into it with all its somatics and depressions. (HCOB 2 Apr 65) 4 . a release purely and simply is a person who has obtained results in processing and has a reality on the fact that he has attained those results. That severely is the definition of release. (SH Spec 159, 6206C19) 5 . a release is an individual from whom have been released the current or chronic mental and physical difficulties and painful emotion. (DMSMH, p. 170) 6 . a series of gradual key-outs. At any given one of those key-outs the individual detaches from the remainder of his reactive bank. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)—v. the act of taking the perceptions or effort or effectiveness out of a heavy facsimile or taking away the preclear’s hold on the facsimile. (HFP Gloss)
I used to be a very self-analytical person, prior to reading the book. And analyzing myself rarely -if ever- helped with anything. But it did the opposite. Nothing in SCN helped me adequately so as to snap out of it. Despite gains, I did it even more considering mental phenomena into existence. Only a couple of years ago, I dealt with it for good. Now one can analyze me as much as he likes, it’ll just go through me.
I had pleasant and boring times with SA. Maybe also because I assigned it as duty to myself, to do it, as if it was homework. And I was young then too, btw. But I didn’t have what you described.
Okay. Well, like I said, I was guessing – probably misinterpreted what you meant by “SA was the book that started it all.”
It’s cool that you guys revived this old post 🙂
I think so too. This thread is one of your best, not just because of the huge number of comments but all the interesting exchanges. Funny stuff too! I was looking through it and had quite a few chuckles. In a way, it’s too bad that the members our little discussion group mostly drifted off. But that’s to be expected I guess. 😦 🙂
Also, as you know, I didn’t get processed much in SCN, either. Maybe I would had handled it that way. But with all those sec checks and ethics orders and case analysis here and there, I might doubt it 😛
Also, I think if somebody trusts to use his processing tech, it’s strange to think he was ill-intended, ill-tempered, troubled etc. I wouldn’t want to become like that myself. It’s plain human logic.
I think it’s nice to discuss ideas, instead of people or groups, so as to have philosophical discussions, instead of pro- or anti- discussions.
In your opening post of 2013-01-26, Geir, you wrote:
All the way to the top you go. To OT 8. Each level has its own specific end result. On OT 8, it is:
“I now know who I am not, and am interested in finding out who I am”
And that is the end of the road. You don’t get to know who you are, what you are or anything positive. You get to know who you aren’t – and you are interested in finding out who you are. That’s it.
I am not saying this is how the majority of OT 8s feel after completing the level. I didn’t, and I know others who have justified the level in a satisfactory way. But I know of several that have had some serious issues and even contemplating suicide after reaching such a spiritual dead end hostage situation – where you get the next fix only if you give your heart and soul to a greedy management. Mad much? You bet.
Letting anyone halt at the end result of OT 8 is cruel. If anything, the church should have waited with the release of OT 8 until they had the rest of “finding out who you are” canned. It’s like doing a surgical operation half-way and leave the patient.
Yes, Karen De La Carriere wrote on this in her Outer Banks Facebook group on July 8 at 10:34pm she confirms your statement about the “EP” of the level. In her post she referred to being privy to the entire OT VIII procedures ~~ all 5 versions!!!!
However, Gier, I do find your comment regarding the level not being about anything POSITIVE to be very insightful and also damning of the tech when you wrote: “You don’t get to know who you are, what you are or anything positive.”
Processing toward the positive is one of the very important principles of Knowledgism and a key to its successes and results. Indeed it is one of the key actions on the very first and entry level processes of Vital Fundamentals One, as the shown in the following excerpt:
THE VITAL FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS ONE
THE FIRST BASIC TARGET
The first target in processing is to enable the client
1. TO KNOWINGLY BE WHAT THEY ARE BEING.
2. TO KNOWINGLY DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
3. TO KNOWINGLY HAVE OR OWN WHAT THEY ARE HAVING OR OWNING.
The second target is to enable the client
4. TO KNOWINGLY PERCEIVE WHAT ANOTHER IS BEING.
5. TO KNOWINGLY PERCEIVE WHAT ANOTHER IS DOING.
6. TO KNOWINGLY PERCEIVE WHAT ANOTHER IS HAVING OR OWNING.
Therefore, the first vital step in the session is to process the client to being himself.
The next vital step in the session is to bring the client up to observing and fully perceiving that the processor is a spiritual being and is himself. (In attaining this, you run out any misrepresented identification or symbols that the client has on the processor that can ruin a session).
To do this, the first action in the session is to do Vital Fundamental Process One.
This produces the product of The Processor plus the Client is greater than the Client’s case and non-optimum life situations, thus providing the Green Zone ability of Work With.
VITAL FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS ONE
Describe your mood level.
(Cause Indicators)
What game are you playing?
(Cause Indicators)
Who are you?
(Cause Indicators)
Where are you?
(Cause Indicators)
How big are you?
(Cause Indicators)
____________________________
Of course, there are gradients of the knowledge of who you are that the client can go through as they progress . . . but they key here is that, from the very first sessions, the client is put on the course of attaining the positives and the “making more of them.”
The fixation on getting rid of the negative that Scientology practices is a futile endeavor that simply leaves the client in a hole, a deep dark hole.
Roger
Interesting
Well said…most of it.
Roger ;“”However, Gier, I do find your comment regarding the level not being about anything POSITIVE to be very insightful and also damning of the tech when you wrote: “You don’t get to know who you are, what you are or anything positive.”
LOL… looking for who you are or what you are?????
LOL…. Good one… TILL ANY ONE BELIEVES THAT THEY ARE ‘’SOMBODY OR SOMETHING’’’ TILL THAN THAT PERSON IS just A person a BEING OF SOMETHING: INDINTIFYING WHITH MATTER OF SOMEKIND, INDETIFFYING WITH BELIEF OF SOMEKIND.
INFINITE.. is INFINITE and not being something or someone, long as the person identify with ideas-beliefs-matter, being this or that.. that person haven’t attained the understanding what Infinite means.
“The fixation on getting rid of the negative that Scientology practices is a futile endeavor that simply leaves the client in a hole, a deep dark hole.”
Roger have you on MU what cognitions are, what happens when unwanted items are confronted? It seem that you do or you haven’t expressed self well-clearly. [more on cogs later.]
Please keep it in mind that ‘’positive ‘’ what is positive in the person’s reality that too is belief and nothing more.
By taking into sessions these ‘’positive’’ beliefs and confronting them one by one: pleasure moments, the moments the person believe is positive-up lifting, survival by doing so the PC would find out that every positive belief was created in order to entrap.
LOL.. Roger, you or anyone else will never be free till those pleasure moments too are confronted because the ‘’’ pleasure moments’’’ are truly addictive and the PC-Infinite will always look for those pleasure giving incidents and therefore captured-held-entrapped by them!
Not until these ‘’pleasure incidents’’ confronted, not until than the PC will realise that those lovely pleasure giving incidents are the heaviest – complicated mind boggling traps ever laid in order to capture and enslave in other words keep the person inside embroiled in the MEST U: WANTING MORE OF IT!!!!!!
Tell me Roger, who is in their right mind will look for negative activity?
But every person on this Planet is relentlessly pursuing –chasing-hunting-tracking activities in order to feel that heavenly bliss but you might not realise by now that pleasure activity too still is MEST activity and not spiritual because the bodies activity is causes that pleasure moment ;sensation, feelings.
By completing OT 8 is simply a door opening to a new levels -awareness of realities. Same as any other Grade or OT level were before it.,
Who ever believes that all is ”the MEST U. confronted by end of OT 8 and there is no more.. that person haven’t realized what infinite means: infinite is infinite.. and we are experiencing this infinite through matter and the universe is endless… we have so called lived ”endless” lifecycles and being a human that is less than a drop of water in the ocean, in all oceans here.
“”” On cognitions””””” this might help you with your MU.
By confrontation of the negative unwanted realities DO BRING ON AWARNESS OF THE TRUTH which is never negative or positive in content just IS.
So you have on MU… by believing the person will end in a hole.
Far as I am concerned and to this I have arrived by having sessions those realizations=cognitions their content never negative or positive: it simply IS.
The TECH works…Nothing wrong with the TECH… but has to be used and by having hidden standards what OT levels or how any other List should end.. what that end result should be is dangerous that is setting that PC up for loss.
By the way Roger.. this Universe MEST U. would not be standing if not for equal amount of negative-positive realities.
The Negative belief could not be present if its positive counterpart would not hold it in place.
So why just concentrating on eliminating the negative beliefs?
They are held there by very powerful conflicting beliefs the plusses !
Pleasure moments are not easy to have session on, but can be done, I have done it.
After a while when enough positive beliefs-considerations are as-ised the Infinite=me become aware of very different universe.
Elizabeth Hamre.
You seem to think you know better than Roger what he understands or not in this area. Why is that?
I just ‘‘just think-know very differently” than Roger since I have different experiences and I don’t have to agree with his realities-beliefs which come from his experiences using the Tech. and my beliefs how I know –understand the results of sessions= THE COGNITIONS itself and what are their affects this understanding I gained from extensive amount of time spent in sessions.
Roger believes by taking negative items into session that person will ‘’dig a deeper hole’’….[ that is his experience] LOL… that is on item itself and can be taken into session and have a realization on it why the person believes [Roger] that it is a harmful action!
Taking that negative –so called ‘’unwanted item’’ into session and by confrontation=as-ising [we never erase but we only get unglued from that incident…we are no are longer affected because the cog. brought understanding. ] a new reality-cognitions comes to light, it is a WOW, on AHA, this cognitions is like on surge-rush of energy [yet it is not on energy mass] and this energy =realization now affects – realigns all the existing realities of the cognize.
[ The rush felt when cognizing is the pure space regained.. this space is void of energy-boundaries=no considerations existing and therefore gives the experiencer the sensation of freedom, because only’’ beliefs-concepts’’ can give have the effect of confinement. ]
LOL: After all there are only so many negative items-incidents are in any persons beliefs, after a while, it might take hundreds or few thousands of sessions or even more but that person will realize that these are just experiences ‘’labelled’’ as negative- bad and only collective evaluation and agreements give that labels=belief that experience is good or bad.
When that person no longer has the focus on those heavy-negative attention grabbing experiences, that persons awareness will expand considerably and will have sessions on what considered ‘’interesting’’ topics: where true fun begins!
Cognitions are pure in form, they are undiluted unaltered and never been evaluated before and these cognitions are powerful because they have the ability to affect-alter the cognizes life=beliefs.
People when studying subjects regardless what that subject is…people cognate and that realization becomes a turning point in their life. ONE COGNITION CAN DO THAT… just think what a hundred or thousands or ten thousand or many millions of these realizations do when they replace those unwanted confusing-altered beliefs
.
When any person continually use the auditing technology and of course the sessions results are realizations that persons beliefs-awareness changed — altered with each of these cognitions and slowly these cogs eliminate –or should I say replaces the old foundation the old ways.. old negative- altered realities thinking and behaving etc..=conducting life.
Scientology’s auditing technology focuses on the end of session’s phenomenon which are VGI’s + Cognitions.
By now I have realized that Cognitions are besides being a true revelation on what actually has happened in that confronted item, they are the door opening into different awareness: on any subject the Cognitions are not the end to but the key reality-understanding-knowledge to the beginning.
There is no end to our ways of understanding, infinite after all is infinite.
PS: I LOVE PS’s… just for your information: Cognitions have changed this Planet considerably since LRH and his group started the sessions and the out pour of cognitions over the years from many: BY BILLIONS AND BILLIONS!
As you know since you have had many sessions and cogs that you experienced in your sessions that you had connections to other beings and in sessions-realization had severed these connections.
But every cognition you ever had from the very beginning you had your sessions was ‘’heard’’ by those who haven’t been separated by –as-ising, therefore these being too had your cognitions-realization ‘’’ mind you: on their own reality level’’ but still had that mind boggling cognition which set them free!!
How to clear the Planet? Billions of cognitions affected the Universe and tipped the scale into different direction it might looks like disorderly-chaotic place at the present time but look around you: all those young people who have incredible talents true OT talents!!!
These incredible talented people [BT, CL, they had been] had sessions, heard cognitions and were cleared of the heavy confounding masses of beliefs.
Here is a wonderful reality: that ”realizations”’ since they don’t contain, are not made of mass do spread through masses of energy: there are no boundaries for a cognition for how far they can go.. what and who they can reach.
But this is my reality; I am off the orange crate. Thank you.
Elizabeth.
PS: I have spent countless amount of time over these 42 years in session on the subject so little written about in scientology:: This subject: not having bodies.. not being held by them, not being inside or having burdened by their existence.
This state can be called Ghostly State or spiritual but I don’t like that concept since it is connected to tooooo many beliefs.
Ghostly State is where we truly exist even when we believe we are in the body LOL.. forget that one.. In this wonderful State communication too is real-exist.. and cognitions are the light which brings freedom to all.
As a wise man once said: We are all spiritual, some are just not aware of it.
I agree. We god-like presences only connected to the physical realm (and any other realm for that matter) by our desires and agreements.
IoV
Elisabeth,
LOL… looking for who you are or what you are?????
LOL…. Good one… TILL ANY ONE BELIEVES THAT THEY ARE ‘’SOMBODY OR SOMETHING’’’ TILL THAN THAT PERSON IS just A person a BEING OF SOMETHING: INDINTIFYING WHITH MATTER OF SOMEKIND, INDETIFFYING WITH BELIEF OF SOMEKIND.
INFINITE.. is INFINITE and not being something or someone, long as the person identify with ideas-beliefs-matter, being this or that.. that person haven’t attained the understanding what Infinite means.
the question is plainly “WHO ARE YOU?” and you should note that there are two questions before it:
1) Describe your mood-level.
2) What game are you playing?
These questions are asked repetetively until the PC has good indicators.
Of course the question is directed to the person and you as auditor let the pc look for the answer.
Instead of writing this process off as you do, you could of course try it.
I am doing it solo (giving the questions myself and writing down the answers) with good results.
Also my partner has had very good wins from this process alone.
(including the other questions posted above.)
From experience I can tell you, the sequence of the questions is very wisely chosen, it’s not random.
Using this process I have seen that it can establish the person in the present time, in a higher tone, knowingly playing the game they are playing, i.e. more alive and on purpose.
I think it’s best to at any time have an answer to any of the 5 quesions.
You should know what your current mood-level is,
what game you are playing,
who you are,
where you are and
how big you are
Kind regards,
IoV
“””Using this process I have seen that it can establish the person in the present time, in a higher tone, knowingly playing the game they are playing, i.e. more alive and on purpose.”‘
In other words they are still in MEST U… very much of a human stuck in the Human realities and they are just playing away the game always have played.
No change.. no awareness of different universe. LOL.
I haven’t missed sessions solo sessions since 1976 when I attained Full OT 7.
So I can say I have had more than Over ONE HUNDRED THOUSANDS SESSIONS since than..and millions of cognitions.
But thank you for expressing you reality: what you have read into what I was writing.
I have no problem with that since it is your reality and that has no power to influence my universe.
Keep on shoveling that crap. for 42 years and the result will not be ”game playing” but understanding the universe it self: how and why you have created what you believe in: LOL.. Enlightenment ON SELF… which to is not what you believe now is.
By the way you are ”still in hiding”’ behind some dreamed up valance and have given a ”name” to that valance. =isle of view.
best to you.
Elisabeth,
I understand absolutely where you are coming from.
Of yourse, we are connected to this physical universe and of course we are playing, to some degree (some more some less) the physical universe games.
You writing here on this blog using a mechanical keybord to type in agreed upon symbols so I can understand what image you want to convey to me is a physical universe game.
Even telling me my condition of “still” “in hiding” is a game you’re playing.
But that’s ok.
You of course are free to be the infinite believing that you have nothing to do with those mundane mest universe games, and free of Identities, Valences and the Ego.
But one thing is for sure, it’s better to know what game you’re playing (in whatever universe) than doing it unconsciously. Because only when you’re aware of the game you’re in, you can stop to play it.
You write:
“for 42 years and the result will not be ”game playing” but understanding the universe it self: how and why you have created what you believe in: LOL.. Enlightenment ON SELF… which to is not what you believe now is.
Yes, of course. This is adressed in many R/Ds. And of course, because the infinite is infinite, as you seem to like this term, what you see as the best asumption today, can change and be upgraded, improved tomorrow.
Kind regards,
IoV
I am sure that process works wonders on lower levels: with that I mean no put down- not at all but describing the PC who haven’t had tens of thousands hours in session and few million cognitions.
Far as I know TECH works and the auditing question can address all realities-beliefs regardless what they are.
I of V…….
“who you are,
where you are and
how big you are”
The above if there is any answer found would describe; what the infinite believes is doing The location is and the size of the body or other energy form he believes he is: Those questions do not lead to Ghostly State= state of the Infinite but they lead to different believes what matter is.. LOL… BANK INTO BANK!
Elisabeth,
thanks for your reply.
If I get you right, you conclude that what the being answeres is only his “belief”.
This may very well be so. But what is a “belief”? Did you ever take the time to clear this word in a standard dictionary?
I highly recommend it to you.
Your whole life is structured around your belief-systems. By you.
Nobody said those questions would lead you to some “ghostly state” 🙂
These questions will lead to you becoming counscious of the answeres you are giving.
You assume something about the “infinite”. This may be very well true for you. This would be a possible answer for you.
“Who are you?” “I’m the infinite”…
Nobody will tell you whether or not your answers are right or wrong. It’s your answer and your session.
You said:
“I am sure that process works wonders on lower levels: with that I mean no put down- not at all but describing the PC who haven’t had tens of thousands hours in session and few million cognitions.”
This is an infinite process, but I would say it will work the greatest wonders in the beginning, when you start running the process.
Later, as you progress you will be more and more aware of the 5 questions and the points will be “in” so to speak.
But then again, after a huge blow out, when you run this little rundown again, you can be very amazed about the answeres that you would come up with.
I any event, as I said before, it’s important tol know your tone level, what game you’re playing, who you are and what roles you play in your/the game. And also the process will lead you to be located much better and know the scope of space you can span.
Kind regards,
IoV
P.S. excuse my sloppy english.
I don’t want to cause MU about the amount of sessions.
When the as-ising becomes very fast the sessions are short therefore in one day the solo auditor can have many as dozen or more sessions on very different items.
Some session last only for few minutes before the cognitions comes.
I Spend my days in sessions since that is all I want to do in order to understand what I have created and believed that, that was my life it.
LRH talked about fast as-ising, which happens regularly when major part of the Bank is already as-ised.
We just glance at the question the understanding item: the cognition is instantaneous.
Than other cognitions fallow, as the persons universe is realigned by having this new realization and that again brings on more cognitions.
I admit I haven’t counted the amount of session I have been in since 1973.
Best to you.
I am not interested anymore in understanding what I created. But I am interested in understanding what I create.
I will not debate your reality.. I am to totally fine with how others think.. how they live etc.. etc..
But if you don’t care to read and to know what others have to say than don’t ask questions.
[What we create now is just a very poor replica of earlier creations. ]
what ever we have regardless its origin that is all what we got
to some that is enough, and there are others who have different needs therefore embark on adventures into unknown territories and that is their creation.
who can say which is better?
“” I am not interested anymore in understanding what I created”’
I have been aware of that for years.. about 5.
But did you get my point?
roger expressed-aired his beliefs I aired mine on that same subject, that is all what has happened.
i did not write in order to convert, to convince anyone that what i have written- believe in is the bottom line, the ultimate truth .. i simply aired my beliefs and as i said i gotten your views some years back. LOL and we really understand each other… you care much about what i write as much i care-interested about your reality.
now… we have something in common.
life is simply wonderful adventure and i ”assume” we agree on that also.
best .
Geir,
I have read many of your Posts on this blog but have never written here up to this day.
I can tell you that your story was one of the most inspiring ones when I was just about to leave the church.
Thank you.
I like your Free Will philosphy.
I liked your TV appearance in Sweden.
Thank you for being who you are.
IoV.
Thank you right back 🙂
Just to share my own inner mental feelings with isle of view and Elizabeth Hamre, as they are doing:
LATIN TEXT:
In articulo mortis
Caelitus mihi vires
Deo adjuvante non timendum
In perpetuum
Dirige nos domine
Ad augusta per angusta
Sic itur ad astra
Excelsior
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
At the moment of death
My strength is from heaven
God helping, nothing should be feared
For ever
Direct us, O Lord
To high places by narrow roads
Such is the path to the stars
Ever upward
Thank you Dear Rafael, as always it is joy to share space with you.
The problem with OTVIII is that if it was truly done to completion it would not be affordable so it is squirreled. It is something that should take months or even years to complete. After all, one is attempting to go back to the beginning of the time track an unravel all the times one’s theta line has been compromised or integrated with other theta lines. That really is ongoing considering we have a track going back 212 trillion years.
Also a lot of case will be hidden from view unless one is trying to activate their OT abilities. That would mean operating without a body with intention alone or separating from the energy field of the physical body with a physical universe view of the body. This pulls in another level of case with monitors both automatic and dimensional monitors. The dimensional monitors will actively try to stop one by throwing black masses at one or astral parasites. When one runs into a monitor the only thing that matters is one’s ability to confront, audit, hold one’s position in space and time, and figure out what is happening to one.
If one walks away from OTVIII not fully in pretty good control than one is still stuck in an incident at some location and time below one’s level of awareness or has a suppressive being interacting below one’s
level of awareness(they make every effort to hide) that has the ability to influence indirectly.
In my opinion OTIX should be postulate running. One makes a postulate with an intention that projects out past the energy fields of the body into space and goes about his business to make it happen checking each day to see if there in any barriers to intent, creativity, education, or action on the subject. The stronger the intention the easier it should be to achieve the goal because things will automatically be falling into place for self if the intention is truly working.
Who one really is, is a being without thought or action. Everything else is mocked up knowingly or unknowingly by self(cause) or another(destiny).
Actively mock up who you are and what you want to accomplish. If there is a barrier to that then it has to be located and overcome with intention processing and taking action.
Everything one is or has been has been has been mocked up by self or another.
OT is being who one chooses to be and doing what they choose to do with intention and overcoming any barriers.
The OT8 EP listed above is incorrect and is likely a Miscavige version. The CoS has never delivered LRH’s OT8 which is 3 distinct parts. At best it delivered about 1/3 of it followed by 3 subsequently altered releases (updates). it is mired in out-tech. Not surprising that the CoS is out tech or that Miscavige would derange this level as he has the others over the past 30 + years of his savaging the subject, ruining its name and destroying the tech.
This is one of the stories about OT8. It is a rumour that I have yet to see verified by facts.
Geir, did you feel you got the ability gain for OT VIII that is stated on the grade chart?
“Handles the primary reason for amnesia on the whole track.”
No idea. I can’t verify that what LRH claims is the “primary reason for amnesia on the whole track”.
Can you say what change you did experience with regard to amnesia on the whole track?
And what was your thought back then about the “ability gained” stated on the grade chart?
I meant your thought about the stated ability when you completed that level.
Not much thought on that. I’m pretty sure nobody have that, though.
I didn’t really make much of an assessment on that “ability gained”. I’ve never had much of a grasp of what that is or whether that is attainable. I just had the gains I had as explained a couple of times here on my blog.
Okay, thanks. I just reviewed your previous post on OT 8, and the best I can make of the stated ability gained is that when you “sift out which past life memories are yours and which are from other beings” (quoting you from the earlier post) – or sift out your own past viewpoints, as you believe is the case – either way you are, according to the grade chart, handling the “primary” reason for amnesia. This seems to make sense because considerations – whatever the source – can get in the way of viewing anything clearly, including the past.
Out of curiosity – would you say that your recall of the past improved on OT 8?
I don’t understand why that would necessarily be the Primary cause of amnesia on the whole track. Could you explain that?
As for my own recall, it seems worse. But I’m OK with that.
I was just using the same word as is used in the description of the ability gained. I stressed it because it indicates that this level doesn’t handle the only barrier to amnesia on the whole track, but that it’s the “primary” one.
On my question about your recall, I specifically was wondering about past track recall. Not that it would make any difference in the possible interpretation that I came up with, since there are apparently other reasons for amnesia too and these might still be acting as barriers.
But why do you think it actually is the PRIMARY reason?
Any recall is worse.
It isn’t that *I* think it’s the primary reason. I was just trying to see how the EP of OT 8 would perhaps make sense. You know – the study tech where you consider “How is it that way? How isn’t it that way?” back and forth until you come to a conclusion.
But I can’t see Any reason why that would be a primary reason for lack of whole track recall. At this point I think it’s just something LRH decided to write, knowing full well that when OTs reach level 8, they would never question anything he wrote. Could you see any reason why there couldn’t possibly be another primary cause?
The idea that a person is “blinded” by his own considerations – or by considerations he takes on as his own – seems to me to be the most likely reason for being unable to “see.” One of my favorite LRH quotes:
“Actually you are a giant tied down with cotton lint. You tied the knots and furnished the string and said where you’d lie.” (HFP)
For all his faults, I don’t think LRH did the kind of thing you describe. I think he really wanted to come up with solutions to aberration – regardless of other reasons he might have also had to “smash his name into history.”
What about the need to Not Know in order to have a game? Seems more primary to me.
I’m sure you are right with regard to the fundamentals of a game. But I don’t think amnesia is a matter of Not Know. I’d say it’s on the scale at Forget, which is much lower. Not Know is a postulate, whereas Forget is a Not-Isness.
Sure, but the postulate is surely more primary than anything else. Pull that, and you’ve really got something. I also think there are reasons more primary in forgetting than what he comes up with on OT8, which is less and less likely the more i think about it now.
I would agree that the postulate is more primary than anything else. At the same time, postulates are what considerations and viewpoints consist of – the more I think about it. 🙂
What are your thoughts regarding “reasons more primary in forgetting than what he comes up with on OT8”?
As I said, the postulate to not know, then that postulate unwittingly to not know (on automatic), then the compulsion to not know due to failure of not knowing and the ensuing anxiety to not being able to play a game. …Just to delineate the first levels of causes much more primary than what LRH came up with, which I in any case see as plain wrong given the very red herring of body thetans.
Interesting. Sounds very Hubbardish, if I may say so. 🙂 I consider it a compliment.
Would the statement for the OT 8 ability gained fit your theory (even though LRH may have mistaken BTs for viewpoints)?
No it wouldn’t. OT8 delivered no such thing. Not even close
I didn’t phrase my question right. But basically, I still say that since OT 8 is handling considerations – which, by definition are “continuing postulates” – regardless of where they originated, the auditing procedure does seem to be “primary.”
Thing is, with no BTs, there is absolutely no link between what’s done on OT8 and the ability gained, as there cannot be any misownership.
What about the link I theorized – that a person’s considerations would keep him from viewing reality clearly? The more fixed the viewpoint, the less fluid one can be. Kind of like the uncertainty principle: once the “particle” has collapsed into a fixed consideration, reality itself becomes fixed.
That’s a really long stretch. Just because some kind of considerations is handled, doesn’t mean that the ability gained can be justified. If that was the case then you could just as well or even better write that ability gained at Clear or Grade 2 or Grade 1 or OT 3 – 7… Just about anywhere else would fit better than on OT 8.
You said that on OT 8 you were supposed to “sift out which past life memories are yours and which are from other beings.” But since you don’t believe that other beings are involved, what do you think was actually happening on OT 8 that gave you greater gain than any other level on the Bridge? What made it different?
What I got from it was that I left the past behind. It went poof! And the effect of that was a worse memory but me more living in the present. So just about the opposite of the ability gained. I find it hard to justify for LRH on this.
Putting aside the supposed ability gained, my question now is to ask HOW you got what you got. Why would that particular procedure result in you leaving the past behind? In other words, what would the theory be underlying that gain?
I realized, through that procedure that those memories are not “me” leading to “my past is not me”. And as I said, nothing to do with the supposed ability gained.
You’re still telling me WHAT you got rather than HOW or WHY you got it? Maybe I should phrase the question this way: What were the underlying mechanics?
I already told you. The procedure to verify that a memory is “not mine” meant to me “not me”, leading to the realization that memories in general is not me, leading to losing my past, leading to a life without shame, blame or regret. Clear now?
That’s an awesome realization. I actually see it as the goal of the spiritual teachings that are concerned with the ego. They described the ego as a fabricated identity that exists only in the mind and is composed of memories that comprise a record of the past. So when you say that you realized memories are not you, and that as a consequence you lost your past and all the associated shame, blame and regret, it seems to me you’ve attained the goal of those teachings – literally SELF-realization. No wonder you felt you got the biggest gains on OT VIII.
Now I’m curious if you would have any additional auditing goals, if additional OT levels existed, or if you are at a point where further gains would come from life activities.
Just to complete the other comm cycle, it still seems plausible to me that BTs or unexpected viewpoints (either) are the “primary barrier to amnesia on the whole track.” The EP you got simply went beyond that.