I have been thinking about my changing viewpoints on Scientology. How I started out back in 1984 when I first encountered the subject, how I became a Scientologist, when I discovered the church management was corrupt, and how it went south from there. Being a fan of simple models, it dawned on me that this can be easily represented in a simple matrix.
Although the model is simplistic and harbors several issues, it seems to serve well to explain my own path from a wog to a scientologist to an independent scientologist and to being me (with some viewpoints on it all).
I thought of a simple matrix where the X-axis represents a person’s sentiments on the subject of Scientology, while the Y-axis represents his sentiments toward the Church of Scientology and it’s management. I boxed it all in so that we get a 100% positiveness regarding Scientology to the right and 100% positiveness toward the church management at the top. Conversely, we get a 100% negative viewpoint on the subject to the left and 100% negative viewpoint on the church at the bottom. We end up with four quadrants that I have labeled:
- Scientologist
- Independent Scientologist
- Critic
- Hired gun
In the middle, we find people that do not identify themselves with the quadrant where they reside, and remain fairly neutral in their views – somewhat positive or negative along either axis.
A Scientologist would be someone who are in the Church of Scientology, supporting it to a lesser or greater degree. An independent Scientologist thinks Scientology is great, but objects to the church and how it is run. A critic dislikes both the subject and the church, while a hired gun would consist of lawyers, PR personnel and the like who don’t have much good to say on the subject but likes how the church management give them money for the job they do.
At the edges of the matrix we find fanatics.
People move inside the matrix. They can move fast or slow, often or seldom, erratic or smooth. But as the person discovers new information on Scientology, he moves one way or the other.
A fairly typical path could be something like this:
Here the person starts off as somewhat critical to Scientology – both the subject and the church. He gets in contact with the church, gets convinced that there is something positive about it, experiences some personal gains and end up as a Scientologist. He then experiences some mismanagement, questions how the church is run, discovers that the church management is corrupt and ends up rejecting the church. At this time he becomes an Independent Scientologist. He is all of a sudden free to question everything Scientology. He start thinking for himself. This gets him gradually over to protesting elements in the subject itself until he protests quite a lot of it, ending up as mildly critical to the whole lot.
But people travel their own path in this diagram – and they end up at different places. It all depends on what information they acquire and how unafraid they are to question their beliefs, how willing they are to experience Scientology first hand and many other factors.
My path in the matrix is something like this:
I already see improvements that can be made to the model, but I have decided to present it like this for simplicity.
It would be interesting to hear your own journey in this Scientology Matrix. If you want to draw your own path, you can use this template:
If you’d rather just spell it out in words, we can use numbers to represent the axises. Each axis goes from -5 (left or bottom) to +5 (right and top). The numbers are (X,Y) – or (Scientology,Church). In this way you can indicate where you are at a given year or period of years, like my journey represented in numbers (rounded to integers):
1984: 0,0
1985-2006: 4,3
2007: 4,1
2008: 4,0
2009: 4,-1
2010: 3,-2
2011 – 2013: 2,-3
Want to share your journey? Want to improve the model? Leave a comment.
Geir Isene - uncut 
How are you defining “Scientology” in you OP?
Scientology = The subject (Ethics, Tech, Admin)
The Church of Scientology = The organizations under the direct command of RTC.
I don’t believe a worthwhile discussion can lump those three things together. And that’s also where you and others go wrong in your own thinking, IMO.
Also, you wrote in the OP: “An independent Scientologist thinks Scientology is great, but objects to the church and how it is run.” Independent Scientologists can’t be lumped together in one category either. Some of them have an orthodox view of all three parts of Scn (which is one end of the spectrum). At the other extreme are those who think quite highly of the tech but want very little, if anything, to do with the admin or ethics. And there are all combinations in between.
Of course. And as I said, it is simplistic, so there are at least a hundred ways to flog the model or even split hairs with it. But, I still find it quite useful to graphically represent my own journey in the Matrix World of Scientology (pun intended). Can you define specifically your own two axis and then plot your journey on that?
Geir: “Matrix World of Scientology”
Very funny. 🙂
I decided your matrix creation is actually a pretty good one. Comparing my graph to the typical one you drew, mine would also start dead center, go up even a little higher, drop downward similarly but swing over to the left only about a quarter as far over as the line to the left on the “typical” graph – about in the center of that quadrant.
I know what are you saying. I have been introduced to Scientology by independent scientologists and there were a lot of mixed point of view on that “free zone”. For start, they don’t have any rigurous admin or ethics application, they only have Tech (Dianetics, for example). So, they are all “squirrels” to the admin and ethics tech, and they do. I could see adaptations and changes on the Tech. There was orthodoxes and innovative. I guess we could create others matrix axis to different spectrums. For example: from “wog” to “scilo”, and from “squirrel” to “eagle”. I think every independent scientologist is a “squirrel”, and I don’t think that is derogatory. Some of them are proud to be declared on that, expelled from church or entered on the “fair game”. Some other are crazy goats and paranoids.
Elias, I like your colorful way of expressing yourself. Recently, I was wondering how the word “Scientologist” would be defined for someone not in the CoS, and now you have me thinking about it again. Among former Scn’ists who actually deliver or receive Scientology services, there seems to be a spectrum from an extreme of having an orthodox viewpoint that involves a relatively literal interpretation of all the writings – to the other extreme of using only some (maybe even just a small part) of Scn and mix in with it other methodologies or the practitioner’s own developments. For example, Marty delivers some courses and audits the whole Bridge but also utilizes other philosophies and tech that he feels would be appropriate for a specific individual; David St. Lawrence has altered the tech in some basic respects, Dexter Gelfand has done something similar, I believe, and so on.
Then there are former Scientologists who don’t deliver or receive Scn services of any kind but, to one degree or another, use the principles and tech in their own lives. This would include the use of the ARC and KRC triangles, the tone scale, TRs, word clearing, and parts of ethics tech and admin tech. They may also continue to read or re-read the writings and listen to the lectures. There’s also a subtle “use” of Scientology as well, by which I mean that the understandings a person has gained have become part of their lives. As a good example, knowing what a ser fac is can shed a lot of light on a given situation – as would the 3rd party law, or the principle of as-isness, etc. etc. Essentially, the key thing for this group is that they consider the basic principles and tech of Scn to be beneficial, and to that degree they may consider themselves and call themselves “Scientologists”. However, I suspect that the majority of them don’t put much attention on the label one way or another.
A third group of former Scientologists feel that there is nothing beneficial in Scientology and some of them even consider it to be harmful, greatly so in the opinion of some.
In each of these three broad groups, it seems to me that there are varying degrees of attention on the harmful activities of the CoS in both the past and present. IMO, that degree is determined by not just the data they have about those activities but what they themselves have gained – both case-wise and knowledge-wise, and not just in Scn but elsewhere.
As you can see, I have a similar viewpoint to yours.
It’s like “scientology”, as used on this matrix, is a complete package on which you don’t only take a part of it. It would be like a self-labeled catholic person just for believing on something or just sympathizing with catholicism as a great thing, but the orthodoxes catholics would be on disagreement.
On this sense, Scientology would not be just “ethics, admin and tech”, it would mean more of “hubbardian point of view”. The more on the right, the more you understand and agree with the Hubbard point of view. May be his personal point of view, on wich there are an entire organization covered with religion and the religion part of this would be the management. The axis “x” could be renamed as “ARC with Hubbard point of view”, and the axis “y” could be renamed as “ARC with organized religion”. Some independent scientologists attack CoS but as they continue deep on Hubbard’s POV they build up another organized religion called “I-Cause”, for example. Another church behind a church.
I find something interesting on the diagonals. Between scientologists and critics, there is a very visible opposition. They are antagonists eachother and is difficult to make a middle agreement with them. But the interesting thing is the other diagonal, between hired guns and independent scientologists. They are opposites too. But, what are they? I think the “hired gun” part is on the corporative, political, administrative and goverment social sector. So, its opposite are… hippies, anarquists? Who made the squirrels be squirrels? Who made and applied the fair game? Who ordered to disconnect? Who wrote ambigous policies and ethics? Maybe was Hubbard himself who takes the responsability on this, but the one who never revised or corrected what was wrong with Hubbard takes entire responsability. To be continually ignorant or having a fixed view about something, that is a personal choice (and egoism).
There are plenty of contradictions and chaos on the independent scientology field. They can’t be easily labeled. As the opposite “hired gun” have absolute, fixed, unidirectional, and dogmatic POV and actions, on the independent field we find almost everything with different gradients of rigurosity and correctness, from orthodoxes to almost madness. It’s the opening.
Elias, thank you very much for your insights. You have an admirably wide perspective!
Obviously, you’ve studied the whole Scientology scene, from the subject itself to the history of the movement up to PT. For that reason, I’m guessing that you have a high regard for the subject itself as an applied religious philosophy. I’m curious how you would graph your own Scn journey and how you would describe your PT stance on Scientology.
Also, what exactly did you mean where you ended off by saying that it’s an “opening”?
And then, as you will see on my path, I went across all the “freezone”:
https://isene.me/2013/06/07/the-scientology-matrix/#comment-41344
I’m on organized religion since I was born in one of the most organized protestant “delirious” churches in the world: seventh day adventism. Hence, on right statistics, I guess there are more adventists than scientologists if we have to compare (and building churches, and on expansion, and graphics, and materials, and sub-divisions. For God sake, they even have their own boyscout division).
So… I was very related to the “churchie stuff” on the administrative and social reality, even with their mistakes and dogmas when I emotionally and mentally grew up. Then, Scientology were not so different to my “accustomed child universe”, I was very hopeful and almost went fanatical about the idealized world that is described on Scientology materials. I studied all the religions and I’ve been trained to respect all the religions, and also to dispense on them. So, maybe I have the “sociological analysis” from there. It’s natural. I can analyze the social phenomenon despite its doctrine. But when it’s about having critical thought, or just “looking” (like here some masters said, lol), I’m unforgiving since I studied philosophy too, not just “the philosophy from…” but epistemology and gnoseology as tools too. I could say I fell over the Scientology’ bubble from “above”, but that won’t sound very modest on my part, but that was my call. I was very, very interested on Scientology philosophy, I was focused on the central gnoseological corpus. But then… well… then I realized that reality is stranger than fiction. On philosophy there is some jargon labeler about author’s followers, like saying “you are very Nietzschean” if you have too much afinity with Nietszche’s person, or you are fixed on his point of view, or you are a specialist on his particular mental construction.
Then, for me, it was not strange at all that people around Hubbard’s concepts fell into “hubbardite manías”. (from etymology “Hubbard” + “Dite or Dyte”, a suffix from Greek “dyein” that means “go in, dive in”.) So, maybe people fixed about Hubbard can be “hubbardian”, I don’t care. You can be an “ad hominem” fan of Hubbard, a dogmatic “hubbardite”, or just a philosopher (that means, you prefer the truth and not some “persona”, in modern french “personne” that means originally “mask, false face”).
So (I did it too extensive already, lol) I was on philosophy when I first learn about Scientology and the Study Tech got my attention mostly. I also had been on Gnosis and other herbs… I kept approaching to the subject tool by tool, until I got all the axioms, factors, and the very backbone of Hubbard’s enterprise. From the middle to upper levels, it was matter of time to realize that Hubbard created an iniciatic model just like the franc-masonry (that is highlighted in comparison) and I can see it for what it is, not for what is not. (for example, Hubbard statements about what is proven false). It took me time to see what it was. As a philosopher, I just wanted to know, not to believe.
And that’s all about me. (?) And on the very personal achievements, as I see it as relative as a personal journey, I kept with what was already on me and what the Scientology’s mirror gave me, nothing more, nothing less. And I see that mostly was already there, as I see on testimonies about people like Geir. He is OT 8, that’s only a label that represent his deep involvement, but I knew all the people you could find and classify on the freezone. Most of them with radical and strange points of view. I don’t like to apply some reductionism or labeling on them (as Scientology churchies do) as they are human first, then what they do, and then what they know, and only then what is their point of view about Scientology as whatever else I would insist on. If I would be forced to do the labeling anyway, I would say that “independent scientologists” are “Squirrels” as they are most interested on combine what they learned or what they know inside Scientology with the world outside the Scientology bubble. And with that goes all the mistakes, confusions, puzzles, schemes, diagrams, cognitive integration, blown minded, hits on the face, persecutions, disconnections, social banning, humilliations, and experiments to be proven or just tested. That’s why it’s the freaking point of opening. I like squirrels, is a cute label.
IMHO.
lol
Elias, you never disappoint! Thanks for the very interesting story of your personal background and broad philosophical perspective which was gained from much dedicated study. And if I duplicated you correctly, what you are saying is that – at long last the subject of Scientology has been set free to follow a course of growth and enlightenment in the Independent field (or “freezone”). And that is what you meant by “the opening”. Like!! Plus, as frosting on the cake, you threw in your usual humorous and light touch – “I like squirrels, is a cute label”. 😀
I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to answer my question so thoroughly. You made me wonder what you are now pursuing in life… 🙂
I have seen that many leave the church through the independent groups. And most eventually get all out of the scientology mindset.
For me: I dropped both the church and the teachings when I realized the scam. IMO LRH didn’t bring new knowledge into our world. He was never source.
Welcome Dorthe.
Would you like to share some (numerical) details of your journey?
I was in for 14 years. Public never staff. Left 8 years ago.
It’s not clear to me how to insert a photo or diagram into a comment box. Is this possible?
It is possible, but you need to host the diagram somewhere – like Flickr, uploaded to your WP blog or somewhere (Dropbox will also do). Then you need to link it from her to the place where it is hosted. Like this:
Put the following inside angle brackets:
img src="http://path_to_your_picture.jpg"
More here: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp
Thank you, I will try.
I think this matrix expresses some commonality in the journey in and out.
For me, it was the growing disparity between the values I was taught were core to Scientology and values that were as much as a 180 degree reversal. i.e. I was okay with questionable policies as long as they were questionable and subservient to core values such as the creed, the concept of high ARC, recognition of the rightness of the being, code of an auditor, code of a Scientologist, acts of an auditor, auditing & learning only occur if self-determined — just to name the core elements. Once I understood that these elements were deliberately ignored or dismissed at will (and usually as a hidden action) to serve the group agenda on an ends justifies the means basis, I was done.
I should add that when I say I was done, I mean I was done with affiliation with Scientology in any way, independent or otherwise.
The reason for this is that when I examined the core elements that I did believe in and did find useful and valuable, they always turned out to be values that are stand-alone. IMO these should be standalone, able to be incorporated into any group without enforcing an affiliation.
Example — freedom of speech. Not unique to Scientology. Self-determinism — not unique to Scientology, shows up as the element called personal freedom, integrity, choice and citizen participation. It is the core concept that outed slavery. Pan-determinism — I see this a lot in the concept of unconditional love, caring for the environment, non-violent communication, etc.
Good points.
Maria, +1
Maria: For me, it was the growing disparity between the values I was taught were core to Scientology and values that were as much as a 180 degree reversal.
Chris: I see this paradox of hypocrisy in each of the religions with which I am acquainted. Do you think this is elemental to religion?
Yes I do. It marks the point where need and greed override integrity and desperate men take desperate action.
Maria, you are now my guru. I hope I’ve used the correct gender.
I’ve added Maria to my guru list too.
🙂
I went in at 0,0 in 1984 (then 1986 in the SO, probably at 4,4).
I’m now somewhere at 0,- 5. (I see the different parts of Scn different – positive or negative).
I experienced management (it actually doesn’t deserve that name, as it is a suppressive regime with a sadistic dictator who has delusions of grandeur) at its worst in 1998.
I really have problems with allocating between.The problem is not your matrix/model – it is fine. I have the feeling I was somewhere in limbo. The best I could describe it in the past was: “It was like living at the same time in two different universes (one of them good, one of them bad). I got caught up in an increasing turmoil with dichotomies whirling madly around in my universe”.
After I was out, I needed some time to sort it all out. But that was only possible after I had decompressed in different stages.
I think it depends also on HOW the person was experiencing Scn and the different parts of it. I did not have too much auditing, but what I got, was superb; life changing to the positive – really standard (before GAT). With “ethics” and “justice” (I have to put it in quotes when it relates to Scn and normally before the justice putting an “in-“) I had very bad experiences, pure insanity and suppression (for me and others).
But there are persons who had good experiences with “ethics” and they like it. I read reports from people who had bad experiences with auditing (especially after GAT). I don’t remember hearing or reading from anybody something positive about the Scn “justice”. Some people like the admin tech selectively.
This is my subjective opinion, not an assertion of correctness.
Thank you, KA. Nice to get to know you better 🙂
I started on the independent field, with fanatics influencers among 5,0 and 5, -2, not too much against the church management. 5 years has passed since the first time I heard something about Scientology until now, and the first I heard came up by anonymous saying shit. So, I get it from influencers among -5,0 and -5,-5. Then I went to Scientology and I confirmed the 5,-5 extreme perspective. Then I learned that not all the technology was complete or consistent (haha on Gödel), so I take the 0,-5 perspective. And the last thing I learned, was that the Church management was not so demonized and that its scenario was almost inevitable from all the material’s inconsistencies.
I think this matrix is usefull to tip extremes perspectives or ranges in between, and I give it credit on the social influencer-follower perspective, so I gave the “influencers” ranges. I guess I didn’t vary so much on my personal quest. I started on 3,0 (I didn’t give a crap if management were good or bad) and moved along time to 0,-3, I got balance. I think I am very objective, so can’t say it is good or bad as a whole. I’m going to point that 0,0 would be the very neutral and objective point of view.
With more insight about my journey, I consider it was a curve. So I corrected some points and I think this is more honest and accurate. I guess this matrix would serve as a self-exploration tool.
The yellow point would be where I’m going to be, most likely, because of the pattern trend.
I would draw for myself somewhat different quadrants (they are open to evolving and adding details but these are its basics, at this moment)
Top right would be the entering in and the degree of living in Ron’s (Scientology’s) universe with the highest being extremely dependent on and extremely loyal to Ron’s viewpoints (including the case that supposedly exists in one’s universe).
Bottom right awakening of and recognition of a viewpoint and then of viewpoints in one’s universe which disagree with Ron’s universe.
Bottom left would be recognition of the harm and benefits of living in Ron’s universe with the harms eventually overpowering the benefits.
Top left would be an almost complete abandonment (letting go) of Ron’s universe. a harmonious reforming and strengthening of one’s universe, achieving the establishment and pursuit of one’s own path and gaining tremendous confidence that one can achieve one’s goals by one’s own means..
I am at 3/5 point in the top left and entered Ron’s universe with a need to live in and follow a universe which would quiet the tremendous insecurities and fears and very low self esteem that existed in my universe accompanied by an equally tremendous need for Ron’s universe to be the “ONE”.
Regards,
Luis
Luis, your post reminded me of the paragraph below from 8-8008. Ironically, what you did seems to parallel the idea here, but in a very different way.
“The original definition of Scientology 8-8008 was the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the apparent infinity and power of the MEST universe to a zero for himself, and the increase of the apparent zero of one’s own universe to an infinity for oneself. This is an ideal and theoretical process, it is not necessarily attainable in actuality or reality but it very well may be. It can be seen that infinity stood upright makes the number eight: thus, Scientology 8-8008 is not just another number, but serves to fix into the mind of the individual a route by which he can rehabilitate himself, his abilities, his ethics and his goals.”
Hi Marildi.
I hope you read this and thus are able to receive my apology for not responding to your comment.
Once I wrote this, it dawned on me that as part of my quest to be rising above the attachment to Scientology was to not yield to the impulse to see if my comment was posted and whether there were any comments about it.
I do notice in your postings in this and Marty’s blog that you consistently seek (intelligently so as you are quite learned in Ron’s writings and statements) to make known that Ron had offered the viewpoints one is espousing.
I am quite sure he would be very proud of you and you would have been in charge of handling his PR.
I am not saying this sarcastically, I do admire your knowledge of his ideas and your quest to defend his reputation.
Regards,
Luis
Luis, thanks for your reply! And thanks for your kind words.
I mostly defend Scientology itself. As for Ron, I try to give him credit for the good he did, while not closing my eyes to his wrongdoings either. I believe Scientology does help people get to the point where you yourself have apparently arrived – able to now follow your own path. I’m happy for you! 🙂
I am very glad you received my response to you.
While I do not agree with your current belief (I see Scientology much more as being a strong dependency forming system and having that as an intent, rather than an independence / helping find your own path one), one very important path to growing,
I have found, is to not allow myself to become attached to the viewpoints I am currently assuming and to have the willingness and strength to recognize and acknowledge when there are wiser ones.
The intellect you possess and nourish, the viewpoints you offer, and the strong spirit for asserting your current beliefs that I see, is something that I not only admire and praise strongly but find valuable to my desire to be growing in strength, goodness, wisdom and freedom.
And so, you now know, I am a fan of Marildi 🙂
Regards,
Luis
Ha ha! Not too many critics would say they’re a fan of mine. Nice of you! 🙂
To further clarify what I wrote before: I think that most people are struggling with certain barriers that keep them from being free enough, or self-determined enough, to make forward progress in their personal freedom. And it just so happens that core Scientology – when applied with the right intention – has some very efficient methods of relatively quickly freeing people from enough of those barriers for them to be able to then move forward on their own. (Btw, there are a lot of reports about Independent auditors who are effective in helping people eliminate the harm they experienced from the form of Scientology they received. It seems that you yourself have surmounted the harm well enough by now, though.)
Well, Luis, here’s a philosophical quote I like a lot (and it’s not even LRH :D):
“All the ills of mankind, all the tragic misfortunes that fill the history books, all the political blunders, all the failures of the great leaders have arisen merely from a lack of skill at dancing.” — Moliere
ARC, marildi
Dear Luis:
I have drawn your different quadrants. I took it like a mental challenge to find the logic between its diagonals and what would be the major axis. Here is what your matrix would be:
I will add that as I drew this model, I found that inherent axis. To the right we find the theorizing pattern, it could be seen as mental dialectic. To the left we find the action pattern, it could be seen as requests integration and service. To the bottom we find the diversity and disperse pattern, it could be seen as chaos and variation. To the top we find the unity and “oneness” pattern, it could be seen as the particular and unique.
(I also noticed that Hubbard itself was on the “The One” pattern, he was so self-confident, and this may be dissociative between he and his universe)
But, what I found more espectacular was this: there is a coincidence with the Ken Wilber’s quadrants:
(The Wilber’s Quadrants are rotated 90% to the left, rotate it to the right and then will make sense).
If we enforce the coincidence, then there is some changes to do on what I said before. As you could see, the “x” axis is in between the individual attention (I put it as theory) and the social commitment (I put as action); then the “y” axis is in between the subjective (intra) world and objective (inter) world. I put some words as reference.
Anyway, the Wilber’s quadrants are very interesting itself. I, IT, ITS, WE…
¿Do you liked The Matrix? lol
Neo represents a “we” martyr, like Jesus. This is a very graphic meme that I guess “it resonates” with you:
Peace!
~Elías
Hi Petteko.
Sorry it took so long to respond.
I did not return to the website (as explained in my response to Marildi’s comments above until today.
Your Quadrant is brilliant and so is the association with The Matrix (which is to me one of the best special effects//spiritually wisest movies I have seen).
I went thru a lot of terror and confusion once I took the “red pill” (left Scientology) and so the Matrix association from Isene and you are absolutely brilliant.
Regards,
Luis
Hi Marildi.
In my view, you hit a home run with this statement: “when applied with the right intention”, which, to me, should mainly be, in seeking to help another, empowering him/her with the strength and ability to resolve their own conditions, to come up with the answers , avoiding creating a dependency for answers and ways and solutions. Something that I am seeing is rarely done in blogs as being a “guru”, being the one who can provide you with the right answers, is being popular now (no encouragement to dig within oneself for them, to gain the strength and ability to find them).
By the way, I have not been a critic of you, in the sense of seeking to make wrong what you believe in. I just like to prevent misunderstandings and wanted you to know one of my viewpoints on Scientology and that its tech had nothing to do with me finding my own path or reaching the condition I am in presently.
I do agree with you that the “tech” can produce great results in terms of self determinism and personal freedom. I used to be an auditor and saw great results in freeing people from overts and withholds.
We do have mostly very different viewpoints on Scientology and Ron, but different viewpoints are just not allowed, by me, to dim the respect that I have for someone, whom, I am perceiving, is engaged in seeking that her viewpoints are seen as valid and that the good in Scientology and Ron she is seeing and wants to be seen are acknowledged, persist and are not obscured, and does so in an intelligent and respectful manner.
And because you deserve this repetition, I am highly admiring the resolve I see and the effort you have obviously made to acquire the abundant knowledge you carry.
One last comment (a misunderstanding prevention), Scientology’ was not harmful to me. It did not produce or create any negatives in me.
The “harm” I got from Scientology was already in me. I had the conditions, the weaknesses, the dependencies that created my attraction, agreement with, involvement in Scientology (Ron’s universe) and the becoming attached to it and dependent on it. Especially, I also had in me the quite negative consequences that allowing myself to be “swallowed “and guided by it produced.
If I had two wishes for Scientology related blogs, one would be the one listed in the first paragraph, the second is that awareness is encouraged that whatever experience one had or is having with Ron and Scientology were/are just a mirror of the contents of one’s universe.
Regards,
Luis
Wow, Luis – awesome post. For you to be able to recognize that the “harm” you got from Scientology was already in you is what I would consider rare insight. Now I’m the one who is doing the admiring! 🙂
I got everything else you wrote too. Now I have a clearer understanding of where you’re coming from. And I see you’ve duplicated my intentions too. Thanks so much for granting beingness. I bet you were a very good auditor – one who wanted “to help another, empowering him/her with the strength and ability to resolve their own conditions, to come up with the answers, avoiding creating a dependency for answers and ways and solutions.” (You described that so well.)
It seems we agree about intention being senior to everything. And I’m sure intention had a lot to do with you finding your own path and arriving at the point you have.
Thanks for your thoughtful (both senses) comments. 🙂
Best regards and ARC,
marildi
Thanks Marildi for your very enjoyable comments.
So that you know that I don’t live in the Ron and Scientology are totally wrong world, I am very grateful that Ron re-awakened in me the knowledge of who I really am and am not. He also awakened the perception, which is now a certainty, that I am the source and the cause of what happens to me (In my own words: that life will mirror what is present and active in my universe). That intention is what determines the contents and the quality of the outcome, and that one should be aware and clear about the intention behind what one is attempting to achieve. There are many other wonderful wisdoms he reminded me of.
As for my being an auditor I loved the idea and activity of helping free a soul, of beginning a soul on a spiritual journey (I mostly did life repairs with new paying PC’s). But I felt there was a lot wrong that I just, at that time, could not put my finger on. I just felt that Scientology and the “tech” lacked the “soulness” I felt it should have, the involvement of the heart in the way it operated, in its intentions, and in its guidance.
I finally realized what were the basics to my perception, Ron, to me, wanted to have a 3rd dynamic. Wanted to feed the ego needs of experiencing the power and praise of owning a organization with lots of members (bodies)
In my view, to be effective, to expand, to be embraced and loved and admired, to help souls become truly independent and grow, like I feel, Marildi, that your quest is, Ron had to be operating from the7th and seeking for souls to achieve the same, which, it could not do as that would have ended Scientology and, moreover, it was not the consciousness and the spiritual condition of Ron and those who helped him run it.
The first and pretty evil step, to me, to entrapping someone and have him/her abandon their independence, their soulness, their universe, and create an ego, is to have him/her assume a fixed and main identity. Ron knew it and he still did it.
Thus “You are a Scientologist” was born.
Regards,
Luis
Cool comment.
Thanks Geir.
Now I am only 199 “cools” away from catching up to you :).
I very much enjoy and value your wisdoms.
Regards,
Luis
You’re down to 198 now.
Wrong!
With this one from you you got me back up to 199!!
Luis
Honest, humble and warm comment, also the exchange between you and marildi. Both of you are writing from the Heart. Can’t express with words the joy I was feeling
reading your words.
I see it similarly to you and marildi. I wrote a comment earlier today but interestingly,
which rarely but happens, it could not appear on the blog as I pressed a wrong key instead of the post comment. I decided not to write it down again. Well, you did write down partly what I had written, so we were probably sharing some com space then. You write: ‘life will mirror and present what is active in my universe’. Yes, the experience here is the same. Life is doing it so that the ‘individual’ can experience all that Life can create. I don’t know if you observed it but Life is putting there for the individual in all possible ways the Truth that Life is non-dual and that the apparency of one’s separate universe is there only up to that point when the individual gets a glimpse of, or stays with the view that one’s separate universe has never been separated from the Universe as such. It is One Life with One Intention and this One Life’s Purpose is to Create different forms through which Life can experience its Creative Ability. I observed that the ‘individual intention’ has a chance
only when it is in complete harmony with what ‘Life’s Intention is With the Totality of its Manifestations’. That is, the ‘ego-will’ is subordinate to the Free Will Flow of Life.
Love from the Heart
Marianne
I am truly enjoying the energy and the warmth present in you when you wrote this!!
You are an example of what being able to operate (in this case write) from the heart accomplishes… mainly, to me, the absence of ego and the enhanced presence of the soul one is with the beauty and goodness it is endowed with and the desire to connect that it loves to follow.
It is a wonderful experience to be at the receiving point of a heart, and, in this case, of your heart.
It is being quite enjoyable and enlivening to have connected with Marildi and with you and, in a presently but not “futurely” 🙂 small way with Isene.
Excellent awareness and I had not looked at it from the viewpoints you are offering which I find very valuable.
I am going to explore more the ideas you wrote as they do ring my “there is truth here” alarm
A big heart hug to you.
Luis
Luis
Thank you. It looks that we are in the Grace of Life’s Creative Ability as after reading your comments and finishing mine I was guided somehow to listen to the second video – I Am is All (never heard it before) and then I put it here for the enjoyment of us all. There is quite a lot of wisdom in it as you will see if you care to listen to it.
There is a friend of mine who is a very aware and wise being. Once he said to me (I do not remember the exact words but try to recall it so that its truth can go through):
I am very grateful to you that you are playing your role in life for me as I do not need
to play it now but I can enjoy it thoroughly in your presence.
Hi, Luis,
Thanks once again for the “live” communication. I got home late tonight but thought I would at least write a few lines in return.
You wrote: “I just felt that Scientology and the ‘tech’ lacked the ‘soulness’ I felt it should have, the involvement of the heart in the way it operated, in its intentions, and in its guidance.”
The way I got it from Ron is that if the “arbitraries” installed in a thetan (whether by self or others) were removed, the “involvement of the heart” would naturally occur.
This wasn’t something that needed to be “added” or “taught” – he said that Man was basically good. And in his article “My Philosophy” he wrote:
“A philosophy can only be a ROUTE to knowledge. It cannot be crammed down
one’s throat. If one has a route, he can then find what is true for him.”
On the other hand, there is contrary data such as what you wrote here: “The first and pretty evil step, to me, to entrapping someone and have him/her abandon their independence, their soulness, their universe, and create an ego, is to have him/her assume a fixed and main identity. Ron knew it and he still did it.”
This is the basic conundrum. I think we agree that Ron did have great wisdom – and passed on to others what he had learned of the traps and how to avoid them. The question is, why then would he himself walk into the very traps he so wisely had warned about? And even if he “slipped” into them, he certainly would have known enough about the elements of case and about ethics factors to be able to find his way back out, in fairly short order – unless he was truly overwhelmed somehow.
You may like this quote I saw in a comment on Marty’s blog today:
“In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves.” (from the book Ender’s Game)
ARC, marildi
Hi Marildi.
This may not be the last time I write the just below so get used to it 🙂
I truly enjoy our communication because we have made it a respectful and friendly connection.
No ridges that create distance between us are being created in the process.
So let’s both of us take a very well done as we both do have seem to have the willingness and the ability to examine, without resistance, the viewpoints we offer each other.
Moreover, it is, being to me, an effective “auditing” session to me as it urges me to take a look, make much clearer and/or evolve the viewpoints I have been assuming with respect to Ron and Scientology.
When I finally got to clearly realize my main goal in life a superb understanding about life came about.
When I was in Scientology, my main goal was the ego’s goal: To be a powerful soul, cause over everything and able to perform superhuman feats.
After Scientology it slowly evolved into the simplest of goals: To be being a soul.
It is the same thing as operating from the heart as, to me, the soul, as you state, free from arbitraries, free from self imposed limitations and attachments and fixed identities and ridges (things one has resisted or is resisting from coming in, from experiencing, or from leaving), is simply a beautiful and full of kindness and understanding “nothing”.
When I am able to be being a soul I not only perceive the beauty and goodness in me but in others no matter how evil they are being. I no longer identify the case or the actions the case dictates the soul to do with the soul, with the being. I no longer seek to make the soul or the identity the soul is assuming wrong as what I see is a beautiful and good soul in distress, being the effect of “arbitraries”.
And so I see and understand what occurred with Ron to my satisfaction and to the point I hold no resentment, no desire to inflict pain or ridicule on him.
If I saw him, I know I would give him a big hug and warmth and congratulate him for his achievements and the power he had to create Scientology and have me as a follower, even if he still was not able to separate himself from the case that he allowed to overwhelm him and even if he still was displaying the emotions and intentions and energy that his case dictated.
I once spoke to Ken Urqhart, who used to be Ron’s communicator, about his experiences with Ron and I saw, from what he told me, that Ron had no friends. No one dared to question his actions, to make him look at what he was doing, to help him see that he wasn’t walking his talk, and that his ego needs were dictating his thoughts and actions.
Although he was responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear of him, it does not excuse someone rising above that fear and creating the intent and doing what was needed to be his friend and help him be being more the beautiful and wise and kind soul he really is.
Regards and a soul hug this time.
Luis
Luis, it occurred to me that if you have not checked the box that says “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” (to the left of the “post comment” box), you may not have seen my reply and others’ recent comments which are near the bottom of the page. I put mine there so as to start over again and have more room than this skinny column. 😉
What strikes me as a conundrum is this: If Scientology contains the technology to resolve all of Man’s ills, then why could it not save the man who understood this technology better than anyone else could ever hope to do? Could this technology not inspire in him the motivation to move up the Bridge he himself devised to cure the very ills he himself suffered from? Or could the technology not deliver? I wonder.
I don’t know the answers to your questions Geir but reading them, some things which you earlier said about yourself came to mind. Correct me if I write something which you did not say or I misunderstood. ‘ I am responsible for all. Which means
everybody.’ Also, that you noticed something in yourself, which was ‘not wishing to ask for help’ and the reason you gave was that you ‘did not want to bother others with your problems’.
I wrote this down because one can be at such a level of consciousness that one
can see whatever there is in life, being so aware that one is not willing to change it
in any way, especially not for personal needs. One can inspire by being present (wherever one puts one’s attention to) and also develops tools that help another be more aware. In the meantime, one may neglect oneself to a certain extent out of the desire and ability to help others. Wants to give and see others be happy. That is where the second sentence of yours comes into play. Its result is, one helps to the detriment of oneself.
One knows the tools for helping another but does not apply them for oneself as much as one could.
Why?
A little lack of self-love or self-trust? OR: out of compassion. Hm. this can be
a tricky one. As one in this case should especially care for oneself as one is
in the Heart of Life, so not caring about oneself as much as for others will kick
back …which can kind of accumulate. The solution is COMMUNICATION about oneself. Also, duplication of whatever there is.
Ron wrote something like that an OT is alone and needs co-operation more than ever before. Was he speaking also about himself? That he himself needed inspiration, a push, true words and true love from others? True love is a complete
lack of fear. That is when Luis wrote that some ‘feared’ him, it may show
that there were relatively few who would and could see him as ‘themselves’, that
is in a non-dual way. That is, could help him look at whatever there was without any
consideration, that is out of True Love. This is a guess, based on the view here of
the power of the non-dual view.
Ron also wrote something like that the only secret of life might be Love.
I adore your analytical mind and your openness!
I am a fanatic pro and anti SCNist on the same time as well as various in-between stages. Whenever I receive comm from one that is somewhere in the matrix, I am that. ‘Naturally’ I’m nowhere in the matrix, but I can be anywhere.
But what is my part in this game? It depends. After all these years, I don’t know that SCN is a specific something. People tell me different things about it. So what is it?
Is it beneficial or oppressive or something in between, and for whom? Is it really something by itself but for some a different things and for some others is a different thing and for some others a different thing and so on until infinity? It appears so to me. Is it something within itself, by itself but people cannot grasp the one and only reality of it? Is there a reality that exists independently but people can or not perceive it? Or do all people who have word cleared thoroughly the same LRH stuff have the same point of view about that stuff? By experience, I think not.
A guy comes and tells me he had a great time in SCN, another he only had an awful time. Others say other mixed things. What should I tell to each one of them, that Hubbard meant well? That is my own creation and experience, if it is. How can I force-feed my conclusions to another if he doesn’t have carbon-copied all my considerations about the subject, and why should he do that? For me creation (postulate) comes first, and experience follows. If one creates something, he experiences it -same with SCN and everything else. And according to some words I have read, it’s the bank over which thetans agree. Of course, for me, there can be self determined agreement too, but that isn’t based on past experiences and considerations, as that I call case.
Sorry, but I can’t help but posting seriously and coldly my own scholarly and exhuberant overview of the Scientology Matrix. I hope you don’t mind, but this is a conceptual competence and also this is Sparta:
LOL. Very creative! 😀
Hi Luis,
You brought up a really good point when you wrote: “Although he [Ron] was responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear of him, it does not excuse someone rising above that fear and creating the intent and doing what was needed to be his friend and help him be being more the beautiful and wise and kind soul he really is.”
I’ve heard that basic idea expressed before – but very seldom. Now that you have me looking at it again, I think it should be obvious that Ron isn’t the only one who can be held responsible for the way Scientology evolved. If Ron and Scientology went off the rails, why didn’t anyone else do something about it – perhaps organize a group of people to do whatever was needed instead of leaving it all up to Ron. Just as you wrote about in an earlier comment regarding pre-existing personal weaknesses which you eventually confronted, the same could be said of everyone else too.
For an oppressor to be able to oppress, there have to be people who are susceptible to it – and that goes back to their own shortcomings. Not that I’m saying people should necessarily be judged or blamed for what occurred – not any more than Ron should be – but we should recognize that we simply had not yet learned certain lessons. And we could even consider that we have been fortunate to have now learned them!
A soul hug back. 🙂
marildi
Marildi: And we could even consider that we have been fortunate to have now learned them!
Chris: What lesson are you saying that you’ve learned?
To put it in a few words, the lesson was to keep my TR 0 in. And it’s something that can be drilled in life continuously. What a process!
I assume you got that I wasn’t referring to lessons about Scientology per se, or about Ron. In that sense, how would describe any lessons you learned.
Yup! what a process!
What were some of my lessons? One is that no model will hold life. Another is not to fixate on ideologies nor let them do my thinking for me.
What were some more lessons you’ve learned?
Maybe we could discuss what keeping your TR 0 in means to you.
TR 0 is about the briefest way of saying to be in the here-and-now – and doing so as “broadly” as possible. That is to say, viewing whatever comes one’s way, whether ideas or feelings or perceptions of any kind.
I would say the practice of it should increase the “breadth” of one’s here-and-now up to the point where it would become what Marianne, for example, describes – the awareness of there only being “now”.
Agreed.
Geir, it’s nice to get an “agreed” from you. Reminds me of Self-analysis processes, where a positive moment acts to release the charge of the related negative moments. 😉
Geir: “What strikes me as a conundrum is this: If Scientology contains the technology to resolve all of Man’s ills, then why could it not save the man who understood this technology better than anyone else could ever hope to do? Could this technology not inspire in him the motivation to move up the Bridge he himself devised to cure the very ills he himself suffered from? Or could the technology not deliver? I wonder.”
That is kind of what I was saying too. But I wouldn’t say the tech could not have “saved” Ron IF he had simply “availed himself of it,” to use his own wording. And that right there is probably the exact reason Ron thought there needed to be an organization – a group that would give others the “push” they needed when they needed it.
Here’s the old John Donne poem (a bit of Old English for you, old chap ;)):
—No Man Is An Island—
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
–John Donne
What is rather strange is exactly this; That the tech does not contain the ingredient to inspire the motivation even in the most knowledgeable to avail themselves of it. That is one hell of an outpoint, wouldn’t you say?
Yes. The tech does not ‘contain’ the ingredient to inspire the motivation even in the most knowledgeable to avail themselves of it.’
That ‘ingredient’ is not in the tech as it is the Creator of the tech. You are an example of this as having done all the steps, your ‘havingness’ is the ME. Body,
mind, spirit. You have found yourself, that is you are ‘clear’ on the 1st dynamics.
When the tech is further applied, one can find oneself in 2D. That is one, as a source-life is not different from one’s spouse and child. One sees, feels, experiences them as the extension of the ‘Me’, that is there is no conceptual wall
which would cause the experience of duality. The ‘my’ and ‘child’ concepts are gone.
I am ME, the child is also a ME and we can willingly and consciously play or not from then on the roles of being a father and child in this human lifetime.
Then the extension goes on to all parts of the one Dynamics until one is the 8th and is then aware that each being is that.
One can find that inspirational motivation in oneself when one continues communicating with all which one can explore on the dynamics.
How do you see it, Geir?
I add that even if I am conscious of that ME and act in a responsive way in a situation seeing the other as also a ME, the other is also responsible for doing one’s best to become aware of that ME in oneself. To motivate another to be willing
to experience one’s core beingness, one can help another by getting into a two-way com with the person. When one is doing that honestly, without any personal
interest, that is not using the other for fulfilling any personal need, also not expecting anything else from the other person than the person can willingly offer in the exchange, then that Can and Willingness will be deeper and deeper until finally the other also recognizes oneself as a ME. For me this is what True Relationship means which can be the basis of true exchanges of different ways.
So, the Tech may have been born out of a desire to have a ‘company’.
When I was studying about the Organization, I had the vision-cognition that one post is all posts and all posts is one post.
Also, that one must be aware of and be able to do not only one’s post but each post
of the Organization.
So, the Tech may have been born out of the vision-experience of Oneness (one body of theta), where each ‘body of truth’ contains Truth and the Tech helps reveal
this Truth for the one by seeing through (as-is-ing) the walls which hide this fact.
If this is slightly close to the truth, I get a better understanding of what you said earlier, Geir, : ‘Thank you for your company.’
Geir: “What is rather strange is exactly this; That the tech does not contain the ingredient to inspire the motivation even in the most knowledgeable to avail themselves of it. ”
I know, and that’s what I’ve been pondering too. In thinking about it more, it seems to me that in actual fact there was in the tech a pretty high degree of inspired motivation. Otherwise, none of us would have continued as long as we did. Especially if you consider how much we not-ised the negative aspects that we observed more and more as time went on.
The way I’m looking at it now is that there could never be any kind of absolute, guarantied inspiration or motivation – simply because beings are self-determined and have the ability to create.
One type of creation is ser facs, and I have speculated that Ron may have been heavily influenced by a GPM ser fac – one that involved a very egoistic and materialistic goal, dating from who knows how far back.
Ironically, Ron himself wrote the following:
“I cannot promise you that you will make it.
I can only provide the knowledge to give you your chance.
The rest is up to you.”
Hi Marildi.
Plenty of viewpoints to catch up to :). I will just do one now.
One of my top lessons is that my growing is very dependent upon staying willing and able to recognize my flaws when they appear. To recognize, embrace and admit when I have been wrong or when I am being wrong in what I have stated or in what I have done or not done. I am aware that I cannot improve unless I can recognize, in order to correct, my flaws.
One of the qualities I admire the most and seek in those whom I befriend is that ability. An ego which to me, distances souls, cannot survive in this environent.
To me the strength of a person, of a relationship, of a friendship, or of forming and maintaining a harmonious and warm connection with another or others (blogs included 🙂 ) is heavily influenced by the ability of each to recognize one has been or is being wrong or flawed in one’s statements or actions.
When not present, one gets, in my view, the seeking of superiority. There is no longer a willingness to examine other viewpoints but to make them inferior to one’s.
One of my most constructive lessons, especially when being a participant in a blog, is to watch out for any ridge that may be activated in me by the reading of a person’s viewpoint. When that happens I break it apart by disobeying whatever demand the ridge carries.
One of the “nicest” ones that I got rid off was my resentment, accompanied by the dictate to ridicule, towards anyone who strongly favored Ron and/or Scientology 🙂
Regards,
Luis
+lots
+lots back to you!
I am truly enjoying the connection to your blog and the admiring of the exceptional qualities I am perceiving you possess.
Two outpoints here: Not even Ron found the motivation needed in the tech. Neither did some 99% of the people who read some of his books. This is major.
I do believe that IF the tech actually produced the objective gains Ron promised for it, people would be motivated like nothing else. I think it all bills down to lack of results. Not only is that in keeping with Occam’s Razor, it is the only plausible explanation I can come up with without resorting to severe logical gymnastics.
From my experience, what motivates me now is what appeals to the urges of me, as a soul. What makes my heart happy: Being my own best friend, having and establishing great warm transparent “connectings”, growing in strength, in freedom, in goodness, and in wisdom so as to be able to be causing more the conditions I want to be existing, and, especially, doing really good deeds.
What motivated me when I entered Scientology was what appealed to my condition of pretty low self esteem, low confidence and huge number of insecurities: the status of superiority it offered. That motivation achieved nothing. .
My strong perception is that the anticipated presence or the attainment of something truly spiritual is the only factor that has true and un-killable and powerful motivating power. When it is absent and something else is there (Ex. material gain, superior status, falsehoods) the motivating power is dimmed as there is a rejection (knowingly or unknowingly) by the soul and thus made extremely difficult or impossible to attain.
Regards,
Luis
Luis: From my experience, what motivates me now is what appeals to the urges of me, as a soul. What makes my heart happy
Chris: Agreed. Harmony of the spirit is good regardless of why one decides that one has it.
Hi Chris.
I have fallen in love with the word harmony and I am extremely glad you see its beauty and importance.
I realized, not too long ago, that being in harmony with my current principles, my current values and with my hearts callings (intuitions as to what is right and wrong to do and not do) is what determines whether life will be rewarding me positive experiences and outcomes or disharmonious occurrences.
As I stated before and I am absolutely convinced that it is true:
Life is a mirror of the harmony or disharmony within you.
Regards,
Luis
Good idea. Using harmony as a model for living, one has a benign filter to comb out one’s inconsistency. Neat.
Luis
I enjoy your presence on the blog. Heart, that is. What you write, how you write inspire me, that is they are alive…
A question: can you get the perception that there is only Harmony?
Can it be that there is only One-Life-Source-Creator that Intends to experience
its Creative Ability in infinite ways and through the infinity of forms?
Can you get the perception that for example a ridge, which looks to be disharmony,
is in complete harmony with the Creator’s Intent to experience itself as one of its intended creations and then experiencing/viewing itself as such the ridge is gone?
Hi Marianne.
I am very open to any viewpoint.
As I stated in a previous comment, I do not allow myself to become attached to any viewpoint I am assuming or prevent myself from assuming another’s viewpoints so as to determine whether they are wiser than the one I have been assumng as that would stop my evolving or growth.
I have never taken a look at whether there is only harmony. I have had the thought and the feeling (no certainty here) that we are one, which, by the way worries and scares me a bit as I am currently in love with the games and challenges and experiences found in this universe.
Oneness to me, at this moment, is a lonely experience but, of course, I am not there nor have I experienced it to judge it.
My path, my “bridge”, however, is not one who demands or seeks or efforts towards ultimate answers or seeks to find the Creators intents or viewpoints.. It does produce plenty of entlightments but I have not control over what enlightment is next. I am pretty certain that enlightments about the Creator will definitely occur but I don’t know when.
What I am most interested now is in applying the wisdoms I have gathered and am gathering that have been acquired and are beng acquired in a gentle and natural way, because of the activities that I do for my growing which are producing my becoming a smarter, nicer, safer, stronger, “responsibler”, “caring-er”, happier, freer and “genuiner” human being. One that I am really proud of.
I do have a long way to go but I am a totally crazy about (passionately in love with) the adventure in which I have not control of what comes next.
Regards,
Luis
Wow, Luis, I think you have hit on something very key to the wide divergence of experiences with Scientology. Not to sound “superior,” but when I got into Scientology my circumstances and experience were such that I had no motivation for money or power or any other “material” gains – these were not in my universe. I simply wanted to help – mainly my loved ones, but others too. That’s what moved me!
So I think Marianne was right when she wrote the following:
“I observed that the ‘individual intention’ has a chance ONLY WHEN IT IS IN COMPLETE HARMONY [my caps] with what ‘Life’s Intention is With the Totality of its Manifestations’. That is, the ‘ego-will’ is subordinate to the Free Will Flow of Life.”
It seems to me that along these lines lies the answer to Geir’s question about why the tech itself doesn’t always inspire motivation in its use. Even Ron fell away from his original motivations to ego-based impulses. (Btw, when Marianne speaks of “Life” or “Oneness” I believe she means to say that the individuality of “each” of us is really only an illusion and that we are all simply replresentative of a single “One.”)
IMO, the above is also in line with your idea that life will mirror and present what is active in one’s universe. That is an astounding idea to contemplate!
ARC, marildi
Marildi: Not to sound “superior,” but when I got into Scientology my circumstances and experience were such that I had no motivation for money or power or any other “material” gains – these were not in my universe.
Chris: Me too. This made us and many of the participants here perfect “marks” (Slang suitable victims, especially for swindling). Sea Org members probably have this trait in common, one-for-one. Our good intentions combined with adventurous spirits and poor judgement make for a malleable combination.
Marildi: “Not to sound “superior,” but when I got into Scientology my circumstances and experience were such that I had no motivation for money or power or any other “material” gains – these were not in my universe. I simply wanted to help – mainly my loved ones, but others too. That’s what moved me!”
Chris: My very favorite quote from Marildi.
And in turn, here’s my favorite quote of all time:
“Beneath the dirty cloth of aberration, they loved each other well.” (DMSMH) 🙂
One reason why the tech cannot produce the ‘objective’ gain that it is promising at the end of a process can be that the person, reading about a ‘gain’ makes a picture about what that gain will look like and may even make considerations about it. Then this illusionary picture and the thoughts will be there as a filter, hindering the process, also its outcome. E.g. the experience of exteriorization is not absolutely precisely that as it is described. Another reason can be, as was the case
with you when you experienced exteriorization with full perception during the TR-s, that for whatever reason that you can have the ability to be exterior with full perception at will from then on was not taken as a priority by those who were there to help you. For this Per has an answer: audit the person in front of you. I also have
answers: listen to the person’s wish and provide what the person wants. Also, when
an ability shows up, take it up to mastering. Right there. Then do the next step on the Bridge.
For this a two-way com is needed, also that the person who has the wish insists that
that wish comes true.
When a conundrum does not want to resolve, the reason can be that one is trying to find the answer at the other end of the question. I do not particularly favour guesses but I am doing that now.
What if Ron ‘woke up’, that is he was an ‘OT’ and of course he had a personality
as any other person on Earth. So, he was ‘alone’ and seeing what conditions others
were in, seeing better games and higher realities, he wanted others to see them too.
So, he did not need to do anything else than write down what he was conscious of and find a way for others to get conscious of them as well.
So, he did not need to ‘save’ himself as he was himself. With a personality, of course.
I am going to be a little bit personal. I never had any problem with that it is a ‘tech
for the ‘able’ and with ‘what is true for you is true for you’.
Once I asked a staff what she thought about being able. She said that anyone who buys a book. Hm. The definition of ability is: observe, decide and act. Hm. what is the tool of processing? Looking. What is the result of looking? Being able to look,
decide and act more and more precisely and faster and faster. Relative power is handling more and more particles. Handling is not requiring more attention…as then the person is more and more able to function by oneself without any ‘need’ of depending on others. So, the need for auditing may have been born out of the need for getting pure attention. A relatively rare commodity. So the ‘beingness’ of the auditor (one who asks another to look, listens to the answer and gives pure attention until one does not ‘need’ it any more) was born. The ‘need’ is gone when
one is able to be that attention itself. For me that is the core of the tech of scientology.
Once one is the core, the tech looses the relevance of being called the tech as
the core and the tech is the same. That is also the core in True meditation. Being aware attention.
I am going to be a little impolite now. That is tell what is true for ME. Not taking into
‘consideration’ of what another may ‘think/consider’ about what I say. That is, not
being artificially ‘polite’, which is hiding, not being fully alive (which is the effect of ‘considering’). True politeness for me is being as much alive as I am and
speaking out of it. Aliveness is functioning as Life, which is also kindness….being
the same ‘kind’ as the other, so there is no possibility of ‘hurting’ the other as
one would not willingly hurt oneself. So, living and speaking out of that true aliveness is the best deal ever! Which does not mean that one is a ‘saint’…it means
one is alive and acts out of it, in harmony with the situation. (Code of Honors can be relevant here).
So, in my view, Jesus, Buddha, Ron, Adyashanti, Tolle, Krishnamurty….were speaking out of this aliveness in different ways, providing different tools for
the same Truth. Each of them was/is the embodiment of this truth with their own
unique personalities and each did/does their best to help their fellow-men to see this Truth. And I thank them for doing so here.
Wow, Marianne. This is such an amazing post. You have a very high viewpoint and perspective. Thanks so much for sharing it!
Hi Marianne
I failed to comment about one of your important comments because I felt I was too new to the blog and did not want to be offering contrary viewpoints from the start especially to viewpoints I consider are being firmly held .
The principle I like to follow is to respect other viewpoints and not to fall to the impulse to have to correct viewpoints I consider to be incorrect.
But there are viewpoints that, to me, cause weakening and dimming consequences to the soul and produce a person to get stuck in a self created continually being generated reality that produces no growth and, in the long run, an entrapment which causes deterioration.
In that case I feel it is my duty to offer my viewpoints, which, of course,I do not have the right to claim them to be “the” one and only true viewpoints.
Offering my viewpoints also allows me to open them up to examination and so I may be the one with the weakening and dimming viewpoint (which would, in the long run, make me extremely happy).
I was very glad to see, in one of your comments that you do not seek to be politically correct and thus avoid offending with your viewpoints at all costs. To me, the quest for growing demands one is presented with all viewpoints and that the maxim” “no pain no gain” is seen as part of the experience.
To me, when there is pain, when there is resentment , in receiving a viewpoint, there is a ridge, a resisting sitting there protecting the viewpoint one considers one NEEDS to be assuming and cannot do without.
I make a point of always stating they are my viewpoints so as to allow space to be created for disagreement. I do that by always placing a ”to me”, “in my view” which avoids leaving no space for the person to examine it and for the soul to place in time and space where the energy, in the form of an idea, is coming from. That, to me, is a form of respect for the other person’s universe and his/her capacity to generate his/her own truths.
In my view, one of the very subtle entrapments that Ron used is to implant his ideas, in a way that left the receiver no space to examine what he was saying and making them “the truths” was to omit that they were just his viewpoints when he offered them.
He wrote and spoke as if his truths were “The truths” and the soul, who so eagerly and beautifully wants to trust fell in the trap (and many, in my view, are still trapped in it as mostly all of the main ideas that emanate from them are Ron’s viewpoints). That, to me, causes a severe deterioration of the ability of the soul to generate its own wisdoms, to evolve the acquired from external sources wisdoms, and to adopt externally sourced wisdoms as one’s own so that the need to keep PR’ing the source, when it is not relevant or necessary (unless one’ intent is to create new followers of the source or solidify the current followers of the source), disappears. Self created wisdoms, are sadly absent from that persons’ universe and from the comments they make.
In one of your comments you wrote “You write: ‘life will mirror and present what is active in my universe’. Yes, the experience here is the same. Life is doing it so that the ‘individual’ can experience all that Life can create.”
The last part is not my viewpoint.
One of my biggest realizations which is holding very true so far, and one which you do agree, is that what occurs to me , the experiences I experience in the physical universe are generated by my universe and, they do have a purpose.
But, this is where we disagree; I don’t see that life is giving me experiences so I can experience all that Life can create.
To me, my life is the bridge.
Life (my universe really) is orderly seeking for me to “onion peel” the soul limiting and dimming conditions that exist in it. When one is conquered, vanished, risen above, life will reward me with the joy that having gained more freedom and harmony brings and will then, eventually offer me the next one to conquer.
Scientology was , to me, part of my bridge. It activated the limitations and dimmings that I needed to make vanish so I would be able to free my universe from them, so I could make it beautiful and peaceful and safe and secure imbued with of love and goodness place to live in, and one which generates strength and confidence and pride.
Please know that I the “tech” did not give this freeing and I did a lot of the tech. Scientology just presented me with the next items that needed to be conquered by my own means.
Although this is another subject, I want to let it be known that my consideration about Scientology is that part of its horrendous trap is that it is quite beneficial in the short run but disastrous to the soul in the long run.
One of its many “horrendousnesses” is that it severely disempowers the soul and severely deteriorates the ability of the soul to generate its own wisdoms, to nourish and possess the strength and ability and knowingness to overcome its own limitations and dimmings.
It is a solidly dependency creating system at best which seeks that you abandon your universe, create case you don’t have, form truths that are not, form needs that you don’t need, and, most of all, abandon your own bridge. Remaining in Ron’s universe and failing to see that it is just part of the bridge prevents the next onion layer from appearing and thus keeps the soul in a non growing condition, at best.
This blog is also part of my bridge. It has been part of my next ‘onion layer’. It has presented with the ridges that accompany getting “naked” about one’s viewpoints (that is one of the qualities that make me admire Isene so much – As consistently offering one’s viewpoints to many takes courage and strength, a willingness to be made wrong and a commitment to growing).
Ron was right when he stated that nature abhors a vacuum. That is a truth that I apply. One has to able to recognize when the time to let go of something occurs so that the next can come in.
My strong wish for all, who are involved or have been involved in Scientology is that they let it go, see it as part of their bridge instead of “the bridge”, and allow for the next part of their bridge to present itself.
It is my view that in order to grow, to reach the next “bridge level” one has to be willing to go through the heavy insecurity and fears that letting go of something which one has been strongly depending will present. When they do, the viewpoint to take, in my view, is that those insecurities and fears is what makes one liable to fall into traps , like Scientology.
One of my main lessons that I am very faithful to following is that it is my duty to transform the negative into a very glad that it happened positive and to persist until it happens. That intention alone saved my soul from being severely dimmed.
My love,
Luis
Luis: In my view, one of the very subtle entrapments that Ron used is to implant his ideas, in a way that left the receiver no space to examine what he was saying and making them “the truths” was to omit that they were just his viewpoints when he offered them.
Chris: A good observation.
Luis, I am really enjoying your writing.
And I am enjoying the connection with you!
Luis
Thank you ever so much! Much love to you right at the beginning of my answer.
I also failed to do something, which you did for me but I haven’t yet done to you:
show you a mirror! Reading YOU the experience here is a smooth flow….the Tao.
Its energy is so soft, so pure that I say it is not mest energy but the soft energy of Life which creates. Fluid….full of Love and Respect. Amazing to be at its receiving end.
Yes, you are right in saying that ‘in my view’, ‘to me’ leaves space for the listener to examine a viewpoint. I used to use that earlier but I dropped it agreeing to a much earlier comment that it is unnecessary to say that as one cannot but express anything else than one’s view. Thanks for writing about it as I now see that it was an agreement on my part.
It is even subtler than that….I can be a little ‘harsh’ sometimes, that is pushing another into seeing something which can be observed but the person is not yet
willing to observe it yet, or not the way I present it. Also, I may be wrong stating something as truth as truth also has layers and can change. So, thank you, I am on the way to look at it. Please, write to me honestly about whatever you notice as I rarely get a mirror of the subtleties of my communication.
I can see it the way you see that to you your life is the ‘bridge’. I also see that what is active in one’s universe will present itself for the one in the physical universe and it has a purpose. I can even see further that what is active in my universe can even manifest at a subtler way, not in the physical universe. That is when two ‘spirits’ touch each other at a fine spiritual level. They can also experience the same, non-physical space. These last two I would not call any more as ‘my’ and ‘your’ universe but an Experience in The Universe.
When I say that Life is giving me experiences of all that Life can create I mean that without the sense of ‘me’ as a view ‘point’, this viewing can expand……the sense of the ‘me is doing the creating’ is missing. If ‘I’ look ‘inside’, I don’t find a ‘me’ there. Just a ‘flow’ and ‘aware perceiving’. There is no ‘point’ in viewing, just a ‘viewing flow’. That is one of the experiences here. The other one is that it is also true in case of other beings.
When you write that you are living by ‘intuition’, it is also the way I live. I observed
that when I (there is still a personality) consciously postulate something, it may appear in the physical universe.
But not always. When I postulate and leave it like that , it can also happen that I get an even more helpful and joyful manifestation than I postulated. So, when I observed it how it is, I at the same time started to ‘live by the flow’, that is almost without postulates and purposes. Being aware and accepting what is. In this way, interestingly, life looks to be caring and presents and surprises ‘me’ with what I cannot think of. That is what I mean by that Life can offer me experiences which not the ‘me’ is creating but ‘LIFE’ in its full meaning is creating for ‘me’.
In short, the ‘me wanting’ is almost missing…almost.
Love
Marianne
Hi Marianne.
You not only are a beautiful soul but your consciousness in, quite important areas, is higher than mine and so you are letting me know the levels that are ahead in my bridge..
I am getting lots of benefits because of being connected to this blog (and to you).
One, I got rid of my political correctness, my resistance to offending with one of my viewpoints.
Another was to realize that it is my responsibility to make sure individuals can examine what I have to say about Ron and his technology. I can feel that my caring for the wellbeing of souls, as corny as that is sounding to me right now :), has increased. For me to stay silent about comments promoting Scientology’s bridge or blind following of what Ron has to say is now being a huge overt.
When, in my view, critical thinking is regained and the having created. what I am calling, the “Ron’s universe ridge” one is existing in, is fragmented so that one no longer is trapped in it, one starts seeing the lies, the manipulation and the limited or nnot carried thru enough thinking in many of his ideas.
I also realized last night that one of the qualities essential to a soul that Ron “seeked” to severely deteriorate was self awareness. I find self awareness severely lacking in individuals who practice Scientology and have reached the highest levels. I have seen no evidence that they have a clue as to when a ridge is present in their thinking and actions. The tech, in falsely labeling what one is handling, is to be blamed for ridges, g) which, to me, comprise the VAST majority of case, to remain undetected and unhandled. Please witness the huge ridges surrounding and being dramatized by OT 8’s in you tube videos.
The completely and interminable dependency of the e-meter to tell you what is or is not in your universe, the presenting and imposition of what your case is about and contains and how it should be handled, and the imposing of a bridge to replace yours are just three of the many actions that severely deteriorates the knowingness of the soul, its ability to know what is going on in its universe which is ESSENTIAL to the independence the soul seeks, in my view..
My last win was an insecurity that got activated that caused a fear of being severely made wrong by the whole blog. It had no logic to it but it was there and I am glad to get rid of it.
Regards,
Luis
Welcome!
Hi Luis,
Sorry for the not immediate answer. It can sometimes happen that I do not answer instantly to a comment, so it has nothing to do with you, this is how I live and do it.
I believe and practice open communication which in my view is the source of benefits, so if you have got some by being on this blog, it is wonderful. Thank you very much for trusting me by telling some of your views.
I would like to reflect first to what you call as ‘Ron’s universe ridge’. I myself never-ever experienced it which is due to at least two things: clearing the words from the very start and my presence. This last means that when I was studying, I was studying. Same is true for auditing. I had a little meditation and linguistic background when I started my first course. Before I did so, I started to study the words in the Tech dictionary and was doing that all along. True clearing, which
includes the roots of the words as well. That alone can bring a clearer viewing and more wisdom. I never got into a ‘conceptual separation’, which may happen when one does not use the study tech. I also saw it that one can build a conceptual reality
around what one studies. In my view, its root is the misduplication of a material.
There was a poster on the wall of the org: Look, do not think. Direct observation brings knowingness – knowingness without needing past data. That is the nature of
consciousness. Life perceives and acts. Those who got to this awareness in scientology are…hm….the word may be ‘reaching out’. While writing it, several persons come to mind who live where I live and are like that.
In short: the tech worked in my case. I saw it working in other cases as well. Bringing about higher awareness and well-being. Why it does not do so in case of
those you mention, can have several reasons. I will put here one answer by Per, who is an old-timer Class 9 auditor. You may also read his articles on the issue of ‘PTS’ , based on a huge practice…amazing materials!
http://www.ivymag.org/WebIVy/PerPTS6.htm
As for the e-meter, there are more competent people than me who used it and walked up the Bridge to tell their experience about it (I did not do the e-meter course, finished my studies at the Upper-Indoc). In my view, based on the E-meter materials, it does not ‘tell you what is or is not in your universe’, it only helps locate the charge. As for the ‘presenting and imposition of what your case is about’, to the limit I see it it is just the opposite. The techniques help raising the awareness about the mechanics of the mind and along with that awareness the individual contents arise in the focus of the attention of the person. Handling is done by observation.
As for the independence of the soul, the way I see it, the soul seeks harmony….what stand in between are universal illusions, thoughts and thought patterns or self-created imagined pictures, opinions, conclusions, agreeing to another’s idea and getting stuck in them…which, interestingly are not a problem when one is aware of them….they are also the products of Life.
All the above is my present view, which is progressing.
Awesome win Luis that YOU got OVER the fear….the YOU can always do that!
My last view: a complete acceptance, which for me is also understanding and viewing what or who there is is the key to SELF-AWARENESS. So, when there is any resistance, any sense of division (duality,), one is responsible when one clears that for the ONE. For me it includes scientology materials and also the persons involved in it. Also, any other field of life.
If you like, write about what you studied and audited. I would be interested in it. Also,
what practice you do now, if you do any.
Love
Marianne
Hi Marianne.
Great to “hear” from you.
I had decided to stop posting comments as my goals for visiting this blog were achieved, but your very enjoyable desire to connect with me, to know more about me, and, especially, your irresistible-unable-to-be-disconnected-from-charm 🙂 made me want to comment.
To respond to your curiosity about my Scientology and my after Scientology practices, I became a Dianetics, HRD, Level II auditor and did 5 ½ yrs of OT VII.
A while after I stopped doing OT VII I found my own way (evolved from doing my own version of meditation) to open up the door to perceiving my actual universe contents; to removing the false and the unneeded significances and masses, and the artificial and dimming conditions I allowed to establish themselves in my universe, because of doing Scientology’s bridge, so as to be restoring it to what and how it is and should be; and to my being able to vanish permanently the unwanted contents I can do without.
It has become a very natural, often gentle and extremely simple process where the next thing to handle, the next “onion layer” eventually shows itself after I vanish the one that was before it in the order my universe has it in.
The experiences I am consistently encountering in my life are a mirroring of what my next vanishing is about and that is why I wrote in an earlier comment in this blog that I am certain that life mirrors my universe.
And so I allow spontaneity, which I absolutely love its presence in my life, to guide it, to take me to the next step, to leave the door open for whatever experience is next for me to appreciate and embrace. I have no prediction of what comes next nor do I seek it.
There is now, to me, an awesome, amazing wonderfulness and benefit about not having to be in control; about removing the resistances to the experiences I have avoided or been avoiding or have refused or have been refusing to experience and not experience; about embracing being quite imperfect and recognizing and admitting to myself and to another or to others to my flaws and to my being wrong or having been wrong when I am or have been; about becoming aware of and letting go of needs that were or have been controlling and dictating my thoughts, the viewpoints I was or am assuming, and my actions; about realizing that all negative experiences are basically a spiritual growing prompt; about being my best friend and about the tremendous joy of finally being in and operating from my universe and empowering it and trusting it to provide me with the wisdoms I seek, should be aware of, and should be applying; and about growing and knowing I am becoming more and more a soul, and continually seeing that each one of us, no matter what, is really a BEAUTIFUL and PURE and GOOD and CARING one.
Much love and growing to you and to Chris, Marildi and Geir, whom I had the privilege and fun of connecting with.
Luis
I really enjoyed your post and thank you very much. 🙂
Hi Luis,
Thank you for each word you shared with me! That ‘charm’ is Life…impersonal, yet coming through a personality….so, again I am showing you a mirror, as you are also THAT.
I get it that you reached your goal with commenting here…got it even earlier, intuitively. You see, what you write about mirror, spontaneity, no control…that part
is also the living reality here.
I am putting here two writings. Adya is…you will see it, if you feel like reading or listening to him.
Understanding your decision, if you read any of the posts or comments on Geir’s
blog in the future and you feel like posting about how you are doing, I would be delighted to read about it.
I want to share with you something, which happened to me today on a day trip.
It was out in nature, also there were animals. A very profound shift happened in my
perception. I perceived very deeply how precious life is on the Planet. In all its forms. I cannot think of anything else more valuable than contributing to it in whatever way, to keep it here as pure as possible….
Luis, love and growing back to you….thank you for your presence and your care.
Marianne
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=49
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=12
Hi Marianne.
I see that I am unable to end my connection with this blog as planned and so my next step may be joining a 12 step program to withdraw myself from my addiction to communicating to Marianne 🙂
The “culprit” is however that my “conversations” with you have resulted and are resulting in wonderful enlightments.
I avoid commenting from a position of knowing, of authority because it then shuts the door to allowing any evolving to occur. Doing so, I noticed, makes me interesting instead of interested which my ego loves to be.
When I write I am extracting, seeing, organizing and simplifying for the first time what is in my universe regarding the area being discussed. And so it is enlightening to me to see what I have brought out and written. My connecting with you is what is providing me with these experiences.
These exchanges are also guiding me to examining your viewpoints and mine.
I will confess that I really enjoy communicating with someone who has different viewpoints than mine because I love for the viewpoints I am assuming to be challenged. Having a chance to improve them, to let go of them, or to confirm that they are valid has been one of my main sources of growing and it is also, when done with respect, a fun game.
What a caring viewpoint you were able to assume today!!! Going past oneself is not common and, to me, it is an indication that you are able to connect to the goals of the soul!
I went to the links you sent me which I enjoyed and my curiosity took me to see a new video of his dealing with resisting, a very favorite subject of mine as it has to do with one of the BIGGEST realizations that I had having to do with how I achieved establishing my own successful bridge and the importance of being aware of one’s own resistances.
In it he states: “All spiritual practices that are worth doing, are the practices that either helps us see through whatever we are believing in, in the moment, or they simply helps us let go of our resistance to what’s happening. The rest just keeps us involved in the same cycle”.
Very wise individual…. He appears to have reached an amazing level of consciousness.
But now that I am have let you know some of the wisdoms I follow, I do want to let you know that one of the most beneficial, to me, wisdoms I am following, is to make sure I am consistently empowering my universe with the ability to provide me with the answers and wisdoms I seek. That also strengthens my universe considerably and keeps it very spiritually healthy.
I do not actively seek answers or wisdoms from external sources ( unless they naturally or spontaneously present themselves as many have, including yours today), and so my universe behaves excellently in providing me with the answers and wisdoms I seek or should have.
I believe that many, while in Scientology, allow themselves to become so dependent on Ron for wisdoms and answers and allow themselves for their universe to be absorbed by Ron’s, that the impulse, the need to seek and depend on external sources for wisdoms and answers stays very active.
That, to me, severely weakens one’s universe and deteriorates its ability to generate and be generating wisdoms and answers, and to evaluate or extrapolate externally gained ones.
One’s universe, in my experience, is just as capable as anybody else’s if one grants it beingness and empowers it to be capable.
I really have, at this moment, no answers or no wisdoms I am seeking (although it is wonderful – as with the links you sent me – to see that another connected to the same wisdom) or need any confirmation as to the validity of the wisdoms I follow. Wisdoms are regularly flowing out naturally without no effort required on my part and I will not interrupt that flow by seeking them elsewhere.
This principle has a lot to do with the fact that for most of my life I was just piling up significances. Suffered from ‘acute significantitis” :). There was a tremendous imbalance between my knowledge and doing something with it. I loved to engage in discussing significances but they never crossed over to doing, to discussing my application of them and the results they would have produced.
And so I no longer seek or force feed me wisdoms 🙂 They naturally occur, whether from me or from external sources, when I am ready to incorporate them into my life.
Someone said “knowledge is power”, Luis says: The application of knowledge is what produces power.
I do want this to be my last comment for now as I have incoming priorities and also feel it is a very good moment to do so. We are both winning or, as per Scientology, our needles are surely floating 🙂
I have had a great time!!
Big,. no… huge hug to you,
Luis
Hi Luis,
Reading your words, I love them all! Haha…our ‘needle’ has been sure floating through our coms! Can be that the needle is always floating for everyone, just one needs to look into that direction and let it float.. Why a ’12 step program to withdraw myself from my addiction to communicating to Marianne’? Can one withdraw oneself from communication which is the basic activity of Life?
Right, I get it that you do not communicate from ‘knowing it’. Isn’t it a wonderful feeling, being and living? Easy, full of surprises….I write spontaneously and see it when a ‘thought’ enters which has the ability to stop the smooth flow…when there is a little stop in the flow, I also stop, let it go and continue when it has gone.
I also love my viewpoints to be challenged…viewpoints for me belong to the mind…so, there is an infinity of points to view, pick them up, change them. Here the experience is that it is also perfectly all right not to write, speak, act from a ‘point’ but from a kind of ‘fluid view’….I call it the ‘flow’. Zero position, just a flow. Different from the ‘light’ of the mind, that is from clearly seeing points and creating and exchanging one’s own. There is no ‘me’ creating, whatever, in it.
You write: ‘I am consistently empowering my universe with the ability to provide me with the answers and wisdoms I seek.’ Beautiful! The reality here is that I empower and trust the Source of the Universe to provide me with everything I need to experience without me seeking anything. As I observed it, as my consciousness is deeper and deeper and as my awareness is sharper and sharper, the Source, including the people who appear, come and go, or stay in my life, is doing that. There is still some ‘mind’, (looks to be just coming and going thoughts), which, when I ‘go into them’ in a social situation, turn out to be almost useless. Untrue, they are. The funny part of it is that when I am in com
with another, what goes through is the truth, the viewing and not the ‘thought’, the point.
Yes, I also do not ‘seek’ answers from outside resources but I love the company of those who have similar or ‘deeper’ awareness as I can then evolve, expand effortlessly. The way you are communicating to me is like that.
As I see, experience it now, when the dichotomy of internal-external source is gone from the mind, the dependency is also gone. There is just Source, manifestations, and com exchanges in different ways.
As I experience it, the three universes are manifestationsn of ONE SOURCE…when one grants complete beingness to one’s separate universe,
it vanishes and one is the Source of Life not separated from anybody or anything…one is then IN the UNIVERSE as a co-creator out of the instant of creation….
Yes to what you write about power… the application of knowledge which has its use in life. It is also the experience here that one does not need any knowledge to know, act and live life….knowingness spontaneously arises, also data one did not learn when there is no filter-wanting-to-know.
You sure do not need to do any steps as you are FREE to communicate wherever you want to communicate, share whatever you want to share, whenever you want to share. No fixed space, point and time, you see.
Yeah…it’s a big HUG…LIFE’s. Luis, amazing coms we have had….see you
here again when Life is guiding you here….love to you from the Heart of our
Being.
marianne
Another aspect of it: instead of what is active in ‘my’ (meant as personal) universe, one (as awareness itself) can be aware of what is active in The Universe. In this way The Universe as such can open up more and more and Life presents experiences which not an individual me creates but the Totality of Life, Creation as such. There are glimpses of it in awareness that this may be the case. Also, that the Universe is of one ‘substance’ and it is of ‘no substance’ at the same time. Which, in other words, means that nothing exists and everything exists forever.