What I want, I don’t have. What I have, I don’t want.

I suspect the reason people are longing for calmness, mindfulness, Nirvana, Paradise or inner peace is that they don’t have just that. I know I wanted this. And I know that as I got more and more inner peace and harmony, I started to wish for more adventure.


Like the athlete who works so hard to win a race. Sweat pouring, muscles aching. She so want to get to the finish line, and most of all get that gold medal and reap the award for those thousands of hours of training. And then she does. Excitement and glory and that total satisfaction turns into a harmony and bliss that is hard to fathom. But not for long. Staying in the bliss gets boring. Working toward it is the real deal. That is the drive, the purpose.

There is no day without the night, no pleasure without pain and no high without the low. A valley is marked by surrounding mountains. And winning is appreciated when it occurs occasionally.

I strongly suspect L. Ron Hubbard was right when he said that the optimum situation and emotional level is at games.


195 thoughts on “What I want, I don’t have. What I have, I don’t want.

    1. Another arrow hits the mark with your views here, Geir!

      The Ol’ man, (it goes without saying) was similarly bang on, with many of his astute observations too.

      I believe that many of us get to do the same, if we are prepared to advance a summary, of what is discovered/achieved/learned, at the end of any given exploration/task/journey. Especially one that is not just a breeze, but one that REALLY tests us to our limits!!

      That is, if we really take the trouble to LOOK, rather than just think about “it”

      Your wanting, having, winning, losing, creating, destroying, etc, (as we should know,) remain integral parts of “the game”! — And as long as we continue to appreciate that a game does NOT have to be ‘serious’. — then we are freed to find/create fun/joy in almost any game situation we choose/find ourselves in.

      Guess it’s no coincidence then, that the ability/willingness to REALLY look, plays such an enormous role in our success and happiness — Wouldn’t you agree? 😀

    2. vinaire: “My comment seems to disturb your inner harmony. How strong is it?”

      racing:– Is this you speaking from some past, or “present” topic??

            1. Nice answer. Politely humorous. Or humorously polite. 😀

              Would you say that this quote applies to either of you two:

              “The person himself carries along the restimulative factors which set commotions into action in his vicinity. An individual carries with him the enturbulence which restimulates others and causes them to react against him.” (LRH lecture: TONE 40 ON AN OBJECT)

            2. Since you are unable to take a hint or a direct message, and since you are unable to see that you act disrespectful and thus able to change, I will kindly ask you to leave.

            3. Geir, I actually think he has gradually been seeing the error of his ways – whether the errors were purposeful or not. And he adds some counterpoint to the mix. Can you hold off your decision for now?

            4. Okay, Geir, fair enough. Maybe he will email you and have a personal comm cycle, because being on a public forum enters in other factors. I think he was already trying to issue an apology of sorts but still keep his dignity at the same time. Anyway, I hope he will mindfully look at this and sincerely apologize for his mistake and/or thoughtlessness – however he sees it. Vinnie is like a member of the family here, after all this time – regardless of his shortcomings as well as strengths.

            5. Oh Crikey! — Looks like we’re too late. Friggn’ serfac relapses agin! 😡

            6. Well, what about it, Vinny? This ‘lounge’ is an unusually ‘welcoming place’, providing only that you pay appreciation and respect to the host, which would include a sincere apology for any offensive utterances made. —These options are yours alone to make..

            7. Geir, You got it, you did it, it’s done. That’s decisiveness! It’s also my own preferred style in behavior issues. Not etiquette for me as a guest though! 🙂

            8. Deliberately harsh things have been said. Those emotional waves continue to stand disharmoniously, until cancelled. To anyone reading my words, to the degree that I have written harsh things, to anyone offended, I apologize. For my part and coming from my generating end, I cancel those waves. Please let them pass unrebounded. I am not sending more, not today at least.

          1. Hang in there Boss! I’ve got this li’ll ‘first-aid kit’ buried under all these nuts, bolts, spanners and super-glue stashed in my ‘tool-box’. …… Hmmmm, (rummage, rummage, clank, fidget,widget..) …Ahhhh! here it is — racing’s ARC bandage selection. Okey dokey then… may we have a go?? 🙂

        1. Thanks vinny, Really got that! Now, in pt, what say we move the game up a couple of notches?? You know, where you get to abandon the ‘seriousness’ (for a while.)
          — Just to relax and actually invite yourself to partake in a little light-heartedness and mischief, for a change of “gear”. (Geir)LOL

          There’s just one catch 😉 You have to let yourself “go-o-o-o-o”.

          And I don’t only “think” you can …. I have SEEN you DO it! 😀

            1. Great! No need to say anything actually! 🙂 Just come as you ‘are’ & join the party. 😀

            2. (Please grasp this Vinny) in a nutshell– you have been pissing off our host — BIG TIME! Not exactly the very best way to make friends, (if you can see that.) Many here can, including me too. As Marildi has tried to mediate to you, an apology IS necessary, for your continuance here. Otherwise, you are fully entitled to keep it all “serious”, your “dignity” intact, and move to where you may feel welcome.

              This is a real test for your capacity in ‘Spirit of Play’ — I would say! 🙂

            3. Calvin, me heart, it so happens that I agreed with Vinnie’s point when he indicated that you were making a lot of assumptions about him. The dire consequences of evaluation is also part of the tech (which you and I both appreciate) and, with that consideration in mind, I thought his answer to you was quite polite, actually. 😉

            4. Marildi, Your opinion is just fine with me. Mine was just a direct appeal to drop all the saddlebags of unmistakable baggage, seriousness, and animosity, in order to simply lighten-up a few notches, where the “game” is no longer below 2.0, but rather up in the fun band, of 3.5 or more! (The tech of which you too, are also quite familiar) Sure, these are ALL games here, but when we’re playing in our host’s ‘lounge’, we sure as hell need to have “mindfulness” of that too, doncha think? 🙂

            5. “Mine was just a direct appeal to drop all the saddlebags of unmistakable baggage, seriousness, and animosity, in order to simply lighten-up a few notches…”

              But Cal, me pal, he already DID drop all the “unmistakable” baggage and “seriousness” and “animosity”- when he replied, “I don’t know what to say to all your assumptions.” I thought his reply was a pretty nice way to respond to the evaluations you made, which I’m pretty sure he didn’t agree with. Are so sure your evaluations are right that it doesn’t even occur to you they might not be? Or that they might have been offensive?

              Even the first comment on this topic that Vinaire posted on this thread, where he wrote: “I am always polite and courteous” – with a smilie emoticon – I totally got that he was mocking himself. Mocking himself! I would have thought that mocking oneself would count as an apology between you men. 🙄 I guess not, though. 😛 🙂

            6. Marildi; If your theory about Vinaire’s latest is correct, then it would cost him nothing to validate your theory by issuing a sincere apology. The proof of any theory lies in its predictions. I, on the other hand have the theory that he never saw any wrongdoing on his part (ever) and that no such apology will be issued. Want to take a bet?

            7. “…it would cost him nothing to validate your theory by issuing a sincere apology.”

              It might require the two of you getting a 2D co-audit. 😀

              Kidding aside, it might in fact be true, now that I think of it, that you could get “case gain” from taking Vinnie on – as a challenge to your anti-fragility and “let it go” techniques. Believe me, I’ve been in your shoes and I know how exasperating and infuriating someone’s remarks can be!

              But, taking it a step further, allowing criticism in general of the blog host might be quite the “practical” for you – and it would make your blog rather unique! As a comparison, some other blog hosts have allowed much worse criticisms than Vinaire ever dished out to you – but they also know darn good and well that when anybody criticizes them, that person will be jumped on by their followers. Sometimes they reply to the criticism with a harsh insult – and then delete the comeback to it! I am not the only one who has observed this. Those blogs don’t even come close to the level playing field that your blog does. And I agree with Calvin (Racing…) that this blog is special and one of a kind in more ways than one.

              But to answer your question, I’ll pass on the bet. Your take is most probably right. I just thought Vinaire should be given the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen what looked to me like signs of improvement – either in response to the ethics pressure you’ve been putting on him or an actual change of attitude, which you would also get credit for, as well as Vinnie himself (if it’s true).

              All that said, I wish we hadn’t spent so much bandwidth on this, because it may have taken away from a great topic – but I hope people don’t let it!

            8. Thing is, Vinaire doesn’t present any challenge. It’s downright boring to see him unchanging regardless what others say or the interactions happening. I am happy to see him go. I welcome criticism any time – as has come from many during the past 6 years. That’s never been an issue. I also like tough discussions and I am one of the very few who refrain from moderating every post. The challenges I am looking for is not unchanging, grumpy old men but rather thought-provoking stuff that can change my views or action that will change my life.

            9. Okay, I understand your viewpoint better now. So then, let’s carry on! 😉

              I’ll be away from my computer for a while but I’ll be back later on to respond to some of the other interesting comments on this thread.

            10. Marildi, Thanks again for your pov.. Perhaps though, the only requirement for any apology to be acceptable, is genuine *SINCERITY. 🙂

              You have experienced this and know it. We ALL intrinsically know this, to be the woof & warp that underlies (or UNDOES!) our ARC for one another! 🙂

              It all hinges upon our simple acceptance (and willingness) to apply this * (datum).

              No one needs to ‘paper over’ plain rudeness, arrogance and bad manners, in the hope that it then becomes acceptable. It just NEVER is— is it? 😦

              That is to say, meheart, that you may pause to ponder just how MUCH of your time and energy is consumed by you, in having to deal with the agitation resulting from postings that not only violate the elements of the comm formula, (especially duplication), but also violate the ARC triangle too.

              ‘Sincerity’, me meheart. It’s more than just a ‘word!’ It also contains LOVE! 🙂

              —- That said, Geir’s Blog, imo, still stands out, as the most broadly ‘welcoming’, & ‘stimulating’, of the WHOLE bunch, me ❤ 😀

            11. The same to you Cal – thanks for your pov too. And thanks for always being courteous to me – no matter how straightforward and blunt I am. 😉 ❤

    3. It is a mistake to taunt the host and to ignore our hard won knowledge. In this case regarding waves. It is easy to make disharmony. One simply does not sync. To me it seems to be more difficult, more artistic, more hospitable to listen and match the waveform and find a way and a reason to contribute to that waveform, enforcing and smoothing it.

      1. Chris, just need to say this, good fella’. — Keep up the ‘Chrisevolution’ Pretty soon you’ll have grown wings too, me bro’ LOL. 😀

        1. Thank you Calvin. I liked both yours and Marildi’s response to this issue. Manners is a worthwhile subject. Maybe we should spend some time on it with another thread?

          1. Good one Chris, And thanks for the thumbs up, bro’.

            Yup, We can/should go there! Lord knows we need to broaden the practice of manners….. revolves around ‘that’ key attitude, too:……. Respect! 😉

            1. It takes courage and anti-fragility to show respect. It takes courage and anti-fragility to refrain from censoring one’s own blog.

            2. “Vinaire” ??? Is that youuu??? (sure sounds ‘like’, hey Chris?) 😉

          2. Hi gang. Here’s a little example of how totally ‘south’ people can go, in seeking this calmness, nirvana, inner peace, etc.etc.mentioned in Geir’s OP.

            Bumped into a ‘still-in’ yesterday, while out shopping with my wife, in the local Spar supermarket. We are both about the same age (68) and similarly, both entered around ’70’-71′

            Feeling my usual ‘overt’ self, I cut him off in the isle, did the usual handshake.and badgered him on how he was doing? “Ah, no, just great! Yes! Yes! Doing VERY well, truly just fine, fine, yes, yes, no, fine! ” (while the face looked aged and drawn, eyes saddened, the mouth quivering, between a forced smile and a grimace 😦 ) He simply couldn’t remember my name, nor that of my wife Dorothy, who saw him first, and decided to give him a miss, wisely carrying on with the shopping trolley. WE had interacted regularly with him over the years.

            — I asked him how the Org was doing? >”Oh, just fantastic, brilliant, in fact.”
            (in reality, it has shrunk to practically just a whimper)
            — was he still moving up the bridge? >”Definitely! Doing so well!”
            (His appearance said quite the opposite)
            — How’s the 2-D going? >”Oh, I’m going through a divorce…blah blah. blah”

            Finally, it dawned on him, that I was actually THERE ! (in his face) :O

            Then he asked “And how are you doing?” I answered; “Very well too thanks” quickly followed with a real 1.1 (whispered); “You know, ALL the tech is now available OUTSIDE the Church at a fraction of the cost!”

            Well, The shocked look on his face was priceless.! “So YOU’VE joined the squirrel group have you????” — “I’ve got to go now!” — And he did — like a shot!

            (the above type incident is played out daily in countless similar ways across the planet )

            But here is what is so remarkable about this story!:

            This was an almost carbon copy repeat of what had taken place between us, at a different supermarket, some 8 months earlier.

            — AND YET HE COULD NOT REMEMBER A THING. (Recently OT V too)

            Yep, “CO$ mind-control” — (The state seems to be “absolute”) 😥

  1. If there is an object, and you want it, it’s like you pull it in towards you. If it’s on you, that flow is no longer needed.

    Also, I think inner peace etc are not attained. They are. They must be the original ‘being’. And it isn’t lost. But we can focus on things beyond that, and be oblivious towards it.

    1. *being=spiritual being. I don’t see any point in a human being to be completely calm, motionless. That would make it a statue, or drugged or dead. Humans are put here to do stuff, I think.So that would be against their nature.

    2. You are one really, really sharp boykie! (Afrikaans slang for ‘young man’) 🙂

        1. 🙂 Hello back Spyros — Full of that same positive stuff as you too, bro’ 😀

          1. Or I only write when I feel I could say that positive stuff. I could rant too. People here know I could 😛

            Thank you 🙂

            1. You’re welcome! 🙂 Of course we could! (cut it BOTH ways!) The ‘Free’ just do! 😀

            2. I love the free mode. But if I turn mine on, most will misunderstand me, and maybe feel offended too, even if that isn’t intended. That’s what happened when Geir turned his free mode on too. 😛

    3. Hi Spyros!

      You say: “Also, I think inner peace etc are not attained. They are. They must be the original ‘being’. And it isn’t lost. But we can focus on things beyond that, and be oblivious towards it.”

      I think the above has been your view of existence for some time. Is it intuitive on your part or did some spiritual teacher point to it and you had the “eyes to see”?

      It sounds like non-dual philosophy, which I’ve gotten interested in just recently. So far, I especially like the teacher called Mooji.

      1. Hola Marildi 🙂 I can change my awareness about myself and things a few -illion times per day. It just seems more stable when I talk philosophy. I could also talk about lifting objects, it doesn’t mean I do it.

        But to answer: I used to have better awareness of myself, before I started to read/be told about myself. Then I got some solid confusion in SCN (solid meaning I didn’t change it), then I discarded much of that, and adopted what I wrote before.

        Still I left out of my explanation the mind, which is something that COULD be dealt with, of course. I don’t say otherwise. I just don’t consider the spirit to be a victim, in any case. For me, spirity is cool, but its identities -spiritual or not- could get into trouble. So no, I no longer think thetans get into trouble. Unless you think that playing with a troubled toy is trouble for you.

        I’ve noticed others have similar opinions with mine, outside SCN. It’s pretty cool, for me. But I don’t know Mooji. Good though 🙂

        1. Spyros: “I’ve noticed others have similar opinions with mine, outside SCN. It’s pretty cool, for me. But I don’t know Mooji.”

          Let me introduce him to you. He may be your long-lost soul mate. 🙂

          I found a good video of his – under 10 minutes (just for you). And if you have trouble with his accent, click on “cc” – it’s not the usual automated transcript; it’s a real one.

          1. He is so good. Yes, some of the things he said are what I perceive from that perspective of spirit. No trouble with accent.

            Does he identify as ‘Buddhist’? I’m asking because Buddhism is very broad. And I wonder how much I agree and with whom (looking for soul mates). I understand not all agree with each other.

            1. “He is so good.”

              I knew you would like him! Freebeeing told me about him on a previous comment thread. He recommended a great video of an interview of Mooji. It’s about an hour and a half long – and so worth watching. If you’re interested, here’s the link to the comment where I posted that video: https://isene.me/2015/10/13/is-the-universe-infinite/#comment-100178

              I’m pretty sure Mooji doesn’t call himself a Buddhist. According to his biography, he’s an advaita (non-dual) master. However, it also says that his first life-changing spiritual experience was a chance encounter with a Christian mystic. Sometime after that was when he met “a living Buddha, a fully enlightened master” who was to become his guru – Papaji, an advaita master. Papaji’s guru was Ramana Maharshi. Here’s a quote from the biography page on Mooji’s website (maintained by his followers, obviously):

              “Since 1999, Mooji has been sharing satsang [“sitting together”] in the form of spontaneous encounters, retreats, satsang intensives and one-to-one meetings with the many seekers who visit him from all parts of the world, in search of the direct experience of truth. Few amongst the modern teachers of the advaita tradition expound the ‘knowledge of Self’, and the method of self-enquiry, with such dazzling clarity, love and authority. There is an energy that radiates from Mooji’s presence, a kind of impersonal intimacy, full of love, joy and a curious mix of playfulness and authority. His style is direct, clear, compassionate and often humorous.”

              Btw, Mooji does a lot of his satsangs in Portugal and other places in Europe – lucky you. Maybe you’ll meet some of your soul mates besides me. 😀 Info about his schedule is also on the website link above.

            2. p.s. Here’s the link to Mooji’s website: http://mooji.org/biography.html

              I took it out of my comment above because it wasn’t posting. I guess two links is one too many.

              @ Geir. When I tried to post the above comment it just disappeared – didn’t even show up as “awaiting moderation.” But if it does somehow show up as a duplicate, please delete it and leave the one above. Tku.

            3. Interesting. I see he also has the symbol of Hinduism in his page. I thought Hinduism was about chakras and such energies… Well, maybe it is also about that, or maybe it used to be something that changed through time. I think Hinduism is a broad subject too. I’m going to look deeper. Thanks for the recommendations. You can go to the very bottom of my blog to see what I do too, because you used to ask me… Cheers 🙂

      2. I forgot. I can have an awareness of spirit as I define it, yes. It’s the best thing ever.

      3. For me ‘spiritual superiority’ is a lie. Spirit is spirit. Levels of improvement can be used to measure how much spirit and how much lying one uses in human life. That’s all. It doesn’t invalidate spiritual levels, paths. But it’s a different viewpoint than what I used to have.

        Also, I consider humility and arrogance as additive ideas, lies, not native to spirit. It is related to a misconception that power could be used to dominate others. Or that those who dominate, suppress are strong. I don’t think so. Power, love, responsibility, ethics, go together.

          1. Glad you like 🙂 What is experienceable by you, about spirit/thetan? Most of the time in blogs we had been talknig about what we had read. But I wonder what people actually experience. For me, it is something completely ‘foreign’ to what I had been considering to be ‘myself’. Yet on the same time familiar. I think that was my confusion.

            1. Spyros, Thanks for the inspiring comments. You know, reflecting on just how far OFF the mark we can be, in attempting to actually ‘get’ (duplicate) what’s ‘sent’, I reckon we need to factor that in to the mix!

              Having said that, I think there is little doubt, concerning where a person stands, regarding their ARC level, which, (like body-language) can/does *reveal underlying emotions/sentiments, in spite of WHAT has been said!

              Yes, Spyros, I hope I’m not seeming too presumptuous, in saying that WE (collectively, ALL Earth inhabitants) are likely far more perceptive, (in tune) with their surroundings and fellow inhabitants, than we realize. (Sixth sense!)

              This ‘awareness’, is precisely what I’m referring to, when referring to how stuff is *’revealed’. Jeez, bro’, just how much of our intrinsic ‘perception’ do we just ignore, when we would individually survive FAR better, by just being ‘sharper’, hey? 😀

            2. Thanks. I guess the responsibility to understand and be understood are both on the readers and the writers. And other than one’s command of language, the frame of mind, the perception of ‘what is’, that one has, when he reads, matters as well. That can be a kind of a context. Example: if you knew that I was a bad guy, you would fit everything I said in that context, and then you could draw analogous conclusions.

              But I’ve noticed that some are good enough to bypass such contexts, as writers.

              About ARC: I’m certainly not a master of it, to talk about all it’s ramifications. I am aware I used to receive signals that I misinterpreted or ignored, like you pointed out.

              But what I had been talking about (mostly with Marildi) about spirit, was a thing beyond the material universe and the wavelengths that can exist therein. Inside the universe, points that emanate and/or receive signals can exist. And I used to consider ‘spirit’ to be such a point. Now I think that point is just a created point. And it doesn’t have to be just one, by the way. I think we can have countless viewpoints, and simultaneously too.

            3. Yes, Spyros. Perhaps we may care to have a look at this whole activity called “consideration” You almost certainly, have reflected on those Scn Axioms.
              (specifically Ax 2.) –“The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.”

              If we kick off then, with the “consideration”, that our little thetan (soul, spirit) fella’, has almost “buried himself” within mountains of these suckers (considerations), then it’s no wonder the Ol’ man sometimes described the process of auditing, as “unburdening the thetan by digging him out of his case” (considerations)

              So, to answer your question above:– “What is experienceable by you, about spirit/thetan” — I offer this personal realization:

              Having fully reduced my perception, to “pure awareness” sans any consideration, emotion, ego, feeling, sensation, attachment, etc. This ‘state’, thereafter, became subject again to “my consideration/s” (following viewing a video by Adyashanti, called “The Gift Of Wanting”.) The state of “pure awareness”, was thereafter accepted as PRIMARY existence (pure essence, One, etc.) ALL else making up “me”, simply “added on.”

              So there WE “ARE” — Pure “nothing” (but potential) — with everything else, (Spyros, Calvin, etc.) (btw, sorry about this!!) laboriously, just “added on” 😀

            4. I would like to do more research into the area of spotting the considerations that keeps shit in place. And not by any type of regression but rather the spotting of the considerations the person is continually creating right here and now that keeps shit going.

            5. Geir: “I would like to do more research into the area of spotting the considerations that keeps shit in place.”

              That ties in with your blog post where it essentially alludes to non-dualism. I think the non-dualist answer to “what keeps shit in place” might be, basically, that we consider things to be dual/multiple – i.e. separate (as opposed to One). This creates an alter-isness, which brings about persistence. Thus, the basic-basic would seem to be the origin of dualistic considertions.

            6. Geir, freebeeing got me interested in taking a look at the tech of TROM, and it struck me that this tech may address the considerations you are referring to. Below is a brief excerpt and the link. Note – “true GPM’s” I believe would relate to a being’s own goals as opposed to implanted goals; and the word “considerations” could be substituted for “postulates”:

              “The actual legs, the actual postulates of the true GPMs aren’t in the reactive bank. They’re in the analytical mind. If you search in the bank, you will do it all wrong.

              “It is an analytical construct, so they’re in the analytical mind. All that is in the bank is a mish-mash of wrong opposers. The lies. The truth is in the analytical mind.” https://tromology.wordpress.com/

            7. How nice. So, you understand what I refer to.

              I only want to disagree with one thing, and add another.

              My disagreement is that the spirit hasn’t buried itself, nor has it otherwise done anything, in some past tense, that has effect on it now. That’s as far as I understand it. The reason is that it has no time, nor is it subjected to another’s time. All creations (postulates, considerations, etc) are occurring now, or they are not occurring. The mind thinks with past, present, future, alright. And our lives are based on that. But that isn’t true for spirit.

              And what I wanted to add, is that the pure state of being, is not just an end-goal (if it is an end-goal, at all) to attain. It can be a tool. It’s from the axioms too that direct perception from static as-ises things. I think it wasn’t implemented in processing, because not all could understand and do it.

            8. Correction: It was implemented (thus as-isness could occur), but indirectly. Nobody was asked to just perceive as static.

            9. “Nobody was asked to just perceive as static.”

              Isn’t this what is happening when a pc “looks” at the energy manifestations in his mind. It’s not the body that is looking; it’s the thetan. Right?

            10. I don’t know all about what you asked. But I assume there can be complex vias in as-ising case, like that. Which is why it takes more effort than a ‘glance’, to as-is it. Anyway, my point was he is not asked to be aware of static and perceive as such –and not directly. He might as well think that his brains contain it case, and his brains perceive it, or other things.

            11. Why so, Spy? (you have a new nickname 🙂 ) I see it as very simple, and I’m pretty sure it’s part of hatting a new pc. He is asked to close his eyes and picture a cat so that it becomes real to him that it’s him as a thetan who does the looking at the mind.

              But when you talk about as-ising with a glance, I get that you are referring to what Ron called “blowing by inspection.” To my understanding, that occurs when the pc simply puts his attention in the direction of some picture or mass and it blows without him ever seeing what was there. I believe this occurs because the pc as a being has gained enough horse power for this to occur. Auditing is not all that esoteric, as I see it – it simply has to do with energy interactions, I do believe.

            12. I answered this before, while talking to Calvin. Case doesn’t exist for the static. It can exist for an identity, a remote viewpoint, that can perceive case. Through that viewpoint static can consider it is placed in space and time, that it can be at effect and so on. Through a body for example, it can consider it can get hurt. But the static can’t. It’s a lie, namely case. The static has no horsepower, nor lack of horsepower. Through that viewpoint it can consider it has –more case.

              No, I don’t have an MU.

              But tell me why put that SCN picture book (that has the example with the imagined cat, if I remember correctly) above the axioms? Or what Scientologists believed? You don’t have to believe me. It’s all there in the axioms.

            13. Spy: “Case doesn’t exist for the static.”

              This exchange may be getting into semantics, or maybe switching from one frame of reference to another. Or else you have an MU. 😀


              But how does the idea from the picture book – that the thetan is what looks at pictures – clash with the Axioms? I’m looking at these, for example:

              Axiom 1: Life is BASICALLY a static.

              Axiom 44: Theta (the static) has no location in matter, energy, space or time. It is capable of consideration.

              Axiom 45: Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

            14. Nothing wrong with the cat idea. I just wouldn’t take a non LRH book, as a SCN reference.

              If you fall asleep you can also consider you’re in the jungle fighting lions. That’s about how I take Axiom 45. The ‘basically’ on Axiom 1, doesn’t make the static less valid. ‘Basic truth’ doesn’t make it less valid, either. It puts it up there on top.

              The horsepower you reffered to, is part of the ‘dream’. The guy who dreams is neither weak nor strong. And doesn’t need rehabilitation. The character inside the dream, could be, and could need rehabilitation. If the dreamer becomes fully aware of dreaming, the dream doesn’t need to go on. That would be instant as-isness. That’s all I mean. Processing addresses the dreamer, but through the dreamed character, whose identity the dreamer assumes –and who knows what else… Thus perception is less direct, and as-ising stuff takes more time/effort. That’s what I meant.

            15. Actually, the Scn Picture Book isn’t “non-LRH” – every bit of the text was taken from LRH sources.

              Otherwise, I understand what you’re saying. But it’s like I said before – I think we are switching back and forth between different frames of reference, different contexts. In the context of auditing, the thetan is in a state of considering himself located and so forth. He is operating at that level and being addressed at that level by the auditor. In this state of being, he is “basically” a static, as I see it. And I would agree with you – the horsepower is part of the dream he is in, and the guy himself is in a dream. But I would say that’s the only “guy” who can be contacted as far as getting auditing is concerned. Pretty much the only “guy” who would be interested in and benefit from auditing – i.e. almost everybody on the planet.

              The rest of what you wrote I would tend to agree with. I might not have done so previously – can’t remember. I was probably in more of a dream. 🙂

            16. I didn’t want to spend much time referring to that picture book. But it obviously includes interpretations in the forms of pictures, and it relays them to the reader. It can be nice to teach somebody how to cook, but that is not is meant by ‘granting beingness’, for God’s sake. Also, copy/pasted/cut LRH sentences, could be put in such order that they would completely different sense. I wouldn’t go with it.

              I understand what you meant about auditing. And since we agree about static, I don’t understand what you argued about. I didn’t mean auditing cannot be used. I have my own reasons why I don’t process. And that would be another big topic.

            17. Okay, I see what you mean about the Picture Book.

              You then wrote: “I don’t understand what you argued about. I didn’t mean auditing cannot be used.”

              And I didn’t think you meant that. But I guess what I didn’t really get was a couple things you wrote in the previous posts. Can you say more about these two comments of yours:

              “Anyway, my point was he is not asked to be aware of static and perceive as such –and not directly.”

              “Processing addresses the dreamer, but through the dreamed character, whose identity the dreamer assumes –and who knows what else… Thus perception is less direct, and as-ising stuff takes more time/effort.”

            18. I mean the static can perceive directly or through a series a vias. The body can be a via, the mind can be 35 trillion more vias, and I don’t really know what else. Which is why by getting rid of those, bit by bit, you can as-is faster (you called it, more horsepower, before). When I hit Clear, I could create and discard case effortlessly, and I was having FTA for weeks (I checked occasionally). I had gotten rid of a huge series of vias, through which I perceived. Then I got 2D trouble, and I finally put the needle back in position 😛

            19. Wow. Awesome on your Clear experience. ❤

              Well again, I don't have a problem with anything you are saying but does it relate to "not being asked to be aware of static and perceive as such – and not directly.”

              As for that last line, I'm not going to even touch it, except to say lol. 😛

            20. *I said ‘Clear’ but I don’t know if it is called like that, if it isn’t made with SCN. But still it’s the same EP.

            21. Yes, I’m sure it is the same EP – minimally. In the later years, LRH finally came up with a definition that fit all Clears: “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind.”

              What you achieved seems to fit an earlier definition, below, although I don’t think it fits all Clears:

              9 . simply an awareness of awareness unit which knows it’s an awareness of awareness unit, can create energy at will, and can handle and control, erase or re-create an analytical mind or reactive mind. (Dn 55 .l pp. 17-18)

              Talk to you later, Spy. Have a great day. 😛 🙂

            22. Yes. By the way, the confidential definition of Clear, that you wrote above, is more minimal than the second definition, below, that is not confidential. The one above is contained within the one below 😛 It wouldn’t make sense if LRH had made it confidential. Have a good night. 🙂

            23. No, sorry. The confidential Clear cog, is that he knows he creates it… Still, it is contained in the second definition, in different words.

            24. In the context of Clear, I have a quote for you that is one of the most insightful ever, IMO:

              “Here is a mechanism interposed in the cycle of stimulus-response restimulation which demonstrates that:


              “Man is so aberrated at this date that it took considerable processing to discover this interim factor. And to discover that the interim factor is far more important than the mechanism of restimulation and that restimulation ceases by picking up the inner postulate between a source of restimulation and being restimulated.”

              “The extent of free choice is remarkable. The amount a case can be improved by self-determinism processing is even more remarkable.” (*Advanced Procedure and Axioms*)

            25. *Without vias there wouldn’t be anything to as-is, me thinks. As per that axiom too, direct perception=as-isness.

            26. Excuse me. Another thing I omitted: It’s about the spirit being in trouble. It is understandable to say that Spyros or Calvin are in trouble, as we refer to things that are subjected in time, and located somewhere, and could get squashed by a huge rock falling onto their heads. But to say that about ‘something’ (spirit) that is not in time, space, has no mass, wavelength etc, it doesn’t make sense. I don’t think spirit is ever at effect. It’s identities could be. They are alterations (“I am a body” etc) thus they can be effected other alterations. So, to know oneself as spirit also serves that purpose –to kick out those alterations. Also, I think spiritual identities an exist, as well, not just bodies. And they could be at effect too. Thus you can appear to have spirits at effect.

            27. “Primary” research tools, to perhaps include some of those Scn AX’IOMS ? (Such as AX 11a,b,c,d – 18, 19, 20, 29, 32-38, 40, 41, 42, 45-58.) —In my experience, these tools are pretty resilient to not-isness, or bypass. .. Your view, Geir? 🙂

            28. Just to register that this thread seems to have become quite disjointed and therefore no clear points are being communicated. Comments that should have appeared first in sequence, now having later comments inserting ahead, etc.

              A severe case of “plus randomity” perhaps? 😀

            29. Calvin, one big reason for the out-sequence of comments is that posters like yourself (ahem) are not using either the reply button that’s directly under the comment being replied to – OR, if there is no reply button under it, not using the reply button on the email notification for that comment. If one of those two options is used, the reply will fall under the post being replied to (unless someone else has already replied to it, in which case it will fall directly under their reply) and it will be clear which post it is a reply to.

              When you don’t use one of those two options but instead just go to the nearest reply button above the post you want to reply to, it can be difficult if not impossible for anybody to tell whose comment you are actually replying to. This is because, for one thing, the email notification tells us (incorrectly) that your comment is a reply to the comment whose reply button you used. Even viewing the thread itself doesn’t always make it clear as to what you were replying to, especially if there were too many replies-to-replies in between yours and the reply button you used – in which case your reply would fall under all of them, making it even more difficult to see what it was a reply to because it is now even more out of order.

              And yes, this is annoying! 😛 🙂

              Btw, I brought this up to Marianne one time, who was doing the same thing, and she basically rejected my suggestion to use the reply button on email notifications because it was somehow easier for her to just use the nearest reply button. I don’t think she duplicated that it makes it hard for the rest of us. (hint hint 🙂 )

              The other big reason for the difficulty in reading this comment thread, and being able to tell which post a comment is in reply to, is that Geir uses a blog theme that is very aesthetic but not very practical. If you go to Marty’s blog, you can see an example of a WordPress blog where there are quite a few “tiers” or “levels” of reply buttons – i.e. you can reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply (about that many). On top of it, there is a vertical line next to each of the replies that goes all the way up to the post it is in reply to, and that line can be followed upward whenever the sub-thread gets too long and complicated to be able to see at a glance what a reply in reply to.

              By contrast, with regard to many of the comments on Geir’s blog, it is virtually impossible to determine which is in reply to which because there are so few tiers and because of how they are spaced in relation to one another. Maybe Geir will change the theme sometime in the near future to a more utilitarian one for us to try out. (hint hint 🙂 )

            30. Aha! Your comment above is a good example of what I just wrote to you. First of all, the email notification for it says that it is in response to Spyros’ post (the one where he starts out with “Glad you like…”) – which is the post above Geir’s that has a reply button. More significantly, if you had used the email notification for Geir’s comment, your reply would have fallen under his and stayed there no matter what replies were posted to whom – instead of it now being under mine after I wrote a reply to you. See how messed up it gets?

          2. (The same could be asked about anything what have read/been told. It was a good question by Marildi.)

  2. About to hit the sack here, (now 01.20 South Africa) gang. I must say, overall, a nice vibe can usually be continued on this blog. Tonight had a glitch occur with some ‘bad manners’ being the culprit. Please, it costs absolutely NOTHING, to show simple respect and appreciation for the privilege of posting here at Geir’s Blog (Place 🙂 )

    This is my earnest appeal to use some savvy, when conducting one’s self here.
    It is one special place for me personally, And I support Geir in his efforts to maintain the ethos he has established, sans any unwelcome barbs and unhelpful sniping, which divert attention from.otherwise stimulating comradery and discussion.

    Thank you,
    — Calvin 🙂

      1. Yep, Chris and thanks for the feedback too!. Mention needs to be made, of just how often a blog can become totally consumed by ‘fire-fights’ & ongoing feuding.
        Indeed, as we know, this is a reason for the existence of ‘moderation’.

        It seems just prudent here, to remind ourselves that Geir has actually dispensed with ‘mandatory moderation’, preferring to allow unhindered postings, of all those who do show willingness to respect him/his blog.

        Needless to say, we ALL do much better, if we show genuine politeness whenever we are… um..’visiting’ anyone!. ….Like…..er…um…duh! Huh? ? ? .. Yo’..means ah jis don’ git ta sayin’ wot I wanna saaaay, yo’ friggn’ fink???

  3. I guess it depends on what you consider “optimal”.

    Peace and joy are innate. Thoughts of lack cover up that innate joy. Desire when satisfied allows that innate peace and joy to again shine through until you cover it up again with more thoughts of lack and desire. It is not the achievement of your desire that brings happiness, it is the cessation of the desire (by satisfying it) that permits your happiness to surface.

    Games are supposed to be fun. Unfortunately most are stuck in complusive game situations in many areas. This is not a happy state of affairs. Non-compulsive games are fun. You play or not at choice.

    No games, well, you could look on that as boring. I would like to have the option though 🙂 Sometimes it’s nice to take a vacation from it all. We do it every night when we are in dreamless sleep. It is something we enjoy.

    Optimal, to me, is all game’s play in the volitional realm.

    1. Mention the word game and the first one on the scene is ready to kick the game board over, then run away in hysterical laughter. I would like to get a few games started. I may be setting the games up wrong.

  4. Though more than 6 decades of my life have passed, and though I have had those decades of conditioning, experience, training, to draw from, etc., I find that toward the center of who I am, toward the average center of how I am known, I feel much as I did as a boy. I wonder at many of the same things. I am irritated by many of the same things. I am pleased and exhilarated by many of the same things.

    I have subscribed to several somewhat different religious ideologies and in that subscribing I willed myself to change to fit and to fit into those contexts.

    Yes, I have run many races, loved many loves, and gagged on my own spit from the dust I’ve stired. Yet, in hindsight, there is a basic continuity to myself and to my ego, my self importance. Am I very different from how I was? Have I changed remarkably? Sometimes, I have asserted that I have changed. Yet for all the change I remain quite recognizable to myself.

    I like the way the OP stirred my thoughts on this subject.

    1. That you that has been there through all your years is the changless Self. Changeless, unperturbable, witnessing life unfold.

  5. I should have said that the idea that happiness can be found outside of one’s Self is a dead-end pusuit. Lasting happiness will never be found in attaining “purposes”. The desire to attain a goal can only ultimately take you away from your eternal innate peace. You can of course engage in goals attainment. There is of course the liability of meeting resistance and suffering by running into opposition. The more important you make the goal the stronger the suffering. Seems we have an addiction in this regard. Why bother with a goal if it is not important? Just know that the degree of importance is commensurate with the degree of pain that can be inflicted by the opposition. One has to be able to let go of importance to regain freedom. Super importance = compulsion. Freedom lies in the opposite direction.

    You are limitless being. Strip off the ideas that you are limited. That’s a very good game or is it a game at all? We thought Scn was going to do just that, but sadly it didn’t really take us very far in that direction. I would say it is the only thing that ever should have been processed. So you think you’re limited huh? Tell me all about it! lol

    1. freebeeing: “You are limitless being. Strip off the ideas that you are limited. That’s a very good game or is it a game at all? We thought Scn was going to do just that, but sadly it didn’t really take us very far in that direction.”

      True, fb, but I don’t think it was because Hubbard wasn’t well aware of the other point you made: “The desire to attain a goal can only ultimately take you away from your eternal innate peace.” I think you will appreciate this excerpt from PDC lecture 39, GAME PROCESSING:

      “The guy’s got no goal when he steps out of his head. He has no goal. He doesn’t think there’s any place else to go.

      “And one of the reasons why you’ll see a theta clear hang up as exteriorized and stable outside, but no higher up the line, is that he doesn’t find there’s any reason to do anything. There’s no goal. He says, ‘Well, so what? Well, it would mean I’d disassociate myself from all of our friends if I went on and did all of these things. So the best thing for me to do is just kind of stay out here and just be a little freaky.’ Nothing to do and no place to go.

      “He doesn’t realize that there is a sensation above any physical or mental sensation he has ever felt, and that is called the Spirit of Play. And that is more absorbing, more engrossing and headier than any other kind of activity he can do.

      “It is the first and foremost ingredient which causes a thetan to come into this universe or start to build his own. That’s the highest level you’ve got.

      “Now you’d think that was very strange, wouldn’t you, that we’d have as the highest level something a kid attains easily, and which we don’t pay any attention to his having attained. And yet all of you remember about the vividness of play. You don’t remember it very well, though, or you’d never have deserted it.”

      “Now what a child feels as vividness of play is so minor and is so beset by the hectic environment in which he has to dwell that there’s hardly any comparison between the most vivid and interesting and exhilarating instant of a child’s life and what is simply the commonest feeling of being alive high on the tone scale.

      “You would call…you would call a child’s headiest, most exciting moment of play uh…below the sensation known as ‘being alive’, high on the tone scale. See, Spirit of Play is the only way we can translate it here.

      “Now there’s an aberration, really then, if you might call it that. An enforcement and a necessity above just havingness – that’s time – that’s above time. There is something above Time. And that is this: There must be a game. And that is on Desire, and that is your highest level Desire there is. There must be a game.

      “Now this DEI I’ve been talking to you about – Desire, Enforce, and Inhibit – can exist way up, and not quite so high up, and then not quite so high up. And then start DEI all over again.”

      1. Yes, but all that got lost sight of as things moved forward. It really went off track badly when he failed to figure out how to process goals. At least now it is known how to do it right. Have you found Lester Levenson in your travels? Very cool guy (died in 94).

        1. I’m beginning to think my spirit guides have directed you to me and/or vice versa. 🙂

          This is the second time you pointed someone out who seems to be on my current wavelength – on my R level. I googled “Lester Levenson” to see if I could find any youtube videos of his (I like to see the beinginess in animation). I watched the short one below and spotted a couple of phrases he used as being very Scientological – and on another google search, I found out he was one. Actually, he sounds very much like a non-dualist, from what little bit I got so far out of this video. I will definitely check him out further!

          1. As far as I know Lester was NOT a Scientologist. He was familiar with Scn. but not one himself. He attained enlightenment on his own in, I think it was, 1954 by his own self-inquiry. His understanding of eastern matters came later I believe in an effort to understand what he had achieved. It is clear that he became familiar with Ramana Maharshi’s self-inquiry “Who am I” for he advises that that is the best method he knows. At the same time he also practiced “let go and let god”, culminating in the “Sedona Method” of releasing. Hale Dworskin was given the reins by Lester, he has a nice BATGAP (Buddha a the Gas Pump) interview as well. I’d like to email you Marildi, perhaps you can leave your email in a comment on my blog?

            I’m glad you are finding our wavelengths to be compatible 🙂

            I’d like to say a little bit re something you posted earlier in reply to Spyros:

            “In the context of auditing, the thetan is in a state of considering himself located and so forth. He is operating at that level and being addressed at that level by the auditor. In this state of being, he is “basically” a static, as I see it”

            If you are saying that a PC in session is “being a static” then I would disagree. This is what Spyros was talking about. That the static doesn’t need any auditing. Nothing can affect the static. I have been trying to understand the 2 approaches I see to “enlightenment”. One by solo processing and the other by “self-inquiry”. It seems that Mooji and other enlightened ones tell us that finding out who/what we really are and abiding in THAT is the “process”. On the other hand Mooji and Adyashanti both have talked about the “stuff” that still is present — “conditioning”. Conditioning is mind, and to my mind also includes implantation. So I wonder how deep a spiritual awakening can be and how abiding it can be if one has not dealt with the mind. It seems that the best approach may be to do both.

            This relates to what I was saying earlier about Hubbard missing the boat with how auditing was approached. Session rudiments don’t include putting the person in a self-inquiry mode. They treat the pc like a humanoid with problems. Or a “thetan” with bank. When the truth is, nothing can touch who He really is; who He really is perfect and hasn’t ever had a problem.

            Well, I’ve blah blah’d on enough for this post. 🙂 Happy Thursday night to you all.

            1. Thanks for the additional data about Lester Levenson. I see now that I misread something when I did a quick google search of him . But one interesting thing I came across was that he had been on the Scientology suppressive groups list. I guess that would align with my perception of his terminology and concepts being too Scientological for him not to have been influenced by Hubbard. But that was also from just a quick look.

              freebeeing: “If you are saying that a PC in session is ‘being a static’ then I would disagree.”

              No, I was saying the same thing you are – the static isn’t what is being addressed in auditing, at least not directly. The thing being addressed is the thetan, which is located and which has taken on identities – and thus, by definition, is not a true static. However, the thetan’s basic beingness as Life is a static (as per Axiom 1). This comparison of thetan and static I see as similar to self/ego compared to pure consciousness – or whatever terms the various spiritual teachers use.

              fb: “…So I wonder how deep a spiritual awakening can be and how abiding it can be if one has not dealt with the mind. It seems that the best approach may be to do both.”

              That is a good question. I think it was Tony Parsons who said that after enlightenment is reached, the conditioning comes off gradually, more or less automatically (my phrasing). And in that BATGAP interview of Mooji, he talked about a kind of “refining” (I think that was the word he used) of the intellect that takes place after enlightenment – here again, automatically or naturally. At least these were my understandings.

              Myself, I would guess that first handling the mind can function as “set-ups” for a path of awakening. I’ve commented more than once that Scientology is, or can be, a good “stepping stone.” But it probably all depends on the individual – some people may need some kind of set-ups or stepping stone involving the handling the mind, and others may not.

              fb: “Session rudiments don’t include putting the person in a self-inquiry mode.”

              Hmmm… To my understanding, the pc is set up to be in session – interested in case and willing to talk to the auditor. Maybe I’m missing your point. Or else we aren’t necessarily always on the same wavelength. 😀 But tell me how to find your blog. A google search for “freebeeing” didn’t turn one up.

            2. freebeeing, I read your blog and posted a comment. It didn’t show up but I got an email notification to subscribe to comments, so I’m assuming it went into moderation.

              Happy Friday night, what’s left of it. 🙂

  6. Please don’t underestimate nirvana or sell it short. It’s more than peace and harmony; if you experience nirvana you won’t wish for more adventure. In nirvana there’s no self left to wish for anything. Nor is there space and time for adventures and games to occur.

    I’d like to suggest that Aesthetics are a higher level than Games. Chess problems have aesthetic appeal. So do antique chess sets. But why does chess have to be a competitive game? Bobby Fischer wasn’t the only chess master who ended up raving mad. And it may have been Ron Hubbard’s obsession with games and opposing forces that sent him crazy too.

    Games lead to overts and motivators: a defeat is a motivator, a victory is an overt since whenever we win someone else must lose. This is why game-playing can become a trap if a person takes it too seriously.

    1. Hi David. I don’t sell it short at all. I’ve experienced it. Unfortunately only for a very brief time. I’d be interested in hearing how you came to achieve that state if you’d care to share.

      1. Pleased to meet you, freebeing! I was really commenting on the topic as a whole so if my remarks looked like a comment on your excellent contributions, I’m sorry. I see that you’re working with TROM, and the quick answer to your question is that I am too. Currently on level 4, hence my interest in motivators and overts as elements in a game.
        My first taste of nirvana was when I went clear on some basic scientology processes over 40 years ago. That day I came out of session and started to laugh, it was so simple, this was the state that all the Buddhist masters of old had described. It’s just the native state of a being when all the mind’s garbage is temporarily shed. That F/N has never entirely gone away – often gets overlaid by new mental garbage but keeps peeping out like a gold nugget in a dungheap. TROM is a powerful tool to sweep away the garbage, dung and worse, and get another experience of native state at any time. Things happen in life, but they can all be timebroken.
        I think these experiences are necessarily short, at least as long as we want to remain in the time stream of this universe (in other words, to go on living!) since there is no time in nirvana. There’s a great line in Hermann Hesse’s novel Der Steppenwolf, it translates as “Eternity is a very short time, just long enough for a joke”.

  7. Geir: “I strongly suspect L. Ron Hubbard was right when he said that the optimum situation and emotional level is at games.”

    You are essentially right. In 8-80 and 8-8008, he wrote: “The optimum position for the thetan is considered to be 20.0 which is the point of optimum action.” But shortly after that, in a PDC lecture, he indicated that this wasn’t the highest state attainable. Here’s another excerpt from the same lecture I just quoted in my reply to freebeeing (the quote having to do with goals and “Spirit of Play”):

    “Now somebody who gets up to 40.0 and hits serenity – nobody ever put serenity at 40.0 – it is ABOVE 40.0 and it’s ABOVE ‘there must be a game’. […] You couldn’t hit REAL serenity without having gone through the most hectic, compulsive aspects of Spirit of Play – unless you’ve known Spirit of Play in its heaviest sense, there could be no serenity for you, because Spirit of Play would still lie there as a basic underlying compulsion.

    “And you talk about Serenity, you better know what you’re talking about, because there isn’t anybody in this room has ever felt it, I’m sure of that – not…maybe, for 74 trillion years anyway.

    Serenity – oh, brother! You can…Serenity. You…you get next to somebody who’s really serene, you feel like you’ve, on a hot summer day, walked into a beautifully cool lake of water. You just feel like ‘Uhh-huhh!’” (PDC 39, GAME PROCESSING)

    1. I have to laugh now when I read/listen to Ron. He’s so full of himself. He tells you you haven’t experienced serenity in 74 trillion years and then goes on to tell you how cool it is. Like he’s reporting to us his 74 trillion year old memory, or perhaps the master thetan’s more recent experience which the assembled meat-body mortals listening to him can only hope to attain so day (and by continuing to keep their HASI membership dues and course fees coming) 😉

      Oh and let us not forget WHO put Serenity of Beingness at 40.0 on the Tone Scale! lol What a character he was!

      Oh me oh my, I’m so snide.

      1. Well, at least you’re getting a chuckle out of it all. But I still say, Ron got some pretty amazing things right. I figure a lot of it was probably channeled. 😉

  8. I remember once watching an 80s movie, about martial arts. Those were very fashionable movies in the 80s. There was a Chinese (I think) kid and some American dude and they were in trouble. They had fallen inside a trap, a hole of some sort, and they couldn’t get out. the American was worryingly going around inside the whole, trying to figure out a way to get out, and the Chinese kid sat down and sort of meditated. The American was like “What are you doing?! We need to find a way out'” The kid was not responding. At some point, the kid stood up and climbed out of the hole, in an almost supernatural manner, and helped the American out too. I think what the movie was trying to relay, is that this ‘serenity’ can be used to deal with life problems too. Of course, complete serenity would mean no problems. But there could be a mixture of both. I think that’s what was mean by ‘games’ too –you can have problems, but you can also deal with them, and not be stuck with them, not get cloudy because of them.

    1. Still, I don’t understand the evaluation that games is an optimum condition. Maybe it was optimum compared to what SCN was trying to do. I don’t see anything wrong about mere serenity. Just saying. In order for me to write about this I need to assume that it is fun to do so (and that I need fun), that you don’t know it yourselves, that you should better understand it, that there can be negative conditions to handle with it. And generally, it’s not a very positive frame of thinking when you engage to handle a problem. You have to put the problem there, in the first place.

      Marildi gave me a Mooji video before, wherein he said -among other things- that there is no job to do, that the job is already done. That it’s a mind thing to think that you need to do things in order to resolve other things. I agree with him 101%. And I add that by putting there problems to solve, and soling them (the function of the mind, according to LRH) you just spin around in circles.

      1. Well said on both of these posts, Spyros.

        I’ll add to them with the story about the spiritual guru who was a smoker. One of his students got up the courage to question him about it. He said, “Master, I see that you are attached to smoking.”

        The master replied, “Yes. And I see that you are attached to not-smoking.”

        Funny! But the moral of the story is that the enlightened are still able to carry on in life in the way they choose. So where Geir is concerned, I suppose he could choose “excitement” if that continued to be the thing he was attached to or enjoyed.

        Geir, since you like to be challenged, I think you should look at your desire for excitement as possibly the ego itself piping up and exerting the conditioning you’ve so powerfully accumulated – effectively putting a stop on that year you tried to get out from under its hold on you. 😉

          1. By “serenity,” do you mean Serenity of Beingness, 40.0 on the tone scale? Wow. Can you describe the experience?

            1. There is no feeling, there is dead calm, no action, just being without any doing an having, like standing in the eye of the storm.

            2. Thanks for sharing that. But it doesn’t sound like nirvana, enlightenment, liberation, etc. – which has been described as unconditional love, bliss, exquisite joy and such. And according to Spyros in a comment today, “In the Route to Infinity, Tone 40 was defined as ‘being all 8 dynamics’.” You are familiar with that lecture series too, aren’t you?

            3. Wow, I never heard of anyone who achieved exquisite joy and then turned away from it. Have you?

            4. Of course – precisely because it is a no-game condition. Read the OP again. It is the reward of a game, not the condition to remain in.

            5. The enlightened ones I know about seem to be playing very fulfilling games, and they appear to be very happy with their lives. Their “cups runneth over” with love – and their lives don’t appear to be anything even remotely like “dead” or “boring.” Just look at them and you can know a lot about their existence.

              But you say you know of others who didn’t want their liberation and opted for something else. Please give me some specifics.

            6. p.s. By “Have you?” I meant have you ever heard of that.

              Here’s a quote for you

              “The ego is very tricky. It often talks us out of this path for a short period of time, sometimes for a longer period of time. But once we’ve gotten into it, we usually almost always come back to it. So you have to be careful of the trickery of the ego-part of us. It can really take us away. No matter how far we have advanced on the path, the ego is always a treacherous companion that can take us off the path, and sometimes for an entire lifetime.” –Lester Levenson

            7. — Nothing “scary” there, whatsoever you see!! 😀

        1. Yes, he saw his problem on the another person. Typical.

          I remember that video prior to Saddam’s execution. He held the guard’s shoulder and told him “don’t be afraid” hehehehe.

        2. or in wars: “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone”. How anti-punishment he was. And how pro-punishment, shame, guilt, blame many of his followers became.

          1. The followers were into the game of us vs. them.

            Btw, O philosophical one, you still haven’t given me the link for your blog.

            1. Maybe they didn’t change significantly, because of him. Maybe they fit what he said inside their own frame of mind, or they didn’t, at all. There was punishment, guilt etc prior to him. In Athens, according to the story, they killed Socrates, because he talked against religion (actually against those whose authority depended upon religion)

              I didn’t give you the link because I thought if you clicked on my name, it would take you there. But I guess that is different from page to page in wordpress.

              https://spyrosillusionist.wordpress.com should take you there. Keep in mind I’m not very serious about what I write, and I modify or delete my posts frequently, as I ‘change my mind’ or get un-restimulated 😛

            2. I see it – yay. And clicking on your name did take me there – I just never tried it. Your name at the beginning of your comments looks no different from how mine looks, and mine isn’t a link.

              Anyway, I am going to read some of it later on today when I have more time. No comment section?

            3. You can write comments if you like. You need to enter each article individually. Just click on it’s title. Past articles and comments have been deleted. These ones are quite fresh.

            4. Spyros(illusionist): “By perceiving, knowing as a spirit, you quit lying about the self, and you quit perceiving through the filters of the human body. DIRECT perception is of key importance. A spirit can simply know by knowing, it doesn’t even need perception channels to do that, like a human body would.”

              Nicely said! The above quote is from your blog but I wanted to comment on it here because I think it relates to this discussion thread.

              Just recently, especially since I learned a little about non-dualism, I’ve been doing a bit of what I think is the same as you describe, just worded differently. To start with (but this isn’t actually it), I’ve been looking at my reactions, responses, viewpoints, etc. and simply recognizing them as part of the acquired “me” as an individual and a human being (which can be pretty illuminating in itself!). And it’s already more real to me that doing this can distance you from all the bits and pieces of the accumulated personality, and you can begin to let go of them – and increasingly so with continued practice. I see why some teachers say that life itself can be the basis of a type of mindfulness-meditation.

              But in relation to your technique, either by applying it or the above, I think a person can begin to experience the difference between (a) knowing through one’s filters and the mind in general and (b) simply knowing. As for the latter, what I am practicing is to wait, without effort, for the answer to come to me, rather than try to work it out with the mind. And it seems that when the answer does come, it feels right – and that I’ll get better at it.

              Come to think of it, I believe Tom Campbell is saying the same as you and I – but using HIS own words. He calls it intention/intent, to query the “data base” – otherwise known as the Akashic records. 🙂

            5. Glad that you liked it 🙂

              That technique isn’t my invention. It’s almost copy/pasted, but in my own words. Hopefully, I relay it in an understandable manner.

              And you know, many routes could exist, towards that direction, but that’s the most direct that I know. You just apply the EP 😛

              Like if you have trouble talking, instead of running out incidents that you might use to create that trouble, you just talk. And the EP is that you can talk. I’ve read a bulletin ‘OT Maxims’, and it said exactly that. If one cannot do something, ask him to do it on a gradient.

              I wouldn’t be surprised if Campbell did that. And as far as I can assume, Mooji knows it too –even if in different words. And it must be a kind of meditation in Buddhism too. But it was best understood by me through Spiritologie.

              I’ve done too, what you describe that you do 😉

              And yeah ‘deep inside’ we can all know. Which is about why the mind, that thinks with external information and conclusions based on them can say one thing, and the ‘heart’ another. 🙂

            6. Also, it seems we have something with language in this topic, and in general. I think different people define ‘serenity’ and ‘games’ quite differently. Just so I wont be misunderstood, I don’t think there can be a complete serene condition in being a person. There can be emotions and conditions that more or less approximate it. And there can’t be a gameless condition as a person, either. Even to sit and be lazy, is a game. And I prefer to not seek to be gameless, as a person.

              In the Route to Infinity Tone 40 was defined as ‘being all 8 dynamics’.

            7. Good or bad, Hubbard used some common terms in his own way. And most people think of them in different way. Like ‘are you playing games?’ implies that you do something dishonest. Or some call serenity to get rid of some significant chaotic feeling. Those are not wrong. But since some compare those, to what Hubbard wrote, know he didn’t write about the same things. It’s just same words.

            8. Spyros, I really liked all three of your posts above. Let me share with you a link freebeeing sent me today that I think you might like as much as I do – which is a LOT, even from the small part of it I’ve read so far. The title is “Keys to the Ultimate Freedom – Thoughts and Talks on Personal Transformation” by Lester Levenson. Here is a quote:

              “How to see the ego? Every time there is a reaction to anyone or anything that reaction is ego motivated. Look within for the ego motivation and when you see it, let go of it. Each time an ego motivation is seen, the ego is weakened. To see ego motivation is to feel it, not just see it intellectually. The more it hurts, the more we are involved ego-wise.”


            9. It reminds me of DN. Only he calls ‘valence’ ‘ego’.

              But if handling the reactive mind resolved ego, why does Geir have one, and he likes it?

              By the way, the link you pasted is a link into your computer, not an internet link 😛

            10. I would say that valences are just part of the ego, unless you include one’s own beingness as a valence. One’s own beingness includes all viewpoints, opinions, and considerations.

              With Geir, I think spiritual teachers would tell him that his ego – with all its desires and urges and backoff – has overcome the immortal being’s desire to get back to who he/it really is (for now, at least).

              Sorry about that “link.” I guess I’ve given away my lack of internet savvy – did I go out security with my computer in some way?? I’ll email the pdf file to you via Geir, if you like.

            11. It was a sincere question, because the data that I have about valences and clearing don’t make sense. For example, past Clear nobody should be declared SP, if being SP means to be in another’s valence, which is handled with clearing (or is it not?). The org should be corrected for not making an actual Clear, instead. If somebody knows something I don’t know, tell me.

              I didn’t mean to analyse Geir. The same stands for all past Clear. It’s just that Geir said it himself.

              I think what you said that DN valences are just part of the ego, sounds ok. I just don’t have data about it.

              I guess one’s own beingness, if it included all viewpoints, identities and so on, would no longer be ‘one’s own’ 😛

              Don’t worry, that link only for works for you inswide your PC. It’s for your universe, alone 😛

            12. SP (lol) : “…past Clear nobody should be declared SP, if being SP means to be in another’s valence, which is handled with clearing (or is it not?).”

              Here’s my understanding: A Clear has become cause over his own reactive mind, which is a stimulus-response mental machine or “bank.” This would not include the banks of BTs (even if those BTs are his own creations, as Geir and maybe some others consider them to be) – the “BTs” have their own banks, and those DO have influence on the person.

              Plus, as I said before, there are all the considerations, opinions and valences the person has accumulated – which make up the ego. And we would have to include the valences, etc. of the BTs, since they influence the person too.

              SP: “I guess one’s own beingness, if it included all viewpoints, identities and so on, would no longer be ‘one’s own’.”

              Not “all” – just all of one’s own. Like, you might react to the Turks, and I might react to the Greeks (kidding 😛 ) Or you might be “addicted” to metal music and for me it’s blues.

              SP: “I think what you said that DN valences are just part of the ego, sounds ok. I just don’t have data about it.”

              It isn’t to say the data about this is in Scientology – it’s just a matter of really getting a hold on what the ego is as compared to the true self. To me, it’s pretty much the whole acquired personality, as in the first definition below – not the more common but narrower definitions 3 and 4, nor definition 5:

              1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing,and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

              2. [Psychoanalysis] the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.

              3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: “Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.”

              4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: “Your criticism wounded his ego.”

              5. (often initial capital letter) [Philosophy]. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience. [Scholasticism] the complete person comprising both body and soul.


              Thanks for reassuring me about the “link.”

            13. I see. I don’t want to push this any further now, as we are getting into things I have previously discussed with you too. I’ll just write my opinion that I don’t think this ego is anything hard to overcome, go through, call it how you want. But by postulating the existence of and then focusing on micromechanics, it could become. I think the primary self as well as later identities are alike creations, and the maker of that primary self, could a few such selves. Consider again the tone 40 definition which includes all dynamics. If it includes all beings (7th dynamic), selves, etc it couldnt be just a unit itself.

            14. Just to be clear, what do you mean by “the primary self” and “the maker of the primary self”?

            15. By primary self I mean a spiritual being (7th dynamic) minus valences, ego, whatever other selves.

              By maker I don’t mean some other being (7th dynamic). I gets hard with limited vocabulary, that only refers to is-nesses. I mean potential for being (8th dynamic). Potential being would be all that is –including spiritual beings. So, that wouldn’t be a unit, nor 10 nor another number.

            16. 8D isn’t anything separate from me you, or anything else. It is me, you or anything else. You are it, I am it. It is being me or I am being it. That’s what ‘being’ means, to me.

            17. I follow you. I used to have a problem trying to think with the idea that there exist thetans, which I consider to be true, and at the same time we are all One, which I also consider to be true. But there really is no conflict. You said it well!

              I found a valid link for you for the Lester Levenson transcripts. At least take a look at the aphorisms (short quotes of Lester) that are listed in the sections titled “Spiritual Growth” and “Love.” When I did so, I was very inspired to read more, and you probably will be too. Here’s an example of how much this man thinks like YOU:

              “Now the very highest state is simply Beingness, and if we could only be, just be, we could see our Infinity. We would see that there are no limitations. We would see that we are the All. We would be in a perfectly satiated, permanent, changeless state. And it is not a nothingness, it is not a boredom, it is an Allness, an Everythingness, a Total Satiation that is eternal. You will never, never lose your individuality. The word “I” as you use it to mean your individuality will never ever leave you. It expands. What happens as you re-remember
              what you are is that you’ll begin to see that others are you, that you are me, that you are now and always have been gloriously Infinite.”

              Click to access keystoultimate.pdf

            18. Thanks for the effort. It seems me and him express some similar ideas. Unless he is into psychotherapy of a sort. I don’t go with that, anymore. As you know I’m very picky what I read. I might give it a shot, at some point.

            19. “…Unless he is into psychotherapy of a sort. I don’t go with that, anymore.”

              I do know how picky you are 😛 but I think the answer to the above is something you (and I) need to be aware of. It’s given in a mere 10-minute section of this video an interview of Hale Dwoskin – whose mentor was Lester Levenson. Watch for 10 minutes from about 2:30 forward, and then tell me what you think. First, here’s the definition of a word he uses:

              guna: (in Sankhya and Vedantic philosophy) one of the three qualities of prakriti, or nature, which are passion (rajas), dullness or inertia (tamas), and goodness or purity (sattva)

            20. You gave me a chance to look at something, by the way. And I think my blog is going to get the bulldozer again 😛 Even if you have no idea, thank you 🙂

            21. Awww – you made my day! 🙂

              Would you care to say what you looked at?

            22. You made it more 🙂 I was disagreeing with some of the things I had been telling you, as well as with some things I had written in my blog. In short, I had been creating some non extant complications, barriers. And I had been invalidating myself and everybody else. I don’t believe in any sort of problems with regards to spiritual matters, anymore. I am the end goal, and so are you. For me, it’s as simple as that.

            23. Very nice. I read your current blog post as well and liked it too. Btw, the writing was excellent. Your English, which you made a point of, was perfect. Great example of intention. 😉

            24. and no ‘but’s. No “I am, but I’m not entirely, but I’m not aware, but but…”

  9. Geir, did you change your blog theme? Or just the colors? That long comment I wrote to Calvin yesterday may have been a TL:DR. But basically, if the comment thread were easier to read with more reply tiers, there might be more people joining in on the discussions. JMO

    1. It only goes that many levels deep. The solution is to pick upwhat’s going on in a deep thread and repost it as an “outer” thread.

      1. How do you mean? I don’t think I’ve seen anything like that. Is it done by the blog owner?

          1. Okay, I get it. That would still leave the rest of the sub-thread “messy,” but it would help. Cool. 😎

            1. Wait! Aren’t there more reply levels now than there were…?

    1. “.” ……>Rafa . (a demo on how “speechless” he gets, sometimes! 😀

  10. Hey Geir! Re: Your O/P: – :What I want, I don’t have…….”

    Here’s something I have ”thunk’ about for several years, only would currently have no opportunity to see to fruition:

    A restaurant / coffee lounge, that would facilitate taking (blog) discussions (such as you have here) to a far more interactive, creative, entertaining level. (Have you seen what 10 cups of coffee can do ? – to one’s ‘excitement’ levels?? LOL 😀 😀 )

    Has such a venture ever appealed to you? 🙂

    1. ps. A former client (from my gym owner days), built up a painting contractor business – from scratch. He used his considerable social skills, to wine and dine the very wealthy, and made this his method of choice, in securing mega-fortune deals, which propelled him into the ultra wealthy bracket.

      pps. He started off his journey, as a regular ‘policeman’ 😉

      I’m sure you could relay similar tales of this ‘route’ to business success! 🙂

    2. Well, I have done such a thing. I was also a radio show host for more than 3 years (’87-’90) – and yes, close interactions do appeal to me. A coffee shop in Cape Town, perhaps? ;-P

      1. Oh? I’d read about your radio show, but not the ‘such a thing’. Then again, might have guessed, as much! 🙂 Though a coffee shop in Cape Town, just sounds so very “you,” I can still imagine a real ‘hook’ getting cooked up for the ‘brand’ name, hey? — “Geir’s Coffee Cove of Brainstorms” perhaps? 😀

        D’you think this could end up as a home away from home ? Cape Town has lately become the new jet-setting investment pad-of-choice (almost as high priced as New York City these days, too.) 🙂

          1. I’m sure you do. Part of the fascination lies in the ethos of the inhabitants. There is an ample assortment of really colorful people and their rich heritage, to consume the ‘experience hungry’.among us. 🙂

            Again, this spot of the planet, definitely caters for fine tastes, as evidenced by the prolific growth of the active leisure class. Intellectual and emotional stimulation being a key attraction for the city. Clean, relatively safe and crime free have certainly made it a haven for the wealthy class, too!

            If ‘peaceful & friendly’ adequately describes Norway, then ‘culturally rich & a haven for entrepreneurs’ probably does it for Cape Town, I suspect. 🙂

  11. Hi, Geir. Well, Saturday it is here, in sunny South Africa. All quiet too, just to enhance the minus-randomity (zzzzz-snort- mm) 😀 ….(Yawn!)

    Say, a while back, I asked if you would share a couple of lines on your recent sailing expedition! So what about it, sea-fairer extraordinaire ?? 🙂

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s