The lower level scientology program up to the state of Clear is a directed form of client-centered psychotherapy. One doctor fully trained in both client-centered therapy and scientology has astutely written that ‘directed client-centered therapy’ is an apparent oxymoron. That may in fact be a critical entry point for the bipolar quality that seems embedded throughout scientology. Nonetheless, the description of the end product of the scientology lower levels is nearly identical to that described as the self-actualization end product of client-centered therapy.
When a person reaches the Clear state – resembling common notions of self-actualization – he is indoctrinated into the secrets of the universe. Fully grasping those secrets requires the adoption of a form of multiple personality disorder. Incidentally, and not the impetus for this observation, modern mental health recognizes that certain psychotherapeutic practices can serve as a causation factor for mpd. Scientology secrets inform the individual that in fact he is not an individual at all. Instead he is a ‘composite being’, consisting of a potential infinity of separate, distinct individuals. Each individual member of the composite has quadrillions of years of its own experiential history that it brings to the dizzy equation. Extraordinary, and expensive to the seeker, measures are employed to ensure the scientologist believes this universe view with utter certitude. For several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars the advanced scientologist is invited to address and release each of his or her parasite personalities. The process entails hundreds or thousands of individual sessions. The process takes many years. The individual completes this penultimate scientology advanced level when there are apparently no more personalities left but his own.
The scientologist then pays another ten to twenty thousand dollars for the privilege of determining which of the lifetimes of those now allegedly departed parasite personalities he mistook for his own. That is what L. Ron Hubbard left behind as his legacy.
However, after completing that final scientology level himself Hubbard went back to chasing down more of what he apparently found to be an endless hoard of demonic, parasitic personalities that he continued to harbor. Frustrated, he attempted to finally rid himself of the demons in one fell swoop and kill himself in the bargain through the application of electric shock. He dismally failed in the assisted attempt on his own life. Whether or not that attempt was the cause, at about the same time as his suicide mission Hubbard sustained a debilitating stroke. He was reduced to asking others whether they could hunt down his own parasitic demons personalities for him. (see Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior)
Since Hubbard’s 1986 death scientology authorities have taken to having advanced members who have completed the full scientology program but who are still unsatisfied re-do the entire scientology program from the bottom up. The believer is given to understand that the source of his dissatisfaction is some misapplication of scientology along the way.
For the dedicated member of this monotheistic religion that repeatedly promotes that when in doubt one should ‘do as Ron (L. Ron Hubbard) would do’, there should be little surprise that often one does not experience a happy ending.
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Once again you summed up the program perfectly. I can laugh at myself for being so gullible, for all the times I thought WTF and carried on anyway thinking it would make sense eventually. Did I “get anything out of it”? Yes. Was it commensurate with the expense and aggravation? In retrospect, no. I have no regret for there was a lesson for me to learn and I’ve learned it. I am certainly more aware now than I was when I started mostly because I’ve left and been willing and able to look at what the experience really meant to me. I’ve worked to regenerate old relationships that had nothing to do with the church and to create new ones. I think I have a fairly wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Some of the happiest, most accomplished, most caring people I know are people who have LEFT the cult.
One can experience or pretend a win but there are no actual endings in Scientology = there cannot be happy endings. When one finishes a step of auditing there’s always the next step or a Review if one has been ill or an Advance Program if one didn’t make any earlier step. When one completes a block of training there’s an internship and after that the next block of training, etc. Even when finally “done” with training and internships there’s always cramming, retreads and possibly a retrain…So there are no endings just plateaus. Little breathers. But the constant tinkering “at the top” with what constitutes a complete level of auditing/training keeps the whole thing and everyone trying to master it in unrelenting flux. I’m so glad to be off the merry go round!
Marty: “The lower level scientology program up to the state of Clear is a directed form of client-centered psychotherapy. One doctor fully trained in both client-centered therapy and scientology has astutely written that ‘directed client-centered therapy’ is an apparent oxymoron. That may in fact be a critical entry point for the bipolar quality that seems embedded throughout scientology. Nonetheless, the description of the end product of the scientology lower levels is nearly identical to that described as the self-actualization end product of client-centered therapy.”
I had to refer to “Person-centered therapy” in Wikipedia to understand what was being talked about in this paragraph. What seems to be said here is that the “directed” nature of lower level auditing (that is unique to Scientology) does not seem to contribute anything above and beyond similar therapy outside Scientology.
I’m befuddled, Marty. Reading this, I get the impression that the whole of scientology is an endless loop of “not gonna get out.” Ron didn’t. Sheeple aren’t, but they believe and so run the route again. WTH are we supposed to do now? those of us who woke up to DM’s crap can at least take a win on that. But now that we’re out of the loop, do we not seek another and continue up the Bridge elsewhere? or are we just going to wake up at Clear and go,”Huh… that was stupid.”
I’m confused. What was my word??? 😉
Marty wrote:
“For the dedicated member of this monotheistic religion that repeatedly promotes that when in doubt one should ‘do as Ron (L. Ron Hubbard) would do’, there should be little surprise that often one does not experience a happy ending.”
Instead of the Creed on the front wall of every Church as the first thing you see as you walk through the door, maybe the FDA can get another sign put in its place:
Scientology: This will not end well.
Alanzo
It’s good to know the legacy in such abbreviated. simple and succinct terms.
The next level was always shrouded in a highly classified mystery. This prevented any analysis of the present level because any questioning of the current level would bar you from the next level, where, hopefully, the answer to the universe might be found.
To graduate from Scientology you have to step back and take a look.
Marty: “When a person reaches the Clear state – resembling common notions of self-actualization – he is indoctrinated into the secrets of the universe. Fully grasping those secrets requires the adoption of a form of multiple personality disorder. Incidentally, and not the impetus for this observation, modern mental health recognizes that certain psychotherapeutic practices can serve as a causation factor for mpd. Scientology secrets inform the individual that in fact he is not an individual at all. Instead he is a ‘composite being’, consisting of a potential infinity of separate, distinct individuals. Each individual member of the composite has quadrillions of years of its own experiential history that it brings to the dizzy equation. Extraordinary, and expensive to the seeker, measures are employed to ensure the scientologist believes this universe view with utter certitude. For several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars the advanced scientologist is invited to address and release each of his or her parasite personalities. The process entails hundreds or thousands of individual sessions. The process takes many years. The individual completes this penultimate scientology advanced level when there are apparently no more personalities left but his own.”
Looks like the “Basics” program of Miscavige is designed to grind in the Scientology doctrines. These doctrines convince a person that he is made up of multiple personalities. Scientology then provides services to help the person get rid of all parasitic personalities other than his own. That is what the expensive OT Levels are all about.
I don’t think multiple personalities are that common. There are only cognitive dissonances that can be sorted out easily through mindfulness at no cost.
Marty: “The scientologist then pays another ten to twenty thousand dollars for the privilege of determining which of the lifetimes of those now allegedly departed parasite personalities he mistook for his own. That is what L. Ron Hubbard left behind as his legacy.”
This doctrine of multiple personality seems to be the legacy of Hubbard. This is how Hubbard is interpreting the unwanted conditions of people and then providing expensive solutions for it.
I don’t think that Hubbard’s solution is accomplishing anything extraordinary, no matter what Valkov thinks.
That Ron tried to off himself tells me he really did come to believe in what he had constructed. I can feel some empathy for him and his fate.
Ron talked about spirals and harmonics. You go from say anger on one level and if you go down one loop on the spiral, you hit a different anger — like an octave lower. Same analogy going up.
So maybe the long term market plan for Scientology can be endless cycling through the same stuff, but each cycle puts you at a supposedly higher level on spiral. Maybe someday there will be an OT VIII-C, to indicate the person has made it up 100 (C = Roman 100) loops on the spiral, each loop being Comm Course through New/Newer/Newest OT VIII.
I guess I’m comfortable with my body thetans. They know I’m in charge and they may be all that is holding me together :-).
Marty: “However, after completing that final scientology level himself Hubbard went back to chasing down more of what he apparently found to be an endless hoard of demonic, parasitic personalities that he continued to harbor. Frustrated, he attempted to finally rid himself of the demons in one fell swoop and kill himself in the bargain through the application of electric shock. He dismally failed in the assisted attempt on his own life. Whether or not that attempt was the cause, at about the same time as his suicide mission Hubbard sustained a debilitating stroke. He was reduced to asking others whether they could hunt down his own parasitic demons personalities for him.”
Looks like Hubbard died of his misplaced beliefs. Will that be considered a mental sickness?
Thanks for posting that Marty.
First time I hear this about the personalities.
And Hubbard;s attempted suicides.
Interesting.
Dio
Marty: “Since Hubbard’s 1986 death scientology authorities have taken to having advanced members who have completed the full scientology program but who are still unsatisfied re-do the entire scientology program from the bottom up. The believer is given to understand that the source of his dissatisfaction is some misapplication of scientology along the way.”
Did Hubbard think that way too?
Failure = You did not do it correctly (a not-isness of failure)
Marty: “For the dedicated member of this monotheistic religion that repeatedly promotes that when in doubt one should ‘do as Ron (L. Ron Hubbard) would do’, there should be little surprise that often one does not experience a happy ending.”
Poor Hubbard! He did not have a happy ending. Yet people in the Church are made to believe otherwise.
Well, besides the outcome of his research and, after having surveyed several OT VIIIs now in the field, I did uncover that the ‘church’ has been delivering THREE different versions of The Final Step at the Ship. These three versions have been delivered since its inception up to 2010 (I gathered info up to that time). Now, some individuals ended extremely sick, some died, some went “OH, is that it?” and very, very few expressed valid wins. I guess this depended on the version each one received.
So, add to all the info on your posting the outrageous abuse perpetrated by ‘the church’ in delivering the final step and the results are something I don’t wish on anyone.
Try Buddhism. 🙂
Marty, a fascinating overview of the “LRH system”. It resembles nothing so much as as the “Gurdjieff system” of self development, or system for the “conscious evolution of Man”. as explained by P. D. Ouspensky in books such as “In Search Of the Miraculous”. Presumably it echoes Crowley, Regardie and others in the more Western traditions, of which I am not so familiar. But I understand are generally cloaked under the umbrella of “Alchemy”, to protect themselves from the suppression by the monopolistic Christian establishment through the Middle Ages. This included, at one time at least, the Masonic Orders.
It is essentially “gnostic”; all gnostic systems have been heavily suppressed apparently throughout history. This can be seen in the histories of Christianity and Islam, for instance. There has been a dialectic in play between the formalistic, institutional “religions” and their gnostic “shadows”, as a Jungian might call them. In fact it appers to me that each aspect is a “shadow” for the other aspect. One is the “external”, objective aspect of these strivings, the other is the “inner”, subjective, experiential aspect of human existence. In their divergence, they are concrete symbols of the “schizophrenic”, “multiple personality” division of the human psyche.
There are echoes going back to Buddhism and beyond. Ouspensky described the fragmented nature of the human psyche most clearly; it is a view that goes back many ages. A good intro is a little book titled “The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution”. Keeping in mind that overall, it is an incomplet and therefore “failed” system. However it was an attempt to create an integrated, more “Western”, synthesis of the various Vedic and Buddhist systems.
It appears, from your description, that LRH attempted to resolve this dichotomy in favor of one pole by subjugating or eliminating the other pole,
rather than actually integrating them, although he clearly was attempting a syncretism of old and new knowledge of the body, mind and psyche. Today we have individuals like Ken Wilbur, Gregg Braden and many others with whom I am not acquainted pushing “the work” forward towards hopefully higher levels of understanding and intergration.
Gurdjieff briefly attempted to establish an “Institute for the Harmonius Development of Man”; although there are still small pockets of followers, “students”, of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, the Institute went nowhere. Gurdjieff was the only one who knew, or thought he knew, what he was doing overall.
When he was gone, there were only his few students who had a more limited knowledge of his “system”, just as there are still pockets of students of Crowley, Regardie, Blavatsky, not to mention Gotama. etc.
LRH, thanks to modern communications and archival technology, extended the reach of this kind of “self-development”, “conscious evolution” enterprise quite a lot farther than any other single individual in history, establishing a worldwide network of “churches”, missions, field offices etc in just a few short years as well as developing, codifying and having archived, many specifics of techniques towards its accomplishment – the “tech”.
I think it is too soon to really see and say what the overall impact of it will be.
Come back in 200, 500, 2,000 years…….
The 12 aspects of mindfulness are:
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
The CoS, of course, is now the antithesis of gnosticism, and is every bit as suppressive and monopolistic as the Catholic establishment of the Dark Ages was.
Person-centered, or “client -centered”, therapy is basically the principle of handling what the client “wants handled”, as opposed to the “psychology of adjustment” which was common previously, in which what was “handled” were the things that “society” or the group thought necessary, needs/wants or goals of the individual be damned.
The “Bridge” is less and less “client-centered” from Life Repair on up, but as long as it is not “bent” to serve the needs of the organization, that does not mean it would not be beneficial to a person. Any increase in conciousness and ability is likely to be benefiacial to an individual.
I like your optimism Valkov. I too am sure that LRH work shall contribute to furure developments that are more workable.
________________________________
No, try looking for someone who will help you get your own “wants handled”, handled. This does not have to be a Scientologist, but it should be someone or some practice that addresses what YOU want it to address. So it could be someone with Scientology training. My two cents.
I see that way too.
________________________________
Well, factually if they actually followed and practiced the Creed, and the Auditor’s Code, it would be different scene entirely. Perhaps what we need is an independent agency like the FDA, (only with more teeth!) where we could report violations of the Creed?
Vin, in the Vedic, Buddhist, Islamic, Christian philosophies, the fragmented, “dis-integrated”, nature of the human psyche is a fundamental “given”. The idea is axiomatic in most religions and philosophies, whether it is called “multiple personality” or something else. YOu yourslef have been talking about how every molecule, every element, perhaps every organ, has its own “self awareness” its own consciousness. Since a human is composed of these elements, there’re your “mulitiple personalities” right there.
Without this aspect in the nature of humans, there would be no need or desire for all these “systems” or philosophies which promise to deliver us from suffering, much of which is brought about by the contradictory impulses of our own natures.
Straw man alert: I didn’t say LRH’s solution accomplished anything extraordinary. That remains to be seen, as far as I’m concerned. As I’ve posted before, some people using his solutions claim they have received extaordinary benefits from LRH solutions; others claim they have received nothing of value, or have even been harmed by LRH solutions.
Its too soon to tell what the overall effects of constructive application will be. Come back in a couple hundred years or later.
Incorrect basic principle. I’ve recommended ‘On Becoming A Person’ by Carl Rogers to fully appreciate the subject.
Merty, I have a question. By this, “However, after completing that final scientology level himself Hubbard went back to chasing down more of what he apparently found to be an endless hoard of demonic, parasitic personalities that he continued to harbor”,
do you mean he completed OTVIII, or New OTVII? OTVIII wasn’t released until after his death, was it? And wasn’t new OTVII basically some rundowns developed to handle problems people had trying to run the “original OT levels”?
In any case, I do think LRH may have been misguided in electing to treat those other personalities, entitites or whatever, as “enemies” to be gotten rid of, rather than handling them more constructively. It seems he might have fallen back into a “negative gain” approach. But of course I haven’t been there, so I am just speculating.
LOL! Should read “Marty, I have a question”, not “Merty”!
Fabulous contribution, Val. I really give you credit for having done such a broad study, and for this even-handed overview.
Marty, what a depressing scenario.
Hope this is a ‘First the bad news, now for the good news’ type of post.
I had wonderful, life changing experiences on the grades. Not everyone did. Yes, it is too expensive if you just pay for it. There are money grubbing individuals in the church. Their authority has caused it to become a mode of operation at the upper levels. That is actually a separate issue.
As far as exorcising billions of multiple personalities, that hasn’t been my experience. Sure, Ron was very much stuck on believed parasitic beings. That was his case. Unfortunate. That same aberration showed up in some of his policies. That pattern is plain for all to see.
Perhaps I have been fortunate in that I recognized early on that comm lines with others were a matter of choice and I could grant beingness to them and not be enturbulated. That not all facsimiles that I could see were my own, so I just recall the past in my own way and re-create pictures as needed, or not.
As far as old, stuck personalities that I once assumed and lost control of? A few have recognized that these are just decisions, opinions, considerations that they forgot they made. They disappear at a glance, or sometimes a thorough going over, giving them choice over who they want to be at any given time.
Some are unhappy with their results or lack of. Some are very happy with their results. Few who have gone through the upper levels are happy with the service and coercion they received.
It doesn’t HAVE to be bad. There is a lot to be gained if you look with common sense and a bit of mindfulness and serenity. Just find your path.
That’s all I’m saying.
Mark
Thanks babe. I haven’t really “tried” to achieve anything, I have just been following this thread I have been interested in since I was a kid, catch as catch can, as I had time to read about these things and talk to people who knew something about them. KInd of a self-education in an apparently totally useless subject! BUT, I think it is fascinating!
Yeah, “Alchemy”. Turning Lead into Gold. That was seen by some as a metaphor for turning the Lead of Unconsciousness into the Gold of Consciousness. Or Awareness. Clearly a Gnostic undertaking, and thus it had to be “Cloaked” as a literal attempt to turn lead into gold, to escape the widespread suppression by you-know-who of the Dark Ages in Europe.
The way I see it, I spent most of my life engaged in one sort of cult or another. Boy Scouts had all the ear marks of cultish behavior; the social circles in school, especially high-school had their clubs which many took to be utterly sacred; the fraternity; the cult of pot-smoking hippies; ananda marga yoga; scientology. All of these had their own set of rules, regulations and a definite belief system set up by their own “authorities.”
Probably the cleanest, sanest, least hypocritical and most forthright in terms of stated goals compared to actual achievements was the boy scouts.
As I continue my own personal journey inspecting the aspects of existence I choose to inspect, I’m coming to the conclusion that the decision to be a human on planet earth is actually joining a cult. I also decided it is a self-determined decision to join.
I’ve now had four people in sessions come up with details of one of Hubbard’s mythological events. None of these four people had any prior knowledge of any aspect of the mythology, three of them never even knew there was any mythology involved in scientology.
That’s a pretty weird coincidence to have four people completely independent of each other come up with details of something as bizarre as these supposed whole-track recollections.
There were striking similarities to each recall. There were similarities to and also striking differences between their recall and the story Ron tells. Story telling and exaggeration were Ron’s fortes. I did for a while, but no longer believe anything Ron says. He did communicate some useful observations. He did, in my opinion, put together some very useful processes. He also created a god-awful cult to espouse his own beliefs.
I have my own beliefs about what can and can’t be done with the tech. These beliefs are based exclusively on what I have and haven’t been able to accomplish with it as an auditor. Obviously, since I’m still auditing, I do feel I can get desirable results with what I do. What can ultimately be acquired from the tech has been grossly exaggerated. This has pulled a lot of people into the cult. It has kept so many more far, far away from it. It is completely unnecessary to exaggerate in order to help people.
Confront the good, the bad and the ugly. Take what you need and leave the rest.
Hi Marty, What I found as ex SO wasn’t pretty. It was distressing. But it has been worth it. I do wish you well and good progress.
FDA: Fanatically Drugging America
Choose your poison.
No matter what wins people say they did or did not achieve, in addition to any *WIN* there are Church ulterior motives.
The ulterior motives are how you are now beholden to Church conformity, To be continuously *REGGED* by sales people, to keep giving money, to disconnect from anyone the Church deems is undesirable, to attend events, to fundraise, to keep reporting and snitching on others to the *Mother* Church and plethora of other rules and regulations that mold you into the identity of a “scientologist in good standing.”
The ulterior motive is not to take you to higher state of consciousness, wisdom and ability.
The ulterior motive that is embedded in the “Bridge to total freedom” is to subjugate you with a straitjacket while threatening your eternity if you step out of line.
I’ll check it out (again), it’s been many years. But that’s my understanding of “client-centered therapy”. It addresses the needs/wants of the client, rather than the needs/wants of the therapist or a society which wants individuals to adjust to it rather than developing their own potential. I’m open to achieving a better understanding……
Well, having checked the synopsis on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_therapy
I guess I’ll kinda stick with my current understanding, because th eLife Repair I had pretty much met the needed 6 conditions Carl Rogers postulated for benign therapy to take place. I can see how th eauditing coul dbe seen as more “prescriptive” than Rogerian therapy, but I suspect hat in practice, a Rogerian therapist will draw on his own past experience and the codified experiences of other Rogerian therapists in order to know how to proceed at times. Otherwise each therapist would have to start from scratch in reinventing the therapy. In other words, I think it helps to have a therapist who has some idea of what question to ask.
Most of the 6 conditions have to do with granting beingness, creating a safe environment, and “withdrawing communications” from the client rather than evaluating for him. When I got a Life Repair in around 1972, the auditor met the conditions pretty well, although it was more structured than it sounds like strictly Rogerian therapy might be. But if it accomplishes the same ends more quickly, a more stuctured approach seems OK to me.
Perhaps there is something i’m not seeing? That’s always a possibility! 🙂
Duplicating what the client says is in there too. We’re talking ARC and Act One as being primary necessities for successful therapy. Back in the day, auditors were doing that good stuff. It was considered basic. I guess it went away as the organizational Sea Org heavies moved in. I saw that happening.
Actually, from my experience, “directed” therapy is very common across the board. It’s a matter of degree. Psychoanalysis can be very “directive”, it is fundamentally so.
Try Googling for “directive therapy”. Buddhism is “directive” in that you are given objects to contemplate or meditate upon. A Buddhist mentor will give you very specific “directions” as to what to direct your attention towards, etc
Well, all I’m saying is there is a lot of potential for misunderstanding around the idea of “directed” or as I learned it, “Directive” vs, non-directive, therapeutic approaches. One extreme would be a therapist who says and does absolutely nothing for the entire session. You come in, sit down in his office for 55 minutes and talk or don’t talk for the entire time, and at the end all he says is “Time’s up for today.” That’s the ultimate in “non-directed therapy” as some have seen it to be. Believe it or not, it’s been tried.
The other extreme is the therapist talks th ewhole time, tells you what your problem is and what the solution is and what he wants you to do to take care of it.
That’s been tried, too!
I agree Vinaire. And Hubbard’s concept of multiple entities in a body was not original. Like so many of his ideas, it may have been lifted from others.
Some of the ancient Greeks had a similar view, I believe. In more recent times, Thomas Edison had a belief with some similarities. The following quote from Edison is rather intriguing.
It actually makes me wonder, if all those entities were there, and you got rid of them all, would you have erased your “self” somehow in the process?
Edison: “I am convinced that the body is made up of entities that are intelligent and are directed by this Higher Power. When one cuts his finger, I believe it is the intelligence of these entities which heals the wound. When one is sick, it is the intelligence of these entities which brings convalescence. You know that there are living cells in the body so tiny that the microscope cannot find them at all. The entities that give life and soul to the human body are finer still and lie infinitely beyond the reach of our finest scientific instruments. When these entities leave the body, the body is like a ship without a rudder — deserted, motionless and dead.” (Quoted in “The Romance and Drama of the Rubber Industry” (1936) by Harvey Samuel Firestone.)
Ron’s cosmology of the OT materials is where he went off the rails. He got lost in the subconscious imagination and may have opened doors he could not close.
In a metaphysical sense he could have opened up to lower astral beings, tramp souls or disembodied humans.
The continuos assignment of responsible cause to an outside agency (bts) can cause a being to misread his own cause, by blaming.
The direct looking at the OT levels is a tough one for those who still believe in Ron. The OT levels is the sacred cow in Scientology.
You guys that hate this conversation remember, TRs, Be there comfortably, grant beingness to those you are disdaining. And if you disagree, just state your ideas minus the attack the enemy emotion.
Well, for certain, Clear was my biggest single win in Scn. No question about it.
Valkov: “And wasn’t new OTVII basically some rundowns developed to handle problems people had trying to run the ‘original OT levels’?”
Here’s some verbal data for you 😉 from Morris Adams (and from others’ posts I’ve read):
“OT 5 and OT 6 were real OT levels, designed to give a person real OT abilities like the ones talked about in the PDC (Philadelphia Doctorate Course) and the book Creation of Human Ability.
[…]
“In 1979 and 1980, LRH developed NOTs. The reason for NOTs was because people were not making it on the real OT levels 5 and 6. The reason for THIS was because of the ‘stuff’ that is handled on NOTs. In the late 70’s I saw numerous people who were not making it on OT5 and OT6, who were instead put back to do more OT3, and then put back to do MORE OT3, and then put back to do EVEN MORE OT3.
NOTs – which is similar to OT3, but not the same thing – was the missing step.
[…]
“As far as I know the old OT 5 and OT 6 were never cancelled by LRH. But since NOTs came out, they haven’t been being done either.
“Also as far as I know, LRH never called NOTs OT5, and never called Solo NOTs OT7; and never called the course (?!?) for Solo NOTs OT 6. I believe that someone else made these up. And I also don’t know who put the current OT 9 thru OT 15 (or whatever) on the revised Grade Chart that came out in the mid to late 80’s. But I also suspect that it had nothing to do with LRH.
“And as for the current (multiply revised) OT 8, I never did this. But my opinion is that it is some weird add-on to Solo NOTs cooked up by someone else besides LRH, perhaps maybe based on something LRH said or commented on (I admit I could be wrong on this point, and I hope I haven’t offended anyone who has done OT 8 and had good wins).
“I myself have never solo audited on the old OT 5 and OT 6. But I have worked, as a staff member, with many people who did. Maybe, once someone really finishes Solo NOTs, then he/she will actually be able to do the old OT 5 and OT 6. But I don’t think anyone has really finished Solo NOTs yet (I may possibly be wrong about this. I don’t want to invalidate anyone who has actually finished it.). One thing I am sure of is that no one who is currently in the RCS today has really finished Solo NOTs, or is really even capable of doing it. I myself am still auditing on Solo NOTs, with very good results – better than I ever had when I was doing it inside the ‘church’.”
Alanzo, when I was the Qual Sec of the Berkeley Mission years ago I had a sign above the entrance, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” But I also had Conan the Barbarian posters, too. Things were quite fun in those days.
The first thing is that Hubbard’s Ot3 was some hand written process that was totally in adequate to explain the phenomenon of “BTs”. A close friend of mine was on the flagship during the late 60s and saw a whole file cabinet filled with material on OT three. He was a class eight auditor. Why is it that it was hand written when every other process in Scientology was on a HCOB. A few instructions to explain a complex and fascinating subject of Bts.
The second thing is that he referred to them as fleas or other derogatory terms but if they’re actually beings that means if they were actually released they would possibly assume a full sentiment state of awareness. Rather then BTs I found the term “unlit beings” more respectful and saw no reason why I couldn’t communicate with them after they were released of enough energy they could reconnect with their source of light( not sure exactly what that was but I know it existed). of course I did this outside of the church and not all the beings were nice but there were tricks that even they could achieve self realization. Hubbards real issue was his lack of true affinity for other people even his wife who he allowed to take the fall for him Who went to jail for him. Of course he treated BTs like fleas he has about much respect for him as fleas.
Another perfect summation as as far as I can tell. Any news on the forthcoming book(s)?
The path to enlightenment and spiritual growth isn’t traveled by going to “someone” and use the knowledge he or she imparts to resolve our questions and problems.
This is exactly the problem with “client-centered” philosophies.
However, not every datum in Scientology is useless. Use what works for you, while at the same time gathering more and more info from other sources.
Not one philosophy has all the answers — that’s the lie.
In the end, the path to enlightement isn’t really that difficult: you just need to be aware of your true consciousness and love everything and everyone — how difficult can that be?
When one lacks a ready-made answer, make your own from the available data (search for the data if it’s missing) — this is the true meaning behind 8-8008, imho.
The subject of entities inhabiting the body or occupying the same location with a spirit isn’t only covered by Scientology, of course.
There are schools of thought in magickal circles that have covered this subject at great length.
I am not going to bother you with their complex and often mysterious verbiage. Suffice it to say that it is not considered a condition that “everyone” has. It could occur.
When it occurs the possibilities are that either the entity is a negative or positive one. Still, whether negative or positive, the actual isness is that the entity is a construct that is neither good nor evil. It is the person’s consideration of it that makes one either good or evil.
Hubbard said that these “BTs” are bad. So, everyone then considers them to be bad. But what if they had been constructed to hold something at bay? or to ward something off? The real usefulness of regaining awareness about entities would be to be able to sort out what they do and if they are factually something desireable or not.
However, the fact is that a lot of people, out there, implanted with the notion that “God is everything” (another entity that has been constructed), would laugh at Scientology if the OT III materials were to be made publicly known. OOPS, too late! They are known already and people are laughing.
I wonder if the CoS realizes how much they are in trouble… whatevs.
It is not that the materials of OT III are false and ridiculous. The fact is that someone ought to do Mankind a favor and remove this constructed entity called “God”. It would be a start.
p.s. Here’s a quote from RON’S JOURNAL 30, 1978—THE YEAR OF LIGHTNING FAST NEW TECH (17 Dec 78):
“11. OT VIII. This rundown was developed and will be available to OT VIIs who
have completed their NED for OTs which is a prerequisite for OT VIII.”
From the above, it seems clear that OT VII was not the same thing as a NED for OTs completion, since the VIIs needed to also complete NED for OTs as a prereq for OT VIII. Obviously, at the date of this issue (17 Dec 78), OT VII must have been the original one, not New OT VII.
“For the dedicated member of this monotheistic religion …”
In what way monotheistic? Though in the dynamics there is a “highest being”-dynamic, I don’t really see any kind of personified and venerated god, that would exclude other gods, like in christianity, judaism or islam.
This tells me that you have to find the trap yourself. You get the data about the demons around you. You are told that those are bad and you have to get rid of them. Then you have a simple tech to get rid of them. You start and after you are done they tell you there are lots more. And even much more.
This itself is the trap. And the trap behind is what to audit. You do not audit the ghosts, you should find the cause of the ghosts chasing you. Then you can get rid if all of them if you have mastered the cause. I did not read the OT stuff on the net. So I do not know if there are enough hints in the material about what to do. But logic alone should tell one that the procedure to audit out millions of nothingnesses cannot work.
Excellent summation Marty. This is “What is Scientology” for anyone who is on the Bridge.
The lower Bridge is, as you put it, directed client-centered therapy. I think the client is rather forgiving and perhaps sees the value in addressing directed areas such as Communication, Problems, Transgressions, etc. This IS the program (The Bridge) after all. The church does not disguise this fact at all. Instead it is presented as a logical, effective approach to dismantling the bank.
However, the upper Bridge is an entirely different story. OTI has always seemed to be a transitional level, employing lower Bridge processes with Solo methodology.
OTII, in my opinion, overtly evaluates the PC’s case, and simply states, as a matter of fact, that you have all of these GPMs. Never is the PC consulted about the actual existence of such things. In fact, if the PC attempts to run the materials and does not get a read – he’s doing it wrong! The PC’s reality about this condition (whether real or imagined) is never factored into the equation. To this degree, OTII could be seen to be a conditioning step and establishes another (e.g. LRH, Solo CS, etc) as the authority concerning these esoteric matters.
By the time you reach OTIII you are fully indoctrinated and are now accustomed to auditing things based on another’s direction and reality. And you are correct, OTIII could quite easily be described as a MPD “remedy”. I wonder how many parishioners would sign-up for the level if it were described that way?
My first reaction to the OTIII materials was disbelief and unreality. I guess because I had never experienced the symptoms brought about by these entities, or it simply wasn’t real. Again, the PC is simply told by LRH (with all his authority) that this is the spiritual infliction you have been suffering from for millions of years.
So, I did what any good Scnist would do, had faith in the Old Man and give it a go. It truly was a leap of faith. While I never had full-blown discussions with my entities (believe me, I tried), I did experience the meter phenomena predicted in the materials, and had some interesting experiences doing the level. By all accounts, I did a very standard job of OTIII. I was always befuddled when friends would say “this is what I got into Scn to handle.” Really? So, you’ve known that you’ve suffered from MPD all this time? But, according to Scn theology, these individuals would be considered “spiritually aware” or unusually perceptive, due to their recognition of entities. If this were not branded Scn, Scnists would consider such a thing to be crazy.
I’m rather ambivalent on the subject of entities. Some find it beneficial to exorcise them, others learn to live with them. And to some…”Entities? What entities?” All of this would be a moot point if the handling of entities brought about consistent, desirable results and increased spiritual awareness and ability. Clearly this is not the case.
And finally, Hubbard has been accused of running his own case/aberrations on others, and by all accounts he had issues with entities/MP. Is it not possible he was suffering from type of psychological condition? The “solution” to which became Scn’s esoteric teachings?
I do not agree with you that a fundamental ‘given’ of most religions and philosophies is a ‘dis-integrated’ nature of the human psyche.
Adding: stating that evey molecule e.g. has its own awareness is really not scientific. It is more magic speak.
Scientology is the endeavour of Hubbard to get rid of his own MPD. It is all about HIS case.
Mr. Rathbun: this is a perfect summing up of the OT levels.
Coming from you especially makes it the more interesting and even more true.
Valkov, there is a big difference between the ideas of “fragmentation” and “inconsistency, incoherence or dissonance”. As far as I understand eastern philosophy talks about the latter and not the former. When a molecule is made up of atoms, there is a coherent structure. The consciousness of atoms is coherent and forms the consciousness of the molecule without inconsistency. there is no fragmentation.
If my understanding of eastern philosophy is different from what you have studied then, please let me have the appropriate reference.
Thanks,
Vinaire
Marty, the OTVIII version you’re describing is one of several introduced by David Miscavige after the “failure” of the original LRH version, delivered on the Freewinds for only a few months in 1988. This has been discussed on your blog several times in the past 2 years – George White first brought up the subject here in May 2012. I can verify that what LRH said about OTVIII in a taped lecture – that it handles amnesia on the whole track, and is “uniquely addressed to you” – is absolutely correct.
Thank you genius of this post.
That’s correct!
It depends as how you define awareness. Raw awareness would simply be the properties of interactions. Chemicals interact. It is very mechanical. That is awareness at the level of chemicals.
I think that in the matter of spirituality there should be minimum amount of guidance in terms of evaluation by another. C/Sing in Scientology is a huge evaluation of a person’s case.
No matter what rules Hubbard made to keep C/Sing on rails, it is still other determinism and cannot be as accurate as a person’s own determinism as to what needs to be addressed.
I like Idenics better because there is no evaluation through case supervision there. KHTK is designed to help the person do his own C/Sing and even auditing.
I think the belief system itself is the god. I may be wrong, of course.
In Scientology, much evaluation takes place in C/Sing, and that is a problem.
Regarding the coincidence of four disrelated people voicing similar mythology, it might be interesting to examine the questions or auditing commands. This is just a shot in the dark.
Form and essence seem to go hand in hand. There seems to be no separate absolutes of physicality and spirituality.
For a long time space and time were regarded as absolute concepts in themselves. Newtonian mechanics built on those concepts has been very successful on a human scale. But, on a cosmic scale, it has been found by science that space and time are relative.
Similarly, Abrahamic religions have long regarded spirituality and physicality to be absolute concepts in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spirituality and physicality to be relative.
A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual. It has the form of light and essence of awareness.
There is no magic pill. It is expectations that trap one.
Mindfulness 101: Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
Let intuitions come by themselves.
________________________________
I thought Hubbard was the Source!
________________________________
What is the purpose in being aware of the whole track?
Complete awareness of the present is what is really needed in my opinion.
In my opinion knowledge should be evaluated for itself and not by some source. But I guess, having a trustworthy source helps when one does not have time to assess.
Enjoyed this, Marty.
Statpush, this is a good summation of OT Levels. I did OT II at home using mindfulness and not a meter. I went through the level reasonably fast while excersing on my treadmill. It took several sessions. Some interesting moments of release occur, especially on EXPLOSION. I didn’t employ any theory, such as, GPM.
I just used the concept of unburdening the mind of whatever came up when attention was put in an area listed on OTII. If nothing came up I skipped it. I applied, especially, Mindfulness #6: Let the mind un-stack itself.
Statpush: “And finally, Hubbard has been accused of running his own case/aberrations on others, and by all accounts he had issues with entities/MP. Is it not possible he was suffering from type of psychological condition? The “solution” to which became Scn’s esoteric teachings?”
Yes, I am leaning in this direction.
“In what way monotheistic?”
Let’s see… Scientology is theistic in the sense that it is self-centric… all reality is produced by self… it all starts with self.
It is monotheistic in the sense that it beats the drum of individuality and one’s universe… it is very appealing that way.
.
Flavp: “The subject of entities inhabiting the body or occupying the same location with a spirit isn’t only covered by Scientology, of course.”
In my opinion, all entitities (including human selves) are a precipitation from the same root consciousness. So they are all connected.
The problem is not about getting rid of entities inhabiting the body. The problem is that of eliminating the lack of coherence and consistency among different bits of consciousness that are there. It is also called “getting into ARC” in Scientology lingo.
Marty, this was an amazing round up of… Everything! Well done, Sir! You keep helping me even after I thought I had gotten the whole thing licked 😀
Andrea
Terse? Typos? Thumbs! Sent from my iPhone.
>
Yes, wake up and say, ¨Huh, that was stupid.¨ Extract whatever lessons/wisdom you can from the experience and laugh at its absurdity. There is no scientifically-verified state of ¨Clear¨ and the OT levels are bad science fiction fueled, in part, by Hubbard´s abuse of ¨pinks and grays¨ and his greed. My opinion.
My answer to “What to Audit?” is mindful contemplation.
1. Get settled as per KHTK Exercise BEING THERE , and simply be there practicing mindfulness.
2. Review your childhood confusions and questions to see if any of them is still unresolved.
3. If none appear then review your current period for things that seem out of place and do not make sense.
4. Pick up the first inconsistency that comes to your mind from the childhood or current period.
5. Acknowledge to yourself that the inconsistency is there.
6. Look in and around this area of inconsistency to see if any details have been hidden from you.
7. Become aware of such details one by one until nothing more is hidden.
8. Look in and around this area of inconsistency to see if any details have been suppressed.
9. Become aware of such details one by one until nothing more is suppressed.
10. Review the area of inconsistency to see what does not make sense now.
11. The earlier inconsistency may have been cleared up. In that case pick up the next inconsistency that comes to your mind.
12. If the earlier inconsistency is not cleared up then a new area for that inconsistency might appear.
13. Repeat steps 6 to 12 above.
14. End this exercise when an inconsistency has been cleared up.
A few points:
Quote:
The lower level scientology program up to the state of Clear is a directed form of client-centered psychotherapy. One doctor fully trained in both client-centered therapy and scientology has astutely written that ‘directed client-centered therapy’ is an apparent oxymoron. That may in fact be a critical entry point for the bipolar quality that seems embedded […]
D> Based on my experience, I disagree with the doctor who was trained in both forms as stated, that client centered therapy is an oxymoron. What is not true about that? I think that doctor is a moron.
Quote:
That may in fact be a critical entry point for the bipolar quality that seems embedded throughout scientology.
D> The bipolar cases were bipolar cases before they got into scn.Or were made by the cos on clients that did not take as much responsibility for their cases as possible. Sheeple deserve to be slaughtered and eaten for dinner. I hope they are fat enough for good flavor.
If scn is done the right way, using the information in “How to study a science” and the client taking control and responsiblity for his own case as much as possible, and using common sense, the client will succeed. But if he or she just lays himself herself on the operating table and therapy chairs of the cos, and says “fix me”, it will never happen.
A fool and his money are soon separated.
Dio
Def: Common sense:
The presence of mind and general caution that the law imputes to all persons. That is sense that every one should have.
Everyone owes a duty to common sense.
The breech of this duty may give rise to cause of action.
People who do not have common sense can also be considered irresponsible and mentally incompetent and can be institutionalized to protect public safety.
Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”[1] Thus, “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, “the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way”.[2]
Wikipedia: Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.
Scientology is an embodiment of the ego thought system where no one or no thing is ever in an enduring state of stability or wholeness. Practicing scientology perpetuates suffering i.e., the practitioner is in a perpetual state of desiring a higher more powerful experience of reality than the existing state they perceive they are in. Thereby, the practitioner remains imprisoned in the anticipation, desire, want or need of the next moment. And the next moment, of course, never arrives because it’s always the next moment.
The good news is…suffering burns up the ego. At some point, the consciousness that has so identified with being the practitioner, that it has ceased to know what or who it really is, separates from its artificial self-concept enough to proclaim…something to the effect…there’s got to be a better way. At which point an ‘awakening’ begins.
Excerpt from Chapter 2 Course of Miracles text:
“The acceptance of the Atonement [correction] by everyone is only a matter of time. In fact, both TIME and MATTER were created for this purpose. This appears to contradict free will, because of the inevitability of this decision. If you review the idea carefully, you will realize that this is not true. Everything is limited in some way by the manner of its creation. Free will can temporize, and is capable of enormous procrastination. But it cannot depart entirely from its Creator, who set the limits on its ability to miscreate by virtue of its own real purpose.
“The misuse of will engenders a situation which, in the extreme, becomes altogether intolerable. Pain thresholds can be high, but they are not limitless. Eventually, everybody begins to recognize, however dimly, that there MUST be a better way. As this recognition is more firmly established, it becomes a perceptual turning-point. This ultimately reawakens the spiritual eye, simultaneously weakening the investment in physical sight. The alternating investment in the two types or levels of perception is usually experienced as conflict for a long time, and can become very acute.
“But the outcome is as certain as God. The spiritual eye literally CANNOT SEE error, and merely looks for Atonement. All the solutions which the physical eyes seek, dissolve in its sight. The spiritual eye, which looks within, recognizes immediately that the altar has been defiled, and needs to be repaired and protected. Perfectly aware of the RIGHT defense, it passes over all others, looking past error to truth. Because of the real strength of ITS vision, it pulls the will into its own service, and forces the mind to concur. This reestablishes the true power of the will, and makes it increasingly unable to tolerate delay. The mind then realizes, with increasing certitude, that delay is only a way of increasing unnecessary pain, which it need not tolerate at all. The pain threshold drops accordingly, and the mind becomes increasingly sensitive to what it would once have regarded as very minor intrusions of discomfort.”
http://courseinmiracles.com/urtext/chapters-1-thru-10/chapter-2/section-2#gsc.tab=0
Schorsch,
I basically agree with you. You have to find the reason the demons and ghosts are chasing you. Otherwise there will be no end to the circus.
Dio
Val,
You>
The other extreme is the therapist talks th ewhole time, tells you what your problem is and what the solution is and what he wants you to do to take care of it.
Me> I tried that type of therapy in my cities counselling center. It was free and I did not have any $ for scn therapy.
It was painful.
Especially after had done some scn auditing and had some wins.
They were putting stuff in my brain, that I did not want.
Basic dianetics and scn have the basic idea right.
It just needs to be improved on. The good stuff has to be gleaned and worked with and improved,
and the not good stuff has to chucked up to experience.
And the client has to take responsibility for his own case and do his own homework, besides scn, like has been said before.
Dio
Karen,
Bulls eye! You have to look for and beaware of the ulterior motives, which is to continue keep you in a straight jacket and continue masturbating your financial resources.
Like they do to prized horses and bulls for their semen.
A drop of semen sells for $10,000.00’s or more.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/oct/28/sea-the-stars-stud
The cos is similar, but they are smarter than horse breeders, they go directly to jerk off all your financial resources, including credit, as often as possible.
Dio
Val,
Alchemy does happen in nature.
Just analyse the contents ( the yolk and whites ) of an egg, and then analyse the new born chick.
Dio
Marildi quoted Morris: ““In 1979 and 1980, LRH developed NOTs. The reason for NOTs was because people were not making it on the real OT levels 5 and 6.”
Is that a euphemism for OT levels 5 and 6 were failures?
________________________________
A big win associated with Clear depends on correct looking at the correct area in one’s case. Such a win can occur at other places on the grade chart, or in m indful meditation, or under other disciplines.
You may that the 12 aspects of mindfullness are a direction.
________________________________
I think that the questions to be asked the client should be very broad and general and they should be asked in a way that they help the client narrow down to his unwanted condition.
LDW: “I’ve now had four people in sessions come up with details of one of Hubbard’s mythological events. None of these four people had any prior knowledge of any aspect of the mythology, three of them never even knew there was any mythology involved in scientology. “That’s a pretty weird coincidence to have four people completely independent of each other come up with details of something as bizarre as these supposed whole-track recollections.” This observation is of the order of finding certain type of rock on earth, as well as on the moon, and also on Mars. I think it is just a matter of discovering the underlying structure of the metaphysical aspects of the universe. Scientology started to look at such aspects but did not complete the cycle. So there appears to be a mystery associated with it.
________________________________
Monte said: “Scientology is an embodiment of the ego thought system where no one or no thing is ever in an enduring state of stability or wholeness. Practicing scientology perpetuates suffering i.e., the practitioner is in a perpetual state of desiring a higher more powerful experience of reality than the existing state they perceive they are in. Thereby, the practitioner remains imprisoned in the anticipation, desire, want or need of the next moment. And the next moment, of course, never arrives because it’s always the next moment.”
I do not see it that way. I person shall not continue with Scientology if his unwanted condition were handled.
It is just that a person comes into Scientology to handle some unwanted condition. That condition never gets handled but he is given hope by a little win here, a little win there, that it may get handled at the next step. I don’t think that the person is looking for a more powerful experience of reality. For that he can go Bunjee jumping in New Zealand. I think he just wants to get some unwanted condition handled.
Monte said: “The good news is…suffering burns up the ego. At some point, the consciousness that has so identified with being the practitioner, that it has ceased to know what or who it really is, separates from its artificial self-concept enough to proclaim…something to the effect…there’s got to be a better way. At which point an ‘awakening’ begins.”
I do not agree with that either. Suffering does not burn up the ego. If that were true, there would be no ego left on this planet by now. But that is not the case at all.
RE: Personality disorders.
Personality disorders are caused by abuse, likely childhood abuse, being brought up in a severely aberrated and dysfunctional home.
The victim has his head filled with false and lmiting data.
The victim has his brains scrambled,with bullshit and constant arguments, conflict, fighting, name calling, becalled a effin stupid retard, invalidation, any thing else that aberrees can think of, so that he does not know whether he is coming or going.
Physical abuse (severe beatings) really embeds this garbage, this aberration.
Add to this all kinds of overts.
It is simply cause and effect.
We are all a product of genetics, a conception and an upbringing.
We are all only as good as we have bred and brought up.
If you have a problem with the product, you have to check with the factory for the cause of the problem.
Do research on the different kinds of personality disorders.
Here is one:
Schizotypal Personality Disorder Symptoms
Schitzotypal personality disorder is characterized by someone who has great difficulty in establishing and maintaining close relationships with others.
A person with schitzotypal personality disorder may have extreme discomfort with such relationships, and therefore have less of a capacity for them.
Someone with this disorder usually has cognitive or perceptual distortions, and lack life skills, as well as eccentricities in their everyday behaviour.
Def: cognition/ cognitive
1. of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering) <cognitive impairment
2. (Psychology) the mental act or process by which knowledge is acquired, including perception, intuition, and reasoning
3. the knowledge that results from such an act or process
4. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
5. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge
Individuals with Schitzotypal Personality Disorder often have ideas of reference (e.g., they have incorrect interpretations of casual incidents and external events as having a particular and unusual meaning specifically for the person).
People with this disorder may be unusually superstitious or preoccupied with paranormal phenomena that are outside the norms of their culture.
Individuals with Schitzotypal Personality Disorder often seek treatment for the associated symptoms of anxiety, depression, or other dysphoric affects rather than for the personality disorder features per se.
Symptoms of Schitzotypal Personality Disorder
Schitzotypal personality disorder is characterized by a pattern of social and interpersonal deficits, deficient in life skills, marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Ideas of reference (including delusions of reference)
Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is consistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or “sixth sense”; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
Have low self esteem, low self confidence, low self worth and some sort of inferiority or superiority complex.
These types often get into cults, and activities like shamanism and witchcraft.
Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, over elaborate, or stereotyped)
Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
Inappropriate or constricted affect
Behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives, and in some cases does not even have good relationships with relatives. In extreme cases reclusive.
Is easily taken advantage of by the unscrupulous
Excessive social anxiety that does not diminish with familiarity and tends to be associated with paranoid fears and negative judgements about self.
May have avolition, which is the inability to set goals and or carry them out to completion.
In more extreme cases, is unemployable.
Has poor life handling skills, and poor problem solving skills.
Often prefers to sit in the house and watch TV, when there are other more important things to be done.
Often only does other things when it is essential that those other things are essential to be done.
Has unsound judgement, or impaired judgement and low level of responsibility.
Poor or limited ability to discern the difference between right and wrong.
Often sees wrong as right, and right as wrong. Backwards thinking.
Inability or poor ability to determine best course of action when faced with life's problems.
Is usually the type of child who is shunned or bullied in school or victimized in school.
Often seen as an outcast, or misfit. Uninformed people describe those with SPD as a few cards short of a full deck.
The above are generalities. Different people with SPD will have or could have all or some of the above symptoms and often have other disorders unique or specific to them, that have to be determined on an individual bases.
Caused by prolonged and repeated invalidation, name calling and other forms of psychological abuse by parents or siblings.
These accumulated disorders compound to make life more difficult or challenging to the individual.
Like any malady, SPD occurs from mild to severe.
Multiple Personality Disorder (Changed to Dissociative Personality Disorder in the ’94 DSM) is an interesting aspect from which to view the concept of ‘self.’
Psychiatrist Robert J Lifton is oft quoted on Scn blogs for his seminal book, “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.”
Thought stopping!!! (wouldn’t that have been a great review for his book?)
Lifton also believed in multiple selves, or ‘self-symbols.’ When Lifton talked about “doubling” (as in the double life led by Nazi doctors), he stressed “the struggle that all human beings have to keep their rival self-symbols in symbiotic harmony…..”
On a more metaphysical note, multiplicity is almost a ‘TOG’…(‘Theory Of God’)… because some people believe that we are all ‘one’…
Some people believe that each one of us is a manifestation of God.
In a way, that ‘s like saying God has ‘multiple personalities ‘… It also suggests that God is a Woman, since women are more likely to identify themselves as multiples.
I’m just happy to have my ruds in, and to be able to keep them in.
Tom Cruise is winning again.
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2014/10/review-amy-nicholsons-tom-cruise-anatomy-of-an-actor
Check those many stars.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/
Show me your referencs and I’ll show you mine. In the meantime, I will post a short list of my sources.
FOTF, relevant to your post I think: Bill Robertson has an interesting lecture or two titled “Body Org Basics” which goes into the organization of bodies, the “consciousnesses” or “awarenesses” contained therein, and stuff like that. He goes into things LRH mentioned in passing but did not go into because he seemed to feel they were not what he was after.
http://www.freezone.org/cbr/body_org_basics.htm
Hi sara. Cool that you do not agree, but then, what is your view of it? The idea that human nature lacks harmony within itself is pretty widespread. Anyone who has tried to quit smoking, drinking, give up an addiction, or tried to keep some New Years resolution or change any entrenched behavior can tell you that.
So what is your view of it?
Keep in mind that we’re talking maps here, not the actual territory. My view is that the same territory, when, like the elephant, is viewed from different angles, may be described using different words.
I suppose this does not please your penchant for mathematical precision.
However I’m not sure the actual territory can be described with that kind of precision.
But I do see commonalities, similarities, of the various descriptions that have been created over the centuries, that all seem to be pointing towards the same reality.
Excellently written.
Now, about the “reactive mind.” Isn’t that really a term that includes all those things that could make one resistant to Hubbard’s influence, suggestion, processing.
sara, I agree but I also disagree that that’s ALL it is. Your statement can be applied to any investigator of the human condition – Freud, Jung, even Buddha. Anyone who “looks within” for answers is going to see, perhaps among other things, “his own case”. The $64 question is, just how unique is every person? Is it possible at all to generalize about humanity from one’s own experiece?
This is the value of Marty’s “multiple viewpoint system”, as practiced here on this blog. Through that, we may eventually find out!
However Scientology is also more than that, because it presents effective methods of “looking within”.
The “god” is L. Ron Hubbard. Progression up the Bridge requires faith in Hubbard and submission to his authority.
On ability to observe and evaluate:
The things which Ron Hubbard said, are good, valuable, helpful – not because Ron said them, but because they are. And to the degree they are.
The things which Ron Hubbard said, are not good, not valuable or helpful – not because Ron said them, but because they are not. To the degree they are not.
A good way to find out is to try and see directly.
The OT levels are not automatically bad because Ron ended the way he did. This cannot be the main indicator.
The same OT levels would not have been automatically great, if Ron would have ended looking good and cheerful and owning 76 Rolce Royces.
If the OT levels are bad they are bad, even if Ron’s friend changes his story and say that Ron was fully enlightened.
These are all very simple. They mean: LOOK.
Jesus Christ ended so miserably, forsaken by man and God. So?? All his teachings and all Christianity are of no value?
IM(very)HO, if you wish to know something, look and examine IT. You’ll be fine. If you are confused look further, don’t listen to stories.
Stories can be excellent entertainment. True observation can lead to truth and enlightenment.
I think that good ol’ Lao Tzu, would cheer the above…
And if he wouldn’t, then he wouldn’t…it does not matter and won’t change their truth or falsehood.
Nice weekend to all, full of truth and light.
Hemi
Just maybe the following may help you Bozz? It helped me out of the mind/self trap.
The following occurs in any processing:
1. A degree of self awareness is attained due to “looking” – obtaining some distance from thought/memory – body/mind/time or whatever you want to call it.
2. The epiphany one has is due to the momentary absence of some created activity called “self”.
3. The “self” then claims the epiphany and in Scientology is further reinforced by writing a success story or being awarded some grade or level.
4. The person will thereafter attempt to recreate the epiphany which has now become a past memory of “self” and will require further processing. Remember that the epiphany occurred due to the absence of the created “self”
Note: In the above ‘Awareness” is primordial.
Consciousness is a creation of self in conscious contact.
“Self” is an activity – a verb – Not a noun. You would be correct to refer to the being which you call yourself as “thetaning”
Quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
Val, my friend, I already knew all that. 😉 Don’t you see? From the get go, you were on a path – your own path of “self-education.” And I would say that you’ve found a lot of it along the way.
Loved your last paragraph too. That’s also my understanding.
Hey Marty,
Regarding your paragraph which begins with this sentence: “However, after completing that final scientology level himself Hubbard went back to chasing down more of what he apparently found to be an endless hoard of demonic, parasitic personalities that he continued to harbor,” why don’t you post the original recording of Sarge? You allowed me to hear it and my take-away was far different than your interpretation as stated in the paragraph. And, while I realize I may be closer to the scene because of Dr Denk and all, I certainly didn’t find Sarge’s report to be nearly as cut-and-dried, nor as condemnatory, as you conclude. I, in fact, took the recorded interview more as an anecdote relayed by an upset friend of a time long ago which resulted in difficulty remembering all the details. The original interview would even be a better reference for the paragraph than the transcription of Sarge’s interview in Memoirs … . Because, then the listener can get a real feel for what Sarge was saying and how he was saying it. Just an idea … Rachel
That is, you were on a path to wisdom – and that’s what you found a lot of. 🙂
Dio, This is a current understanding in limited social circles,and implies all people fold under abuse. I have known a lot of people that have grown up in very oppressive situations with a lot of inval and eval on their lines, wrong indications, that managed to rise above it. Wrong indications and wrong items can spin a person in. But a person can always see the source of these things and give it the discount points in value it deserves.
I have also known people who were bought up being catered to in every regard, who turned into real dysfunctional looneys who were abusive to others.
You write: “We are all a product of genetics, a conception and an upbringing.We are all only as good as we have bred and brought up.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. This viewpoint in itself breeds social oppression, as in, “The apple doesn’t fall far from tree.” A=A=A=A.
In today’s day and age we see it all around us that people can out create their early beginnings. If it were not consistently true, just mathematically, we would not have evolution.
We also see people who were raised with loving and caring and talented parents who turn out to be monsters and raving lunatics.
To suggest that it is not possible to rise above oppression and one is a product of it is just forwarding false information and despair.
To suggest “breeding” will define a person’s value and capabilities …….. I just don’t even know how to enter on that one. That just violates my reality to such an extent I don’t know where to begin.
From where I started to view, there were varying degrees of intelligence in people. And that was the only measure of knowing how a person’s life might go. That became very wobbly, as I came to know some very unintelligent people that seem to overcome every challenge thrown before them. And some very intelligent people that seemed to make everything go wrong around them.
I am now at a point where I think it comes down to people that can notice things, (especially differences and similarities) and people who do not or will not notice things. This does play into education and intelligence, but those things are a byproduct of something much bigger. I think there are only varying degrees of awareness. And this is not born of genetics or environment or family. It has an earlier beginning. A much earlier beginning. And this is what defines a potential.
Lower level scientology is indeed psychotherapy, and very clumsy and inelegant therapy at that. It is the equivalent of going to the doctor and having him poke every part of your body asking “does this hurt?”, “does that hurt?” instead of just saying “tell me where it hurts.” In fact it is worse than that, if that stupid e meter needle moves then the auditor assumes he or she knows MORE about your internal experience than you do. That, my friends, is the basis of some very UNhelpful therapeutic practice.
Well said, Martin.
I simply express your concepts in a slightly different way as follows:
Consciousness = self-awareness
Awareness = disturbance of Mahamudra (ground state)
Mahamudra = the absence of all awareness = the ultimate no-experience.
Perhaps. But Sarge is not my only source of information.
When you LOOK at OT levels, what do you see?
Not actually replying to my own comment. This is in addition to the above. I have also noticed, that what people, is very different. For instance, if you watch the first four minutes of this video clip, you will notice something. But what you notice in it, will not be what I noticed in it. I can pretty much guarantee you, that nobody else on the planet noticed what I noticed, in the first four minutes of watching this clip. You make a note of what you noticed. In a few more days, I will tell you what I noticed when I watched it. No, hell, it is so impossible that anyone else would notice, I will tell you what I noticed. I noticed, white people used to comb their hair.
One doesn’t need to resist Hubbard’s influence, suggestion, processing. Just as-is it.
Disharmony is not the same thing as multiple personality disorder, as implied by fragmentation of human psyche as you suggest.
Pick up any reference from eastern scriptures and you’ll see no mention of fragmentation of human psyche.
For example take a look at the Diamond Sutra of Buddha.
.
I remember when my husband finished OT5 years ago, he was sent to the Flag reg to buy his next step…the reg was sitting there with a broken arm and had just suffered a mild stroke…he proceeded to tell my husband how he must get on his next level as one never knows what will happen.
As you can imagine that was the end of my husbands doubt about the bridge….It’s a farce and I am so happy that more and more people are freeing themselves from this spiritual torture.
You are right about the precision I am after. Hubbard got me going in that direction with his axioms and logics. I see missing pieces there that I would like to fill. I am using subject clearing to do that. I do not like Uncaused Cause as the starting point.
I am looking at “absence of awareness” as the ground state, and awareness as a disturbance of that ground state. This makes many ideas from Physics consistent for me.
This is going to be my starting point. Let’s see what this leads to where human psyche is concerned.
>
Didn’t you read this part of the quote?:
“The reason for NOTs was because people were not making it on the real OT levels 5 and 6. The reason for THIS was because of the ‘stuff’ that is handled on NOTs.”
Marty,
Thanks for a brilliantly brief summation of scientology. This post mirrors my own conclusions. I’ll add that Hubbard and the organization (cult) that he created are prone and programmed for hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lies.
Some consider this fraud. I, for one, have reached that same conclusion.
As a megalomaniac, Ron couldn’t walk away and leave well enough alone. In other words, he couldn’t figure himself out meanwhile foisting his cures for his own mental illness and disorders on others as Higher Powers.
What an expensive spanking I received……….
That’s my ‘two sense’.
And by the way, thanks for these continuing clarifications and insights.
Ahhh, a voice of reason. 🙂
Nice weekend to you too, Hemi.
A propos to the general direction this blog is moving there is a piece written by Troy Tolley, a channel for the Michael Teachings, in which he describes two types of teachings or practices that correlate to some degree with the ideas of client centered therapy and other directed therapy (as I understand them). Below is an extract from a longer article.
All Teachings fall into the categories of ACTIVE/STATIC, or PASSIVE/ALIVE.
Teachings that are Static, tend to be Active, like religions, and they require constant infusion of new blood to keep them afloat, to keep them animated, like a propped up body from A Weekend At Bernie’s. Active, Static teachings are all about your being stimulated, being excited, usually filled with practitioners who are more preoccupied with pushing the teaching, recruiting, saving, gathering up chosen ones, convincing others of their specialness or lack of specialness, rescuing, condemning, dividing, escaping, and so on.
Examples of Active/Static teachings might be The Bible, The Qur’an, The Bhagavad Gita, The Torah. Those books are all there is, and they are delivered full of rules, regulations, rituals, practices, and punishments, along with special reward systems that guarantee your specialness and your place. Lovely, pre-packaged teachings delivered to you in a coffin of words, and hungry for the blood of your life, your sacrifice, and you.
Teachings that are Passive and Alive tend to be all about resonance and harmony, and are quiet, intimate, personal, found by word-of-mouth, and are explored through invitation, not recruitment or requirement. It sits like a book on a shelf, never imposed, and rather than it professing that you are the chosen one, the teaching becomes that which is chosen. There are rarely any rules, or authorities, and no rulers, no hierarchies, no panic, no urgency, no warnings, no alarms, no short cuts, no special positions, just people contributing to the exploration of that teaching as it is shared by a teacher, or through the nurturing of the seeds left by a teacher.
Examples of this are The Michael Teachings, Astrology, Tarot, Shamanism, Dance, Music, Math, Science, Art, Philosophies, and many others, including Life. Yes, these are teachings. These teachings inherently make it difficult to establish any authority, and rely almost entirely on discovery and invitation for propagation, while naturally putting any student directly at the intimate core of determining the value and meaning of the teaching.
YOU = THE TEACHING
You ARE the teaching when you participate in a teaching that is Alive. You become the example, the invitation, and the words… The Logos. There is no more reason to worry about whether your friends or loved ones share in the teachings, because when you are the teaching, you naturally teach through your example, your reactions and responses, and that matters more than your convincing someone else to share in your terminology.
BE THE FOOD or BE THE FREEDOM
In an Active/Static Teaching, you become the blood that keeps the teaching from disappearing. In a Passive/Alive teaching, it is your participation, your application, and your questions that keep the teaching alive and evolving, so that you can use your blood for yourself.
His full exposition is here: http://truthloveenergy.com/forum/topics/troyspeaks060313
Good stuff Marty. I enjoyed the dry wit.
Dan Koon wrote:
“Alanzo, when I was the Qual Sec of the Berkeley Mission years ago I had a sign above the entrance, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” But I also had Conan the Barbarian posters, too. Things were quite fun in those days.”
I can totally understand this, Dan.
When I got involved in 1984 at Melanie (Seidler) Murray’s Dad’s mission in Peoria, things were fun. Melanie’s dad was a Class 8 and an early research auditor whose first cert was “Hubbard Dianetics Auditor”, signed June of 1950, by Ron.
Those guys, actually, knew how to party. And I don’t mean Bacchanalian revelry. I mean that they knew how to create an open and deeply accepting therapeutic environment. And it also was fun and stimulating.
It is what happened later, after too many people and to many years of interpreting LRH ideology, that the fun went out, and the big, booming “I’m a Big Being!” valance of that time disappeared from Scientology.
You probably did not see this from where you were at the Int Base. But when I moved from mission ED at Peoria in 1990, to Course Sup at the South Pasadena and Westwood, CA missions in the early 90’s, things had changed.
As a staff member, I felt more like a “church mouse” than a “freebooter” which was the exact word Andy Seidler used to describe his beingness as a staff member when I joined staff in Peoria.
It was fun then.
Not later.
And I know enough from that time to see how you would have had a sign like that outside your door as a C/S in Berkeley. That must have been a blast.
I do know how it was back then.
I feel sorry for Melanie, though, who came and went from all that. And I have no idea whether she is having to endure all that bullshit to this day.
Alanzo
Really? The monkey on the elephant which is on the turtle. I suppose you think they are integrated harmoniously under one will, one control center, or simply cooperating efficiently of their own volition? Eastern scriptures are full of this stuff. Why else the various yogas? If Man’s compound being was so well integrated, there would be no need for any self-development or self-evolution, any seeking for “God Realization” or whatever your chosen flavor of terminology might be. Man would not be having contradictory impulses within himsef, experiencing internal conflicts, etc.
OK, how are the two different? I stipulate they are different verbal maps or models of the same condition. What is the reality behind the words, that the words are pointing to?
Well stated, Tom.
Multiple personality disorder implies several different personalities operating independently of each other in the same body.
That is not the same thing as fragmented human psyche.
Yvonne, well stated wisdom. The tech or philosophy aside, you hit on what I feel is a major truth; that the experience was part of each persons destiny.
“I have no regret for there was a lesson for me to learn and I’ve learned it. I am certainly more aware now than I was when I started mostly because I’ve left and been willing and able to look at what the experience really meant to me. “
Exactly.
The physical is best understood by the corrsponding “mind” or “consciousness”. Same for the emotional. There are aspecs of life that can be best, or even only, understood by the emotional aspect of “mind” or “conciousness”. Same for the “mental” realm. There are many aspects of life that cannot be understood by the “thinking mind”.
Here is a brief quote from the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 6:
“Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.”
It is the second clause of this teaching that is often neglected – “…..discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.”
I see in your posts that you hold onto the notion that “such do not exist.”
Hear, hear! I particularly like the analogy to the story of Jesus. “Son of God”, no less, and a miserable death indeed.
Buddha denied a universal root consciousness. From the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 6:
“Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.”
This was to steer people away from the reifications humans are so prone to setting up. In the culture of the time, the maps of the territories indicated by the concepts of “brahma” and “atman” had been reified and the Gotama Buddha wanted to be iconoclastic about it. Reification can be considered to be a kind of intellectual idolatry.
I misspoke. Buddha denied the holding of any concept of the existence or the non-existnce of a universal root consciousness. Which is not the same a denying its existence. Another way of saying that is, I believe, that he advocated neither affirming nor denying those.
1984. The IAS was launched that year. The “mission massacre” had already happened, th ejackboots were coming for everyone else. The Titanic(Scientology) didn’t know it yet, but it was already doomed to sink.
Thank you, Hemi.
Nicely done.
Good question!
And as I am ACTUALLY doing this right now, as a free being, (Dror Center, Israel, Indies) it is my direct observation and not blog speculation.
When I look at the OT levels instructions and follow them honestly, inteligently and free of a cult “think”, I SEE so many things, experience so many things, it is imposible to describe here. I am not done yet, so it is not a final opinion, but after a LOT of work on NOTS, it boils down to a better me, much better, cleaner. clearer, and able to face my life more and more, good and bad, and getting bold enough to face things I did not dare look into before. Ah, one small thing more: Patience and tolerance levels are WAY WAY UP. Ability and willingness to accept other ways and systems and anything which is different, way way up. If a buddhist or psychology practitioner have wins, I am so happy for them, and respect what they do as well as what I do. Does that answer the question?
Hemi
Hi Maurice,
I’ve read discussions here on Marty’s and elsewhere (including a few comments by you) about the original OT VIII. If what you said above is true – that “it handles amnesia on the whole track” – the fact that Miscavige altered the level shortly after it was released could explain why that EP is not being attained by OT VIII’s, at least not in the CoS.
What I get from some of George White’s posts is that the original OT VIII materials were too esoteric for most pre-OT’s, and the delivery staff apparently didn’t understand the materials either as they weren’t able to handle students’ confusions. Miscavige also didn’t understand them – and his solution was to simply do away with what was presumably LRH tech!
You wrote: “I can verify that what LRH said about OTVIII in a taped lecture – that it handles amnesia on the whole track, and is ‘uniquely addressed to you’ – is absolutely correct.”
Can you say more about why you feel you can verify that, and which taped lecture you’re referring to?
p.s. Where I wrote that Miscavige didn’t understand the original OT VIII materials and that his solution was to simply do away with them, I meant that this was what I got from George’s posts.
Vinaire,
I do agree. However, not all constructed entities are pro-survival. You must agree on this. Why keep them in place? If a constructed entity does more damage than good, it has no real use. Often, the case I find is that an entity was useful at some time but then later it is just left there and it has no real use anymore.
Earth and Terrans are now awakening to an increase in consciousness. Does a “god” entity still serve the purpose?
I agree that one should come into full awareness and understanding of the entities he might have created or that might have been attached to him throughout his existence. He can then either get rid of those he does not want or keep those that are still useful.
Entities are like keys — why keep the keys of an apartment or car that you no longer live in or have? They just clutter up one’s space!
Monte ……. say what?
Vinaire: for me Mr. Rathbun is one of the most reliable sources all things Scientology.
mwesten: I thought the same. Hubbard’s words are treated as if they were God’s words. Also he referred to himself as ‘source’. What could that mean other than ‘god’ or at least someone of the same altitude?
My starting point to describe the psyche would be the brain. A completely integrated organ. Some parts of that (e.g. the amygdala) are much older, genetically speaking, than others (e.g. the prefrontal cortex). Each of these elements has their own function, but influencing one another.
That might look like a materialistic view, but that is not my point of view. It is one aspect, but an important one in my view.
In principle there is harmony, but every harmony is only temporary, like a equilibrium. With every input the equilibrium might get disturbed, but the system is built to restore equilibrium as soon as possible. Instruments are e.g. the neural systems and the cortex, where the ‘thinking’ is done.
Equilibrium is restored on subconscious and conscious level.
(I am not a native speaker, so my english may sound a bit strained here and there.) A symptom of disintegration is a temporary disturbance of the equilibrium, be it on a physical or a mental level, most of the time on both at the same time.
I look at the ‘body-and-soul’ idea as a system. Cybernetics applies also here.
Adding: religion, therapy, are ways to restore a certain equilibrium, as are drugs, meditation etc. But some of these ways are going too far and are causing new disturbances, like the bodythetans theory of Hubbard, as a result of which a person may go thinking he is a composite of thousands of ‘beings’, the nature of which is never exactly described. Well, that could disturb a person to such a point that he might lose his selfcontrol completely.
If I may be so bold as to comment on the very good point that Ms. KNather Thomas makes (as she does have her good points, just generally speaking). Two comments I’d like to make:
1) Few things in life have actual endings (other than temporarily – and even most of the endings we think of, continue on in our memories affecting us in one way or another).
2) More importantly, though Ms. Thomas is correct in how Scientology training and processing progresses in what is stressed in its usual application, one doesn’t HAVE to study or experience Scientology that way.
I was already a very good auditor when I got onto the BC and although I wanted to be a better one for sure, I had no goal to be a Cl. 6 and the idea of finishing the BC and/or doing the internship were not just unreal to me – I simply didn’t give a shit. I was on it to gain knowledge and have wins. On just Levels A & B alone, I filled up 8 or 9 journals with cognitions and also with LRH quotes. I got a lot of personal gain from this training.
Really, since the early 1970s I pretty much approached auditing the same way. Wins, gains, realizations and applications of such in life. That’s what mattered to me. I loved reading cogs in folders when I was a CS. I CSd some objectives five years ago and the wins were fantastic.
One doesn’t have to focus on the usual question “where are you on the bridge” and put attention on whether one is Clear or Grade III or any other level. For me, it was simply one win at a time, for its own sake in that session. I found my core service fac in 1973 – it is STILL real and true for me TO THIS VERY DAY and you know what? I even apply it in every day living and I notice when I don’t as well.
One can just run ONE process on someone to good effect. A few weeks ago, someone I was talking to wanted a demonstration of auditing. I ran three commands or so of “Recall a time when life was cheerful” and you know what? His tone rose just on those and I ended off. LRH makes the point on a PDC lecture that just being able to reach and withdraw from one’s facsimiles gets one from being under them or brought down by them (on a gradient of course). And so this is a VERY worthwhile activity, quite aside from whether one can be clear per any of LRH’s definitions or OT or anything else. There is much value in even just one cognition or realization about life which makes one feel happier about living.
I’ll make another post on my two cents on the whole subject being discussed here in a little while.
Hi Marildi,
That is an excellent summation regarding the delivery of the original OT VIII. You’ve covered all the relevant points (as I understand them).
The “taped lecture” is actually Ron’s Journal 39 (1985), where he says:
“You will enjoy New OT VIII when you do it. It is uniquely addressed to you.
I don’t want to mention too much at this time, but I will tell you that it addresses a vital necessity for a thetan’s total freedom: I have discovered the primary reason for amnesia on the whole track, and believe me, this you need to handle.”
Why do I feel I can verify that statement? Two years of experience –
that’s how long I’ve been auditing on the level (so far).
P.S. It’s been the most difficult – but also most satisfying – auditing I’ve ever had.
Neither physicality nor spirituality are absolute and independent of each other. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.
Scientology static has the ability to postulate and perceive. It therefore represents awareness.
To me, awareness cannot be static. Awareness is a disturbance like the light (electromagnetic wave). Therefore, the first three postulates of KHTK are:
KHTK Postulate M-1: Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state.
KHTK Postulate M-2: It is desire to know that disturbs the ground state.
KHTK Postulate M-3: The ground state is absolute but unknowable.
Mind, consciousness. electromagnetism, etc., develop from these postulates. That is what I am currently working on. At the moment I am looking at how Mahamudra conceptualizes this ground state.
Diamond Sutra’s total enlightment is this ground state that underlies self and awareness. The “notions of the non-existence of such concepts” is part of awareness.
It is mathematical.
.
KHTK Postulate M-4: The ultimate Self of Vedas is this very ground state.
KHTK Postulate M-5: The concepts of God and Static are relative to this ground state.
.
Flavp, I see these entities as forms that precipitate from consciousness as the desire to know accelerates. There is no such simplicity as “individual will” going about constructing entities. The whole process seems to be a bit more involved and dynamic.
Pro-survival and anti-survival are relative concepts. Forms are kept or dissolved as it satisfies the desire to know. The Desire to know underlies all consciousness. It determines what is and what is not in consciousness.
Aberration occurs in the form of stuckness, when the form is prevented from either precipitation or rom dissolution.
In this frame of reference, God is just another form or, you may say, entity.
.
If there no visibility of whole track, that doesn’t necessarily means amnesia. The whole track could simply have been as-ised.
Ah! That is so sweet and wonderful! I love you for it.
My understanding is that all knowledge must be coherent and consistent. And if there is any incoherency or inconsistency in knowledge, then there are misunderstoods and assumptions underlying them.
>
vinaire, I neglected to preface my comment with the r-fac that what I was stating is a portion of how I now interpret my experience in scientology. My apologies for that.
The unwanted condition I wanted to handle through the use of scn was that of my not ever feeling at home being human. I always felt like I was out of place somehow but couldn’t figure out why. When I encountered scn I thought I could use it to discover who, what, how and why I was. And yes, I recognized that if I knew who, what, how and why I really was that would be an incredibly powerful reality and I very much desired that.
As I ventured forth on this path, like you pointed out vinaire, I got a win here and a win there but it seemed that it was always the next step that was what I really needed. I was always looking to and reaching for the next moment and I did not realize that I had imprisoned myself in the perpetually elusive next moment that would never arrive.
When I first became a scio the road to self-discovery and rehabilitation of all that I truly am, appeared to be close at hand. It seemed very confrontable. However, as my journey progressed, that which I desired that in the beginning seemed to be so readily available, began to stretch out farther and farther in front of me. It was as if with every step I took on this journey, the scn path I was on would automatically add on at least another five steps. Also, as I continued on this particular path it seemed that it was demanded that I sacrifice more and more in order to be allowed to remain in good standing on the path.
Throughout my scn journey I never acknowledged that I was suffering and it’s only recently that I’ve come to recognize just how much I suffered on that path. It was the suffering, though, that acted as the wedge that ever so gradually separated the consciousness that is ‘me’ apart from its tenacious attachment and identification with the scientologist construct.
When this separation occurred I disconnected from the church and then it was a few months later I completely dropped any attachment to, or identification with, the idea of being a scientologist.
Albert Einstein? (Not all white people used to comb their hair)
Perhaps vinaire, from the perspective of form, we cannot begin to even conceive of the capacity of the ego thought system.
To say that suffering burns up the ego is probably not true. My bad for not qualifying the statement. It was my interpretation. As was your statement that suffering does not burn up the ego. Vinaire, I don’t see using the observation that ego remains on the planet as being an accurate indicator of whether or not suffering burns ego. Again, I don’t believe that we, at least while located in form, can conceive of what the ego actually is and, if suffering does burn off ego, how could we begin to know or estimate the length of time it would take for suffering to burn off x amount of ego.
How many years had I been suffering…thousands, millions, billions of years, and how many identities had come and gone before my suffering as a scientologist awoke me enough to recognize that I was not the object I was identifying myself as being? The answer to this question has no value or meaning for me.
The very best view of the universe we can achieve while identifying with form is the view we get when looking through a keyhole. We can never see the whole picture so we can never really understand what we’re looking at. There’s always an earlier beginning and there’s always more to the story.
I acknowledge suffering as being more than a little instrumental in the process of awakening me enough so that I at least now recognize that I no longer need to suffer in order to continue awakening. Instead of suffering I now use forgiveness. Meaning, every time the ego thought system attempts to lure me into validating it as being something real, I use that ‘space’ that Victor Frankl spoke of that exists between stimulus and response, to choose not to validate the ego but instead recognize that it’s an unreality. This is the practice of forgiveness that I have learned from the course of miracles. From personal experience – forgiveness is many, many times more efficacious than suffering in burning off the ego. Yet, I acknowledge suffering for bringing me to recognize forgiveness.
Sara,
I agree.
Dio
I certainly do understand. A trustworthy source is necessary until one can trust oneself as a source.
And this is apart from ego.
KHTK Postulate M-4: The ultimate Self of Vedas is this very ground state.
The idea of self exists throughout the spectrum of life. There is plant self, the animal self, and the human self. Thus self is relative. The absolute Self of the Vedas is arrived at by the process of “neti, neti” (not this, not that). It leads to the same ground state described above.
The “Brahma” of Hinduism and the “Nirvana” of Buddhism are based on the concept of this ground state.
Any concept, either of existence, or of non-existence, involves awareness, and is relative to the ground state of “Nirvana”.
But, in truth, they represent inconsistecy and incoherence in consciousness.
Marty,
Great write up, you keep bringing up all the things that I want to talk about, so here it goes.
You observation of the bipolar nature of Scientology is spot on, I would actually call it Schizophrenic, which to me reflects the Funders general attitude to life and to the people he interacted with.
Anybody with an ounce of common sense, would agree that the worst possible environment for a “Therapy” would be at the hands of a Religious cult, run by a messianic guru, where it’s “patients” are taken by their nose all the way through the great mystery at the mercy of the faithful.
For whatever therapeutic value one gains, it will sure be cancelled out by the cult ingrained totalitarianism. Totally counterintuitive to any client centered therapy.
Conversely, to take people, that were sold on, and came to Scientology “to own their hot dog stand” as Dan Koon so aptly put it, and then overwhelm them with a highly esoteric mystical system, is for the birds, as you cannot coerce people into becoming obligatory mystics.
What you actually get is a bunch of overwhelmed people, who are easily turned into slaves, and that is in my opinion what actually has taken place in Scientology. Regardless of how much charge they blow or how much insight they achieve, Scientologists would inevitably get the full force of Hubbard’s implant.
Hubbard hidden construct for a being and reality as a conglomerate of entities, is not only insane, but also it is counter to the basic axioms and workable methodologies he discovered.
You can see all throughout his research phase that his obsession with entities kept showing up, looming over the other model for the mind and reality he was so brilliantly describing. A model which by the way has a lot in common with the eastern views of reality and that of quantum physics as well.
In the PDC lectures, Hubbard posits, read speculates, that the MEST universe was somehow made up of comatose beings who had finally ended their long life spirals from full spiritual gnosis into a clustered state of unconsciousness.
Very convenient mythology for his heaven-hell salvation scheme. Many different versions of this has been spun endlessly before, all with the same goal of subjugating the unenlightened and the naïve.
That view is probably what paved the way to his Xenu Opus Magnus, which seems to have been in the works since his OTO days.
In Hubbard’s cosmology, wholetrack incidents are reified and are presented as the actuality, turning the nature of consciousness on its head.
If someone can actually perceive the nature of reality, there is no need to invalidate space opera incidents, spiritual entities, and more importantly our interconnections, as we are at our most fundamental level unlocalized awareness.
It is all in the way how data is spin, and whether one is allowed to transcend a model of reality or be subjected to a Religious cult’s dogma.
Nice one Joe!
Monte, the following is what I understand from your post:
Unwanted condition = Feeling out of place in the context of humans or humanity.
Desire to know = What does “I” represent.
Confusion = promise that it will be handled on the next step in Scientology, but it never did.
Perception = There were additives at every step
Realization = That these additives were imparting conditioning
I believe that many have experience similar to the above. One find oneself back at square one. But I think that one can use the experience gained in Scientology to really get the understanding one wants.
If you go back and look at the original unwanted condition, what part of it was handled and what part did not get handled in Scientology?
.
Ego = What one thinks of self
Self = What is
Innate awareness of self = consciousness
The above is just a bird’s eye view that may not provide the understanding I have, but it may provide a starting point for this discussion. As I see, innate awareness of self is one’s consciousness. Ego is very different from this consciousness. Ego is composed of additives.
Suffering = Dukkha, attachment, identification
One may try to discover self through identification and attachment, but that doesn’t work unfortunately. One comes close to recognizing self by getting rid of all additives. This is one way to look at “neti, neti” (not this, not that).
Form and essence go hand in hand. I see the fundamental form to be light and the fundamental essence to be awareness. So, to me, consciousness is light and awareness. Suffering is just kanoodling with additives (attachments and identifications). I just learned this new word “kanoodling” so I thought I shall use it here. It seems to fit. Haha!
.
This kind of “mystery sandwich” is part of the marketing of the OT Levels. This “mystery sandwich” is installed as conditioning in the OTs.
Joe: “1) Few things in life have actual endings (other than temporarily – and even most of the endings we think of, continue on in our memories affecting us in one way or another).”
I would disagree with that generalization made by Mr. Pendleton. The true picture is that there are cycles withing cycles within cycles ad infinitum… and cycle do go through start, change, stop at all different levels.
Here I agree with the truth that LRH borrowed from the Vedas, and he acknowledge it too like a gentleman.
.
Joe: “2) More importantly, though Ms. Thomas is correct in how Scientology training and processing progresses in what is stressed in its usual application, one doesn’t HAVE to study or experience Scientology that way.”
That is true because the aspect that Ms. Thomas is referring to has to do with marketing and making money. It has nothing to do with training.
.
Joe: “One can just run ONE process on someone to good effect… There is much value in even just one cognition or realization about life which makes one feel happier about living.”
That is fine and it is part of the fluctations in lfe. But it doesn’t add up to spiritual progress. True spiritual progress comes from dissolving inconsistencies and incoherecies, that are observed in life, for good.
.
I think this is the best text I´ve ever read for times !
Sara, I like your point about equilibrium. An input disturbs the equibrium of the psyche. A response is then generated in the psyche as part of the process of restoring that equilibrium. This is very simple and elegant.
I like looking at psyche as a whole system of body and mind like you do. I don’t see this system made up of entities either. There are many such psyches, each housed in a different body but that is not the issue here.
The idea of entities at OT levels is a hypothesis of hundreds of psyches in the same body. To me this “OT hypotheses” is inconsistent with reality..
.
LOL! Well said!
Laughter!
Are you sure? The turtle, the elephant, the monkey, etc may each be experienced as an independent entity which may have intentions not in agreement with or counter to, the others. There may be more than these 3. Does this not reflect Idenics theory, that one can have many identities or “valences” ?
Seems very trivial. Let us just say over the last 50 years, grooming standards have become less, not more. I landed in inner city San Francisco on the 60’s as a youth, where the “in” thing was not to wear shoes. That was quite a social swerve. Nobody smelled like Brylcreem or Old Spice anymore. I live in a city now, that is relatively new and laid back, and it is not unusual to see someone here in the grocery store in their pajamas on a Sunday Morn. I work in an office that is considered a very savvy boutique type of place, and I had to dress down to what is called “casual professional” . A lot of people do not know what to wear for a job interview anymore. Do I look “hip” or “professional” or what? You go in a suit, the guy interviewing you is in a bathrobe or a dress. This literally happened to someone I know last week. What does it all mean? Does it mean Brylcreem led the way because of advertising? Did men ever want to wear pomade? Change always means something. We went from strict standards in cosmopolitan cities to a, “anything is possible” . From black and white lines to shades of grey, with appearance. Scientology was born into a “anything is possible” time period. The more “anything is possible” grows, the more “nothing is possible” and lines are drawn in the sand, in the Church. This imparts a better understanding about conditions. These are things I notice.
Thanks very much, Maurice. I had forgotten it was Ron’s Journal 39, although I did remember the basic idea of what you wrote..
One thing I remember George stating in a comment he posted was that the EP of the original OT VIII was when you had handled all implants for all 8 dynamics, GE’s,” etc. No wonder you are doing so well on it! Carry on!
“Ah! That is so sweet and wonderful! I love you for it.”
+ 1 🙂
I am sure Marildi has a proper response for this. ::)
Unconsciousness does not mean lack of awareness. It simply means that the expected response is not there.
I think Conan has made some good points.
The things is, contrary to Dio’s statements of what defines a person, I think what defines a person, is what he / she notices. We all notice different things because we are all viewing from different angles. It is an un attainable goal to get someone to view from your viewpoint, unless you are occupying the same space. So there can only be agreement, unless you are sharing the same space. And agreement, may be a departure from what is. Is anybody really right, and is anybody really wrong? Or are we all just noticing different things? I was with a friend once, and we stopped at a 711 store. There was a beggar out front. He knew the name of the paint on my car and mentioned it. He had worked for General Motors he said. I handed him my car keys and told him to take the Caddy for a spin around the block while I was in the store. He did. All my friend could notice was that he was a beggar and I should not have given him my car keys. What I noticed was his keen ability to notice the shade of paint on my car and recall the exact name of it. Yet, it violated her reality that I gave this man the keys to my car to take it for a spin. Do you see what I mean? If you go through this world understanding that we are different because we notice different things, you can understand people by what they notice. It has nothing to do with parents, “their past” (upbringing), breeding, genetics, parents, family etc etc.. The tricky arena, is when people have to notice things that are not THERE. Are things that are not THERE to be noticed? The guy who made the star wars movies, these spaceships and odd characters were not there for him to notice and communicate about. Did he invent them or remember them? Did he notice them or create them? A lot of people struggle with noticing things that are not really THERE because of the invisible. “Noticing” is an invisible act. Yet it defines a person’s life in a large way. What Christians have noticed Jesus? Did they see him? “Is it there, or are you putting it there” is instrumental in noticing. The thing with the Scientology, is that different people are going to notice different things, or not, within that experience. Scientology is simply, what the people have noticed it is. The only “real” thing about the entire experience to notice are the books, buildings, and staff. Everything else is an invisible standard. Miscavige tends to push away from the invisible s, to the visible for people to notice. Buildings, books, uniforms. And to discount in every way, any invisible s for people to become lost, or found in. And, I wonder HOW do people notice? If you are a Scientologist, and you notice someone is a friend, and they are declared or kicked out, so you suggendly “notice” they are an “S.P.” , does one notice upon person purpose or does one notice by what is there? Why does Dio “notice” the effects of environment and genetics when I do not? I would need to know if he really “noticed” these things or read about them and agreed with them. See, I do not see it as all black and white, but more along what is possible. And why would I notice what is possible, when someone else notices what is impossible? What lies behind what people notice? It is THERE but that is treading the invisible which people tend to not notice.
Conan: “If someone can actually perceive the nature of reality, there is no need to invalidate space opera incidents, spiritual entities, and more importantly our interconnections, as we are at our most fundamental level unlocalized awareness.”
It’s possible that we are missing data. Here’s what LRH apparently wrote in a 1980 confidential bulletin:
“I had an inkling, but only that, of the insidiousness of this material as far back as 1945. Later, in characteristic over-optimism, I thought that R6 would be the end of it. But that was followed by NOTs and the Purification Rundown and still the string continued to unwind with the ball at the end of it just out of sight…”
(HCOB of 5 May 1980, bulletin on the original OT VIII course)
How’s this response, Vinnie:
Conan is entitled to his very own speculations and beliefs. 😛
But I would agree with his last sentence:
“It is all in the way how data is spin, and whether one is allowed to transcend a model of reality or be subjected to a Religious cult’s dogma.”
“Form and essence seem to go hand in hand. There seems to be no separate absolutes of physicality and spirituality.”
I tend to agree with that and I think you have put it well. And the examples of space and time once being considered separate, correct. One way of looking at our “speed” through existence is (in terms of physics) that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light — or slower — if we are talking space-time. We are all moving through space-time at c. Move faster through a spatial dimension, you move slower through time and vice versa.
Same with matter and energy. Once thought of as separate, Einstein showed their interchangeability and conversion rate.
Then to the dualist view of Scientology and so many religions — static vs. MEST, spirit vs. matter, etc. here’s how I look at the worst case scenario, which I guess would be this universe is all there is. If so, what a magical universe where consciousness and thought exist right in the midst of everything.
That’s what makes me tend to agree that there are not separate absolutes of the physical and the spiritual.
I agree with you Vinaire and I think you just stated it better than I did.
I will leave the definition or I should probably say “decision” in regards to spiritual “progress” up to each individual’s evaluation of one’s OWN progress or lack of it, as that individual views it (not on any external evaluation)
In my opinion, viewpoint is one’s self-awareness. When one views something one compares the perception of that thing to the awareness of oneself. That is how one gives meaning to what one is perceiving.
So then, the thing about “Scientology”, for me, starts with the understanding that Scientology = “Things Hubbard noticed”. Did he find things he could point out for others to notice? For me, yes, that was some of it. I did notice things I had not noticed before. I also noticed , he noticed things that I did not consider important for me to notice, that did not matter to me, that I did not care about, that were not important to me.
He noticed things that were sub products. Such as, his aversion to the I.R.S.. They are not a source. They are bill collectors, congress makes the tax laws. So why battle with the I.R.S.? That is like battling with the newspaper boy for items printed by the newspaper. And why did he notice the IRS? They sent him notice that is why. Why should I notice them if they are not an issue for me? Why do people that have never paid taxes in their life inherit them as problems because they are “members” of the Church? Why do members that have never had a problem with them donate money to fight them? They were told to notice them as a problem, when they do not even make the tax laws. So, WHAT dictates what people notice? Is it you, or someone else? And, you know, if you can not separate what you notice, from what Hubbard noticed, and weigh in on these things as within your scope of noticing, are you noticing or agreeing? Agreeing is something people do when they prefer not to notice. But what Hubbard noticed on some of his later research may not be what is there or may not be what others noticed at all. I noticed certain influences he mentioned, but I had always noticed those things and did not notice it the way he did. He had a different take. Also above clear there are doingness drills which to “pass”, or attest to, you must enter into slave / master relationship with the auditor. In which you are told to DO things, and you must comply. This is some regards removes your own determinism. One such drill is putting an idea into someone else’s head. Well, what if that idea repells you (like it did me). Who is to say this is a holy or unholy indicator? One can then assess you as “unwilling to be cause over others therefore you have overts”. That is not noticing, that is evaluating. Much of what comes above clear in the church is a slave / master relationship. Pointing out things for others to notice is fine, that is what happens when someone asks you a question about yourself. The whole C/Sing and training for NOTS and what you HAVE to notice, to “pass”, is all a slave / master relationship. That is when you are given a task you must complete and report compliance on. Is a slave / master relation always bad? No. If your master says, “Go to the well and get us water so that we may not die from thirst.” And you go there to the well and draw water, and are happy and comforted with water later, you are grateful. If though, during that time your master beats you and you would prefer to die from thirst than be a slave, the water brings further suffering. Nothing, can be guaranteed, you see, when it comes to noticing things. You can point out something, like a hole in the ground, with a street sign to help people notice, yes. In slim avenues you can point out things, but the very best of therapy is ASKING people to notice things and decide for themselves. And this was the workability of early auditing. People were asked to notice something, and tell the auditor what they saw. When it moved out of this arena, it became something else. When you insist people notice something, and they are in a slave / master relationship and must comply to “pass”, how can they know if the noticed something, or put it there to get a “pass”? The lower bridge encourages people to notice for themselves. The upper bridge commands what you should notice. This is a slave / master relationship.
And what if one has no attention on “self”? Or if “self” is not an issue? What of “other awareness”?
One gives meaning to one’s perception by the awareness one has of self. The self-awareness constitutes all of one’s knowledge.
So one perceives monkey on the elephant which is on the turtle. He compares that perception to one’s self-awareness and gives that perception a meaning.
This self-awareness is also called consciousness. It is made up of beliefs and logics. Logics are the relationships or cross-indexing among the beliefs. One is sane to the degree one’s self awareness is consistent and coherent.
If one’s consciousness is broken into bunches of beliefs and logics, where each bunch is being identified as an entity, and these entities are not indexed with each other in one’s consciousness, then I shall call that a fragmented psyche. But this would be exception rather than the rule.
I believe that the spirtual prograss can be viewed objectively. It is not 100% subjective.
A person gotten off drugs completely and living a happy life has certainly made spiritual progress.
But a person going up on IAS status, or OT levels, may think he is making spiritual progress, while, in actuality, he may simply be getting more conditioned.
Summation, not a response to my own post: This is why Marty’s advice to INTEGRATE KNOWLEDGE was so valuable. For an an EMPLOYEE contract to be valid, it contains a slave / master relationship. That is where the employee is obligated to perform certain tasks. Now, if your bridge above clear is a slave / master relationship, when you are required to perform certain tasks, are you a “customer”, or do you become an employee of the Church of Scientology all the while thinking you are a “customer”? Do you pay and pay and pay, to be ordered to perform certain tasks on your “bridge” that you must comply with? Yes. Contrary to popular illusion, you are not longer a “customer” in Scientology above clear. You then become an employee. And you are charged with certain tasks you must complete. “Customers” above clear are actually employees of the Church.
“A contract of employment is a category of contract used in labour law to attribute right and responsibilities between parties to a bargain. On the one end stands an “employee” who is “employed” by an “employer”. It has arisen out of the old master-servant law, used before the 20th century. Put generally, the contract of employment denotes a relationship of economic dependence and social subordination.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_contract
And, I may be the only who has noticed this.
Everyday I feel more amazed at Marildi’s abilities as displayed here. 😛
________________________________
Wonderful! 🙂
Awareness by its very nature has to be aware. If there is nothing around then it would be aware of itself. This self-awareness is called consciousness. It is always there. It is not dependent on attention.
P.S. For anyone curious. An employment situation occurs when you are:
1. Obligated to a schedule / work hours.
2. Obligated to perform.
3. Given tasks you must complete.
4. Report in.
You are thereby a bonafide employee.
What responsibilities does a solo auditor have?
All of the above.
STATIC = AWARENESS + UNCAUSED CAUSE
The Scientology “Static” is given an appearance of an absolute static by mixing awareness with the concept of uncaused cause.
It is a philosophical sleight of hand. It sounds great to a person on the street who has not thought through the philosophical concepts to the end..
Unfortunately, the inconsistency of this concept called “Static” can easily be seen. No wonder the philosophy of Scientology has hardly been noticed in the philosophical circles.
“It was the suffering, though, that acted as the wedge that ever so gradually separated the consciousness that is ‘me’ apart from its tenacious attachment and identification with the scientologist construct.”
Wouldn’t it be wild, Monte, if that were the method to his madness? 😀
Thank you thank you. 😀
Oracle said: “And, you know, if you cannot separate what you notice, from what Hubbard noticed, and weigh in on these things as within your scope of noticing, are you noticing or agreeing? Agreeing is something people do when they prefer not to notice.“ True agreement comes about only when one has independently observed the same thing. Otherwise, agreement is nothing more than a form of conditioning.
________________________________
I use this video, Serenity Through Forgiveness, as a meditation on forgiveness. The more I use it the better it gets. 🙂
Oracle said: “But what Hubbard noticed on some of his later research may not be what is there or may not be what others noticed at all. I noticed certain influences he mentioned, but I had always noticed those things and did not notice it the way he did. He had a different take. Also above clear there are doingness drills which to “pass”, or attest to, you must enter into slave / master relationship with the auditor. In which you are told to DO things, and you must comply. This is some regards removes your own determinism.“
Hubbard made hypothesis out of observations and forced it on pre-OTs. Hypotheses always are additives to observations. They should not be accepted until confirmed by experiments. Hubbard was basically experimenting on pre-OTs. OT processes are not tested and honed processes from which all bugs have been ironed out. They are Hubbard’s hypotheses. People who accept them as truths without having observed independently every bit of the “predictions” made by those hypotheses are simply conditioned.
________________________________
vinaire, our styles, words and symbols can sometimes vary greatly but, it seems to me, our content does not vary much at all from one another. It’s always fun and productive for me to exchange with you. BTW, thanks for introducing me to the word kanoodling. And you’re right…it definitely fits! Suffering is just kanoodling with additives. So true! 😀
You are one of my favorite persons, Marildi.
That is quintessential Marildi. LOL! I love such justifications. Hahaha.
________________________________
I find mindfulness to be a wonderful solution to suffering.
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
Oracle said: “One such drill is putting an idea into someone else’s head. Well, what if that idea repells you (like it did me). Who is to say this is a holy or unholy indicator?.“
Well, Hubbard was doing it himself all this time. He was putting his ideas in other people’s heads quite forcefully. One can do this only when one has no moral compunctions.
________________________________
See, I haven’t noticed that. That, ” self awareness” is called consciousness. I have heard people say it but I have not noticed it. And I haven’t noticed that noticing things, has to do with self awareness. And I haven’t noticed viewpoint as being what you say it is.
Oracle said: “… the very best of therapy is ASKING people to notice things and decide for themselves. And this was the workability of early auditing. People were asked to notice something, and tell the auditor what they saw. When it moved out of this arena, it became something else. When you insist people notice something, and they are in a slave / master relationship and must comply to “pass”, how can they know if the noticed something, or put it there to get a “pass”? The lower bridge encourages people to notice for themselves. The upper bridge commands what you should notice. This is a slave / master relationship. “
One wonders what Hubbard was after! It seems he was testing something on people for his own use. Maybe he wanted to get rid of some suffering of his own. Maybe he was after a Nobel prize. Who knows? But one thing seems to be obvious. Hubbard was obsessed.
________________________________
Isn’t it wonderful that you have to pay heavily to be an employee of the Church of Scientology! What a wonderful deception… a stroke of genius!
________________________________
I take it this is something you noticed.
Marildi,
That is precisely the point of this post.
Get the electro shock machine ready if you want to follow Ron to the end.
Read the Axioms again, incidents are projection that arise within the static, incidents are not the actuality, the static remains untouched.
Hubbard turned the very nature of consciousness on its head to indulge in his hobby horse.
The consistency and coherency tells me that.
I know that. 🙂
😀
Hi Marty. You refer to them as demons sometimes, but they are not really demons at all. A demon is demon and a mass implanted thetan is a mass implanted thetan better known as a Body Thetan (or BT for short). If some remember properly at Incident I there was no MEST universe yet. The MEST universe came about from of Incident I. Incident II, there iies the heart of most of the world’s problems! 🙂 That’s the difference between Incident I & II. Implanting a thetan without a physical universe in place yet can be to say the least quite frustrating to a staff member! 🙂 But not to Int Base staff. There motto should be “Heck. We implant at least 1 Sea Org member a year, and that’s being modest”. 🙂 Maybe that’s what’s wrong with Scientology. But then again I also agree with your book by the same name! 🙂
Conan, if you read the whole bulletin, it might explain what Ron was looking at. You can see from what he wrote that he had made some new discoveries – all of which happen to align with “certain passages and esoteric interpretations of the Bible (much of which has been taken out and effectively suppressed for centuries) as well as the Kabbalah.” And he adds that “the truth reveals itself quite nicely for the clever and the ungullible.”
Myself, I try to remain both open-minded and skeptical.
Vinaire, television commercials put ideas into one’s head. “For sale” signs put ideas into one’s head. The public school systems put idea’s into one’s head. Journalists put ideas into one’s head. Teachers put ideas into one’s head. Parents put ideas into one’s head. Used car salesmen put ideas into one’s head. Recipe books put ideas in one’s head. The point I was making, is when you are told to go out and put an idea into someone’s head, you are then doing someone else’s bidding. When you are told WHAT to put their head, such as in public schools, you are definitely doing someone else’s bidding. The workability and value in Scientology was getting a person to notice things. That was the end of it. You had to put the idea in someone’s head to get people to notice things (teaching them to audit). When the purpose behind this is one of lifting your fellow man upwards, the result is improvement. When the purpose is domination, it shifts into another gear.
I knew you’d like it. 🙂
I like you too! Whoddathunk? 😉
I have never wondered what he was after, myself. I like to be asked to notice things I might not have noticed before. He didn’t ask me, other people did. Hubbard didn’t audit me. Hubbard was never my teacher. Hubbard was never my senior. I can live with out the slave / master relationships. It didn’t have to be Hubbard who asked me the auditing questions. I didn’t have to ever meet Hubbard to experience Scientology or the people involved in it. When I buy a new dress I do not think of the person who designed it. When I buy vegetables I do think about the farmer who grew it. I think the obsession is a little reversed. I don’t really understand the obsession with Hubbard.
I haven’t noticed this myself. I wasn’t cohabitating with Hubbard to know what he was doing. I could not pass blanket judgement on all people who “accepted them as truths”. A lot of people take pleasure in being told what to do, obviously. Not only in Scientology. I am told to follow the speed limits and it seems a reasonable request, so I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t really need to see volumes of statistics and understand certain branches of physics to drive 55 miles an hour in a 55 speed zone. I just notice it seems to kind of work out.
Thank YOU Dio.
DID, which is called Dissociative Identity Disorder is a REAL illness suffered all over the world by many many people. This is NOT something that can be treated with purifs, vitamins and guilt.
By denying any possible diagnosis of mental illness Scientology has done a HUGE disservice to so many people. TOO MANY have died already with untreated mental illness and drug addiction. There is not much that enrages me more than SCIONS dumping on therapy and meds.
To clarify my first sentence, “…it might explain what Ron was looking at” – especially at the end of his life.
Dear Vinaire, thank you.
As usual, you are always very articulate.
However, I do not see the process of “constructing entities” as something that an individual is incapable of doing. You mention that it is more involved and dynamic — could you shed more light on that?
It’s true that pro-survival and counter-survival are relative concepts, I agree with that — at least, they are subjective to the individual.
Is your concept of “desire to know” the same to the concept of the highest ARC (understanding) possible? I always saw the “desire to understand”, as underlying all consciousness — are we talking about the same thing here?
What is “rom dissolution”?
Thanks for your reaction.
Well said.
The physical and the spiritual are on the same continuum. As is everything else.
Expectations, coming from desires and cravings, coming from the urge to survive.
In my opinion the concept of ‘source’ can only be used in conjunction with something else: the source for … (an item), e.g. wisdom, water, information of any kind, etc., etc.
That is what I meant in my earlier reaction to iamvalkov.
Well written
Keep grasping at straws
Neither awareness nor cause is absolute. Since the Scientology “static” is just a combination of awareness and cause, it is not absolute either.
.
Hi Maurice,
“The “taped lecture” is actually Ron’s Journal 39 (1985), where he says:
“You will enjoy New OT VIII when you do it. It is uniquely addressed to you.”
Thanks for posting this reference. In my experience, the core of OT VIII was creativity and autonomy. The “Student Briefing” has a lot of data about the past and some speculation into the future. The idea of “implants” seems endless and can lead to confusion. However, what I found was that the common denominator was a type of hatred from other beings. This hatred has roots; the challenge was to discover them.
Kind Regards,
George M. White
Hi marildi,
This is true. I might add that I met Mr. Miscavige on a return visit to the Freewinds. He was reluctant to communicate partly because I think he was confused by the “Student Briefing” document. In addition, the problems resulting from the level were beginning to surface.
I remember reading all of the briefing documents designed to order me to return. I would have returned if he had written anything that made sense. He was impressed by his possession of LRH’s notes and was basically using his inside information to create a solution to the problem of OT VIII. He wanted to hold absolute power and that was obvious.
Kind Regards,
GMW
Sorry, the letter “f” was dropped out. The complete sentence was:
“Aberration occurs in the form of stuckness, when the form is prevented from either precipitation or from dissolution.”
Flavp, the idea of individual creating the reality comes from Axiom #1. In my view, Axiom #1 does not go deep enough and individuality itself is a construct. I have been trying to express my observation in this area. The following essy is my latest attempt.
.
One doesn’t have to cohabit to know or observe. There is consistency and coherency that reveals a lot. It is also called “putting two and two together.”
Being judgmental is very different from a Data Series evaluation. When one is being judgmental one is being full of outpoints. But when one is taking the Data Series approach of consistency and coherency, the outpoints are eliminated, which results in intuitive revelations.
It is plain from the experiences and accounts of people who have gone through OT levels that Hubbard just had a hypotheses and not a well tested theory. This is Science 101.
Hi marildi!
You know, I must confess, there have been more than a few times where I really wondered if that might actually be the case. 🙂 The idea, though, never settled in as being a likely scenario. That noted, here’s what I now believe…once Consciousness intends to wake up i.e., withdraw its attachment and identification from form, there is no path taken in the seemingly real temporal progression through time and space that does not serve that intention. Having this belief has greatly altered my perception of the world and how I respond to it.
The Incident I is arising of awareness:
.
Here are my comments on “SOURCE” – A Scientology Power Process.
.
vinaire, these 12 steps work to shut off all the noisy mental machinery (the ego thought system) and when the mental machinery is shut down all concepts of past and future disappear and the eternal present moment of NOW is experienced.
Outraged,
You are welcome.
It can be cured with the right kind of processing and the right kind of training or education. And of course the client has to really, really really want to do it. And most of the work has to be done by the client. While the therapist/counsellor, only helps, guides the client to look in the right area.
If you want the right kind of processing email me: diogeneseii @ yahoo.ca
There is no incurable disease or disorder, there are only incurable people.
That is people with the wrong attitude and operating on false and limiting data.
The truth is nothing more or less than the right data/ the right answer to solve the problem at hand.
Every problem has a most right answer, that is the data that solves the problem in the best way possible.
Every problem has a truth, many partial truths, many sometimes truths, many almost truths, many false truths and many lies.
Dio
Conan wrote:
If someone can actually perceive the nature of reality, there is no need to invalidate space opera incidents, spiritual entities, and more importantly our interconnections, as we are at our most fundamental level unlocalized awareness.
You remind me of the editor character in The Master, with a plate of watermelon in your hand in the basement at the Phoenix Congress, saying “Now don’t get me wrong, I think the guy is a mystic of the first order, but I would edit this second book down to a pamphlet….” – just before Freddie Quell took him outside to beat the shit out of him.
If a Scientologist is really mystically inclined, in other words is a person who seeks direct communion with the divine, he will, sooner or later, wake up from Scientology and realize that he is in the wrong place.
I think this is one of the things that Marty is saying with his post.
Another excellent comment, Conan!
Alanzo
Corporate America puts ideas I’m people’s head for its own gain of some kind.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Marildi wrote:
“You can see from what he wrote that he had made some new discoveries – all of which happen to align with “certain passages and esoteric interpretations of the Bible (much of which has been taken out and effectively suppressed for centuries) as well as the Kabbalah.”
I’ve been reading the gnostic scriptures found at Nag Hammadi, and other apocryphal writings from the Christian, Jewish and Neoplatonists (Greek and Roman) since I was 18 – 6 years before I ever got into Scientology.
The idea that these writings were “effectively suppressed for centuries” is one that I picked up in Scientology and it kept me pouring over them in search of the truth that was buried there. This idea among Scientologists carries the suggestion that these writings contain the “truth” about our true spiritual nature and that’s why the prison guards on our prison planet suppressed them – so that we wouldn’t find out our true spiritual nature.
Have you ever read the Nag Hammadi library, Marildi? Do you know the actual history of how the Bible was actually created, which books were selected to be in it and which were not, and why?
It isn’t how Hubbard and Crowley said it was. We now benefit from decades of research that they did not have available to them. A very good book to start with is “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels.
Also, getting yourself educated on the early history of western civilization, who the early Greeks and Romans and Jews and Christians were, and what was going on around the Mediterranean before 300 AD will give you the proper context to understand all this.
Conspiracy thinking always benefits from understanding the actual history and the real pieces of the puzzle. The reality is usually never as simple or as satisfying as the Conspiracy Theory, but it does keep you moving toward seeking the live with the truth.
Alanzo
joeapple212,
Great contribution. Lipton coined “protean self”.
From Wiki:
“In Greek mythology, Proteus is an early sea-god or god of rivers and oceanic bodies of water, one of several deities whom Homer calls the “Old Man of the Sea”. Some who ascribe to him a specific domain call him the god of “elusive sea change”, which suggests the constantly changing nature of the sea or the liquid quality of water in general. He can foretell the future, but, in a mytheme familiar to several cultures, will change his shape to avoid having to; he will answer only to someone who is capable of capturing him. From this feature of Proteus comes the adjective protean, with the general meaning of “versatile”, “mutable”, “capable of assuming many forms”. “Protean” has positive connotations of flexibility, versatility and adaptability.”
It reminds me of the doctrine of the trinity of beings – Father, Son, Holy spirit.
This quality, described by Proteus, might be one of the things Hubbard missed as I think he had a rather “static” viewpoint.
GMW
Alanzo,
Thanks, I appreciate your consideration.
Please post ant relevant material regarding Nag Hammadie texts, as I’m never read them.
Very well put.
Lifton’s self-symbols seem to be static and isolated belief systems that insert themselves into the main circuit of the personality depending on the stimuli.
Like 🙂
Marildi,
Since you are interested in this aspect, I might add some additional data.
When I did return to the Freewinds, rumors of Miscavige as supreme leader of Scientology had been confirmed by myself and three other OT VIII friends.
We had discussions and I was encouraged by the others to write Miscavige a letter and ask for a meeting to discuss issues. At the time, I saw this as pointless because I knew how Scientology worked. The next part I can talk about because it happened 26 years ago when I was in my early 40’s.
When I did meet Miscavige on the Freewinds, I had already been briefed about his violent nature. This may sound strange but it is factual. My
plan was to watch him very carefully for any sign of physical attack. At the time, it was not totally clear to me that he basically beat up Sea Org members only and not members of the public. I was uncertain on this point.
This gets even more strange. My two FSM’s and I had a discussion about Scientology and its change to violence, threat, and “hounding”. They decided to sit and wait it out. However, I decided that I would never be punched or attacked by Miscavige. My policy, which they silently encouraged, was the “five fingered closed fist.” In other words, I would meet force with force. However, when I met Miscavige on the Freewinds, I decided that a better counter to his fist would be to “overboard” him into the ocean. I was at the time fully prepared to do just that ONLY if he attacked. A few weeks later, I got the phone call from the Freewinds former registrar stranded in Miami. She told me about the “bloodbath” on the Freewinds, but refused details. In the end, is Scientology a religion???
Kind Regards,
George M. White
“That’s bull crap,” Pfauth said. “He wanted to drop the body and leave. And he told me basically that he’d failed. All the work and everything, he’d failed.”
From Memoirs of a scientology Warrior.
LRH was looking for Cleared Theta Clear from 1952 if not earlier.
In this he failed, at least as far as I can tell. The ability to move matter by thought alone is never as far as I know obtained. It has been obtained sporadically and usually unrepeated by some. On OT 2 I separated from someone at least theta clear, possibly cleared theta clear. In doing so I experienced the greatest affinity flow I’ve ever experienced. Perhaps LRH started a path that could one day lead to cleared theta clear. What he created may not have fully met his expectations, but I’m very happy with the gains I got.
I’ve done OT 2&3 twice, and for me OT 2 was my favorite bridge level.
With regard to looking further for entities I have no interest.
Dammit!
The last line in my post to Marildi had a typo.
It should read “The reality is usually never as simple or as satisfying as the Conspiracy Theory, but it does keep you moving toward seeking TO live with the truth”.
Dammit! And that line was my big zinger, too!
Dammit!
Alanzo
Below is a link to the summary of “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels. The following excerpt from this summary is interesting:
A prime example is the label of heresy attached to the Gospel of Thomas, and its subsequent suppression. If a copy hadn’t been found by accident (or destiny?) in the caves of Nag Hammadi, along with many other documents during the middle of the twentieth century, we’d have never even known of its existence. Such secret writings had been denounced by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c.180) as “an abyss of madness, and blasphemy against Christ.” Pagels had therefore expected to find madness and blasphemy in these texts, but when she first studied them in Harvard graduate school she found the contrary in sayings such as this from Thomas. “Jesus said: If you bring forth what is within you, what you will bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. Pagels found that “..the strength of this saying is that it does not tell us what to believe but challenges us to discover what lies hidden within ourselves; and, with a shock of recognition, I realized that this perspective seemed to me to be self-evidently true.”
However, certain church leaders from the second through the fourth centuries rejected many of these sources of revelation and constructed instead the New Testament gospel canon of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which has defined Christianity to this day. The Gospel of John is of special importance in church dogma, and its basic tenets seem to be in direct opposition to Thomas. John says that he writes “so that you may believe, and believing may have life in [Jesus’] name.” Thomas’s gospel, however, encourages us not so much to believe in Jesus, as John demands, as to seek to know God through one’s own, divinely given capacity, since all are created in the image of God. “For Christians of later generations, the Gospel of John helped provide a foundation for a unified church, which Thomas, with its emphasis on each person’s search for God, did not.”
http://southerncrossreview.org/29/pagels.htm
There is a recording of Sarge?
Alanzo
From Thomas. “Jesus said: If you bring forth what is within you, what you will bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
Pagels found that “..the strength of this saying is that it does not tell us what to believe but challenges us to discover what lies hidden within ourselves; and, with a shock of recognition, I realized that this perspective seemed to me to be self-evidently true.”
Monte, you are correct. These 12 steps serves to purge the filter (assumptions, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc.) that one is using to perceive. The key exercises for the practice of these steps are:
L01: Being There
L02: Contemplation
You may find these exercises here:under the section “Self-Learning.”
http://vinaire.me/research-on-learning/
Conan requested:
Please post any relevant material regarding Nag Hammadie texts, as I’m never read them.
The texts found at Nag Hammadi are thought to have been hidden there after the Bishop of Alexandria sent a letter around to the various Christian sects at the time to get rid of any Christian, Jewish, or NeoPlatonist scrolls they had in their possession which were not listed on “the canon” of scrolls – which were the approved standard texts of the time.
This canon (or list) later become the books of the New Testament.
Elaine Pagel’s book, “Beyond Belief” gives a very enlightening explanation for why those were the books to make it into the Bible and why the others were not included.
There was a sect of Christians, based in Rome at the time of the conversion of Constantine, called the Paulines. They emphasized the teachings of Paul, and since they were based in Rome, and had the ear of the first Christian Emperor, and all his armies, it’s their version of Christianity which eventually won out.
Gnosticism was not an “off-planet” phenomenon. In Western Civilization, it began in Greece with Socrates and Plato and later Aristotle. There were trade routes through India which may have been a conduits for these “gnostic” ideas. The idea of gnosticism is basically the view that spiritual salvation is achieved through wisdom or knowledge, rather than faith.
The Greeks were heavily influential in the ancient world. If you study Greek history and philosophy, you can see their influence on certain sects of Jews, of Romans, and of Christians, too.
But Jews, and later Christians, really didn’t like the Greeks, especially with their “lover of men and boys” culture of sexual apprenticeship practices. Just read Leviticus to get a sense of how much the Jews did not like the Greeks. But as I said, they were very influential in the ancient world, and many Christian and Jewish sects were very accepting of this “spiritual salvation is achieved through knowledge” idea of theirs.
But this went against the purely Christian teaching that salvation was achieved through faith. And the Paulines, who were responsible for the New Testament canon having so much of the work of the Apostle Paul in it, were not going to stand by and let the dirty Greeks take over their newly empowered religion.
So they “standardized” Christianity and cast out the sodomite squirrels.
The list, or canon, that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Alexandria began enforcing on the other sects of Christians in the 4th century followed basically what the Paulines and the emerging Roman power structure of Christianity believed.
Apparently, if there was any gnostic knowledge that was suppressed in christianity, it was any viewpoint other than the Paulines.
Hubbard and Crowley, and many people at the first half of the 20th century, were overly dramatic about all this. And, you know, the Church in the US and Europe WERE very suppressive about pagans and squirrels. Uniformity of belief has always been a source of power in any culture or religion, Scientology included.
“Apocalypse” in the original Greek means, not the destruction of civilization in a great war to end all wars, but an uncovering of long-hidden knowledge. Heresy in the original greek, means “to choose”, and this word was specifically applied to those christian sects who chose books which were not part of the official list or canon.
So, when one looks at all this in its actual historical context, we are indeed living in a time of Apocalyptic Heresy. It’s just not as dramatic as Hubbard and Crowley, and certain Christians, would have you believe.
Alanzo
Thank you very much, George. This is amazing data about your direct experience in that part of the church’s history.
I have to admit that the term “bloodbath,” used by that stranded reg, may not have referred to physical violence. At least it didn’t when I was in the SO, which included that period of time. “Bloodbath” was a figurative expression meaning that staff were heavily penalized when there were poor stats – or when there were “problems” (as you termed it in your other reply). And that would no doubt have been the case with the version of OT VIII you did, if the delivery staff didn’t understand the materials themselves and thus weren’t able to handle the pre-OTs’ confusions. However, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of physical violence as well, since the newly released OT VIII would have been a very hot matter.
At any rate, I hope your testimony contributes to the “overboarding” of Miscavige!
p.s. When I say that my SO experience included “that period of time,” it was actually a few years later that I joined.
“However, what I found was that the common denominator was a type of hatred from other beings. This hatred has roots; the challenge was to discover them.”
So OT VIII was an investigation into some fundamental cause of hatred. So Hubbard was still looking from the angle of survival. Interesting!
At this high state I would rather look from the angle of inconsistency or incoherency.
Your observations are quite plausible, considering what we know about Miscavige from the data of many others, some of whom also have direct experience with him. Thank you for speaking out, George.
“He wanted to hold absolute power and that was obvious.”
Is that what Miscavige got of Hubbard? Or was it Miscavige’s own pursuit?
Alanzo: “It isn’t how Hubbard and Crowley said it was. We now benefit from decades of research that they did not have available to them.”
And the scholars still disagree in their interpretations of the records.
In addition, I’ve read enough to know that there are a number of different Gnostic groups but that “a common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realization of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge) is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.” (Quoted from Wikipedia article on Gnosticism)
I’ve also read enough to know that the Christian Church suppressed Gnosticism – which was the specific point LRH was making in that bulletin.
Wow, instant motivator. 🙂
“When I did meet Miscavige on the Freewinds, I had already been briefed about his violent nature.”
Were you briefed by Church people or by other public?
“A few weeks later, I got the phone call from the Freewinds former registrar stranded in Miami. She told me about the “bloodbath” on the Freewinds, but refused details.”
As I understand, this must have been around 1990. Is that correct?
Hi back, Monte!
Thanks for this candid and insightful post. As usual. 🙂
The following would be my approach to handle extreme mental distress. I would make use of medical drugs approved for his condition as necessary.
For improvement to occur a person needs the ability to be mindful, which means that he should be able to see things as they are. It is only when a person is being mindful that he is able to spot and resolve inconsistencies to handle his unwanted condition.
When a person is mentally distressed or ill, his ability to be mindful is compromised. However, such a person may be guided toward mindfulness. This is done by asking him about only those things that he is able to recognize.
In the beginning, you can help a mentally distressed person by minimizing distractions in his environment. If he is sick physically then take care of that sickness first as best as you can. Make sure that he is on a nutritious diet and that his environment is being kept calm and peaceful.
Once he is comfortable and in a calm environment then get him to recognize simple things. Start with items that he was familiar with in his childhood, such as, his favorite toys. Take him to his favorite locations and have him recognize the objects there.
Keep in mind that it is much easier to recognize concrete objects than subjective thoughts and ideas. Do not ask any subjective questions that require him to recall memories. Recall of memories requires visualization and this may be too much for him.
Get him to recognize large, simple physical objects first by looking, touching and feeling them. Then give him smaller and more complex objects. He should be encouraged to use all his perceptions.
After the person can recognize concrete objects comfortably, only then ask him to recognize simple characteristics of those things, such as, number, shape and color. Make sure that numbers are small, shapes are simple, and the colors are bright. Keep any interaction with him in terms of characteristics that are quite obvious.
Next, get the person to visualize and draw simple objects, such as, ball, table, chair, etc. Never exceed his capability to visualize. If ideas get too complex for him to visualize, then make them simpler until he can visualize them comfortably.
Gradually, get him to visualize subjective and complex ideas and describe them. Build up his ability to be mindful slowly and carefully. This itself will prove to be a wonderful therapy.
Then, when he is up to doing the KHTK exercises, get him started on them.
“The reality is usually never as simple or as satisfying as the Conspiracy Theory, but it does keep you moving toward seeking TO live with the truth”.
From Wikipedia: “A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.”
So “Conspiracy Theory” is actually a hypothesis that is touchy-feely and exciting but which has not been proven. From that point of view a life WITHOUT mindfulness will be a “Conspiracy Theory”
And a life WITH mindfulness would just be life.
It is interesting that the actual outpoints shall be visible more clearly when one views life with mindfulness. The 12 aspects of mindfulness are:
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
.
From Tech Dictionary
THETA CLEAR
1. it is a person who operates exterior to a body without need of a body. (SH Spec 59, 6109C27)
2 . that state wherein the preclear can remain with certainty outside his body when the body is hurt. (PAB 33)
3. a theta clear, then can be defined as a person who is at cause over his own reactive bank and can create and uncreate it at will. Less accurately he is a person who is willing to experience. Theta clear is stable. (Ab1,1 92M)
4 . theta clear would mean clear of the mest body or cleared of the necessity to have a mest body. (5206CM26A)
5 . there are two types of theta clear, the theta being which is cleared of its necessity or compulsion to have a body and a theta being which is cleared all the way on the track. (5206CM26B)
6 . the basic definition of theta clear is: no further necessity for beingnesses. (SH Spec 36, 6108C09)
7. this is a relative not an absolute term. It means that the person, this thought unit, is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body. (COHA, p. 248)
8 . in its highest sense, means no further dependency on bodies. (SCP, p. 3)
9 . an individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized. (PXL, p. 16)
.
CLEARED THETA CLEAR
1 . a person who is able to create his own universe; or, living in the mest universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle mest universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the mest universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence. (Scn 8-8008, p. 114)
2 . next level above theta clear (which is cleared of need to have a body). All of a person’s engrams have been turned into conceptual experience. He is clear all the way along the track. He can really deliver the horsepower. (5206CM26A)
3 . one who has full recall of everything and full ability as a thetan. (Scn 8-80, p. 59)
.
I don’t think that the definition #1 of THETA CLEAR has been achieved. So it is too early to talk about cleared theta clear. Subjective feelings do not make a Cleared Theta Clear. Those are just subjective feelings that are very precious to Scientologists. They do not want their subjective feelings questioned at all because they will get invalidated.
So, what does this tell you?
In my view the THETA-MEST theory itself is flawed on which this whole edifice has been built.
.
A person can be conscious without any attention on self. In fact, the more I look away from self, the more there is to notice.
LOL!
Alanzo
Try having a parent afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and see how much you care to push “self” awareness as your top priority. The mirror can be real booby trap.
Black stockings put ideas into people’s head. If I honk my horn at the sleeper in front of me to move through the green light, I am putting an idea into someone’s head. But I judged it for a good purpose and was willing to bypass someone. Otherwise, I don’t think I want to bypass someone else and put my ideas in their head. NOT covertly.
vinaire,
It was the fall of 1988 or the spring of 1989. I need to check my receipt for room and board.
When I said I had been briefed, it was from Church members who completed OT VIII. I was very close to my two FSM’s. They both passed.
They also had contact with scores of other OT VIII’s from the United States and a lot from Europe since one FSM was Italian. After OT VIII, when the shock of being “hounded” really set in, my two FSM’s opened up to me.
They changed and were very concerned about the contents of the OT VIII Student Briefing. In addition, they tried to get back $10,000 for an e-meter donation. They tried to do it on the grounds that the meter was defective. In that way they tried to avoid declare.
I think the transition period from calm to violence was over in about 60 days, I would say. This is also when the Big League Sales technique of the “tag team” really got going. I got at one time about 10 “tag team” calls as each refused “reg” passed me to another.
It got so bad that one of my FSM’s and I openly discussed in private the contents of the OT VIII student briefing.
They kept a scoreboard at Flag which tallied each OTVIII who returned to Flag for retread. I got conflicting reports over the years. Some said 99% returned which meant I was the only one who did not. Others said 80%.
I do not really know. I received lots of personal letters from OT VIII’s. In fact, I received a letter from the Freewinds signed by the entire technical crew and the senior officers.
You can imagine the confusion. The entire bridge was de-railed. It took 10-15 years by miscavige before he got a OT VII completion. I remember a few people who died while still on the level. Miscavige, IMHO, held power because he promised to deliver an OT. As long as that hope was alive, people donated. When Miscavige failed to deliver anything, the Church stats
crashed and he turned to “Ideal Orgs”. In the end, he probably justified it all by saying the students were weak.
If you remember Catholic history at one time scholars debated how many angels could fit on a pin head. This is what Miscavige was doing but he was unaware of it. Miscavige could never figure out what Hubbard had really said about BT’s. Miscavige got caught in the idea that LRH “never blew a BT on inspection”. Hubbard only did a very few OT VII sessions and Miscavige used the tiny sample. In the end, It did not matter because the entire level was like a constructed “abreaction”. In other words, you found a problem and framed in in terms of Hubbard’s ideas. You could use the meter as a personal tool of investigation. Thjs was a marginal step ahead of his book “Self Analysis” in which you used a circular paper emotion wheel. All you did was rotate the wheel to a different emotion. OT levels are not the same but follow the same basic idea. You just use different symbols and strange narratives. Anyway, the proof that Miscavige failed is obvious. You can audit BT’s but you will not reach real OT powers.
You feel better from the effort and clean yourself out. I remember when I was on OT VII, I jumped naked into a swimming pool at a party. Well I had to handle that somewhere along the way and it cost time and money. So you play the game of ethics and security. If Hubbard and Miscavige had not taken it all so seriously, they could have created a very nice inexpensive package for light spiritual and psychological gains. They both just got too far into the
literal perception of reality, IMHO.
GMW
Alanzo,
Wow, impressive
.
Also I didn’t have a clue about all these gnostic stuff with Hubbard until very recently, it is all part of the OTVIII bamboozle or is it in other lectures too?
Vinaire,
Very cool. Thanks
vinaire,
“So Hubbard was still looking from the angle of survival.”
Very much so and I think that Miscavige’s rendition of OT VIII is more of the same. In the end, he looks at what he has described as infinite survival. The idea is that you neutralize this electronic charge and then the spirit gets out of the trap. It is the ancient theory of reduction. If you take away the bad, you get to the good. It makes a lot of logical sense.
The PDC tapes are full of this theory.
GMW
vinaire,
My personal opinion is only my personal opinion. Once Hubbard died, Miscavige wanted absolute power. I don’t even think Miscavige holds a high regard for Hubbard. IMHO, he looks at the tech as amazing but he essentially thinks he understands it better and can extend it. Miscavige saw a billion dollars and a great life of controlling others.
GMW
I believe that is correct. Something that we have not integrated — say an engram, in Scio-view — if very different than multiple personalities. Unless someone wants to claim that something like an engram is a split off personality. Since experiment has not been able to verify the existence of an engram, it would be even harder to show that an engram had a “personality” and constituted another being.
I didn’t do the OT levels (I peaked at “Clear”). But as I understand it, those Body Thetans are not split off parts of oneself. They are actually fully thetans in their own right. You clear them up and send them on their way.
In contrast, multiple personality disorders once cleared up (if they exist — and there’s some controversy on that) do not take off and become their own beings. They are split off parts of the self that are then reintregated into the self. I guess in Scio they would be called circuits or valences, or something in that vein — not beings in their own right.
List of resources coming? Perhaps I missed it?
It’s a good question, Iamvalkov. We are not all wired the same way. Perhaps the most significant divide in human psyche types is between sociopaths vs. those who are wired for empathy.
At this point, I feel that Hubbard wandered into a hall of mirrors of his own making, mistaking the fractured images of himself for ultimate truth. Hubbard’s basic, confounding hypothesis was that everything in the 50s and 60s was a dramatization of Whole Track. Once he was convinced of that, he was “on a career” as he would have put it (from one of his lectures).
There obviously is shared human common ground. But I agree — to fail to distinguish our case from objective reality is to invite an overgeneralization of our personal “truths” (constructs) and to apply them to others as _their_ truths.
I’ve experienced enough to be convinced, but not to be able to prove, that there is more to this universe than meets the eye, and more than I can understand. Perhaps more than I can ever understand. We humans suffer an arrogance. We think that we are bright enough to understand the universe, since we have puzzled out so much of it.
However, in the end, we may be like a pack of bright golden retrievers running around a car, knowing it contains mysteries, convinced that we can sniff the truth out, but in reality not knowing we are too dim to totally get it. Our reach may exceed our grasp.
Or, in some too few years, I may wake up between lives and go, “Crap, this place again,” and start the search anew.
GMW, Thanks for the details. At the top of the bridge there are no more steps to deflect the person to. OT levels either must deliver or the game is over. The Church can do their best to prolong the final levels endlessly, but sooner or later somebody will get through and expose the hollowness of the game. I think that is happening now.
This LRH implant is really a work of genius though. The only thing that has finally led to it being exposed is what LRH failed to predict, and this has been the Internet.
The Church to support Internet because it a wonderful tool to increase communication around the world. But Church has rather been against Internet for now very obvious reasons.
The game of OT is now over.
I too get the impression that Miscavige holds no high regards for Hubbard. He is using Hubbard as a symbol for Church’s gain, which gives him power.
This is a replay of what the Catholic Church did.
Yup! Scientology is self-centric compared to Buddhism, which is reality-centric.
Good question.
I’m sitting here trying to think of a Hubbard ref on gnosis, and I can dimly – through all my overts and MUs – remember him defining the term in a lecture or an HCOB, but can’t come up with anything more than that.
I’m probably suffering blankness and case fog from all my MU’s and overts on the subject. And of course my lack of training and complete ignorance of Scientology isn’t helping.
Maybe someone who has more training and experience in the chair than I, and who is squeaky clean from a recently completed a sec check in the Indie Field, can remember it more clearly than I can.
Marildi?
Alanzo
My summation of what went wrong is very elementary. When you mix science with politics, you get a pseudo science. Hubbard, with the advent of his administration, mixed politics with Science.
“Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods are employed in politics, which include promoting one’s own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels, from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companies and institutions up to sovereign states, to the international level.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
He built a very interesting path into the human mind, and beyond, into the super natural. Many people were very interested. Most of those, in the beginning, were educated people that did integrate knowledge.
The original bridge was working, people were curious.
Then he came in with the Sea Org, ethics, administrative, governments, spies, officers, police, etc etc etc. And he worked to weave it into a science. This is not science, it is politics. He mixed politics with science.
He recruited and mentored people that were not educated, had never lived out in the world, had a very slim scope when it came to integrating knowledge, and couldn’t notice much beyond whatever hallway they were in.
So? He was an entrepreneur. It didn’t pan out for everyone, a lot of people got involved for the wrong reasons also. People who had no interest or education in science, and were not very scientific in their thinking. Now, you look at the Church since since the only executive with some college education (Marty), left. Greg Hughes had a college education, but he was a charismatic showman, a deal maker, not a thinker.
The Sea Org is a political movement, not a scientific one. It has gone all the way south into politics. Otherwise you would not see the top executives of the Church lying on national television and in the court. They are not religious people or scientific people. They are simply politicians.
Politics mixed with science is not possible. Politics is not scientific, beyond the ability to either re stimulate people into believing they are in danger and can only find sanctuary in “your group”, (membership pending, ha ha) , or to give people hope for change . In exchange for their VOTE.
You see a few groups that have formed out here with Scientologists, on the Internet and on Facebook, that are based in politics. Are you far left, or you far right? Are you a loyalist? Are you a protester? And please click on the button to vote for me!!!!!!!!!!! AAAhhhhhhhhh, three thumbs up!!!!!
So, I mean, you can see who got involved with the mix because they were interested in governments, governing, managing, approving, discounting, drawing lines in the sand, loving the patriots, and all that flows with the art of being a politician. Or reversely, organizing and steering the commandos to bring down the regime.
And you see people that fall out of the mix and keep their head in the books, and continue on the path of learning and science.
So, falling out of the politics / science mix you can see who really belongs where.
On one hand, can I name people who managed to be scientific, pick up the science, and, manage the politics very well with the other hand. Marty and Karen to name two. But you see, this is extraordinary, simply extraordinary. Most people really can not master these two dynamics at the same time. It is nearly impossible. I can’t, I just can’t.
Look at DM, he is failing with both. With all of his resources. This is a very uncanny ability.
The funny thing is, I don’t think Hubbard could manage it either. He was not out on the front lines, he stayed in the ivory tower while passing congressional measures for his own citizens. And this political vs scientific vs magical / supernatural crossroads did him in. And he ended up co habituating and depending upon, with pseudo Scientologists. Who are, let’s say a new kind of GMO breed like really, let’s take the word science out of it, and coin a new entity called, Scipolitists.
I am still amazed that Marty can hop on an airplane, fly to Germany, and just key everybody out. And then come home and pick up a P.C.. This is extraordinary for me. I don’t think Hubbard could have done that. In fact, he didn’t. He arranged for others to speak for him to government officials. To represent himself in courts. Not sure if he audited P.C.’s himself for years, even on new rundowns.
Good evening George.
You said ” If you take away the bad, you get to the good. It makes a lot of logical sense.” The context being that a lot of this was in the PDCs and you did not necessarily take ownership of this direction.
As you may have noticed before, my primary work, right now, is a thorough examination of my past. But the flavor of what I am doing is a little different than what you described. My intention is to find most everything that is stuck, forgotten, subconscious, and not under my volitional control. Sounds simple. Regain my ability to change my mind. Return all knowledge and experience to useful conscious knowledge.
It’s taking some time. This is NOT THE ONLY WORK I DO. Reading and listening to all you guys is a big part. Positive processes. As I mentioned earlier, I always do something that fully involves my attention in PT between sessions. I also always scan up the track and clean up related incidents after finding the source of a confusion, inconsistency, consideration etc. I also understand that there are MEST aberrations that I’m still holding on to, such as bits of MEST bank, electronics, energy flows etc. These sometimes get in the way of finding actual sources. Temporary release due to a PT revelation has proven inadequate for me. But it’s getting easier. Finding the actual moment that I made a decision, gained an opinion, leaves me very clean. My work will change as the past becomes less of an obstruction.
Seems logical to me.
Your thoughts would be welcome.
Mark
Hello Vinay.
Thank you much for this post. You do your due diligence and produce a valuable product. I have copied it and will broadcast it to all who can use it. (With your permission, source included)
Your experience may be different from mine, but I have never personally met someone who I could determine was more able or aware due to using any psycho-active drug. (And some that are not considered psycho-active) Your definition of able and aware may be different than mine.
I do stress handling any hidden physical faults and nutritional outpoints.
This set of instructions is more thorough and detailed than any other I have read and in my experience, the most workable system I have seen.
Thanks for your work, Mark
Marildi.
It has always been my understanding that the grades were developed to undercut Dia., to get individuals in a condition to effectively do Dia.
It has become my understanding that New OT3 thru 7 are designed to get someone up to the point where they can do actual OT levels. They were an effort to solve a problem, one of the roots of overts. Hmmmm. Interesting.
I did not do the Clearing Course, but the closest thing to clear for me was ‘seeing’ the actual moment that it was suggested to me to keep a physical diary, and recognizing who suggested it and instructed me how to do it and how to use it. I also ‘looked’ at the first few times I did some things on automatic and it turned out well (I thought) and I was happy about it. Sort of like these light switches that turn a light on when you enter a room. Seemed kinda neat at the time.
I’m sure there are other aspects to Clear. The vias used to handle the physical universe and bodies have become very complex. Making energy beams and electricity to send messages to a brain, that sort of stuff.
Mark
Greg.
VERY good post. If BTs are actual individuals, they deserve the same respect as any other individual, embodied of not.
The primary aspect of BTs that I have come across in my work is:
Once an individual loses the obsession to carry his pictures (I call it your diary) around with him, he starts seeing others pictures and often can’t tell the difference. In one respect the are yours, actually.
One can become overwhelmed by and cave in to everyone else’s bank, embodied or not. This, to me, is primarily a repressed, obsessed communication problem. That is why I have promoted development of Lower Grades for OTs. I have done the grades Solo Whole Track more than once. I think this is one of the keys to resolving ‘Endless OT-3’ Best OT Level I have done.
Thoughts?
Mark
Alanzo ~~
Notwithstanding the abuse Melainie Murray Seidler endured within, she is still a *church* of Scientology practitioner
https://www.facebook.com/search/more/?q=Melanie+Seidler+Murray&init=public
For me this is the key sentence where my views part: “Fully grasping those secrets requires the adoption of a form of multiple personality disorder.”
LRH did go off into a direction which was real to him (for all we know) but not uniformly real to everyone else.
The fundamental usefulness of LRH’s tech is that he managed to open eyes. All processes/rundowns are essentially a way of LRH saying to the PC/Pre-OT “Hey lookie here, lookie there, have you considered this, have you considered that ?”
There is no harm in considering. One must act upon a deduction/computation (whichever applies) as a result of a consideration for it to cause self or others harm/trouble.
The healthy attitude to engage in SC (or anything else for that matter) IMO is “show me things I did/do not know/consider”. “THANK YOU!”
“Do you have more?” (If so then continue. If not then get on with life.)
What one makes of it all is one’s own choice. However, I think that blaming the tech or LRH in any way shape or form is just a ser fac.
It’s only information. How much people can sur fac on some data is fascinating.
When dealing with LRH’s (or any other) tech: use what is usable to you and store the rest on a shelf in your mind labeled “to be verified/evaluated”.
(Just my $0.02)
Vinaire, thank you again.
I have added your blog to my list of blogs to visit and I will read not only this article but all the rest as well. I hope I have a way of reaching you in case I have questions, technical words I don’t understand, etc.; would that bother you?
You don’t “think” , therefore? Making the possible, impossible? What is possible, you do not know, you “think”? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. These are relative things, thoughts. Relative to you and your purposes to prove the impossibility of things. Anything is possible. Anything. For you to assert the “impossible”, is running a big “can’t have”. There are “clear theta clears” by definition, out here that have never been involved in Scientology. Gandhi not only created his own universe, he caused an entire nation to create a new world for themselves. History is long with clear theta clears. Long before the word Scientology ever got coined. I did attest by the way, to cleared theta clear. What the hell do you think native state is?
No Joe. I am not Albert and I owe you nothing. No explanation.
My purpose is to put Buddha’s thesis forward as a scientific theory.
It is not necessarily an obsession with Hubbard. It is like any obsession, such as, sex. Underlying it all is the desire to know.
“Fundamentally, it is the desire to know that disturbs the ground state. This disturbance then reinforces itself. In other words, the desire to know arises as awareness. This desire gets stronger with awareness. As this desire gets stronger the awareness develops as consciousness.
“The desire to know pushes the consciousness forward.”
Sometimes I wonder if Scientology terminology is like the “doublespeak of 1984.” It hates the wog world, and then it uses the wog world to justify itself.
Let’s clear up some words here:
“I” and “you” represent belief systems. These are beliefs associated by logic into compact systems. Oracle is one such system that has absorbed Scientology beliefs. Vinaire is another such system that operates on mindfulness and scientific method.
“Thinking” in its ideal form is the activity that seeks consistency among associations by dissolving inconsistency and incoherency..
“Possible” and “impossible” are relative considerations. Impossiblity may arise with holding opposite considerations simultaneously as in cognitive dissonance. It may be justified with cleverness as in Scientology.
Forget about “Cleared Theta Clears”. Show me a “Theta Clear” per definition #1, “It is a person who operates exterior to a body without need of a body.” Could you please explain in simple english what this definition means, and has a “theta clear” ever been observed?
All I can see is some subjective feelings that arise and then discharge. They are not absolute.
Do you want to know what native state is? Look here:
.
Flavp, I feel honored that you added my blog in your list of blogs to visit. Like on any blog you may place your comments and questions in the “Comment Section” and I shall respond to them as best as I can. 🙂
No, it won’t bother me. It is being challenged by questions that propagates my awareness further.
Alanzo,
Very funny!
Dude, I’m so overrun with all of the Hubbard’s hallucinatory fantasies.
I was just checking around the Gnostic’s basic mythology, they had a very dichotomized view of the spiritual/physical. Too much hocus pocus, myth, story telling, etc. That is definitely not my cup of tea.
Of course they were infinite better than the literalist Christians that took over, who were a total whack job.
Anyways, none of this bullshit is what I came for as I’m basically an old zen head.
Yvonne, you covered it all and I could not have stated it better myself, hugs to you!
MarkNR, Thank you for appreciating my approach to the handling of mental distress. In this post let me take up the point of psycho-active drugs you brought up.
(1) Psyco-active-drugs occur in nature. They have been ingested by humans since the ancient times in the normal course of life in reasonable quantities intended by nature.
(2) We come across the earliest mention of psycho-active drugs as “soma” in the Vedas. The people who wrote the Vedas drank soma. Many of their intuitions came about under the influence of soma.
(3) The danger of ingesting soma in excess was known to the Vedic sages. They institued disciplines in the form of rituals for the preparation and ingestion of soma.
(4) Hubbard is said to have taken psycho-active drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his intuitions occurred under their influence.
(5) The discipline associated with taking psycho-active drugs is very important, and it has been practiced in India since ancient times.
(6) Any drug is dangerous when proper care and discipline is not applied to its appliocation. This is no different in case of psycho-active drugs.
You are taking an absolutist view against psycho-active drugs as promoted in Scientology. I don’t view it that way. I have never taken psycho-active drug myself knowingly, simply because I think there is a great lack of modern research in this area. But such research may be improving under psychiatry.
At this point, if a mentally distressed person can be helped by proven psychiatric drug treatment, I have nothing against it. But I would recommend such drug treatment only to address acute symptoms, and then replace the use of drug by practice of mindfulness as it becomes feasible.
OTV WOG,
“It’s only information. How much people can serv fac on some data is fascinating.
When dealing with LRH’s (or any other) tech: use what is usable to you and store the rest on a shelf in your mind labeled “to be verified/evaluated”.
Thank you for your patronizing and condescending remarks. I’m such a theetie- weetie , bypassed case that I obviously need a high priest to hold my hand, all the way through Hubbard’s mystery.
My rejection of Hubbardology probably has nothing to do with the fact that the man was a charlatan mind controller, who created a slave-cult.
No ,no, I’m obviously deluded.
“Mixing politics with science” can be better stated as, “pushing self-centrism.” Hubbard was basically pushing an extreme form of self-centrism. I see “self-centrism” as the idea that self is senior to reality, and that all reality comes from self. This is the path of ego. This is the path taken by Abrahmic religions that look upon spirituality and physicality as separate and absolute. They identify self as spiritual and senior to all physical reality.
Scientology has simply taken “self-centrism” to an extreme. The alternative view of “reality-centrism” is taken by eastern religions and philosophies. They look at reality with mindfulness and find self to be a part of that reality and nothing special.
________________________________
Oracle writes: “Then he came in with the Sea Org, ethics, administrative, governments, spies, officers, police, etc etc etc. … He recruited and mentored people that were not educated, had never lived out in the world, had a very slim scope when it came to integrating knowledge, and couldn’t notice much beyond whatever hallway they were in …” Hubbard associated with lot of intelligent people but he alienated himself with each one of them. He felt comfortable only with those whom he saw as much lower than his own altitude. This is consistent with his “self-centric” view. In early 60s, Hubbard decided to scale up his efforts from handling individual people to individual groups. I suspect that Hubbard was frustrated with his inability to handle his case. He felt that the individual case was a part of the group case, and to handle his case he must handle the case of the society in which he grew up. So, he shifted his gears from handling the individual case to handling the social case. Thus came about Sea Org, the OT Levels, and his insistence on conformity inside Sea Org in a Borg-like fashion. http://vinaire.me/2013/12/11/scientology-and-star-trek/
________________________________
It is incorrect to think that politics cannot be scientific. The scientific method and mindfulness can be applied equally to the fields of social endeavors. http://vinaire.me/2011/03/13/the-scientific-method-humanities/
________________________________
I think that the subject of getting rid of entities at OT levels could be an effort by LRH to reduce a personality to its permanent essence of thetan.
This could in some ways relate to what LRH was trying to do with Creative Processing in 1952. Here is an excerpt from Scn 8-8008:
” The gradient scale of the creation of a being could be—but in creative processing generally is not—concerned with time. In creative processing, the gradient scale, as it would refer to the creation of a person, could be, first, the envisioning of an area where the person might have been or might be; then the envisioning of an area the person commonly frequented; at last, the creation of a footprint the person had made, and then perhaps some article of apparel or a possession such as a handkerchief. The creative steps would then continue until more and more of a person was established, and at last the entire person would have been created. Likewise in the destruction of a person, the gradient scale could, but generally would not, begin with blowing him up or making him grow old. If the auditor finds the preclear diffident about destroying an illusion of some person, the environment can first be diminished slightly; then perhaps the person’s shadow might be shortened, and so on until the entire person could be destroyed. The essence of gradient scale work is to do as much creation, change or destruction in terms of illusion as the preclear can accomplish with confidence, and to go from successful step to greater step until an entire success in destruction, alteration or creation (or their companion states of experience, such as start, change and stop) is accomplished.”
The above is a good description of how gradient scale work is accomplished in creative processing. Hubbard advised that this technique be used to create, alter and destroy the illusion of “I” (the idea that one is this body and the mind), and to reestablish one’s awareness as a thetan (the essential spiritual “individuality”).
Here we find a deep fixation in Hubbard’s thinking. He could not imagine the destruction of individuality. He negated Buddhism by saying, “There is evidently no Nirvana.”
To Hubbard, the destruction of individuality leads inevitably to the state of automaton in the MEST universe. Hubbard could not conceive of a state higher than individuality, as Buddha did. Thus, the goal of Scientology became the attainment of ultimate individuality as represented by the concept of thetan.
.
I obtained the state of theta clear for a time. I was able to exteriorize at will
as a child after 8 years of trying, which was initiated by a compulsive exteriorization, which was scary for a six year old, There after, problem solved, I didn’t work on this so much and lost the ability to do this so easily. This state had nothing at all to do with subjective feelings, it was what I observed.
Note that route 1 starting with “Be three feet back of your head” must have led to many states of theta clear, how long lived or stable I don’t know. Also going exterior is the EP of at least one objective process, and
frequently happens in auditing.
By coincidence just recieved a mail from a university where I sometime
attend public lectures. It asks if people who have had out of body experiences wish to volunteer for reseach in two university studies in the UK.I’d guess this is just the tip of the iceburg re research in this area.
Jusr search PDFs of Red Volumes for the phrase “gnos”. I found this i Red Volume 2:
”This science is formed in the tradition of ten thousand years of religious philosophy and considers itself a culmination of the searches which began with the Veda, the Tao, Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions. Scientology is a Gnostic faith in that it knows it knows. This is its distinguishing characteristic from most of its predecessors. Scientology can demonstrate that it can attain the goals set for man by Christ, which are: Wisdom, Good Health, and Immortality.” ~LRH
Here is another quote from the same Ability Magazine article written by LRH:
“In addressing persons professionally interested in the ministry, we have another interesting problem in public presentation. We should not engage in religious discussions. In the first place, as Scientologists, we are Gnostics, which is to say that we know that we know. People in the ministry ordinarily suppose that knowingness and knowledge are elsewhere resident than in themselves. They believe in belief and substitute belief for wisdom. This makes Scientology no less a religion, but makes it a religion with an older tradition and puts it on an intellectual plane.”
Hi Terril, It is good to be conversing with you aftera long time. I do not doubt your experiences with exteriorization. I have had many such experiences myself. I just interpret them differently.
I believe that exterirization occurs when some aspect of fixed attention on body is handled. The attention then settles down and perceptions return to normal. The idea that there is something that can permanently stay outside the body is quite inconsistent and incoherent actually.
In Scientology, INTERIORIZATION refers to a condition that has to do with “going into and becoming part of the body too fixedly.” EXTERIORIZATION is defined as a state where the individual experiences being outside his body. When this is done, the person achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. Such “out-of-body” experiences are common outside of Scientology but they are random and uncontrolled. Scientology offers processing that can bring about “out-of-body” experience.
Technically, the “out-of-body” experience occurs when the attention, which has been stuck on the body, suddenly becomes unstuck. Once the attention is unstuck it remains unstuck. The euphoria of being “outside the body” settles down after a while to freer attention but with normal perceptions.
Any freeing of attention is therapeutic. One is no longer going through life believing that one is just a body. But Scientology now makes one believe that one is a thetan (an immortal self) that can operate from outside the body permanently.
There is no such thing as a “thetan” that literally moves out of the body and stays outside permanently. But a person who believes in a God-like self can easily be convinced that he could be this thetan. This gives the person the goal of operating as a spiritual self without the encumbrance of a physical body.
But the person’s attention now gets stuck on becoming an operating thetan. He moves from being “body-fixated” to being “self-fixated.”
Scientology promotes this because there is good money in it for Scientology.
Thus, we may define INTERIORIZATION also as: Going into and becoming part of the self too fixedly.
In physics, the concept of “center of mass” is used to simplify various important calculations in mechanics. The center of mass is the weighted average location of all the mass in a body. The entire mass of a body is treated as if it is concentrated at the center of mass.
The self may then be seen as a “center of feeling” much like the “center of mass.” The center of feeling would be the weighted average location of all physical and mental energies or forces related to a person. The entire feeling of a person is treated as if it is concentrated at the center of feeling or “I”.
When the attention stuck on self suddenly becomes unstuck, there is a wonderful “out-of-self” experience. We may call it exteriorization from self. When this happens, one achieves the certainty that one is much more than some boxed in ideas and thinking patterns. One can be as large as the reality one is witnessing.
This would be a condition that may be referred to as reality-centric. One is no longer fixated on the survival of a little self. One feels freer than ever before. One now feels compassion for all life and the whole universe because one is now identifying with it.
Nobody is trying to get rid of the “I” here. It is just a shift of focus. One is interiorized in a body because one is so focused on the body. Similarly, one can be interiorized in a self because one is so focused on it.
A reality-centric view simply exteriorizes one from the self. The self does not cease to exist as a result, just like body does not cease to exist when one exteriorizes from the body.
There is a road that takes one beyond being reality-centric. But that would be the subject of another post.
Please note that self is a subset of reality. Self is not the source of reality as one is made to believe in Scientology.
I don’t represent any belief system that I am aware of Vinaire. The ten commandments seem like plain good social policy. That doesn’t mean I have a belief system. Living can be an addictive business. Living in the sense of having a body. I have a body, I don’t need one. I don’t have to prove anything to you. People limit themselves. I don’t care to argue the math of how one condition could not be possible with the other. For a lake to fill up, there must be rain. But really, who are you to decide what is possible or not for others? Anything is possible. I think it is very likely Mohammed Ali was a clear theta clear for most of his life. There are plenty of people about us who seem very clear to me. To assume everyone has a reactive mind, I think is a false calculation. Prove everyone has a reactive mind, has anyone done that? Your premise is that everyone must have reactive mind, if there is no such thing as a clear . Nobody has even proved that everyone has a reactive mind.
“It is incorrect to think……….” You might suppose we are all model “GRIBUF” and if something is not by a standard of yours for this model, it needs “adjustment”. I just don’t see it that way.
You may try to follow some of your own advice: 2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
“Here we find a deep fixation in Hubbard’s thinking. He could not imagine the destruction of individuality. He negated Buddhism by saying, ‘There is evidently no Nirvana.’”
Vin, from the context of that quote it’s clear that LRH wasn’t talking about the Buddhist idea of Nirvana – it was the Hindu Nirvana. Here’s the difference, per Wikipedia:
“In the Buddhist context nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished.[1] In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the divine ground of existence Brahman (Supreme Being) and the experience of blissful egolessness.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Here’s the whole paragraph of the quote “There is evidently no Nirvana”:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves ‘one with the universe.’ This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not, as they rise up the Tone Scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are, first and foremost, themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the Tone Scale. One declines into a “brotherhood” with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”(*Scientology 8-8008*)
Hi Mark,
Your comments on the above post were profound. Just one question where you wrote:
Mark: “It has become my understanding that New OT3 thru 7 are designed to get someone up to the point where they can do actual OT levels. They were an effort to solve a problem, one of the roots of overts. Hmmmm. Interesting.”
Isn’t research and the resulting methodology usually an attempt to solve a problem? Maybe I missed your point.
ARCL,
marildi
The Oracle: “You don’t ‘think’, therefore?”
He don’t think, therefore he ain’t.
(Just razzing, Vinnie. 🙂 )
Hi Conan,
You read my message and proclaimed it to be ‘patronizing’ and ‘condescending’. You choose to see it that way.
The reality: My message is merely an attempt to share what worked for me plus some of my views. (Notice the “Just my $0.02” at the end. I don’t just put it there out of habit. I really mean it.)
Similarly it is your choice to see LRH as “charlatan mind controller, who created a slave-cult”.
Consider that we don’t necessarily/always see things for what they really are. Instead we see them how we want to see them based on our own subjective reality.
I see the tech as something workable. When I ran into things that were not real to me as-is I made them work for me. That’s my choice as well as my recommendation for others. Not just in relation to SC but in relation all that we encounter in life. It is a take or leave it recommendation
Be well.
And you know, this is a very important, fundamental missing piece of information. Does everybody have a reactive mind? If not, what percentage of the population have use for Dianetics? David Miscavige had this coined as a “religion”. Buildings here, buildings there. For what? He must assume that everyone on the planet has a reactive mind and will be in need of this service. Are the buildings empty because he has run out of people that reactive minds? Have they all come and gone? How long can you push something when there is little need or interest? Don’t you think before you set off to “clear” someone, you should establish that they have reactive mind? Before you put someone on the road to clear that they need to be on that road? How many Scientologists do you know, that live under the totally unverified assumption that everyone on the planet has a reactive mind? That is one hell of an additive. To think because you had one, so does everyone else. And, you know, these hostile forces that assert, “there is no such thing as clear”, you know, these people even believe everyone has a reactive mind! Well, I want to tell you, I have met a LOT of people who do not seem to be burdened with this affliction. And it hits them like a wrong indication, which it is. And when they become hostile about it they are just written off as “anti social”. Well, how anti social is that? And, will it ever register to David Miscavige and the other fundamentalists, that the customers are dwindling because of an initial miscalculation in math? And worse, can they digest the fact that plenty of “wogs” didn’t have a reactive mind to overcome as a problem? So their “holy status” as a “Clear”, just bought them up to the same level as the majority? The idea that everyone on Earth has a reactive mind, is just that, an idea. And I think it is a false equation. It just got thrown in there as part of an equation. It was never verified.
And I wonder, because you know, to become a “member” in a Scientology group, you have to agree in the beginning, that you have a reactive mind. Otherwise, you don’t belong. How many people read Dianetics and decided it did not apply to them? There is no record. If you don’t agree that you have this affliction, to begin with, there is no place for you in that group. Well, maybe that is why membership is dwindling! And you know, they don’t like you very much if you think you have no use for them. Hell, even psychiatrists admit there are plenty of people that have no use for them! But this idea that they are the “most valuable” people on the planet, hinges on this idea that everyone on the planet is in desperate need of them. What I have noticed, is the world has LOT of clears and OT’s, that are just that way without being certified by the Church of Scientology.
Lastly, I ask you this. What “clear”, (in the sense of no longer afflicted with A=A) would assume that everyone on the planet has a reactive mind? That in itself is an A=A.
O.K. maybe the wasn’t lastly. Because I have noticed that the group of people on this planet claiming to make clears, (no more A=A) operates on a LOT of A=A’s.
All Psychiatrists are evil.
The customer is always wrong.
Everyone needs to detox.
All who leave have crimes against us.
All who doubt us are suppressors.
Anyone who no longer buys from us is out ethics.
If you don’t agree with us you are against us.
The group is all and the individual is nothing (strength in numbers)
All clears = _________.
If you are not part of a group your dynamics are out. (This is in the ethics book now)
If you do not pay us tax and remain registered, you are not fit to audit.
If you do not carry an IAS card you are not a Scientologist.
I mean, I could go on all day. It is all A=A, from a group claiming to release you from all of your A=A.
Marildi –
Here is the latest highly detailed geological map of Mars.
Think of the advancement for the knowledge of Mankind if your remote viewers who mapped out the implant stations on Mars would just scrawl a couple of Xes where they perceived the implant stations to be.
Could you contact them and see if they will do it?
Come on, Marildi.
For Mankind?
Alanzo
“Pride goeth before a fall.” Etc. 🙂
Hubbard touched on and tapped into a raw nerve that mankind has holistically focused on, namely, our individual and collective eternity. That includes the past….
I’ll state firmly and without doubt that he didn’t achieve those goals for either the group or the suckered-in individual.
One’s post scientology experience has to come to grips with this fact. One’s pre-scientology inclinations should look into why this off-the-shelf-nirvana was so attractive……………
Aren’t we here looking for solutions that LRH couldn’t possibly provide given his conditions?
Hey Al, why don’t you just ask NASA? They’re the ones who published the photo that shows the anomaly on Mars. On Courtney Brown’s website, where the video below is posted, he supplies the official NASA image number (and its source) just below the photo – it’s M11-00099, NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems.
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Mysteries/Mysteries_1/Mysteries_Project_1.html
For all the naysayers out there, take note that this remote viewing project supplies some interesting evidence for what LRH claimed about there being stations on Mars. The remote viewers involved in the project had proven records. They had not been shown the photos and knew nothing about them but were simply asked to take a closer look at that specific area of the planet. Here’s a summary of the consensus of their perceptions:
– The domes are artificial
– Subjects work inside the domes
– Technology
– Original builders are ancient
– Current inhabitants do not fully understand the technology
– Missing spare parts
– Enormous power generating technology
– Intense light flashing from domes
– Sense of despondency among inhabitants
– Hardship assignment
– Subjects apparently cannot return home, and they knew that when they accepted the assignment
– No extraterrestrial content to the RV data
– Subjects could be human
– Origin unknown
– Possible “black” military operation
– Possibility of decoding error
– New information is speculative since it is not yet verified [Note: Any new information is “speculative” in the sense that there is currently no physical evidence (such as photographs) and thus it is considered speculative until and unless physical data can corroborate it.]
Well said. That was very mindful of you.
They may not be able to scrawl the X’s if they perceived the implant stations to be underground. 😉
Note, the above summary of the project results is quoted from the video.
Although I get where you’re coming from, and that your dichotomy of East/West does reflect reality as it has been, I think the next evolutionary step for Consciousness is in the direction of resolving this dichotomy. As Ken Wilbur conceptuaizes it, Western psychology has focused on individual/personal psychology, while Eastern psychology has focused on the “transpersonal”. His view is that the two should actually be viewed as a continuum of development, that once a person has achieved what is possible in terms of personal development as an individual, one could then move on to to developing into the transpersonal realm, transcending the personal, individual aspects of life.
Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama states unequivocably that upon achieving Nirvana, the new Buddha does not lose his individual personality, but maintains it right along with his transpersonal awareness.
This conceptualization seems to me to be consistent with the idea of of the Dynamics. One is born, then proceeds on growing and mastering first his personal Dynamic, then the 2nd and 3rd Dynamics and so on. It could be a potentially natural expansion in Consciousness beyond the purely personal and individual. But one does not lose the consciousness of his individuality; it is perhaps just placed in a different perspective.
HH the Dalai Lama talks about this in a small volume of interviews titled The Buddha Nature: Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism.
The English translation was published by Bluestar Communications with a forward by Vaclav Havel, in 1997.
If a person cannot see himself or herself as having any beliefs at any time then that person is pretty much taking all his or her beliefs for granted, and operating on unawareness. There are so many beliefs required just to operate a body and live on a planet. A person can just glibly say,”I don’t represent any belief system,” but that does not mean that person does not have any beliefs. If a person has any beliefs at all then there is a belief system.
Reality does not depend on anybody’s say so. Reality just is. It goes beyond the self. Self is a part of reality. You don’t have to prove anything. Mindfulness is enough to see what is there.
Anything is possible may be in some dreamlike, illusory world, but not in here and now. Otherwise, you’ll be materialing at a designated place with other prople watching it. But you know you can’t.
My comment above was spurred by Vin’s remark above implying a limitation to LTH’s thought to the effect that “Hubbard could not imagine the destruction of individuality.”
I think he could very well “imagine” it, and did imagine it. In fact, the goals of Scientology as he envisioned them did not involve permanently residing in some undifferentiated “Native State” or “Nirvana”, which could conceivably exist above 40.0, but a stability at about 22.0, a zone of Action, which he considered to be the optimum for the ability to “play a better game”. This actually could well correspond to the level of Bodhisattvas, those beings who could potentially completely “leave the game”, but who choose to stay in order to further the progress of others towards Enlightenment.
I must say, given the quoted staements I have seen, that LRH may not have considered, as the Dalai Lama does, that a person copuld achieve some kind of Nirvana without losing his individuality. Perhaps it does reflect the difference between the Hindu and Buddhist views of “Nirvana”, as marildi has just posted.
INTERIORIZATION and EXTERIORIZATION do not refer to just the viewpoint’s perceived relationship to the body. Or the “self”, either. They can refer to any game. LRH gave the example of the players in a chess game, and someone watching. Each player is “self-determined”, ie identified with either the Black or the White pieces, and is trying to follow the formula of “effect on the other, no effect on self.” He is trying to Win at the expense of the other’s Lose. The Spectator can be Pan-determined as far as this game goes – he is not necessarily identified with either player’s side, but can actually perceive the potentially best moves for either side. IN this scenario, each player is to some extent “Interiorized” into his side of the game. He is Black, or he is White. The spectator is Exterior to the game.
Thus a person can be interior or exterior to just about any situation in life, not just to a body or a “self”.
You can see all this action at work in sports, politics, war, etc.
Boy Al, you are confused! marildi is from VENUS. 🙂
Reactive mind is a part of hypothesis advanced by Hubbard. One can have another hypothesis calling it an unwanted condition and then have a procedure to address it directly as in Idenics.
Mindfulness #10: Do not get hung up on name and form.
One can have knowledge of Scientology without having to be a member of the Church of Scientology. One can make use of that knowledge to one’s advantage without requiring permission from anybody in the Church of Scientology..
Knowledge is free. It has always been free.
There’s no monopoly on truth. 😉
The fundamental is that one does not understand something, and that needs to be clarified. Forget about all terminology
All A=A can easily be handled with the 12 aspects of mindfulness.
1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
7. Experience fully what is there.
8. Do not suppress anything.
9. Associate data freely.
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
12. Let it all be effortless.
Actually that is correct. 🙂
The idea of thetan is an illusion.
Nirvana is the word used in Buddhism. The corresponding word used in Hinduism is Moksha.
LRH used the word Nirvana and not Moksha, so he was referring to Buddhist idea of Nirvana. But then, I very much doubt if he really understood either Buddhism or Hinduism. Here is a little research I did on Hubbard’s understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism. It is a fun read
Hope you enjoy it, Marildi.
Tom: “Aren’t we here looking for solutions that LRH couldn’t possibly provide given his conditions?”
Two possibilities to consider:
1. Truths were “relayed” to him, either from his personal recall or elsewhere.
2. There were (and are) counter-postulates and counter-efforts to his.
Valkov: “…once a person has achieved what is possible in terms of personal development as an individual, one could then move on to to developing into the transpersonal realm, transcending the personal, individual aspects of life.”
This is the stepping stone that Scientology offers, minimally.
What is “GRIBUF”? I don’t want to go by misunderstoods.
Nirvana is also defined as “another term for moksha.” (Google “definition of nirvana.”) And per the context, he was obviously using that definition of Nirvana.
I think that the first step is to formulate exactly the difference in the two viewpoints. Here is how I see it.
Western Viewpoint: Self is senior to reality. It is self that determines the reality. (e.g. God created the world).
Eastern Viewpoint: Self is a subset of reality. The ground state of all reality is arrived at by “neti, neti” (not this, not that). (I have elaborated on the eastern viewpoint in the last two posts on my blog.)
Just as exteriorization does not mean that you lose your body, similarly Nirvana does not mean that you lose your self. It simply means that you now have a deep awareness right from the ground state, which makes the whole reality consistent, coherent and very simple, and you can see through life’s situations easily and resolve them quickly. You are not stuck on anything including the self. The self is a construct that is also in a flux.like rest of the reality.
“I must say, given the quoted statements I have seen, that LRH may not have considered, as the Dalai Lama does, that a person could achieve some kind of Nirvana without losing his individuality.”
Val, here’s another relevant quote:
“The various phenomena of mysticism are in the main explained by this scale [Chart of Attitudes]. When one forsakes individuality on the way up, he of course, can commingle with thoughts and other individualities. When he slows down below toward 0.0 he is again getting confused in his individuality, shifts valences easily, is hypnotic and is in a generally undesirable condition.
“Another prime error has been made (and is part of our culture, both religious and scientific, and that is the error of “single source.” At 1.1 single source looks to be the case. Also at 39.0. At neither point, however, is there any clear view. All life forms are NOT from a single source. The ideas of Nirvana, Valhalla, Adam, the original cell – each is now rather completely disproven. There is a source for every genetic line. By this is meant both a theta (thought static) and MEST form. There are as many sources as there are living organisms, each line distinct and individual. The similarity of form in a species is due to similar environments and age of the class, not single source. A positive proof lies in the finding that health, sanity and effectiveness exist where the greatest self-determinism can be rehabilitated. A negative proof is that, if it were single source, the discovery of the genetic line facsimiles (the blueprint of the body) should permit just one individual to go back and clear the original upsets for the whole human race. It has been tried several times. It affects none but the preclear. His source is the very model of self-determinism.” (*Advanced Procedure and Axioms*)
“If a person cannot see himself or herself as having any beliefs at any time then that person is pretty much taking all his or her beliefs for granted, and operating on unawareness. ”
Thank you for the eval, inval and wrong indication. Perhaps you need to practice some of your steps to “mindfulness”.
2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
Regarding step 8: “8. Do not suppress anything.” It would appear your goal is make sure nobody else will suppress you?
Terril,
Nice. Same here. It comes and goes. I don’t think that it is really complicated, but over time as you get older you sort of get used to fixating your anchor points more.
Carlos Castaneda had a nice summary of this in his book : “The Art of Dreaming”
I wish you good surfing!
” We love you, Al, Oh, yes, we do. We love you, Al, And we’ll be true. When you’re not near to us. We’re blue. Oh, Al, we love you!” 🙂
It sounds like the Int Base to me.
Vinnie, I read your research and I can see that most of your conclusions were based on your use of an inappropriate definition of Nirvana – i.e. LRH was not using the Buddhism definition but the one meaning “another term for Moksha.” This is clear from the context of the quotes you posted.
Also: you wrote “Hubbard seems to be intent on empowering individuality as his ultimate goal. Buddha had earlier discovered the self to be impermanent.”
How did Buddha define “self,” per your understanding? And if you think he defined it to mean the same as “thetan,” what is your source for that?
Hi sara, here is a link to an article on the subject, which may help clarify where I’m coming from: http://www.brantcortright.com/articles/Indian%20Psychology%20book%20chapter.pdf
In general, I agree that there are not many statements in Eastern ‘scriptures’ that directly address th estate of the human being as ‘fragmented’. However there are a lot of statements about the ‘perfectability’ of human nature, about achievin gin some sense, ‘wholeness’, ”realization’, and words to that effect.
I think the reason may be, as Wilbur and some others see it, the East has
always focused on Transpersonal Psychology, rather than on personal, ‘Individual Psychology’.
Much of the available translations of Eastern ‘scriptures’ to me, lack substance. Ever read the Dhammapada? It’s mostly generalized fluff. A lot of high-sounding ideals, and very few, if any, concrete nuts-and-bolts steps indicating HOW TO reach or achieve these improved conditions of mind and person. HOW does one become ‘of high thought’? Or ‘watchful’? Achieve ‘deep contemplation’? How does one ‘purify the mind’? etc etc
Most of it reads like scientology marketing brochures.
That’s really what the literature is, because in order to PRACTICE, the transmission is always person-to-person, from one’s mentor. This includes transmission of experience. The guy touches your forehead, and you get a vision, a gnosis, a cognition, when he thinks you are ready to receive it. That kind of thing. Direct transmission of experience.
There’s not much about the actual structure of the mind, or psyche, or body. For a study of the detailed structures that comprise a human being you have to look to the West. For a quick introduction to the idea that th ehuman psyche lacks ‘integration’, lacks ‘unity’, is in some way ‘fragmented’, I recommned this little book by P.D. Ouspensky – The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution. These are basically ‘Eastern’ ideas as they were passed along through Central Asia.
What do you think of the idea of a ‘conscious mind’ vs. and ‘unconscious mind’? This is a very Western dichotomy, but is based on observations. This would be a prime example of a ‘fragmented psyche’, with processes operating below a person’s level of awareness, in his ‘unconscious mind’. Processes he is may be only dimly aware of in his ‘conscious mind’, if at all.
Are we just quibbling about terminology here?
That it has the ‘ability’ to ‘postulate and perceive’ does not mean that it necessarily does so. It may well be ‘unaware’ until it postulates something to perceive. I think that’s the error in your view and th ereason I do not at this point agree with it. The ‘ability’ is a potential until such time as it is exercised, or exercises itself. Like a sleeping person waking up.
This reads to me as a monotheism based on an impersonal ground state that substitutes for the ‘personal’ God of the West. Perhaps this is only in the language you are using? It makes it sound like there is ‘one’ ground state, when in reality, number does not apply.
I think Buddha would counsel you to abandon all considerations of existence or non-existence of any ground state. Unless it’s your hobby to ruminate on such, of course. 🙂
Your foretelling is morbid, bleak, dark, and highlights your wishes for my future. Had I come to you as some Oracle I would have gone straight into apathy. What kind of fortune teller do you imagine yourself to be? What I know is not what you say. You are bitter and disillusioned. You can not pass that on me as a value. What you are selling is your own dreamlike illusory sense of things. Don’t try to hang that on me. You are sloppy with the math, doubtful and unfaithful. You issue crams on a constant as if all need correction but you. I am beginning to think you are narcissistic and you beat your wife. I don’t need handling or foretelling of my future or an evaluation of my current condition by you. Your analysis is so very tainted with your own despair. And you do not have sufficient love for others that you can extend yourself beyond their differences. Small differences in reality overwhelm your ability to continue to love, and you switch into an instant to correct all of those that do not measure up to your standards. The lacking is within you, not me. If you had to walk a mile in my shoes you would have died at the age of two. .You have no idea of my capabilities to rise above suppression. I am not dreamlike or hallucinatory. And I have every awareness of black magic and it’s creepy spider like odor. I do not care to shape shift into the ugly hostile you invite me to become. Seriously. In spite of your covert abuses, my love for myself, the world, mankind and the supernatural, has not been diminished. I do believe one day you will rise above, and I choose to move you into that future. I still care, to help you.
NIRVANA is exteriorization from self. Hubbard missed this completely.
.
When the attention stuck on self suddenly becomes unstuck, there is a wonderful “out-of-self” experience. We may call it exteriorization from self. When this happens, one achieves the certainty that one is much more than some boxed in ideas and thinking patterns. One can be as large as the reality one is witnessing. This is very likely a movement toward the state of Nirvana that Buddha was talking about.
This would be a condition that may be referred to as reality-centric. One is no longer fixated on the survival of a little self. One feels freer than ever before. One now feels compassion for all life and the whole universe because one is now identifying with it.
Nobody is trying to get rid of the “I” here. It is just a shift of focus. One is interiorized in a body because one is so focused on the body. Similarly, one can be interiorized in a self because one is so focused on it.
A reality-centric view simply exteriorizes one from the self. The self does not cease to exist as a result, just like body does not cease to exist when one exteriorizes from the body.
There is a road that takes one beyond being reality-centric. But that would be the subject of another essay.
NOTE: Self is a subset of reality. Self is not the source of reality as one is made to believe in Scientology.
From: http://vinaire.me/2014/05/30/being-self-centric-scientology/
Interiorization = fixation
Fixation on Scientology = Interiorization into Scientology
“Aren’t we here looking for solutions that LRH couldn’t possibly provide given his conditions?”
Yes, we are.
Truth doesn’t lie in personal recall. Truth lies in the application of mindfulness and in resolving inconsistencies in observations.
You are in voilation of the discussion policy. That is a sign of lack of logic.
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
Watch your assumptions! 🙂 Look at what you are adding to the postulate.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.
In the numbering system, zero is the absence of counting numbers. It then becomes the reference point of all numbers whether positive or negative, rational or irrational, real or imaginary.
Similarly, the ground state is an absence of awareness. It then becomes the reference point of anything that one can be aware of, whether potential or actual, real or imaginary, etc. All awareness, therefore, is relative. No awareness is absolute.
All awareness is relative to the ground state. There is no absolute awareness.
Unconscious mind is lack of response. It doesn’t imply absence of awareness. It is not the same thing as the ground state.
LRH was using Nirvana in context of Buddhism. I have no reason to believe otherwise. 🙂
You may believe whatever you want.
What is the appropriate defintion of nirvana? 🙂
“THE “INVALIDATION” BUTTON: This process is for those who zealously try to convince others of their ideology, and get easily upset when people do not see things their way. They feel that they are being made wrong when inconsistencies are pointed out in their convictions. They cannot take any criticism. They cannot discuss calmly.
Scientologists use a special word at the first whiff of any criticism – INVALIDATION, as in, “You are invalidating me.” But words like WOGS and RAW MEAT are built into their vocabulary for those who are not scientologists.
Scientologists not only scream against being invalidated, but they also invalidate back immediately using convenient Scientology vocabulary like “suppressive,” “antago” or “1.1”. This button of “invalidation” tends to be very prominent among Scientologists both ways.”
From: http://vinaire.me/2013/05/23/the-invalidation-button/
You are beginning to demonstrate the scientology principle popularly known as ‘op terming’. You preach so vehemently – and judgmentally – that you begin to resemble that which your preach against.
Valkov, I won’t mind touching your forehead when we meet next. 🙂
This is a violation of Discussion Policy for the sake of some enetertainment.
Hi Marildi –
Thanks for re-stating your evidence here in support of Hubbard’s claim that there are implant stations on Mars where every human being goes after death to have his memories wiped and scrambled so that each human being forgets who he was in his previous lifetime(s), is confused about religion and spirituality, and ultimately never realizes the truth about himself, and thus remains a prisoner here, stuck in a body on Prison Planet Earth.
As you know, and have demonstrated many times, evidence in support of a claim should be examined and evaluated. I know that whenever I have presented evidence to you for something, you have critically examined it and shown me the holes in the evidence I have presented.
As you know, it is always easier to examine someone else’s evidence, or someone else’s claims, than your own. It’s always easier to find outpoints in other peoples’ arguments and reasoning than it is to spot them in your own.
Am I right about that?
Evaluating evidence is an important part of critical thinking and can lead to huge breakthroughs in seeking to live with the truth. I’m sure you agree with me because I have seen you use your critical thinking skills many times, and you are very good at it.
So I have two questions for you about the evidence you have presented here which I hope can lead to a closer evaluation.
1. On that map of Mars, where are the implant stations located?
If they actually exist, then they do have a location in the real world, right?
Then where are they on that map?
2. Hubbard said that the hardest outpoint to spot was the missing datum, right? Well what’s missing here in this evidence?
OTs, that’s what’s missing!
If Scientology actually does what it says it does, then Scientology OTs should be intimately familiar with the locations of these implant stations, and yet this evidence is being generated by total wogs, and no Scientology OT has ever presented any real world location data for an implant station.
You do realize how important it is to reveal the locations of these implant stations, right? The whole prison planet system would be blown wide open. It could lead to knowing immortality for every man woman and child on Earth.
How important is that?
If this isn’t just a religious belief with absolutely no reality at all to it, then what’s missing here is a Scientology OT. Yet not one is involved in the generation of this evidence.
Why are no Scientology OTs part of Courtney’s Remote Viewer team?
Allow yourself to consider the consequences of that particular outpoint.
Alanzo
This is Hubbard’s fixation on self that I have been referring to.
The word “Nirvana” is never used in Hinduism, though it may refer to the same concept as Moksha.
LOL!
I am sorry to say but you are doing the same thing, Marty, with this post of yours. You are being judgmental.
You are in violation of the Discussion Policy and so am I in this post.
QED
Hi there, Miss Marildi.
My comment: ” They were an effort to solve a problem, one of the roots of overts…”
Not all efforts to solve a problem will result in an overt. All chains of overts will have at their root, an effort to solve a problem All doves are pigeons, but not all pigeons are doves.
Ron saw in his past, times when he was much more able and causative. He audited and spoke with others about times when they were much more able. He saw in this, proof that the potential to be much more able was there. He saw bits of higher abilities show themselves temporarily. He ‘Knew’ he was on to something big, but to achieve it solidly escaped him. A problem. He worked knight and day for years in a manner matched not even by the great Issac Newton. (His ability to work nonstop for months or even years is considered one of the greatest achievements in scientific history)
Ron did not achieve all his goals yet he did produce an enormous root structure which, I believe, will make it possible to achieve these goals in large part in the future.
But in his frenzy, and possibly because of some particular aspects of his own case, he produced some incomplete and overt products. Endless OT-3/7, stolid yet incomplete OT C/Sing for all OT levels. An effort to solve a problem.
Perhaps if he had worked as the Snr. C/S and researcher at Flag for another 20 years things may have worked out differently. But the politics of his own creation precluded that. Sad.
We are now tasked with the job of refining, correcting, and completing his work, a much easier task than he had. As is the consensus on this site, the work of others before and after him should not be ignored. That is not to say that any of them were perfect either. Mohammed had some serious issues, etc. I find the Tao brilliant in it’s basic wisdom, yet narrow and incomplete. We are all tasked with completing their work as well.
I’ll do what I can to lend a hand.
Mark
Well Vin,
You have found me out.
I am strongly anti drug. I have a brother who hitchhiked to Calif. in the 70s and got fried. He has led a very retarded life since. An anecdotal incident.
You said “The danger of ingesting soma in excess was known to the Vedic sages. They instituted disciplines in the form of rituals for the preparation and ingestion of soma.” Some of the things in the Vedas are pretty f##ked up.
You said ” Hubbard is said to have taken psycho-active drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his intuitions occurred under their influence.” Some of the things Ron said and did are a bit f*&ked up.
Pyrethrum is totally natural, but it’s use is best kept to killing insects. I wouldn’t advise ingesting pure, all natural arsenic.
On the flip side, Ron suggested giving some patients a mild sleep aid when getting a nights sleep was the one thing they needed right now.
I could be wrong. I’ll have a couple of beers and think about it.
Mark
I apologize to Oracle for being judgmental and inconsiderate of her views.
Karen, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The ‘church’ is a frightening organization since it’s inception and has gotten worse under Dee Midget’s regime.
Hubbard dabbled in the occult via Aleister Crowley’s OTO. He probably opened a portal and those demonic entities came for him. So he mistakenly thought everyone had these ‘body thetans’.
In the end he could never escape those demons that he unleashed on himself and died a total failure.
It seems we have a conundrum.
How do you assist someone to betterness without leading them or evaluating to some extent. How do you improve yourself when you have no idea what the problems are. Hmmmm. What to do, what to do.
I have found, as have most others, that there are common phenomenon amongst individuals, completely unknown to them, which can be addressed. Most individuals. The trick is to find out what is on his plate right now, what is he up to addressing right now. What will indicate and produce right now. Next, how do you, and of course him, address this outpoint in a manner which increases self determinism rather than leading him down your chosen path, which may be unwalkable for him.
Then you have the fact that the most common maladies may still only apply to 75% of individuals. You get 25% complaining loudly that this is all crap, don’t waste your time. The next most common areas may only apply to 57%. Then you have a real problem.
Special rundowns, that’s the ticket. But then you really get into evaluation of the subjects case. “Here’s what you need, hand over the loot, we’ll take care of you.” But which rundown for this particular guy at this particular time. Hmmmm. What to do.
Then, after 40 yrs. you discover that many of your rundowns and even standard procedures have minor flaws which effectively bar 23% of subjects from achieving the intended benefits.
Then you get into advanced procedures and you really get into evaluation and a ‘walk the line’ regimentation.
My answer? Good old fashioned honest work. Take that 40% success rate, or 10 or even 8% or whatever. Raise it 3 or 4 points. Study and work and observe what really works well and continue from there. Find out, bit by bit, what improves most peoples willingness to take charge of their own case. Get another 5% improvement. Keep going. It won’t happen in a day or a year. I believe there is still a potential for a great improvement in the lives of a great many individuals. Don’t give up. My sense tells me it is worth a try. Maybe that is your sense too.
Mark
PS; Someone has to take the role of cheerleader.
Well that may be ypur own personal made-up defintion of “interiorization”, but it is certailny not the common definition of it from Scientology. What I posted was pretty much directly from Fundamentals of Thought, if i recall the reference correctly.
Interior and exterior have nothing intrinsically to do with “fixation”. That is your additive. They simply refer to the position or location of a viewpoint relative to what is being viewed. Generally refering to whether one is viewing from inside something or viewing something from outside.
If that’s what you really mean, then why rant about Hubbard “not being able to imagine the destruction of individuality”? If the destruction of individuality is irrelevant, why mention the idea at all? You contradict yourself. That is an inconsistency.
It is curious to me that Hubbard, the master of ‘must have, can’t have’, ‘I did it to you and you did it to me’, multiple flows, tone 40 serenity, and most importantly, “Do not give or receive communication that you do not desire” (paraphrase), could not resolve these stuck communication lines with his entities.
I didn’t do nearly the work and study that he did, yet they are not a source of enturbulation for me. I recognize them, smile, and go on about my business. I do not suppress, reject them, or dwell on them. I just know that a repair for them will someday be developed and they will be fine. There have been times in the past where I spent more that 75 mil. years in limbo and I finally worked loose. We’ll get to them when the time is right.
But for now, I have work to do. Besides, I just imagined all these demons anyway, so what’s the problem. Nothing to cave in about.
Go figure.
Mark
If the ‘self’ is aware, then what is it that exteriorizes, and becomes aware of Nirvana? And presumably remains aware of the ‘self’ it previously identified itself with? That would be an ‘awareness of an awareness’, wouldn’t it?
Are you fixated on some other view?
I’ll repost this link. http://www.brantcortright.com/articles/Indian%20Psychology%20book%20chapter.pdf
It describes the Vedic, Hindu view of the structure of a composite being such as Man, as per Aurobindo. It is pretty much how Buddhists view the situation also. It corrects an oversimplification ypu have repeatedly stated,
about the supposed ‘continuum’ of matter thorugh spirit. It makes clear that ‘spirit’ stands apart. If there is a continuum, it is actually of ‘soul’ as part of the physical universe. Even so, it makes clear the ‘soul’ IS considered immortal, at least relative to this universe, if not also relative to previous and any potential succeeding universes. Yet it does not stand apart as the ‘spirit’ does; it is, if you will, actively engaged in living and being aware.
through physical bodies, and does itself have a kind of ‘substance’, in a way that ‘spirit’ does not.
What the heck does your statement have to do with my basic question of whether the human is an integrated being or not?
sara, thanks for yopur explanation above, about equilibrium and the brain. English was not my first language either, which may be why I come across as pedantic.
Let me throw into the mix this: any hypnotist can create MPD, or MPs at any rate, in any hypnotizable subject. Does having Multiple Personalities necessarily comprise being the subject of a “disorder”?
No, because they may or may not be aware of each other, yet there may be a larger overall “consciousness” that is aware of all of them.
Laughter!
And I apologize to you for exciting you so.
Laughter!
Sorry FOTF, it’s not a list I have actually assembled! Here are some references. First, a web link:
Click to access Indian%20Psychology%20book%20chapter.pdf
Then, a couple of small books:
1. The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution – by PD Ouspensky
2. The Buddha Nature Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism – by Dalai Lama
A longer book, but not too long:
3. A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber. Here’s a review which summarizes some main points:
Click to access BH-%20Russ%20dicarlo.pdf
I feel Wilber’s big contribution is an integration of the objective and subjective aspects of knowledge and existence. Marty has recommended this book.
So, is your theoretical ‘ground state’ Caused or Uncaused?
To me, all you are saying is, you do not perceive hundreds or thousands of beings or entities in or around your body.
Martin is saying Mahamudra is awareness, you are saying Mahamudra is no awarness. I call that more than “slightly different”!
Vinaire, does LRH anywhere refer to “body thetans” as “multiple personalities” ? I think you’re confusing theories.
These are just statements of faith on your part. There is no way to actually scientifically test them.
If it “shall remain forever unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it”, how is it that you have so much to say about it – or repeatedly speak about it?
This is an inconsistency. You expound about something you, in the same breath, characterize as “unknowable” because there is no “there”, there, and no awareness, according to you. I think Buddha was wise to neti, neti all considering with regards to unknowable considerations.
Does that touch your forehead?
LOL! Yes, Vin’s ‘discussion policy’ is designed to prevent anyone from disturbing his ‘equilibrium’. It is an intellectual form of Librium.
The difficulties with being overly logical:
A simple haircut is sometimes the Theraphy someone needs
Haircut for Louis {Tourette Syndrome}
Tourettes’sufferer Louis a,k,a Schele-Louis is asked ?..stay still Louis? {impossible } He has Tourette’s,but is a great guy !…often misunderstood..the paintings on the wall his own .I couldn,t help notice he was in state to stay & remain perfectly still & in control of his faculties when i was “in contact “with him …yet one can see the instant I break contact ,whether with the scissors or shaver or just my hands with the comb -he immediatley seems to lose control and his ticks return almost instantly ..even for long periods while in physical contact with him he can remain still and remarkably tranquil and appearing in control …i asked him how was the experience to have his hair cut ..he recanted how he was the scourge of many a barber in his youth and once visited no longer welcome to return …his reply was he found the whole experience very uplifting -relaxing -and a bitter-sweet reminder of how fine -pleasurable human contact is and can be alas for Louis something he very rarely enjoys or experiences in his life ,how tragic for a moment his isolation was painfully obvious & i aware of it & yet i had shared some small moment of attention care with him …he even suggested adding his telephone nr with this vid !thats how lonley he is and innocent to the dangers of the outside world and net …yet in most other aspects he is above average intelligence so don,t pity him so much as he is happy …his pinnacle of enjoyment is telephones and all things telecommunication he has a driven fixation with All telephones ..nothing makes him happier than a gsm …which normally lasts him +-3-4 days !!…anyway thats a bit of Louis story …enjoy this moment with us ….
A competent auditor should be able to handle and cure tourettes syndrome.
Dio
LOL. I thought of Spock too.
I’m with you on this Yvonnne, “Some of the happiest, most accomplished, most caring people I know are people who have LEFT the cult.”
Thank you, Joe. You have been a great auditor for a long time. Unfortunately, the CofS is no longer into recognizing/validating auditors, especially those with a proven track record. The name of the game is invalidation of non-GAT II tech. Therefore no one has ever really made a grade, gone clear or OT or been “properly” trained before now. So much for the High Crimes of calling things “old and not used any more” or the invalidation of the state of clear, for that matter. As John Lennon said, “The dream is over.”
Thanks for those views, Mark and It nox
Sorry, but the data on LRH suicide mission do not make sense. If entities only stick to the body you can get rid of them by going out of the body. If those entities travel with the being then dropping the body would handle nothing. And entities basically do nothing. Every person around you are also “entities”. Some are sane, some are insane and some try to harm you. That is life. So why being afraid of entities around? Without life around myself life would be miserable. In case someone does not like the presence of an entity in real life he can go away from this person. In case of an entity he can send this one out of his space. Sometimes you have to be around a person that you really do not like. At work for example. That is a normal condition.
Joining staff, many people do not notice the forget tor implant. You are expected to forget your life as it was before that time, and your identity. any moral or ethics codes of your own. Your family, children, parents, friends, hobbies, wants, needs, desires. You are even expected to forget your interest in Scientology, and blow off the bridge all together. It all starts out with one big forget tor implant. And, when you leave, you are expected to forget you were there and any of it ever happened. And if you mention your experiences or point them out, you are brutally attacked.
What has Marty been attacked for over and over by David Miscavige except, he remmbered?
Well, never mind, Get ready for a huge T/A blowdown with some new news that is about to hit the streets.
Great comment Mark, and I agree with this principle.
To do this the church would have to truly address every person as a unique individual. Which means, no more blanket mass-CSes (e.g. Objectives, PTS/SP Course, KTL, SRD, etc for Everyone).
As well, it would require some actual technical research infrastructure, where information about processes, results, failures are collected, organized, cross-referenced with demographics, etc and analysed. Effectively honing the effectiveness and precision of the action in an effort to push the results up.
Of course none of this would ever or could ever happen in the church, where they are more or less stuck with a static Bridge. Even the concept of the Bridge (one-size-fits-all, The One and Only True Path) is contrary to this approach. And KSW effectively forbids such actions. Its a shame really. What could have been a great foundation to a more bona fide spiritual science (with actual, predictable objective results) was killed off by its creator.
The irony is that the church had/has the personnel and financial resources to do this very thing. Instead they have destroyed/declared their most talented personnel, and opted to invest in real estate.
Well maybe in a 100 years or so the subject will be revisited and revived and maybe its true potential can be realized.
THEY FOUND THE IMPLANT STATIONS ON MARS AND ARE BATTLING IT OUT WITH SCIENTOLOGY SEA ORG FORCES TO FREE THIS PRISON PLANET SO MANKIND CAN GO FREE???
That is a nice fresh argument. I like it. 🙂
Hi Mark,
This idea of taking away the bad and this leads to a “clear state” has been around for at least 26 centuries. This was part of what I felt on the upper OT levels as well. Now there are, of course, other factors to consider such as cognitions and intelligent examination of motivations, key events etc. The PDC tapes were mentioned because they do contain a panoramic view of Scientology in detail especially in regard to electronic flows.
In my own personal situation, I found meditation to be especially rewarding. In the Theravada school we don’t concentrate on past lives or implants or any such actions. At first, I thought that, because I was not eradicating the past, there would be very little gain. However, I found that concentrating the present moment produced more gain. It
took many years of mental training in order to reach that state. In fact, it took about 10 years before I got any real traction. This long lead time has been an issue of investigation. Why did it take so long? I think that because of my training in Scientology, I was at first looking in the wrong place. In other words, I had ideas of engrams and chains and implants which are very specific mental constructs. This prevented me for a long time from “just looking under my nose.” My own personal turning point came when I clearly saw one of the Buddha’s key teachings which is actually very obvious. Buddha taught that mind and matter mutually support each other. It sounds simple and it is simple. When I actually saw it unfold in front of my very eyes in mediation, it was the impetus that kept me going. The intensity of the the energy and effort involved in handling the mind was then seen in its full scope.
Please be advised that I respect all religion and respect and admire any progress you or anyone makes on the road to truth.
There has been 26 centuries of taking away the bad and allowing the good to shine. This effort has proven itself and works in many other religions. I think that Scientology basically followed in that trend.
Kind regards,
George M. White
The idea exists, of a thetan being able to split himself, like an amoeba, into two thetans. Here is a write-up of this by someone (The Pilot) who spent quite some time researching this concept:
http://freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/06_10.html
He was quite convinced of the truth of this, as well as other concepts having to do with what he called Split Viewpoints.
It is fascinating reading and will stretch your thinking “out of the box” for sure.
And why do the fundamentalists attack the “infidels”? Because of what they remember, and because they did not forget the flagrant outpoints and abuses they should have swiped from their memory, for “the cause”.
There is a lot of memory swiping and forgetting implanting mixed in with the Scientology business in the culture.
The odd thing is, in order to “heal”, you are asked to remember (in auditing) while you are expected to forget and promised you can forget (erasure) at the same time. Mainly what they forget within the fundamentalists camp, is that other people have rights too. Rights to remember, rights to be here in whatever identity they choose, rights to communicate. These are rights everyone is expected to FORGET. And there with goes the humanity and in comes the abuse and sadism.
What all people have in common that become interested in auditing, is, I have noticed, they want to be able to forget. But, you end up expected to forget a lot more than you bargained for. When you forget how to be nice to other people, you are really on a roll!
A craniosacral therapist just told me of receiving a session with a “psychic” in Bloomfield Hills as a Birthday present from her sister.
AS she walked into the “psychic’s” room, the psychic exclaimed “Do you know you have hundreds or maybe thousands of angels following you? There are so many they could hardly crowd through the door! Have you been summoning angels?”
The therapist realized that she had indeed been summoning them. She was working in a large hospital, mostly with accidental trauma victims, and every day as she walked in, she prayed for, sent out a call for, help in helping the patients she was coming in to work with.
I had just read this post the day before:
http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=17337
Valkov, FOTF.
I have a revised explanation of theta reproduction which more clearly delineates and details the process as it occurred to myself. Belief aside, it is quite entertaining.
Drop me a note, I will send it.
marknr@hushmail.com
Mark
For anyone who would like to understand the Diamond Sutra, here is an extended discussion of some of the basic Buddhist concepts involved:
Click to access prajparagen2.pdf
They will stretch your thinking beyond the box of what a lot of Westerners think Buddhism is all about. For example, from this pdf:
“Vajra is identical with the self-nature, the essential life
force of all living beings, because both are indestructible and
adamantine. Furthermore, the eternally dwelling heart all
beings have in common is the same as the vajra nature, since
it too cannot be destroyed.”
The Diamond Sutra starts right out by saying this “ultimate enlightment” you speak of has neither existence nor non-existence. Take it to heart. Your “6th consciousness” is spinning its wheels to no purpose, producing considerations that have neither existence nor non-existence.
I sometimes wish I was as dumb and happy as a Golden Retriever!
I am beginning all fanatics are either afflicted with Narcissitic Personality Disorder, (Be just like me! Be just like me! Only my identity is valuable) or, reversly, suffers from lack of success with any other identity or self worth, except their religious one. In other words, they feel they can not really survive socially or economically with out that identity. Religion is what makes them “special”. And if you discount that value in any way, they become very threatened and aggressive. The ten commandments go right out the window! Bearing false witness is usually the first one to laid on the table.
We sure didn’t treat Hubbard’s words as “God’s words” , back in 1970. Although, perhaps there were idolators amongst us who did so. But idolators are prone to doing that with anything they latch onto as being “Cause”.
Good to hear from you George.
Thank you for your attention.
You’ve been working hard these last few years and it appears to be rewarding. I applaud your effort.
The greatest guarantee of success is not necessarily intelligence, although some make it on intelligence alone. It is no guarantee. I have seen many brilliant people die alone with little fruit of their ability.
The greatest guarantee of success is not necessarily hard work, yet some do make it on hard work alone, it is not a sure thing. Many a hard working souls live meager, unfulfilled lives.
The closest thing to a guarantee of success that I have seen and experienced is:
“The ability to put forth long term effort toward a goal.”
Choosing a goal and working diligently toward it until it is realized. Then perhaps another goal and pursuing it through to success.
This is by no means a secret. Most people know it to one extent or another. Ron White, the comedian once asked his friend, Dr. Phil, what was the most important advice he could give. Dr. Phil said “Finish what you start”. Ron White took it as a sign and went to the cabinet to get that half empty bottle of scotch. Well, it’s the thought that counts.
What is important is how much grade weight is put on this simple bit of life tech. Few realize how vital it really is. Most who do, still need a little reminder from time to time.
Well, my righteous time is over. Got some door trim to paint. Bathroom/shower project is almost done.
Mark
According to Buddha, “mind consciousness” is one of the 6 consciousnesses and is one of the obstacles that needs to be dealt with. The “whole track” would be one segment or object of consciousness of or in the mind, and thus might need to be as-ised before one can go free. Perhaps the point is that if one is fixated in or on the “whole track”, one will have a hard time achieving that awareness of ‘present time’?
Yeah, and some fundamentalist religious sects aboslutely forbid music and dancing….. 🙂
I vouch for this book. It is on my short list of essential books which can help understand why religions and churches develop they way they do.
That was pretty mean of me, to J&D on Vinnie like that! Considering I agree with a lot of his thinking, (although it might seem I pick on him a lot….) However…..
“Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.”
I think it may be that Marty did exactly that and posted what he observed, whereupon Vin invoked his Discussion Policy and essentially handed Marty a Yellow Card for the supposed infraction.
Well, what’s the point of a Discussion Policy that disallows “Observing things as they are without assuming anything”, and then posting what you have observed?
Mr. White, I have seen that mind gives name and form to matter. Whereas matter provides an object which is what makes it possibel for mind-consciousness to exist or to be perceived. In that way they support each other. Perhaps this is similar to what you are saying?
Scientologists make a big deal about being suppressed by social and governmental institutions like psychiatry and IRS. They always have legal battles waging against their perceived critics.
Scientology worships individuality in the form of “thetan.” Hubbard was critical of the idea of “nirvana” of Buddhism. The individual scientologist screams loudly of being invalidated, the moment they hear anything said against their idea of self. One gets a strong sense of “I am right and you are wrong,” when talking to a scientologist.
On various blogs discussing matters related to Scientology, there is no genuine discussion possible. There would be endless advice imparted that uses scientology ideology and vocabulary. But the moment one insists on anything that differs from Scientology ideology, one is accused of preaching.
Scientologists can be very suppressive to ideas that do not agree with their ideology. But they are quick in identifying themselves as victim of suppression from the society.
.
Hi Mark,
“You’ve been working hard these last few years and it appears to be rewarding. I applaud your effort.”
One of the most difficult tasks was learning enough Pali to read key Discourses in the original language.
There are a variety of spiritual paths and most do not require an effort to this difficult extent. However, it was worth the time and effort for me and my wife. We worked on Pali together and that was truly a blessing.
Learning Pali together also does wonders for a marriage.
GMW
What does this have to do with Marty’s OP?
Ah, pithy commentary on this whole thread:
cheers! 🙂
Nice one, Valkov
I do not group “Scientologists” together and label them as all the same way. I do not do it with Catholics or Christians or anyone else. That is called injustice. What were you before you were an anti Scientologist? You were a Scientologist. Were you the Scientologist you describe above? I mean, is that your reference for these generalities?
Full Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial,religious or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance .
Frankly I have no problems or opposition to any religious teachings. From any corner. I do have a problem with corrupt politians , injustice and social abuse. Most Scientologists have left the buildings belonging to the Church of Scientology. What you see left are fanatics. There is nothing religious about being a fanatic. That is a ser fac. And a platform to ser fac on everyone who does not see eye to with you. Most Scientologists are not fanatics. Most Scientologists do not care to be involved in politics. Most Scientologists have never fair gamed anyone and would not choose or volunteer for such actions. Most Scientologists are not slandering others and mud slinging.
The fanatics do not represent most Scientologists. In fact they are in the smallest groups. They repell other people. That is why the Orgs are empty. There is a very large underground movement of Scientologists that are just doing their own thing with their own circles and comm lines. They are not the Scientologist you describe.Do you think it fair to publish your declares about these people?
You don’t see them, you don’t know them, and they have never suppressed you.And they do not associate with fanatics or abusive terminals.
Beingness is inclusive of both form and essential properties.
Beingness is “existing-ness.” A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence with a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.
Thus, an atom has a physical configuration; and it also has certain properties that express its essence. Both of these physical and spiritual aspects together make up the beingness of an atom.
The initial beingness is basic light with raw awareness.
Awareness arises because there is desire to know. Awareness is manifested as a light with barely a frequency and period. Its characteristics are limited to a very basic space-time and simple awareness of it. This is the totality of initial beingness. The appearance of beingness reinforces the desire to know, and the cycle continues.
At the basic level there are no developed characteristics, such as, perception of other forms, visualization of other forms, or thinking by association of forms, because there are no other forms. The initial beingness is very raw and in no way does it resemble the God of Abrahamic religions or the thetan of Scientology. Those things come much later after the beingness has developed greatly.
iamvalkov,
Well expressed. Yes, this is what I am saying.
I realized that these constructs such as implants, engrams, and amnesia were definitions used in Scientology which were in the end blockages to understanding. Even if you remove all of these and totally eliminate amnesia, you are then only beginning. Hubbard said that OT VIII was the first OT level and that there were numerous levels that were higher. He never released anything higher so it gets down to speculation.
In my view, Buddha came up with a better way. He taught us that “contact”, or the meeting of the sense bases with external objects is a better place to investigate. From that vantage point, it is easier to see the arising and passing away of impermanent reality.
The mutual support of mind and matter through name and form thus create a new construct which I describe as mentality. This is a poor English translation of the Pali word “Sankhara”. I find that dealing in Pali is a far superior way for me to understand as compared to English.
Kind Regards,
GMW
Vin,
I do not often agree with anything you say. When I hear the words “mindfullness” and “inconsistency”, I have to refrain from throwing a fit.
Although at the same time, you have a lot of good points in your KHTK.
But for some reason it makes me not want to know what you know,
or not know how you know.
It emotes intense aberration, that is infectious.
It is like you are right for the wrong reasons.
But on this post of yours, summed up in :
“One gets a strong sense of “I am right and you are wrong,” when talking to a scientologist.”
I have to give you credit where credit is due.
You hit the nail square on the head and drove the spike into the board in one hit.
I have been trying to uncover and untangle and articulate words to define that problem with most scientologists for a long time.
And you just happened to put the exact succinct words in my mouth.
Your words are almost eloquent.
I saved your words.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Best regards,
Dio
As disturbance levels increase, beingness develops into that of atoms, minerals, plants, animals and humans.
Current physics is trying to figure out how energy condenses into mass.
Hi marildi,
It is amazing to me how Scientology never evolved into a management structure which included the great talent that was available in the organization. So many great minds have left the organization.
Personally, I believe that Scientology could have survived the release of Hubbard’s “mission” on earth as related to Lucifer. In other words, I think that a diverse management structure could have fleshed out the real meaning and created a “bridge within a bridge”. This could have saved the religion. The details are a moot point since this past cannot be altered at this time.
In my own view, I saw LRH as an inhabitant of an area related to Lucifer which has a theological basis. This basis can be explained with a few new Scientology terms to “bridge” into some form of new reality. In the end, only a few would accept the “new definition of Scientology”. However, it would at least give the religion a chance to survive in its original flavor.
MM,
G
Thanks for your compliments, Dio. They are hilarious indeed.
Marty is coming out of his fog, just like I did.
Oracle said: “I do not group “Scientologists” together and label them as all the same way. I do not do it with Catholics or Christians or anyone else.”
You just did by using those labels.
Search results are that the word consciousness or unconsciousness has been used 60 times within the comments of this post. I just came across a TED Talk posted on the 14 July – David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness? Here’s that video:
As I said, “Scientologists like to preach and debate. They don’t like to discuss.” I haven’t found a single Scientologist willing to discuss the ideas I am presenting without getting personal. He can’t see ideas for what they are.
Why does a Scientologist always gets personal with ideas, and can’t discuss them for what they are?
Because he is too strongly identified with the ideas in Scientology.
.
In my view,
Consciousness = Self-Awareness.
Awareness = Disturbance of some Ground State.
When this awareness is being aware of this disturbance, then there is consciousness.
I just watched this one a couple of days ago.
He compares the scientific study of consciousness to the scientific study of electromagnetism, when James Clark Maxwell realized that he was dealing with a separate fundamental phenomena, and broke electromagnetism out from space and motion and gravity and all the rest, and studied it as itself – separate from other fundamental phenomena in physics.
I think he is right on that one. And I also think he has correctly determined the general nature of consciousness as something that gets on to a system of some kind and perceives what’s going through that system.
He distinctly refutes consciousness as an emergent phenomenon.
If more people working in science adopts this view, the artificial divide between science and spirituality can finally disappear. The artificial “war” between science and religion will be over.
Once consciousness becomes a thing in science, look out.
I mean, consciousness has always been a thing, just not in science.
Science has never known how to approach consciousness. Now maybe they can start figuring it out.
Alanzo
It is time to audit Scientology as Hubbard himself recommended. This means looking at the ideas in Scientology very closely. I just hope that Marty’s blog is up to it. Marty has been doing it in some ways.
The definition of Beingness that I have proposed above challenges Hubbard’s use of beingness in an absolutist spiritual sense.
Hi Vinaire.
Been reading your comments.
CURRENT physics. We do not always agree on the construct of life and land, but then if we did, it would be a pretty boring conversation. It has been my observation that current physics is just that, current. They are invented, engineered. I don’t mean the study of physics, but the actual physics that are extant. The speed of light, gravity, how one communicates with your body etc. were designed. Someone or some group decided.
The relations between consciousness and matter could, and have been completely different. I recall a time and place where there was no such thing as light. Vision had nothing to do with receiving particles or signals FROM an object. You looked OUTWARD from yourself to sense and detect the outside world. More akin to sensor beams going out from yourself TO the objects, instead of the other way around. Just a metaphor of course but the point being is that the standard feeling is that things are the way they are and we work within and are bound by that framework.
People ask me “What happens when you die” or “How does a being interact with a body. “How does this work, what happens when…” Well, I can tell them how I’ve been doing it lately or this is the system someone came up with and most everyone has been following it since.
But it doesn’t HAVE to be that way. There doesn’t have to be Ser Facs or overts. Ridges and stuck flows don’t have to exist. Emotions and frequencies don’t have to have any relation. There are no rules laid down by a power above you that you must operate within.
Of course, we are operating within these rules as of right now, and if we want to regain some power of choice over these operations, we need to figure out what they are. The word ‘construct’ implies that it was constructed. That implies an origin and an intent. I am working on regaining and choosing my own intent. Just my viewpoint
Mark
Quote:
Why does a Scientologist always gets personal with ideas, and can’t discuss them for what they are?
Because he thinks he is scientology. If he would deny scientology or have scn questioned, he will be nothing.
Or and all the aberration and BS is still there in side of him. It is the big “withhold”, the big “denied”, the big bad thing that is not looked at.
A form of by passed charge or more accurately by passed “issues”.
The ones they would not tell their auditor.
And can’t deal with, with solo auditing either.
Dio
Thank you Marty. And if I may say he takes up a lot of bandwidth
doing so. Something like 40-50% of all posts to this thread are from Vinaire.
Belongs in the top ten of essays anyone trying make sense of their scientological experiences must read.
IMHO.
😊
The Oracle wrote:
“I am beginning all fanatics are either afflicted with Narcissitic Personality Disorder, (Be just like me! Be just like me! Only my identity is valuable) or, reversly, suffers from lack of success with any other identity or self worth, except their religious one.”
This is a false dilemma. A false dilemma is a type of logical fallacy in which only limited alternatives are presented, when in fact there are many more options.
The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives.
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that “if you are not with us, then you are against us”). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Alanzo
MarkNR said: “They are invented, engineered. I don’t mean the study of physics, but the actual physics that are extant. The speed of light, gravity, how one communicates with your body etc. were designed. Someone or some group decided.”
The study of Physics is basically the study of forms. I would not like to clutter Marty’s Blog any further. So, I shall just put a link to my basic understanding of forms.
.
MarkNR said: “I recall a time and place where there was no such thing as light. Vision had nothing to do with receiving particles or signals FROM an object. You looked OUTWARD from yourself to sense and detect the outside world.”
There no “you” or “I” without awareness whose form is a harmonic of light.
You can rewrite my words anyway you like. My point is, in case I wasn’t clear, and I did try to be gentle so as to not excite you. Is that when you fair game an entire group by category, when you fall along this purpose, you are repeating history. What do you think happened in Nazi Germany? , It is one thing to discuss events and situations and ideas. Things you notice. When you become a hater towards an entire class, and qualify them as ALL as __________, you are wandering into pastures that others have grazed in before you. There is madness that begins once you take to grazing there. It is not true at all that you have not found one single Scientologist willing to discuss your ideas. But your ideas ARE personal. They say something about your purposes towards others. People who choose to hate entire sections of society and work diligently to unmock them have personal agendas. “Let’s kill off all the squirrels” :let’s kill off all the Freezoners” “Let’s kill off all the Scientologists” ..seriously? When there is so much about us we can find to love in our fellow man? That is a situation and it has already been dramatized in Nazi Germany. Pardon me for noticing.
When one feels free to wholly discount the value of another human being based on their religion, or lack of it, one is treading in very murky waters. This is madness and a total departure from humanity. You see this in the fanatics and you see this in the soldiers that group together to destroy entire cultures. It is called ETHNIC CLEANSING.
Oracle, I apologize to you for exciting you so.
To be frank, This blog is the ONLY platform within the “Scientology” experience, between the C of S, and those that have banned together to eradicate all evidence Scientologists, that has NOT snowballed into ethnic cleansing purpose group.
That proves right there that one CAN “notice Scientology”, discuss it, speak of it and exchange ideas, without shape shifting into ethnic cleansing purposes as a mob.
Dio, I really appreciate this post of yours. You have been very candid, and the following has been very insightful.
Although at the same time, you have a lot of good points in your KHTK. But for some reason it makes me not want to know what you know, or not know how you know. It emotes intense aberration, that is infectious. It is like you are right for the wrong reasons.”
This makes me like you. 🙂
Vinny, Hubbard CLEARLY had purposes in ethnic cleansing and wrote freely about them. He attracted some people that had similar purposes.
This restimulated a lot of case in people and they have gone into full blown restimulation and dramatization. Every drop of blood sniffed from their fellow man they can not “cleanse” brings excitement. Look at what the Sea Org has become. An ethnic cleansing unit.
By many of the generalities you write here, you seek to restimulate also, hatred, contempt, and fair gaming invitations towards all Scientologists.
The things is, there a lot of people that have been curious about Scientology that do not have ethnic cleansing goals. And they had no case to restimulate about destroying or wiping out of society various cultures or differing peoples.
But you seem to become dismayed when you put something out there expecting restimulative applause, and get none in return because you have not restimulated others in a purpose to fair game.
Plenty of people have experienced Scientology and not turned evil towards their fellow man. Let’s keep it real.
George, I remember being told about saṃskāra (saṅkhāra) as I was growing up. That word was often used in my Hindu household.
George, the word “Lucifer” was used in the Bible for the Babylonian King under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began. It was used by Isaiah as a taunt after the King died. From the above link
In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the passage in which the phrase “Lucifer” or “morning star” occurs begins with the statement: “On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labour forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!” After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:
“How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?'”
Thus, “Lucifer” was used in reference to an oppressor who was full of ego and self-glory. But even he had to succumb to the laws of nature.
Hubbard was indeed full of himself like the supposed King of Babylon referred to as “Lucifer” by Isaiah.
I have personally never met another human being I could discount in all value, because of their view or aberrations. I have never met another human being that deserved to be fair gamed. I have never met another being that deserved to be kicked out the street or publicly discounted in every way. I have never met another human being that deserves to be a prison system wholly degrading such as the RPF. I have never met another human I would care to slave for me year after after with little or now reward. I have never met another human being that belongs to live in a cage. Humiliating and degrading others is not a solution to any of mankind’s challenges. Everyone is somebodies CHILD. Would you want someone to mistreat your child? Would you want your children seeing your name dragged through the dirt?
People do have the ability to separate and forward valuable information, that may be difficult to digest for some (inconvenient truths), with out targeting the masses. Hubbard, though he became obsessed with ethnic cleansing, and whatever arose from his illness (ptsness) when NOTS was developed, still had value. He was someone’s son, someone’s father, someone husband, and someone’s friend. Anyway, if PTS are to be kept off finance lines, they sure as hell should be kept off research lines wouldn’t you think?
Every human being has the capability of seeing another person’s value or discounting it. This is a an individual choice. And it’s all relative.
Humanity: The virtue, humanity, is a set of strengths focused on “tending and befriending others.” The three strengths associated with humanity are love, kindness, and social intelligence. Humanity differs from justice in that there is a level of altruism towards individuals included in humanity more so than the fairness found in justice. That is, humanity, and the acts of love, altruism, and social intelligence are typically person to person strengths while fairness is generally expanded to all.
All of social intercourse, is person to person, Vinaire. I know there are plenty of groups and corporations people hide behind. There is no such thing as corporate or group intercourse. There is only person to person intercourse. You can pretend to be a corporation, you can pretend to be a group, you can try to hide behind these things, but your fate, karma, destiny and the reality you create for yourself and others, comes from person to person experience.
Not you, or me, or anyone else on this planet, has met person to person every Scientologist. So when you hear things like “Scientology does this” “Scientologists are this” I mean, ????????????
Yes, “The Church” has policies and traditions. That are not beneficial to themselves or anyone else.But every experience you had there was a person to person experience. It was between you, and another person.
Yes, the fanantics have departed from humanity definition. And those blind to humanity will not the person to person experiences for what they were.
But just like OSA had their marching orders to go down into Texas and dabble in the domestic terrorism against Marty and his wife, there is a WHO. That WHO is David Miscavige. That was person to person, he just used minions , and his purpose became their purpose. Do you honestly think if someone hadn’t restimulated the hell out of those people into their purposes to destroy, they would have gone down there for David Miscavige? The purpose of OSA is to key people in when they “make things personal”. The purpose of the Squirrel Busters was to KEY PEOPLE IN.
What is David Miscavige’s big victory this week? Escape from responsibility via corporate red tape! (For today) . Bearing false witness!
You will not see him volunteer anywhere for a “person to person” experience where he will be judged for his humanity. By his fellow man.
So you see, without humanity, Scientology, Christianity, Buddhism and all the rest, mean nothing. You can teach people a lot of things, you can raise them up to notice certain things, but caring about their fellow man, or not, that is a personal choice. So no religion can actually guarantee “salvation”. If your person to person experiences are not backed with the ability to care about the other person, you are going to spin in circles even if someone throws open the pearly gates for you. The most essential part of anyone’s recovery of any abilities, is their own ability to care about mankind, not someone else’s.
And that is the nature of this mirror universe. You reap what you sow. On your person to person adventures. It’s on you in that regard. Your value to yourself is dependent on your value to others, which only matures when you can care about another human being.
I am not having this conversation with you because I am excited. I am having the conversation because I can care about you and others.
Hi George,
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I got a much better understanding of your viewpoint and I can really appreciate it.
Much Metta,
marildi
Vin,
I am glad to have helped you get some insight.
If I can be of any more help, do not hesitate to ask.
🙂
Dio
Mark,
“The relations between consciousness and matter could, and have been completely different. I recall a time and place where there was no such thing as light. Vision had nothing to do with receiving particles or signals FROM an object. You looked OUTWARD from yourself to sense and detect the outside world. More akin to sensor beams going out from yourself TO the objects, instead of the other way around. Just a metaphor of course but the point being is that the standard feeling is that things are the way they are and we work within and are bound by that framework.”
That was a great insight you had.
I think if you deepen it and bring it forward into the present, it will payoff handsomely and the experience will take you were you wan to go.
Best of luck to you.
Slanderer. Marty is not just like you. And if you were “in a fog” that doesn’t mean anyone else was . “Coming out of a fog” implies he is still in one! And discounts his ability to reason. Worse, it is a false report. People go into situations in this world for experience and then step back or step away from them for a review of the experience. That does not mean they are lost in a fog.
You just hope Marty’s blog is up to doing what you say it is time to do, audit Scientology?
You throw down a challenge and then hide behind Marty!
Laughter!
Physics is actually the study of the CHANGE of forms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
More basically, physics is the study of CHANGE.
And just for your information, Int Base IS like the stress and tension capital of the world. I am not even sure what some of those emotions are classified as, even though Hubbard wrote about them 🙂
By the way, Geometry is the study of forms.
Word Clearing has been helpful.
What fanatics have you known that were not narcissistic?
When the customer is always wrong, that is a narcissistic situation.
Thanks for this. Have proceeded in this way myself.
I think that what is going on in this blog is pretty well explained by the theory of GPM.
Marty, money aside, do you feel that NOTs is a waste of time and energy? On re-reading your post several times, I am left with that impression.
Also,I am not sure that we can judge from LRH’s death as he had to be extremely PTS at that time, both from the legal pursuit he feared so much + the close proximity of David Miscavige, a total SP.
Speaking of which, how can one expect anything but destruction from any action taken by DM, an SP of magnitude? That he orders OT 8s to redo the Bridge from the start is yet another example among the endless examples, all fruit from the same tree.
p.s. I thought you and others here might be interested in a recent post on the IST forum. It quotes part of a talk given by David Mayo in which he tells about a dispatch he received from LRH in 1982. From what Mayo states, it would seem that LRH had a very different view of the future than he did in 1980 when the OT VIII bulletin was written. Here is a portion of what was quoted from his talk:
“I received in April 1982 a very significant dispatch from LRH. It was approximately twenty pages long. In it, he described what he anticipated in the future and specifically over the next twenty to twenty five years…
“He said that he’d accomplished what he’d set out to accomplish in this lifetime, which was basically to map out the bridge. He wanted to go on and be able to start a new game. And he also estimated that he would be gone for some time. He didn’t say doing what…
“He asked me basically to look after three things concerning the tech. One was overseeing the quality of delivery of tech by other people and to ensure that high quality delivery continued.
“A second thing was that I was to look over the actual technical materials from time to time, because they would require updating as society changed. And thirdly, at suitable times in the future, I was requested to release the as-yet-unreleased OT levels.
“He made an important point. This was that by the time I and others had gotten up through these levels, we would find that it was possible to continue on with the research ourselves, and that he felt that the future was now secure. He didn’t have to be around forever to continue on mapping the route out. He had done enough. And he therefore felt that he’d fulfilled his goals and what he referred to as his obligations to mankind, and could go and do something else. He did say that he would check back in twenty to twenty-five years to ensure it was all going well.”
http://www.scientology-cult.com/lrhs-legacy.html
Here is the link to the audio recording of the Mayo talk that was quoted:
http://community.freezone-tech.info/david-mayo/1984/02/lrh-final-research/
T.O., my impression is that Vinnie is simply suffering from a serious case of ego. No more sinister than that.
I’d say ego is based on ser facs and MU’s. We all have those afflictions, to one degree or another, and when we get fully free of them we will have arrived. JMO.
vinaire,
Thanks for the excellent reference.
“Thus, “Lucifer” was used in reference to an oppressor who was full of ego and self-glory. But even he had to succumb to the laws of nature.”
You have hit a key point here in regard to “Lucifer”. In the Western tradition, Lucifer is seen as this “person” in opposition to God. There are the legends of the great battle in heaven, of course. Lucifer was picked up by Hubbard as a role model for himself in the OT VIII Student Briefing. Some do not believe that Hubbard ever wrote it so we will leave that issue to the side. If he did write, which I personally believe, he falls into a logical trap because of his shallow understanding of Eastern religion.
Mara, sort of the equivalent of Lucifer in Theravada Buddhism, is an impermanent being subject to the laws of nature. In fact, you could argue that Mara is merely a role model who comes and goes. A large percentage of “impermanent identities” actually hold the post. One of Buddha’s great disciples actually held it at one time.
Hubbard, in my opinion, tried to use these Biblical stories and tried to interweave them into his ideas of implants and space invasions. In the end, the implant that he describes would have been extremely complex to account for different views of Lucifer and Mara. Hubbard gives no hint of an awareness of the more subtle aspects of the actual construction of mental formations and volition. In a sense, he was “culture bound” by his understanding of the Bible and his limited understanding of Buddhism. I think this is why the OT VIII Student Briefing is actually a “creative” document but only in the realm of fiction. It is actually a joy to read from the point of view of mental stimulation and mystery, in my opinion.
The “kicker” is that Hubbard blows up his ego when he proclaims himself as Lucifer. In reality, this is a very, very mundane role in Theravada Buddhism, at the bottom of the scale.
GMW
I guess I’ve just always been quite taken with what LRH expressed in the first few of the Scientology axioms. They just indicated to me, AND I found a very basic truth and beauty in their directness and simplicity of statement. Life (the fundamental life force) is not physical (not existing as a component of time, space, matter, energy – it is of a DIFFERENT QUALITY than the physical) and has the essential qualities of viewpoint and creation. Boom. To me, these ideas are not just simply stated, but are QUITE powerful in the implications that derive from them.
🙂 🙂 🙂
That is Point #2 of the following.
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
.
The first few axioms of Scientology are inconsistent and incomplete.
Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.
Form represents the physical aspect. Essence represents the spiritual aspect. These two aspects seem to be relative and not separate and absolute in themselves.
For a long time space and time were regarded as absolute dimensions in themselves. Newtonian mechanics built on those dimensions has been very successful on a human scale. But, on a cosmic scale, it has been found by science that space and time are relative dimensions.
Similarly, Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.
A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light and essence of awareness.
I must express my respect for Marty for his tolerance. He is less of a scientologist and more of a Buddhist now.
In general scientologists tend to be very intolerant. This observation is supported by statistics about scientologists both in and out of the Church.
.
I understand you.
The Oracle asked:
What fanatics have you known that were not narcissistic?
I recently found a way to describe how language, and labels, help thinking go wrong.
Let’s say that, while walking in the woods one day, you find an animal. This is an animal you have never seen before, and no biologist has ever discovered it or written about it. It is completely unique and different from any other animal ever discovered.
But it’s hungry, sitting there in your kitchen, looking up at you expectantly, and because you don’t know what kind of an animal it is, you don’t know what to feed it. You talk to the animal, asking it what it eats, but it does nothing but keep wagging its flipper whenever you say something directly to it.
So you decide the animal is a dog.
Having made that particular decision, you now have very specific next steps which follow from that decision. What does a dog eat? Dog food. So now you go to the store to buy dog food to feed it. You put a collar on the animal and take it for walks.
Having decided that the animal was a dog, you now behave toward it, and think about it, as a dog.
But it’s not a dog. You’ve just decided that it is.
Alanzo
Claire wrote:
“Also,I am not sure that we can judge from LRH’s death as he had to be extremely PTS at that time, both from the legal pursuit he feared so much + the close proximity of David Miscavige, a total SP.”
There are other ways way to think about this.
When you use Scientology tech like “SP” and “PTS”, then you can only conclude as you have here, and you can not actually see what is there well enough to understand it, and to understand it well enough to free yourself from Scientology’s hold on your thinking.
You can not use Scientology to understand Scientology.
You have to step outside of thinking with Scientology concepts to understand what happened to LRH at the end of his life, and to understand what DM, and Scientology, actually are. If you keep trying to use Scientology to understand Scientology, you will never end up understanding Scientology.
If Scientology really is what it says it is, then adopting other outside viewpoints to understand Scientology will pose no danger to your understanding of Scientology. No matter what viewpoint you take, Scientology will always end up being what it is.
So what if LRH was not “PTS”, but suffered from dementia and depression, and as you said, paralyzing fear of going to prison as the feds closed in on him for the crimes he had committed in Operation Snow White?
And what if DM is not an “SP” but just a Scientologist, LRH’s authoritarian predecessor, who is trying to apply the contradictory mess that is Scientology to keep his stats up, and to remain in the catbird’s seat with billions at his disposal?
What if you looked at it like this?
It would be much simpler, and it would all make a lot more sense. But it would mean that the tech did not work on LRH, nor did it work on DM, and there is no such thing as an OT, or a Clear, as LRH defined them.
So too few Scientologists want to think of these things this way – because of the consequences to their own beliefs as a Scientologist, and their sunk costs in Scientology.
Alanzo
“All religions are equally false and equally true, depending on how you use them.
You can use them in the service of the ego, or you can us them in the service of the Truth.
If you believe only your religion is Truth, you are using it in the service of the ego.
Used in such a way…religion becomes ideology and creates an illusory sense of superiority as well as division and conflict between people.
In the service of the Truth, religious teachings represent signposts or maps left behind by awakened humans to assist you in spiritual awakening”
Eckhart Tolle
A New Earth
A true truth seeker should never use limiting labels. He should never aspire to one religion or faith or what ever you want to call it.
Because no one religion ( or what ever you want to call them) contains all the truth. The complete truth that is available to man is scattered or laced throughout all of them. A piece here, a piece there. Some have more than others.
If you take on a limiting label, you limit yourself.
Just be an intelligent responsible, unlimited free spirit, or something like that.
Dio
This is an excellent quote.
It might be simpler, but I don’t think it would be accurate.
*sigh of relief*
That is Point #2 of the following.
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
My criterion for spiritual maturity is tolerance.
Point #2: is “Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion.”
First of all, Vin, “the” discussion policy is yours. It isn’t necessarily agreed to by others. Besides, I WAS responding to “the data being presented” – which was, focusing on you as a participant. And I was disagreeing with the strong words being used. Did you duplicate that?
Claire wrote:
It might be simpler, but I don’t think it would be accurate.
All right then. Let’s go ahead and use Scientology to try to figure out what happened to Hubbard at the end of his life, and to understand DM. But let’s not stop before inspecting all the consequences.
You used this Scientology-based explanation:
“Also,I am not sure that we can judge from LRH’s death as he had to be extremely PTS at that time, both from the legal pursuit he feared so much + the close proximity of David Miscavige, a total SP.”
Using Scientology to think with this, how could L Ron Hubbard, the creator of all the tech on ethics and handling PTSes & SPs, end up PTS to a kid, more than 50 years his junior, in his early 20s? Would that not suggest that the tech on PTSes and SPs did not work on L Ron Hubbard?
And also, using Scientology to think with this, you have DM, a major SP, right under the nose of LRH, who developed the SP Detection and Routing Tech. And LRH could not spot DM as an SP and actually entrusted so much in Scientology to him?
This is also suggests that the tech did not work at all in this situation.
And then since Hubbard’s death, a real live SP has been running Scientology without anyone ever spotting and handling him for 34 years.
This is proof that Scientology did not work. The ethics tech, the admin tech on SPs and the Adminstrator, the PTS SP detection and Routing tech, all kinds of auditing tech – did not work in the hands of the most trained and experienced people in Scientology on Earth.
So if you use Scientology to try to understand this, it’s even worse. Although most Scientologists stop thinking before allowing themselves to see the consequences of understanding this with Scientology.
So if you use Scientology it is much more complex and it leads to endless excuses and justifications, and contradictions.
If you don’t use Scientology and it is simpler and much more easily understood.
In both cases, though, the tech is found not to have worked in a very big way.
This kind of thinking – using different viewpoints and trying them out to see what’s there – is an important critical thinking skill. Sometimes a Scientologist uses Scientology to think with without really knowing they are using Scientology to think with. This can lead to fixed ideas as uninspected considerations.
Right?
Alanzo
When you are personally targeted because all you did was propose an idea for discussion, or commented on somebody else’s proposed idea, then you know that you are looking at intolerance and spiritual immaturity. Such people won’t ignore you. They would attack you.
People who discuss spirituality and knowledge should be tolerant.
Why are you so certain that “a spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle”?
Again you are focusing on me. You are refusing to discuss data presented in the discussion policy by saying that it is written by me and that there is disagreement with it. To me discussion is much more than a simple expression of disagreement. Actually discussion starts from a point of disagreement.
Do you believe in absolutes?
I do not believe that there is absolute spirituality or absolute physicality.
Vinaire: “You are refusing to discuss data presented in the discussion policy by saying that it is written by me and that there is disagreement with it.”
Are we now focusing on me? You are in violation of “discussion policy.”
And besides, we weren’t ever discussing “data presented in the discussion policy” – you are changing the subject (otherwise known as Q&A or Red Herring). What we were discussing was your notion that I was violating point #2. IMO, you should apply some mindfulness to all this.
Al,, there is more than one possibility. For instance, LRH may have been well aware of DM’s character, and chose him, (to whatever extent he did ‘choose’ him), precisely because some of the traits he saw in him. LRH might have felt that DM would fit the script. After all, the CoS is only one part, one segment, of the entirety of Scientology. There is a lot more to Scientology, than the CoS. And we know that going way back to John McMaster’s time, LRH fudged or twisted the SP/PTS tech for his own purposes.
Well, a person has to be very careful and vigilant with “tolerance”.
Every situation has to be evaluated in it’s own merits.
There is a right way and wrong way to do just about everything.
And many people have ulterior or covert motives.
Tolerance with all kinds of BS has got this world into the problems we have today. Look it has been getting increasingly dangerous to go to a mall and now since the downing of ML17, to fly.
Freedoms, liberties, democracy and rights can only be given to the sane and responsible.
My safety trumps the freedoms of lunatics and other lower life forms by far.
Dio
Some people feel it is wise, in considering data, to “consider the source” as part of the evaluation. As far as “focusing on you, Vinaire”, it appears that in “focusing on you”, no-one does so more than you yourself do. I seem to recall you running aground on another blog because the proprietor felt you were engaging in excessive self-promotion with torrents of links to your own blog.
As far as “willingness to discuss”, I have posted a view in response to a claim of yours several times, with supporting links/quotes, to which you have not bothered to dicuss/respond. Instead you typically just go off and change the subject. When you do respond, it’s often with another link to your own KHTK blog, as though the issue in question is covered there – which it often isn’t. This approach seems to me to be a copy of the Church’s rote “What does the material state?” Except I do not accept your blog articles as some sort of “ultimate” truth I am studying; too much of what you have written I find incomprehensible, and other statements seem erroneous to me. When I point those out, is when you toddle off and change the subject instead of discussing points I bring up. When you are challenged or disagreed with, you whine about how people are acting like “invalidative scientologists” towards you.
I think many people would be only too glad to discuss the actual content of your posts; YOU are the one who runs away from doing so when disagreed with or presented with contrary data.
So there you go, answering a question with a question. You must think you are wise as Socrates, eh? Why didn’t you just answer Joe’s question? NOw you wil do what – accuse others of “not being willing to dicuss without getting personal”? You are the one who seems unwilling to discuss, by answering the question with a question!
The discussion policy measures tolerance on forums like this quite well. Tolerant people assess the ideas being advanced. Intolerant people jusp the gun and target the other person, instead of assessing the ideas.
Yes, tolerance is a big part of assessing the situation.
Hi marildi,
This is typical Mayo and does not sound at all like LRH. It is difficult to accept.
MM,
G
You may be right, George. But I’ve read various pros and cons about Mayo and I’m pretty convinced he was generally on the up and up. Can you tell me what you mean when you say “typical Mayo”?
MM,
M.
It is sometimes very necessary to target the person, if he is insane.
Many diabolical insane use their freedom of religion and freedoms of speech, etc. as a cover to deliver sinister ambitions.
Fools confound the wise.
Nut cases take advantage of any weakness in a system.
Dio
Excellent comment, Dio.
To paraphrase LRH (he did have some good points in his day)
“It’s fine to be open minded, as long as that openness doesn’t consist mainly of holes in your head.”
Mpst everything is gradient, but some things are just right or wrong. Mostly right or mostly wrong for those ‘no absolutes’ types.
One mans ‘stubborn and pig headed’ is another mans ‘decisive and responsible’.
Mark
Typo”
MOST everything is gradient,…..
Mark
Thank You for the Ack., Conan.
And, yes, I have gone much deeper. And, thanks to Dio. I have rekindled my purpose to assist others. I will begin auditing and training my younger brother and the sauna for my spouse will soon be done. (Psych drug history)
I do not recommend the Purif for everyone, but for some it is indicated. Both with the purpose of assisting them on their own path.
Telling others on this and other sites of my findings is enjoyable but it is time to do more.
By the way, I am still working on that ‘Self Righteous’ area, so if I post something a little odd, please forgive me. I may be in the middle of something. There is a LOT OF STUFF attached to this area.
ARCL, Mark
Oracle, Vinaire.
Please forgive my wording on ‘Current Physics’. I was using my own definition of “The way things physically are” rather than the study of the nature of things or more recently the science of matter and forces.
It’s not enough that I know what I’m talking about, if I’m going to talk to someone else, I need to ensure that I’m using definitions that are common between us. Duplicatable communication.
Mark
ALONZO.
What a very important post!!!
The false dilemma is a commonly used tool in arguments and often in an effort to control a situation. OFTEN BARELY CONSCIOUS BY THE USER.
I find it is most commonly used by parents on their children. “Do you want to clean up that mess or do you want a whippin’.” It then becomes a habit, due to restimulating past incidents when it was used on them and when they used it on others. Of course it all relates back to leverage and control, due to a failure to control in a better manner.
Thank you.
Mark
Not in a proper discussion.
I don’t know about your experience, but harmonics and light were later on my track.
Mark
George.
As in “Stranger in a Strange Land”, does learning the language (Martian) impart it’s own wisdom? The flavor of a language can sway and deliver the tone of it’s speakers.
Mark
Val, Vin.
The purpose of my work is to un-fix me from the past. It seems to be working so far. If I should snap or cave in, you, my friends, will be the first to know. Wish me luck.
Mark
HEY MARILDI!
You have beaten me up so many times you make me want to run and hide behind my Mommy!
But I found something better.
This is for you:
http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/beware-the-fallacy-bully/
HA!
Alanzo
Good evening Marildi, Maurice.
Amnesia on the whole track. OT8 is uniquely addressed to the individual. Hmmm.
I would love to see the original versions of this level along with C/S instructions and LRH’s personal notes.
For the tens of thousands of whole track moments and actions I have examined, and their connections and relations with following and previous experiences, there are still large stretches of track that are totally blank to me. And I am not talking about an agreed rate of time, but my linear track. About 2/3s of the way through the games universe era and the 2nd universe before this one are almost completely missing. Just a few unrelated bits and pieces. Unclear thoughts and ‘feelings’.
I have a ‘feeling’ that some relevant, some pivotal happenings occurred, but they haven’t come to light. There are several other shorter blank spots. Some times when I didn’t want to be me.
Curious.
I never thought it would resolve in a day. Got a little work to do. Ron’s work and the work of others is helpful but incomplete. There are some things there, but I just cannot put my finger on them.
Hmmmm.
No worries, it’ll come, and will be just as surprising as everything else.
Mark
It is outrageous that a church is allowed to carry on this way and parade around as a church, and all the people out there that will benefit knowing how not to believe all the lies church members tell. Outright outrageous! 🙂
Even Class XII auditors have marched out of the church and never gone back.
That’s FUNNY!
But most of it reminded me of…guess who? 😀
Hint: he’s always bringing up the subject of critical thinking. 😛
George.
I’m looking over Theravada Buddhism now.
Mark
Thanks for the attention, Brian.
BTs is an area that I have only a little experience with. I have gone over past incidents and thoughts, emotions that I shortly recognized as not specifically my own. I could see how following this line unknowingly could lead one down a sea of spaghetti. BPC and overwhelm could become intolerable.
So far it hasn’t become a source of turbulence. There have been just a few times when I was able to use this phenomenon to look down another’s track to discover some data which made a situation clear. I’d really like to expand on that ability. So many confusions would come clear.
Beyond that, I suspect that the value of data will fall to knowingness. Just a thought. It will come in it’s time. No Prob. Life is good, the moment is sweet.
Mark.
Very well put Marty. A whole life toiling in blood sweat and tears and sacrifying everything else in life to end up in the middle of a bridge to nowhere.
Spotting an SP can be difficult (can attest from personal experience) especially if one is distracted.. They often hide behind a “theta” smokescreen. Age has nothing to do with it. Also one’s own O/Ws can impede one’s vision.
Re Operation Snow White– please note Way to Happiness #9 “Don’t do anything illegal” ” …When one does something illegal, small or large, one is laid open to an attack by the state…” If only the GO and/or Mary Sue and Ron had read that over a bit more thoroughly.
One does need to apply these tools. They will not do the work by themselves..
Yes, it is dismal. Alanzo, and hard to confront.
This does not mean that Ron’s contributions are not important and real, just that he was flawed (as many great men have been)..
Statpush.
DM and his closest allies have no reason to change direction and change their ways. They are rich, powerful and in control. The foibles of the church are enough randomity, action, to make life exciting.
Why should they change. Everything is perfect. To affect a change would require force from outside the inner circle.
“Auditors unite, you have nothing to lose but your certs.” (Anyone know the source of this phrase?)
Mark
I prefer to decide for myself what to avoid.
What fanatics have you known that were not narcissistic?
Reality is what it is. I am focusing on reducing my conditioning so I can more clearly see the nature of this reality.
At the root of my beingness is awareness. I see awareness having a form of light.
Here’s another interesting TED Talk…seems to be a talk about slime mold but in looking beyond the slime, I believe this is really a talk about that ineffable abstract ‘consciousness.’
So “self-determinism” does not necessary mean that the person is truly self-determined. He is determined by his filters but he does not know it.
When there is a disagreement between two people, we do not know whose filters are creating the inconsistency. The solution is for both of them to work together without bringing in their ego to resolve the inconsistency. The discussion policy is designed to make this happen.
If one of them is resisting to apply the discussion policy then it is very likely that the filter creating the inconsistency belongs to that person.
Monte –
Thanks for that one.
I have one for you too.
Here’s an interesting exchange about consciousness on a skeptic’s blog. Deepak Chopra apparently issued a James Randi-type challenge to the “brain theory boys” to provide their evidence that explains their version of the nature of consciousness.
Hilarity and hijinks ensues:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/deepak-challenge-to-skeptics/
I like these exchanges because it points out the issues as they presently exist. And they keep my reasoning challenged. I very much want consciousness to be non-material and spirit-like. That does not mean that it is.
A key fundamental in critical thinking that I just learned recently is that one must always strive to present, and to seek out and examine, the positive evidence in support of a claim.
You can get lost in all kinds of other arguments and side-tracks. But when you start focusing on positive evidence in support of a claim, it generates a whole new level of productive thinking about these topics.
I think so, at least.
Alanzo
Slime mold seems to be conscious – with no brain or neurological system.
The same thing happens with plant and tree root systems underground in search of water.
I wonder how Dr. Steven Novella explains that!
Alanzo
Claire wrote:
“Spotting an SP can be difficult (can attest from personal experience) especially if one is distracted.. They often hide behind a “theta” smokescreen. Age has nothing to do with it. Also one’s own O/Ws can impede one’s vision.”
And yet all the tech such as correction lists, administrative obnosis, Qual, stats and conditions, study tech, are all supposed to handle these problems, and they didn’t. And we’re talking long term failures here. In LRH’s case, at least 7 years of never spotting DM as an SP, despite working very closely with him.
And in the case of everyone else in Scientology – all the highest trained tech and ethics and admin people in all of Scientology – 34 years of not spotting and handling him. And actually letting him run all of Scientology as the COB!
There is something fundamentally wrong here, don’t you think?
LRH wrote about justifications as ways of not looking at something. And in the case of too many Scientologists, these excuses and justifications for this colossal, long term failure of the tech act as blinders and thought-stoppers, which do not allow continued thinking about this major situation. It seems that too many scientologists just stop at the excuses, and don’t continue to investigate.
“This does not mean that Ron’s contributions are not important and real, just that he was flawed (as many great men have been).”
No, it does not mean that.
It means that huge areas of ethics, tech, and admin which are all designed to spot and handle this situation above all, did not work. And we are talking decades of these huge areas of Scientology not working in the hands of the Scientologists who had the most training and experience any where in the world – and in areas totally under the control of Scientology. This all happened in environments dedicated to get the tech of Scientology applied.
A person has to step back and take a look at this.
How can anyone say that Scientology tech works at all if this can happen?
Why doesn’t this situation cause more Scientologists to question Scientology itself?
Alanzo
That mantra has long since gotten old. You’ve reiterated that to the point of perseveration over these past couple of years! How about taking the next step, to the observation that there are degrees of awareness and unawareness….. 🙂
ARC! 🙂
Also Al, you are assuming, or jumping top the conclusion that, “the tech did not work”. How do you know it was applied? As I posted above, LRH may not have applied it to that situation. Or, he may have known what was happening and had decided for reasons of his own to let “nature take its course”…..
“Spiritual or physical” seems to me a “false dilemma” or false dichotomy. There could be a third vector, or more than one, beyond those two. Certainly in many schools of a vedic background, there is.
That really is part of the essence of what Ouspensky taught. I think you would like “The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution”. It backs up some of the things you say.
Hi Mark,
It sounds like you’re doing fine, with or without the C/S instructions or LRH’s notes. Also, If you want to see what the original OT VIII students were studying, take a look at the May 5, 1980 “Student Briefing” issue.
Mark, if you know the exact words of some writing or talk, you can google them with quotation marks and often find that someone has quoted them and given the source. I did that with your quote and found the following, posted by Terril Park. It is very fitting!
“We in Scientology could put together a group strong enough to run over everything it came to. But then someday, when I and others are gone, it would have to be overthrown and the cry will be ‘Auditors of the World Unite, you have nothing to loose but your certs.'”.
– From LRH Tape lecture 15 of the “Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress” titled “What Scientology is doing” given on June 6, 1955.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?20975-Does-the-Freezone-help-in-dismantling-the-CofS/page11
You keep summing up with, “the tech did not work”. However the content of your post seems to be “Why was the tech not applied?” Obviously it will not work if it is not appied or if it is used inappropriately.
We’re taking about ‘politics’ here, political maneuvering. There were in fact scintologists who did spot DM long ago. Jon Atack was one of them, who along with Bill Robertson and some others in Europe Comm Eved DM in 1984 and Declared him a Suppressive Person. DM did not show up for the Comm Ev. He had his power base and cronies in the USA, including LRH, who evidently was “pleased” with Miscavige’s performance during the ‘mission massacre’. This lends support to the idea that LRH knew what he was doing and selected Miscavige to play this role, for reasons of his own.
Here is the link:
http://www.scientology-cult.com/1984-sp-declare-on-david-miscavige.html
This Declare is very detailed and to this day seems to describe DM’s actions very accurately.
I disagree. It seems clear to me that one who needs a ‘discussion policy’ to communicate with others is himself using filters. The policy itself is a filter or set of filters.
One is not using Discussion Policy to communicate. Discussion simply lays down a discipline.
Val, you have been on a roll on this thread! One of your best ever. I really appreciate all the pertinent information you supply. On top of it, your ability to spot and articulate the outpoints in some of the comments has been refreshing, to say the least. 🙂
An exchange is always unproductive when it gets personal. I prefer to end it right away.
I suppose it depends on what the ‘product’ is, that you are looking to have. What would that be, in this case?
However, I do see how your Discussion Policy is in accord with the Code of Honor: “Neither give nor receive communication unless you yourself desire it.”
But, it is obviously all about Communication, Control of.
Thanks mar. Just shootin’ from the lip as usual. Here’s a song for Vinnie. I just watched this movie on HBO, and this song came up during the ending credits, just as I wrote the last post:
This video link really should appear after my last 2 posts to Vinnie, below.
Here is my hypothesis on the nature of consciousness.
With awareness there is perception. The perception is followed by recognition of awareness. Awareness, by its very nature, then perceives, and the cycle continues. Thus awareness as a disturbance is an oscillation between perceiving and recognizing.
Awareness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.
In the beginning there is only awareness. Since there is nothing else to be aware of, there is simply self-awareness. This is consciousness.
The fundamental awareness is consciousness.
Fundamentally, it is the desire to know that disturbs the ground state. This disturbance then reinforces itself. In other words, the desire to know arises as awareness. This desire gets stronger with awareness. As this desire gets stronger the awareness develops as consciousness.
The desire to know pushes the consciousness forward.
Consciousness is a very raw form of awareness. It develops into more complex forms, such as, the properties of inanimate matter, minerals, plants, animals and humans. Thus, every part of existence has the property of consciousness. All things are conscious to some degree if only as the properties they display.
Consciousness is the fundamental property of all existence.
Consciousness, being an oscillation, has a certain frequency. Thus consciousness spreads as a wave with certain wavelength and period.
Consciousness has a frequency, wave-length and period.
Since consciousness is an oscillation, there is some justification in making an association between consciousness and light, which is also a fundamental oscillation. It appears that this association is intuitive and it has existed since ancient times. Thus, we may assume consciousness to have the form of light and the essence of awareness.
The physical form of consciousness is light, and its spiritual essence is awareness.
Form represents the physical aspect. Essence represents the spiritual aspect. These two aspects seem to be relative and not separate and absolute in themselves.
For a long time space and time were regarded as absolute dimensions in themselves. Newtonian mechanics built on those dimensions has been very successful on a human scale. But, on a cosmic scale, it has been found by science that space and time are relative dimensions.
Similarly, Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.
A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light and essence of awareness.
Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.
.http://vinaire.me/2014/07/14/the-nature-of-consciousness/
.
Obviously it will not work if it is not appied or if it is used inappropriately.
The above statement assumes that Scientology always works when applied. I don’t see any evidence of that.
Valkov, this is all an speculation on your part based on the assumption that Scientology tech always works when applied.
Valkov, please keep to the topic of workability of Scientology Tech in this discussion and try not to get personal.
Nobody can answer a question completely for another. To get an answer a person has to look by himself.
So, what is it?
The workability of Scientology is a sensitive topic with scientologists. They always assume that Scientology Tech works 100% of the time. If there is any unworkability they blame it on the practitioner that he applied Scientology incorrectly, or did not apply it at all.
So, all the logic of a scientologist is based on the faith, “Scientology Tech works 100% of the time when applied.” It is like assuming a hypothesis to be true before it is fully tested.
.
Getting personal always derail the actual discussion.
My pursuit is scientific. It is solving the puzzle of this universe from a mindful and scientific approach. It does require discipline over communication as I have only a limited number of years to live. I have to focus on the product I desire, which is to present Buddha’s thesis as a scientific theory.
My inspiration has come from Hubbard, of course. 🙂
The following discussion policy takes away the power of scientologists to enturbulate others.
Discussions and what needs to be avoided
.
Val,
Thanks for posting that song.
It is less than once in a blue moon that I come across a song that is worthwhile listening too, and this was one.
I just adopted it as my theme song.
Dio
Faulty logic. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
That is exactly what I am doing. I don’t know what you are doing, however. That is not the topic of this discussion as far as I’m concerned. Al’s post does not define this discussion as being about that. It is a possibly false conclusion he has stated, that he is either presenting for our inspection, or, possibly, trying to lead others to. My personal feeling is the latter – that he is starting from the ‘conclusion’, then trying to ‘reason’ backwards to ‘prove’ it. The facts could be accounted for in other ways,
and he has failed to include all the facts.
Anyway, why don’t you let him speak for himself? Sometimes you two appear to be operating by tacit consent. Whenever I disagree with Al, you jump in with some personal criticism of me….. 🙂
My post stands. What you have posted here is your speculation which is based on a false assumption about my assumption. My speculation could be true without regard for whether or not I believed that. One does not necessarily follow from the other. That’s elementary logic 101.
Why don’t you address the actual content of my posts, instead of rambling off into generalities like “Scientolopists always…..” this or that.
If you addressed the specifics of my posts, as I do with your posts and Al’s, why, we might actually be having a discussion!
I personally haven’t a clue, as to whether “Scientology works 100% of the time when applied”. I doubt LRH ever said that, actually. However I can sometimes spot fallacious logic. Hopefully this blog is helping you find your “held down 7s”, such as your generalities about Scientologists, among other things, such as about Eastern vs. Western culture, etc etc.
That IS funny and very……. “salient” (?) Nice post Al.
Who said anything about “answering a question for another”? Not me. How about simply answering the question for yourself?
Many schools of thought are “trinitarian” – they postulate triads of forces or vectors involved in the evolution of reality. Even LRH spoke of this – that it is more than a “two terminal universe” – that a third factor must exist to maintain space between the terminals, otherwise terminals would simply collapse. What holds terminals apart?
In Hindu and Buddhist thinking there is the concept of an ‘absolute’ completely apart fom the physical world and universe(s), between which is a mediating level of “soul”. So actually the concept is of Spirit, Soul, and Matter(MEST). Actually, this conception exists in Christian thinking also, as well as in Scientology.
Thanks Dio! I hadn’t even known that Jeff Bridges was a Country and Western singer/songwriter, until I watched this movie and heard the song at the end. He’s got several songs up on Youtube. The movie is very entertaining. Mary-Louis Parker has big part in it and she is great! I wasn’t much aware of her until recently, but she is a terrific comedienne.
“Hopefully this blog is helping you find your “held down 7s”, such as your generalities about Scientologists…”
+1
And yes, the logic is fallacious.
Why thank you, Maurice.
I have gone over the briefing and other writings I have found published here and there.
I was looking for more specific pieces of tech.
Fictitious example:
If one looks at an incident and he finds an earlier incident but has a feeling there is an incident in between that has important data, he should:
Create an energy line between the two pictures. Climb onto the energy line with your theta hands, reach down with your left hand and grab the needed picture, put it in your left pocket. Climb back down, find an unenturbulated spot and lay the picture out on the ground. Look over the pictures and find the missing data. If the data doesn’t come up, rub the picture until it expands and other data comes to view. If there is some confusion remaining, stick the confused picture on your forehead until it sinks in. A repair could be developed when steps are missed or done out of order.
Silly of course, but specific procedures which have been found to be workable on a broad scale would be helpful.
Mark
In the case of DM, I think many many people applied the Ethics tech as given: When yu’re connected to an SP and perceive that yo are PTS, “handle or disconnect”. Tons of people disconnected, per this advice. Take yourself, for example. You have diconnected. Why didn’t ypu ‘handle’? Why didn’t you start with your local area, and handle counterintentions, one by one, working your way all the way up to DM, and giving him the boot? After all, according to you, the tech was available…… to you as well as to everyone else.
I think you can answer your own question.
Well, there seem to be a ground state that underlies physical and spiritual but it is unknowable. The physical and spiritual in this universe are not absolutes in themselves as far as I can determine.
Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.
The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.
The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.
Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state, which is unknowable.
.
The idea of self exists throughout the spectrum of life. There is mineral self, plant self, the animal self, and the human self. Thus self is relative. The absolute Self of the Vedas is arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” (not this, not that). It leads to the same ground state described above.
The concepts of “Brahma” in Hinduism and “Nirvana” in Buddhism are based on this ground state. “Mahamudra” of Tantra is an attempt to describe this ground state.
The ultimate Self of Vedas arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” is the same ground state.
.
The God of Abrahamic religions is defined as the Creator of the world. Thus defined, God is relative to the ground state because the ground state has no definition.
The Static of Scientology is defined as uncaused cause that can postulate and perceive. Thus defined, Static is relative to the ground state.
The concepts of God of Abrahamic religions and the Static of Scientology are relative to this ground state.
.
In the numbering system, zero is the absence of counting numbers. It then becomes the reference point of all numbers whether positive or negative, rational or irrational, real or imaginary.
Similarly, the ground state is an absence of awareness. It then becomes the reference point of anything that one can be aware of, whether potential or actual, real or imaginary, etc. All awareness, therefore, is relative. No awareness is absolute.
All awareness and definition is relative to the ground state. There is no absolute awareness or definition.
There is no bottom to the rabbit hole.
I don’t believe in any absolutes.
What is the point of discussion here from your point of view?
It appears that what is under question is the 100% workability of Scientology.
Scientologists seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that Scientology is 100% workable, They believe that all research in Scientology has been completed, and a person simply needs to apply it correctly. This belief is what Alanzo is questioning.
From the reports available, LRH did not die in a good condition. According to Alanzo this proves that Scientology is not 100% workable, because, if the tech worked, its source, L. Ron Hubbard should have continued peacefully in a good mental condition.
Let’s see if this discussion can continue with the discipline required by the discussion policy.
Thank You once again Marildi.
LRH, for all his perceived errors and perhaps misdirection, has proven himself to be a man of singular insight. All the decay experienced in the church was predicted by Ron, whether he was the source or not. To realize this requires a quantity of study with an outsider attitude. Only then can one separate the wheat from the chaff. This, coupled with honest experience will produce an insight of your own.
The opinions I express are my own. Not those of Ron or Marty or Vinaire or my Dad or Lao Tsu. They are from my study, work, and experience. I am increasingly the source of my own thoughts.
Mark
Vinaire
“At the root of my beingness is awareness. I see awareness having a form of light.
Mark
“At the root of my beingness is awareness. I see light as a product of awareness.”
Not to make you right or wrong, just looking at the elephant from different positions. I consider all your comments and articles. If you find anything of value in mine, let me know.
Mark
Conan, Vin, Marildi, Val, Brian. Marty, TO, AL, Dio, all you friends.
Many of my comments may sound like imaginations, rambling, bragging, confusion, etc. But there is a purpose.
To stimulate. Whether to jog an old memory, or to spark a disagreement that brings some understanding, or to cause someone to say “Hmmm, that’s not how it happened to me”, or just to trigger some thought you have never had before.
In agreement and disagreement alike there is looking. Never stop looking. Disagree with me, please. Every thought creates a spark, and it is the sparks which brings forth the light.
Mark
Mark,
It is not a matter of yours or mine. To me it is the matter of the starting postulate of Scientology.
Any philosophy is based on some starting postulate. The starting postulate of Scientology is Axiom #1. I find Axiom #1 limited compared to the starting postulate of ‘neti, neti.’ To me that is the bottom line. It explains the limitation that Scientology has run into, though it contains many brilliant advances.
As long as Scientology Axiom #1 is being used as an absolute, one cannot improve upon Scientology, which I suppose you are trying to do. An analysis of the starting postulate is documented at various places on my blog. The following is the latest.summation.
.
The Scientologist seems to be saying that Scientology has something fanatstic and new to offer because it has helped him or her open doors to new realizations.
The critic seems to be saying that Scientology is not so perfect as it appears, and that there are deceptions built into it and one should better be very careful.
Both are correct, but both are generalizing. Both are not being specific enough.
My reading is that Scientology contains many brilliant advances, but it is limited by its starting postulate of Axiom #1 that is deceptively attractive to the ego and does not lead to enlightement.
We can discuss this because it is a very specific point.
From the above post, the topic of discussion that emerges is,
Does Scientology Axiom 1 enlightens or does it set a trap?
.
Good mornin’ to ya there, Vin.
Perhaps you would enjoy my latest comment this morning. It doesn’t agree with your views, but it does explain my observations quite clearly. You may find it entertaining as well. Maybe you will recognize a bit of truth in it as I have recognized truths in your work .
As for your entire direction of logic following the disturbance of a ground state, I have not yet seen it. My thinking is a bit Newtonian. But the day is young, many things left to examine. Wish me luck.
Mark
Vinaire.
My article this morning explains MY starting point, postulates, as I have observed them. It is of course incomplete but coming along. It would not bother me a bit to completely change my views if new information comes to light.
Observation of past occurrences are easy. Evaluation of intentions is a bit tougher. The reason for the occurrences does not always expose itself, but with a little digging, it comes clear.
The best spiritual process I have found so far is work.
Mark
Vinaire.
I do have a bit of a problem with Axiom #7 & 8.
“Axiom 7: Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist.
Axiom 8: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.
To me, these axioms only give an insight on how one aligns himself with particles and space. This is further laid out in articles I have posted here in the last few months.
“To the individual who came up with the idea of ‘Not-Ising’ in order to produce endurance, I’d like to give him a piece of my mind.” MNR
Mark
Axiom #1 and those that follow give one the idea that the possibilities and ones potential is absolutely unlimited. They may or may not be accurate, but were written in a way which is very enticing.
They are a draw. The axioms, more than anything else kept many going when times were bad and gains were few. The possibilities that were realized in the past and reached for in the future.
Mark
Underlying the controversy of Scientology lie the following assertions:
The Scientologists seems to be arguing that Scientology is 100% workable, and that failures occur only when it is not applied correctly. To them Scientology is the end of all earlier searches and that its scriptures are not open to being questioned in any way. The individual scientologist believes this because, for him or her, Scientology has opened doors to new realizations in a short amount of time. A Scientologist, therefore, defends his faith against all critics very aggressively.
The critics of Scientology, who are mostly ex-Scientologists, seems to be arguing that Scientology is not so perfect as it is made to appear, and that there are deceptions built into it. They warn that one should better be very careful of these deceptions. They say that Scientology has hounded and intimidated it critics into silence until the Internet came along. But Internet is now revealing the harmful influence of Scientology in terms of conditioning of its members and the breakup of their families.
There is some truth that underlies both the beneficial and harmful aspects of Scientology. I have intimately experienced both aspects. This essay points to an ideological underpinning of Scientology that may be the source of both beneficial and harmful aspects that are presenting Scientology in a controversial light.
.
There is no doubt in my mind about the beneficial aspects of Scientology. I don’t have to go into any more details than to relate my earlier experience that pulled me out of a very desperate situation. I have documented that experience in My Introduction to America on my blog.
But I ended up leaving Scientology after an intimate experience with its behind the scene operations. I did spend about 3 years from 1972 to 1975 working closely with L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, on his Flagship Apollo that sailed international waters. I was involved directly with the international management of Scientology for a while.
What did not make sense to me was the inconsistency between the technology of Scientology and its administration; the presentation of a façade of scientific research that hid untested assumptions; the sweeping of its failures under a carpet of massive public relations; and the intimidation of its critics into submission and silence. What is there for Scientology to hide if it is producing such wonderful results on a daily basis? What underlies those hidden failures of its technology that Scientology is trying to hide so desperately?
The secretive aspect of Scientology is easy to understand from a business perspective. Scientology is an American phenomenon and it functions the way corporate America functions. Scientology is so very successful in the American way. It has amassed billions of dollars in a very short time. It may be compared to the Catholic Church in terms of that success. But to my Eastern way of thinking this is not a success that can be aligned with spiritual enlightenment that a religion supposedly promises.
This whole blog has been a search for inconsistency that seems to be the key to the understanding of this controversy highlighted by Scientology, and which somehow has danced around the periphery of my consciousness. That inconsistency seems to represent something much bigger than Scientology. Scientology just happens to be the latest “religion” that highlights it.
.
Any philosophy is based on some starting postulate. The starting postulate of Scientology is Axiom #1, which puts words to something that has been taken as an absolute truth in the Abrahamic religions.
AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
In other words, the basis of all life and this universe is an Uncaused Cause that can postulate and perceive. Scientology brings this postulate down from the level of God to a personal level.
My reading is that Scientology contains many brilliant advances. Its starting postulate as above is, however, deceptively attractive to the ego while it does not lead to enlightenment.
So a very potent topic of discussion surfaces as,
Does Scientology Axiom #1 enlighten or does it set up a deep trap?
.
.
For the various links in this article please see
I believe that Axiom #1 shall be used to reduce the ego to the simplest self, instead of building it up to some humongous ego..Auditing is doing just that. Power of self is boosted up by removing the additives and not by new additives of considerations of power.
Once the ego has been reduced to the simplest self, even that self should be let go to complete the process of liberation. That is Nirvana.
Mark: “LRH, for all his perceived errors and perhaps misdirection, has proven himself to be a man of singular insight.”
That is what I keep going back to – in general. LRH was indeed “a man of singular insight” – no matter what “his perceived errors and perhaps misdirection” were.
Good post, Mark. And you seem to be doing quite well with respect to insights being your own, or making them your own. I’m glad you’re sharing them.
It’s source LRH, may have chosen not to use whatever tech you have in mind. He may not have applied it to his own situation. However, there is a deeper problem here The stated thesis is a generality. What does the statement “Scientology is 100% workable”, mean? If it is in some sense true, it obviously it does not mean that LRH died a “well and happy man”. But is that a reasonable expectation for “the tech”, whatever you mean by that term? My take on it, and I am not an auditor, was recently summed up on the Milestone Two blog in a post about what is standard tech.. It seemed clear from that, that ‘standard tech’ is a not a magic wand that solves all problems of existence in the agreed upon universe. That would be a hidden standard. In fact LRH talked about this, to watch for those who promised to believe in scientology and to agree that it worked, only if scientology ‘cured’ or handled or erased a particular problem that person had. Otherwise, s/he would not believe in it.
Here’s an excerpt of LRH from that post:
“There is only one Standard Tech! It contains only a few dozen processes and actions. It was not complete before 1966. Students study mainly the Research Line.”
“Standard Tech consists of the exact grade processes and Case Repair. Some still look for magic buttons that resolve a case all at once. Some can’t duplicate what they read and hear. They need the broad body of knowledge. BUT the actual application of Dianetics and Scientology today contains only a few dozen STANDARD INVARIABLE SIMPLE actions and processes.”
So I tend to think this is a wild gooose chase to a false standard that you and Al are on using some fallacious logic. “standard tech” had, has, a very specific rather narrow purpose. As Marty pointd out to me much earlier, it is a “directed” therapy. I had not realized how true that was until I inspectd my own early experience and compared my Life Repair with a couple of other kinds of therapy I had induged myself in.
“The Bridge” is a narrow path to a particular result, or set of results, that have to do with LRH’s defintion of “case”. Nothing else. It really hs nothing to do with your other expectations, except to the extent regges have lied to you. And we’ve had that discussion here, too – when we discovered that Buddha condoned lying a little to a person whom you hoped to help achieve “enlightenment”, or whose life you hoped to save.
OK. So, what is this “limitation that Scientology has run into”. It’s an odd way to phrase it. Scientology was always a narrow path leading to a specific result. It’s like a recipe. There is no such thing as a recipe which cooks up ribs, steaks, fish, pancakes, and spun sugar bananas. I find it better to look and see what the recipe actually produces, rather than philosophical speculative dicussions. I read a lot of conjecture. Why even refer to an essentially unknowable? Call it Brahma, Nirvana, Native State, the Static, (now there is perhaps an answerable question – What is the relationship between the terms “Static” and “Native State”?
It appears to me LRH did not devote a lot of time to this, although he did leture about to some extent in series like the 4th London ACC series. I think this is because there’s only so much one can say about it, and beyond that, it’s irrelevant.
This may be a point of difference between you and me. I believe an optimum state is not to ‘let go’ of the personal self entirely, although that may be the final step into Nirvana. In terms of human evolution, I believe the optimum state is reached when a person achieves Nirvana and retains his personal self also. Tis is mentioned in Buddhism more than once, not taking that final step, because one is then ‘gone’ and can no longer teach. It seems to me the goal of Bodhisattva is more optimum. It is kinda like having one foot in ‘Nirvana’ and one foot still in the World. LRH lectured about something like this in relation to the significance (or lack of significance) of Native State. He felt Native State was not really a ‘stable’ state. In a word, it would eventually become ‘boring’. These are of course analogies.
I do agree that the best use of Axiom 1 might be to ‘uncomplicate’ the sense of personal identity to its essentials, removing counterintentions(internalized cross-purposes) and conflicts and inconsistencies etc.
But I see no rason to make a prescription that “even that self SHOULD be let go”. That may be your personal goal, but I would say it is not mine at this time. SHOULD makes it sounds likea moral enforcement, which isn’t going to win you too many friends here, although it may win you some ‘followers’ if those are what you want. Ask yourslef though, “Do I really want to start a cult of followers?”
Valkov, I don’t understand why Hubbard would not apply Scn Tech to himself when he was suffering. From the reports on Internet he was screaming about BTs in that condition. Apparently, he was trying to resolve his condition with some kind of method that involved BTs and was not getting the results he wanted. Or, he could have simply lost his marbles as alanzo pointed out. It is very unlikely that chose not to handle his condition.
In 1965, Hubbard announced through the KSW policy letter, “We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology.” I understand this to mean that the End Phenomenon listed on the Grade Chart was uniformly achievable when Scientology Technology was correctly applied. This applied also to the Grade Chart revisions after 1965. In that case, Hubbard was either not applying the Scn Tech correctly to himself, or he could not apply it correctly to himself. He had failed to achieve the EPs as listed on the Grade Chart. I think that your speculation that LRH chose not to apply the auditing tech to himself is not very likely.
The other alternative that you seem to be suggesting is that Grade Chart EPs are not to be taken seriously. Do you really mean that?
.
Please keep the personal stuff out and simply discuss the subject.
In exteriorization one is letting go of one’s attachment to the body. That doen’t mean the body is gone.. In nirvana one is letting go of one’s attachment to the self completely. That doesn’t mean the self is gone. The basic self and body are still there. But the attachment is gone.
In nirvana, the pure self and body are still there, but all the attachment is gone. One gives up both body and self in “parinirvana.” That stage looks like death. At that point no residues of self are left that may be used to build another self in another body.
One cannot be free while attached to the self. Please see the related response here.
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond/#comment-309986
There is more than one defintion for SHOULD, however #1 is: Used to express obligation or duty.
If this is the meaning you intended, then it is you who have made it ‘personal’ because who else but a person could be subject to a obligation or a duty?
You stated “even that self SHOULD be let go.” If that isn’t a personal statement, I sure don’t know what is!
If you mean something else, then that needs to be stated to clarify the meaning here, otherwise I find your statement to “keep the personal stuff out”, incomprehensible.
It is quite possible I have missed your meaning (more than once); however I don’t understand how you can hope to discuss reality without referring to ‘persons’. Reality does not consist only of the ‘transpersonal’. To me it seems obvious that ‘goals’ are often related to the personal side of life. How can you possibly take offense at that, is beyond me!
OK. MY understanding of “parinirvana” is not that. Wikipedia sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parinirvana
“Parinirvana” usually refers to the beings experience after the body IS actually dead. It is not ‘still there’. It is not a question of ‘attachments’. Attachments as I think of them refer to the automaticities(mechanics) involved in ‘karma’, in automatic cycles of death and rebirth operating outside of the person’s control but to which s/he is still ‘attached’ without realizing how he is attached. That seems pretty plain. It is refers to mechanical cause and effect.
A person can, according to Buddhas, can achieve ‘nirvana’ while still alive (while the body still lives). He remains visible to people by maintaining his association with that body. It is like a ‘name tag’, since he himself is invisible.
I suppose this depends on what you mean by “attached”.
What do you mean by “residues”? This appears to be a ‘placeholder’.
I fail to see how th edefinition in Axiom 1 is much different from your “unknowable ground state” out of which is generated, well, everything. It seems to me this is just a restatement of Axiom 1 in other words.
“My reading is that Scientology contains many brilliant advances. Its starting postulate as above is, however, deceptively attractive to the ego while it does not lead to enlightenment.”
This sounds like a ‘personal’ opinion to me.
Vin: “Does Scientology Axiom #1 enlighten or does it set up a deep trap?”
What are you inferring? What deep trap would that be?
.
If you want to participate in the discussion you need to present your own viewpoint.
What is not a personal opinion on this blog or on any other blog? 🙂
Axiom 1 is at the level of BE of “BE-DO-HAVE”
The Ground State is exterior to “BE-DO-HAVE”.
My point exactly.
(1) A being is a bundle of related desires, intentions, thoughts, emotions, efforts, viewpoints, etc., which is manifested through a body.
(2) The core of a being is a consciousness, which is made up of longer lasting impressions.
(3) The consciousness existing at the moment of death may pass into a new birth.
(4) It is possible to extinguish this consciousness. Then no more rebirths occur.
So, after parinirvana, no residue of consciousness is left.
One is attached to th degree one’s attention is fixed.
I don’t believe I agree with your points 1-4. Neither do many Buddhists.
I would call what you describe in #1. a “beingness”, not a “being”. Although i Buddhist materials they are all lumped together as “beings”. However, my view is that a “beingness” does not have to have a body.
2. I would say the reverse, that at the core of consciousness is a being.
3. After death, a consciousness may or may not acquire a body (again), depending on various factors. The buddhist literature distinguishes buddhas as folks who wil not necessarily be reborn. The Wiki link I posted about ‘parinirvana’ seems to make this clear, as do various other Buddhist writings.
4. The specific individual ‘consciousness complex’ may be ‘extinguished’ or ‘as-ised’. However the core being remains and may or may not be reborn, depending on various factors. In which case a new ‘consciousness complex’ may be created, accrued, or whatever.
The main issue I see here is, What do you mean by a “being”? I think I am using a different definition of the word.
I fail to see the difference. It seems like an arbitrary ‘fine point’, in that the defition of “Static” is essentially ‘neti, neti’, and so is your definition of “ground state”. Obviously ‘ground state’ has the ‘ability’ to be ‘disturbed’ as you have stated, at which point ‘it’ becomes aware of an ‘itch’ so to speak, and responds by becoming aware. It is moot, whether it was ‘aware’ before it manifests as ‘something’.
In other words, I still think you are just substituting one word for another without making any valid distinction.
A Static is by definition ‘exterior’, because the universe is all relative motion with no possibility of anything being truly ‘static’ in it.
From Wikipedia: “In Buddhism, the term parinirvana … is commonly used to refer to nirvana-after-death, which occurs upon the death of the body of someone who has attained nirvana during their lifetime.”
Also from Wikipedia: “Nirvana … literally means “blowing out” or “extinguishing”. Within the Buddhist tradition, this term is defined as the event or process of the extinction of the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya).”
What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. These forces or energies may be divided into five groups or aggregates, as follows.
From Wikipedia: “Eventually ‘the remainder of life’ will be exhausted and, like all beings, such a person must die. But unlike other beings, who have not experienced ‘nirvāṇa’, he or she will not be reborn into some new life, the physical and mental constituents of being will not come together in some new existence, there will be no new being or person.”
“Once the ego has been reduced to the simplest self, even that self should be let go to complete the process of liberation. That is Nirvana.”
should
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should?s=t
.
The dictionary example you cite expresses a ’cause/effect’, or “if/then” relationship.
I don’t see how that applies to your example about attaining Nirvana. That mening of the word ‘should’ makes no sense to me, in the context of your example. Can you use a different word?
Bogged again. What are the parameters of “self”, as you use the term? What are you referring to?
And what fixes one’s attention?
Any static or dynamic exists withing the universe only. There is no absolute static. There is no “Unmoved mover”. It is just an assumption of Aristotle.
There is beingness and awareness associated with Static. The ground state has none of that.
Beingness is just an abstract noun. If there is no being there is no beingness either. If there is beingness then it has to be in reference to some being,
VIN: “What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. These forces or energies may be divided into five groups or aggregates, as follows….”
This is the common simplistic and inaccurate because it is incomplete, Western interpretation of Buddhist doctrine. I have posted, more than once, what Dalai Lama says about this, representing the Mahayana view, in a small book of interviews titled The Buddha Nature, Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism. Here’s a quote from the Chapter on Buddhahood, in which the interviewer introduces introduces a quote from a previous teaching by DL:
“But the basic ultimate innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach Buddhahood, that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing. Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood.”
To continue: The above reconciles the teachings of different schools, by differentiating between the uncreated nature of ‘consciousness’ and the ‘psycho-physical aggregates’ that comprise what you (and Buddhists in general) are calling ‘beings’ It is not that every person retains this individuality of ‘consciousness’. Only the ‘developed’ person might. That is why the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky schools are not wrong in characterizing humanity as “lacking permanent will, consciousness, and individuality”, just as Buddhism does. But these schools present the possibilty that a person may develop these ‘more permanent’ qualities of being. They affirm, just as Buddhism does the possibly of achieving a lasting individuality and a lasting consciousness. In this they actually agree with Scientology, in a certain sense.
The point is, as DL often mentions, there are many levels of mind and perception, from ‘subtle’ to ‘gross’.
Buddhism is a lot like Scientology in this way, that one could just cherry-pick quotes to support views s/he already holds, but if either teaching is to be understood, it is necessary to study all of it dispassionately without cherry-picking too much.
VALKOV: “This is the common simplistic and inaccurate because it is incomplete, Western interpretation of Buddhist doctrine.”
Nyet. It is not Western interpretation of Buddhist doctrine. That data is from
.
VALKOV: “I have posted, more than once, what Dalai Lama says about this, representing the Mahayana view, in a small book of interviews titled The Buddha Nature, Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism. Here’s a quote from the Chapter on Buddhahood, in which the interviewer introduces a quote from a previous teaching by DL:
“But the basic ultimate innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach Buddhahood, that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing. Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood.”
If there is more than one individual consciousness then neither of them can be absolute.
To me, the Ground State underlies all individual consciousnesses.
VALKOV: “The point is, as DL [Dalai Lama] often mentions, there are many levels of mind and perception, from ‘subtle’ to ‘gross’.”
Sure! But none of them are absolute. Static of Scientology is just one of these levels. It is not absolute That is all that I am saying.
The absolute is unknowable.
.
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond/#comment-310071
VIN: “One is attached to th degree one’s attention is fixed.”
VAL: “Bogged again. What are the parameters of “self”, as you use the term? What are you referring to? And what fixes one’s attention?”
.
Beingness is “existing-ness.” A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence and a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes. A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued.
Thus, an atom has a configuration and certain properties that express its essence. Both of these physical and spiritual aspects go together to make up the beingness of an atom.
Beingness is inclusive of both form and essence.
.
Awareness arises because there is desire to know. Awareness is manifested as a light with barely a frequency and period. Its characteristics are limited to a very basic form requiring space-time and simple awareness. This is the totality of initial beingness. The appearance of beingness reinforces the desire to know, and this pushes the development of beingness.
At the basic level there are no developed characteristics, such as, perception of other forms, visualization of other forms, or thinking by association of forms, because there are no other forms. The initial beingness is very raw and in no way does it resemble the God of Abrahamic religions or the thetan of Scientology. Those things come much later after the beingness has developed.
The initial beingness is basic light and raw awareness.
.
We look at self in human perspective only; but self could be regarded as the consciousness of any beingness. Some beingness is more developed than others. Therefore, some self is more developed than others.
The initial beingness is basic light and awareness. Its self would only be the limited consciousness of light. This self would be very primitive. It would then develop as self of minerals, plants, animals, and finally that of the humans.
The self is the consciousness of beingness.
.
The self or “I” forms the basic viewpoint from which awareness expands. It consists of all of space-time in the beginning. It is not just a “point” in space.
The “I” of a mineral’s consists of the space-time its physical form occupies, and the awareness it extends through its chemical properties.
The “I” of an animal consists of its physical form, and its interactions with its environment. It will include all its instincts and the functionality of its body.
The “I” of a human being consists of the human form and its vast capacity for interactions. It will include his intelligence and skills.
The basic viewpoint of beingness is the self or “I”.
.
The desire to know is not satisfied with just having a beingness of light and awareness and with nothing else to be aware of. Thus come about harmonics of disturbance of the ground state, which gives rise to different beingnesses with their viewpoints.
Thus, there is differentiation. There is separation of forms. There are boundaries. There is perception of other forms. There is knowledge of basic forms.
There are interactions of different awareness, and with such interactions there come about complex forms, beingnesses, viewpoints and knowledge.
The desire to know produces harmonics of disturbance, giving rise to different beingnesses.
.
Thus there is reality gained from perception through the viewpoints. Then there is reality of the viewpoint of “I”, which comes from the consciousness of beingness. There is also the reality of other beingnesses and their viewpoints.
The “I” is very basic in the beginning. It has awareness of its own space-time and characteristics as light. This awareness is then extended to other beingnesses or existence in general. That constitutes its reality. “I” acts as the basic filter of the awareness of all existence.
Beyond that reality is the reality of “I” itself.
Reality is what is perceived through viewpoints, and the fact of viewpoints.
.
What fixes the attention is the mechanics of self.
NOTE: I hope to refine the above with your help. 🙂
OK. How about this: 🙂
“To complete the process of liberation it is necessary to let go of any fixation on self. Nothing about self would be fixed. There would be no attention on self. It would be totally dynamic. It would just be whatever it needs to be.”
The theme of ‘possession’ as everyone knows, is not entirely new. The Bible is a great example of this theory of man being controlled and not knowing it.
What better is that we now have scientific articles which demonstrate that, indeed, creatures are known to posses their host and cause harm.
Much like the parasite that causes the grasshopper to voluntarily kill itself.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7927-parasites-brainwash-grasshoppers-into-death-dive.html
What L. Ron Hubbard teaches, does not seem out of touch, in light of the above information – and the fact that he apparently studied various religions would even seem to support how he came to his understanding, misguided or not, is based on some truth – that science is now uncovering.
There is so much that we truly do not understand about the world around us, let alone our own makeup. As science advances with nano tech, and body parts are grown in labs, such as the bladder and heart valves, etc. we will begin to better understand the truths behind many of the so-called ‘myths’ and a light will better show us the clarity of what was meant when dealing with a given issue.
Im not a scientologist, but I find it interesting the amount of press it gets – when in truth, Christianity has its fair share of messed up politics, that many people don’t see, and plenty for people to see…
Perhaps there is something to take from this… sure, leave what doesn’t work, but it does not necessarily mean that everything is incorrect. IT could be that it is merely the incorrect vantage point one has.
“Seek and you will find when you search with all your heart”… maybe for some they have to go elsewhere to see clearly what was where they were… happens. Each has their own journey to travel – enjoy!
So, nirvana is the level where all inconsistencies afflicting the viewpoint are resolved, and there is no longer a need of a consideration to monitor the self.
Michael,
I agree with you.
Also re:
Marty’s blog post: The lower level scientology program up to the state of Clear is a directed form of client-centered psychotherapy. One doctor fully trained in both client-centered therapy and scientology has astutely written that ‘directed client-centered therapy’ is an apparent oxymoron.
D> When I evaluate the above statement and look at Dianetic and scn auditing, and my experience, I see that that definition is quite accurate. It is “client centered”.
Or am I missing something?
If I am misisng something, I would like to have it pointed out.
I have tried mainstream psychotherapy where the psychologist asks you to tell him your problems and then he gives you an answer to solve the problems.
I found that to be psychologically disturbing, and painful.
Now, take into account that I did that after doing a 100 or 200 hours of dianetics and scn auditing and already had very good wins, key outs and releases and actual resolution of some problems, which saved my life. But it was not done in the cos. I was doing things on my own. I was doing my own bridge.
In releases I “saw the light” that is behind the veil of the darkness in the mind, that is mentioned in the bible.
So I had that successful experience as a reference point.
Now mind you that was back just prior to and just after the yr 2000.
After 17 yrs I can see a lot of room for improvement and have made an improved “process”, improved bridge to some degree.
(And also take into consideration that many people screw up even the very best things. Which is much more often done in scn than not.
Do not throw your pearls in front of swine. )
But my point is that the term “client centered psychotherapy” or ‘directed client-centered therapy’ is technically correct, and as far as I can tell, the so called doctor, when he says it is an oxymoron, he is evidently incompetent and not qualified to comment on anything.
I would further say that he is evidently insane or and stupid. Because he cannot correctly evaluate data. He does not “see” what is “there”. He sees something that is not there. Or he adds additives. And that is the basic point of the the first part of dianetics and the reason Hubbard developed dianetics.
The very large majority of the population, primarily in regards to subjective issues, does not see what is there, but sees something that is not there.
A good portion of society don’t even see objective issues correctly.
They see an “elephant” where there is a “cat”.
These latter ones are the kind that society institutionalizes to protect public safety, if bad enough.
That may in fact be a critical entry point for the bipolar quality that seems embedded […]
“Entry point for bipolar” conditions is correct, if the therapy is misused.
It is an entry point for mind control with the feeble minded, the “non self determined”.
It does not have to be, if done right.
Dio
Except for what appear to me to be two minor arbitraries, this reads very well to me. It seemsvery congruent with the little Buddhism I am familiar with, such as the little book by DL I recommended. I have a busy day today so I will have to come back to this later, but thanks.
If ‘ground state’ is associated with nothing anywhere, or is not associated with anything ‘real’ anywhere, why invent such an ‘unknowable’ whatever-it-is and muddy the discussion with it? It is entirely an arbitrary additive.
You keep coming back to “it is exterior to and not associated with anything.” It makes no sense to postulate such a thing. The Diamond Sutra counsels against doing so, in fact.
Vinnie. asserting this over and over instead of responding to the actual content of my post, will not make your assertions any more true. One thing you are neglecting to consider is that any “axiom”, by defintion, is a statement that is accepted without proof. This includes whatever you say about the nature of reality, to the extent you are simply asserting things.
For example: “Any static or dynamic exists within the universe only.” This is clearly wrong, an illogical and arbitrary statement, because by definition, the universe is dynamic and there can be no static point qithin it. It is a relative motion. There is no point in it thatis not moving relative to some other point within it.
I am puzzled. Who brought in this wod, “absolute”, into the discussion? Let’s just grant that possibly there is nothing absolute in the universe. Or let’s discuss the term “absolute” instead of assuming we understand what it means. Youi keep comingback to it as though it matters. It doesn’t matter at all. And by the way, Buddhism refutes the idea that there might be an underlying overall consciousness with which we might merge. Any knowable consciousness is individual. So why bother to talk about things that have no existence?
Valkov said: “A Static is by definition ‘exterior’, because the universe is all relative motion with no possibility of anything being truly ‘static’ in it.”
As far as I see this is a made up definition by Hubbard and it is not observable. Static and Dynamic are a dichotomy. Both define each other. Neither of them is independent and absolute. They are part of this universe like any other dichotomy.
Hubbard says in Scn 8-8008: ” In thought itself at its highest range, we discover the only true static known. In physics a static is represented as a body at rest but it is known in physics that a body at rest is yet an equilibrium of forces and is itself in motion if only on the level of molecular motion. A true static would contain no motion, no time, no space and no wavelength. To this static in Scientology is assigned the mathematical symbol theta. This designation means solely a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.”
“Thought — No-thought” is a dichotomy. I can understand “absence of thought or awareness” as a static condition but there would not even be the ability to postulate and to perceive at that level. That ability would come later as motion of thought or awareness is introduced. None of the thought is static.
I can ask you the same question about ‘static’.
Hubbard says, To this static in Scientology is assigned the mathematical symbol theta. This designation means solely a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.”
‘Static’ is theoretical the same way that ‘ground state’ is. Why are you favoring one theoretical construct over the other?
I agree that there is nothing absolute in this universe. And that is why I find LRH assertion about ‘Static’ to be inconsistent when he regards it independent of dynamic, and, therefore, absolute.
Static is always relative to dynamic. It is not absolute. Static cannot be independent of dynamic.
Because I feel no need to claim credit for anything. Substituting one term for another adds nothing to my knowledge. Static is perfectly adequately defined as far as I’m concerned. Calling it something else, ‘ground state’, brahma, or whatever is unnecessary, it just adds to the clutter of words surrounding the subject without adding any new understanding. Native State can be experienced, as can the “Clear Light” or Clear Light Mind of Buddhism and other disciplines. That’s about as far as we can know. For a much deeper look into Buddhism, I recommend the little book in which Peter Michel interviews the Dali Lama, titled “The Buddha Nature, Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism”. Some of the differences between Theravada and Mahayana are mentioned, as well as the fact that not all schools agree on everything.
There are many levels of mind and body, subtle and gross. Some are more permanent than others, and persist in existence after the body dies, and there are levels of subtle mind that persist after the the gross mind ceases to be . That is what Buddhism teaches.
Does a mirror still exist, when all the lights are out, there is only darkness, and nothing is reflected in it? Yet when there is light present, the mirror has the ability to reflect, does it not? That ability is innate in the mirror, even when it is in darkness.
AS far as made-updefintions go, so what? They are all made-up defintions. You define ‘ground state’ as an absence. That’s a made up definition. It is in accordance with a certain Buddhist view. The Diamond Sutra, however, counsels to discard all notions of absence AND presence both. Why? Perhaps because it is felt that the conceptual mind has it’s limitations.
This is just a limitation of the conceptual mind. “the” or “a” Static is defined by what it is not – DEFINITION: A life static has NO mass, NO motion, NO wavelength, NO location in space or in time. It does not partake of any measurable physical qualities or quantities. Therefore it is NOT in the physical universe. Therefore it is obviously NOT IN this universe.
I don’t feel there is any point in continuing this. You like your own made-up definitions or “axioms”, I like LRH’s axioms. His definition of Static is close enough to what Buddhists describe as the “clear light” basis of Consciousness, for me. Buddhists refute the existence of anything beyond that, calling it unnecessary and leading to unresolvable contradictions. So they say Consciousness and individuality are beginningless and endless. That’s good enough for me. There is nothing at stake in this discussion for me. For you, I recommend the Dalai Lama interview. It’s less than 90 pages, but a deep look at Buddhism. It may help you resolve the arbitaries I see in some of your writings.
Inconsistency >>> Light is the physical form of consciousness, which is not allowed in the definition of static, which “has NO mass, NO motion, NO wavelength, NO location in space or in time.”
If you want to live with inconsistencies, that is fine with me. 🙂
.
________________________________
Scientology Axiom #1 violates the following:
Form represents the physical aspect. Essence represents the spiritual aspect. These two aspects seem to be relative and not separate and absolute in themselves.
For a long time space and time were regarded as absolute dimensions in themselves. Newtonian mechanics built on those dimensions has been very successful on a human scale. But, on a cosmic scale, it has been found by science that space and time are relative dimensions.
Similarly, Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.
A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light and essence of awareness.
Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.
Ground State is the absence of awareness, which is also the absence of the conceptual mind.
Static is not the same as Ground State as I have explained in detail many times. If you can live with the cognitive dissonance inherent in the definition of Static then that is fine with me. 🙂
I’m sorry, but the fact that Axiom 1, in your mind, “violates” some things you made up, means nothing much to me. At best, those are just some ‘axioms’ you made up. I can try to understand them, but right now I see no basis for them. I will use an analogy that Buddhists use in trying to approach Clear Mind: There is water and there is dirt, soil. Mixing the two results in dirty, unclear water. But the clear water is actually still there. Remove the dirt tht soils the water and you will find it still there. Without the clear water, the dirty water would not exist. But not vice-versa. They are separate and not “relative aspects” of anything. Consciousness is not both physical and spiritual, at least as I understand those words.
You are being literal. Who said there was any physical light in Static? Not I. Static is the absence of light, and also the absence of darkness. It is also the absence of both the absence of light and darkness. You see? It is beyond words. Words are delimiters. Consciousness is a phenomenon.
I don’t know what your criterion for understanding is, but here is my criterion for understanding what is out there.
“When studying a subject one should be able to detect the hidden assumptions and distortions present in it. This is especially necessary when one is studying the fundamentals of a subject. Such distortions can be very pervasive. They may even enter the definitions of words provided in dictionaries.
“The following procedure may help one detect and clear assumptions and distortions present in a subject being studied…”
Subject Clearing
I definitely do not go by authority whether it is L Ron Hubbard, Dalai Lama, or even Buddha. 🙂
By invoking ‘cognitive dissonance’ you are evaluating for me, which is a violation of discussion policy. LRH’s defintion of Static does not create any cognitive dissonance in my mind, so watch your step, buddy!
What is an obvious inconsistency is your claim that you have ‘defined’ a non-existent ground state. How can you define an unknowable? It’s illogical.
As I posted a few minutes ago, static is the absence of both awareness and unawareness. It is the absence of both presence and absence, of conceptual awareness among other things. So it trumps your ground state right there
Then you are your own authority? That is self-centric, is it not? I find it better to use multiple viewpoints.
Static is not beyond words. Axiom #1 defines the Static as individuality with ability to postulate and perceive. I am sure you have seen LRH references for this.
Or do you want me to provide LRH references again!
Hahaha! Not really. Static has the ability to postulate and perceive and that is awareness.
So there!!!!!!
Valkov, you are fast becoming my best pal!
I didn’t say that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. In the eternal words of Marildi, please duplicate what I wrote.
I have not defined the ground state. There is no awareness to go with it to define anything about the ground state.
Not if I am not fixated on becoming OT. Hahaha.
Please see: http://vinaire.me/2014/05/30/being-self-centric-scientology/
https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond#comment-310432
That entire comment consists of this: “Ground State is the absence of awareness, which is also the absence of the conceptual mind.”
Sure sounds like a definition to me. And you are sounding like Bill Clinton talking about whether or not he hd ‘sex’ with Monica Lewinsky, and what the definition of IS, IS.
It appears you reflexively say whatever makes you right at the time. Did you learn that on the Ship?
Joe,
I have to say two things:
1. I’m glad you have salvaged what works for you and can help another who’s interested.
2. Since 1968 you have been pointing out the good points of individuals and groups that I find wholly abhorrent. In trying to convert you I asked you in 1969/70 what you thought of Hitler. Your response was “He actually did have his good points.”
After that I knew it was impossible to dissuade you. Maybe it is this quality that keeps you so positive about life.
Whatever it is, I like it.
KnatherThomas,
Your post gave me a cognition.
Hubbard and Hitler had similar goals.
Hitler wanted to cull all of society of all inferior beings to create a supper race.
Hubbard wanted to make the able more able, get rid of aberration, and clear the planet and get rid of war. And create new type of being, a super being. A Homo Novus.
They both had their good points.
They both had their bad points.
They both had good intentions.
They both failed.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Dio
The ideas concerning circuits, entities were present since the early days of Dianetics in DMSMH, and in early Scientology too. However, they used to be of inferior importance, according to Hubbard, as if a person knew what he was, the circuits and the reactive mind no longer had as much, if any at all, influence on him –he created that, and he restimulated the circuits.
Later on, facsimiles and circuits gained importance again, as people couldnt handle the steep gradient of being a spiritual being or of working with mock ups instead of memories. People wanted something real. One of the arguements of the Dianetics foundations was that. So, processing became more fascimile oriented again, and that included the fascimiles of other beings as well.
Marty, I appreciate your not wanting people to create case forever, and I want the same. One of the arguements I had in my SCN course, was the using of SCN tech to invalidate people. Stuff like “you are dramatising”, or Ï’m better than you, because I am Clear” and such. And to use psychology/iatry terms, while we agree over that, is out of sequence. Psychiatry very thoroughly invalidates a person with it’s characterisations, labels and such. You dont like to learn things you havent chosen, at school? ADD. Had a loss? You are depressive. Come on…You want to take the darkness of SCN out through psychiatry? It wont work out. For psychiatry, anything spiritual is hallucinatory, and if I am to become normal by psychiatrys standards, I ought to quit everything, and to take it further I must thoroughly adapt, and become like others, because thats what normal means. And its unfortunate how such ideas about normality and craziness entered SCN in the first place. It contributed to it’s group oriented control.
Anyway, I’m not any ‘rightness police’ to tell people what to write and what not. I just expressed a disagreement, like you express too. Because I agree with you much, I don’t want it to be implied that I agree with that as well. I’ve personally had arguments with SCnists about that being made wrong because I supposedly dramatize or have MUs and such. It’s quite fascistic to try to make somebody shut up or otherwise make him wrong like that –leave alone what I would have with psychiatrists, if they called me crazy or some other related label, and I cared to talk about it…
You have a wonderful way of expressing the inner world of Scientology. Much appreciated.