The Self

self

Chih-men was asked, ‘What is my self?’

He replied, ‘Who is asking?’

The questioner said, ‘Please help me more.’

Chih-men said, ‘The robber is a coward at heart.’

- translated by Thomas Cleary

262 responses to “The Self

  1. “But I ask you, what is the immediate moment of consciousness? The very essence of your ignorance is actually the intangible luminous nature of your fundamental awakeness.

    It is because you not realize the root source of birth and death that you cling to the false as real. Under the influence of falsehood, you fall into repetitious routines and suffer all sorts of misery.

    If you can turn attention around and look back, you will realize the original true nature is unborn and imperishable”

    “There is no self, person, being or life.”

    I might have a closer look at Zen ;)

    • “There is no self, person, being or life.”

      It seems to me that the main confusion comes about because of the different concepts of the word “self.”

      In an article titled “‘I’ = AWARENESS” by Arthur J. Deikman, he wrote that “introspection reveals `I’ to be identical to awareness”. In other words, the “I” is not “the various aspects of the physical person and its mental contents which form the ‘self’.” http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Deikman.html

      LRH had the same concept of “I” when he used the phrase “awareness of awareness unit.”

      • You know this is among my favourite subjects, and I’m hardly holding myself from starting with the crazy philosophies.

        I remember, in DMSMH self was the body. ‘He’ got injured etc. In SCN it was the thetan who was located inside or outside the body etc. BUT if LRH thought that self is basically a unit, what does ‘being 7th dynamic’ mean? We’re talking about many units in that example and many awarenesses. I think to think that the basic being is anything else but Static, is the first step for case to be created. And visa versa, it is the way for case to be uncreated. ‘Static’ was not same as ‘thetan’. ‘Thetan’ was located, could get implanted etc. And LRH said that which is not directly perceived by the Static (not thetan) tends to persist…

        • Hi Spyros. You say, “‘Static’ was not same as ‘thetan’. ‘Thetan’ was located…”

          Looks like you got some false data on that. Here are a couple definitions from the Tech Dict:

          2. the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space EXCEPT [my caps] by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55)… 10. a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )

          • Yes, during my course in SCN I hadn’t sat to think about that, however, the axioms seemed a little Chinese to me –starting with ‘Static’.

            I believe Ron’s references to the selves –both as ‘thetan’ and as ‘body’ include his case –the preclear’s additive thinking about who or what he is. Like “I got injured”, “I am out of my head”… You see, Static, can’t be any of that. But if he started from Static, he wouldn’t have anything to audit. He audited case.

            Some other time that we were talking about this, you had shown me a reference by Ron static that the thetan shouldn’t be considered to be a nothingness. I think it was from 8-8008.

            Anyway, I think it’s a matter of gradient. First body, then thetan, then…it needs to move further. Again I’m pointing out to you the being 8 dynamics. You can’t be the whole 3D (any 3D) if you’re a unit.

            *That tech dictionary is Mayo’s as far as I know. The Scientogy Abridged Dictionary is Hubbard’s.

            • Spyros, the only thing I ever heard about Mayo with respect to theTech Dictionary was that there was an edition that had his name in it as one of the “Side checkers,” and those copies were supposed to be gotten rid of. And the definitions for “thetan” that I pasted were Ron’s, from his own works.

              You wrote: “I believe Ron’s references to the selves –both as ‘thetan’ and as ‘body’ include his case – the preclear’s additive thinking about who or what he is.”

              Your description for “self” (as opposed to thetan) pretty well matches the definition in the Tech Dict:

              SELF, thetan, plus machines plus body plus reactive bank (in Dn). (8ACC-13, 5410C19)

              Now, I’m not sure which reference you mean regarding “the thetan shouldn’t be considered to be a nothingness.” Was it one of these? :

              THETA… 7. not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms. (PDC 6)

              STATIC… 6. the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)

              There’s also the quote from the Phoenix Lectures which states that the thetan is IN a very, very small amount of mass.

              • Marildi, we got a little perplexed with some details and are leaving some point. And I’m now perplexed as to what point you want to make. I for one don’t try to make LRH’s versions of self, thetan etc wrong nor right. I do disagree with concepts I had during SCN and communications I had received during SCN about those matters. Generally speaking, when somebody pointed out at me that I am a thetan, she/he meant my body’s consciousness. But I have found that is not true, fortunately. The body has it’s consciousness, like a fox does or a squirrel. A mistake is to mix one consciousness with another. I as spirit can be conscious or not –so I believe. I have re-created memories and know how it is like to be completely independent and separate from body etc and it’s wonderful. You could get the worst things happen to your body and know it’s not happening to you in any way, and not get bothered by it. I don’t have anything against ‘thetan’, I just believe that the being who -by mysterious means- is being, and is also being along some time/space, well has something to handle and it isn’t the basic truth. It isn’t completely free.

                That the tech dictionary is Mayo’s I don’t know first hand, I was told about it by some guy in the COS. But nevertheless, it doesn’t contain definitions, it contains LRH quotes, and some quotes don’t quite match as definitions for me. You quoted for example: “10. a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )” Here it seems like Ron says that thetan=static. Yet we know in study tech that even synonyms don’t mean the same thing. And anyway, why would Ron use 2 words for the same thing (thetan and static)?

                • Spyros: “And I’m now perplexed as to what point you want to make. I for one don’t try to make LRH’s versions of self, thetan etc wrong nor right.”

                  My point is that it seems like you have been too much at the effect of others’ interpretations, and that their misunderstandings have confused you. My quoting of Ron in this exchange wasn’t to make him right – it was just to point out what was actually written or stated by him. Even in your last post above, you’re still talking about what others pointed out to you as regards a thetan. To me, if their opinions are not what LRH actually said, then those opinions aren’t worth putting attention on and getting perplexed about, that’s all.

                  You also wrote: “I don’t have anything against ‘thetan’, I just believe that the being who – by mysterious means – is being, and is also being along some time/space, well has something to handle and it isn’t the basic truth. It isn’t completely free.”

                  From my understanding, what you said in the above aligns with LRH – but you seem to think it doesn’t. Apparently, that’s because you’ve accepted false data.

                  “…we know in study tech that even synonyms don’t mean the same thing. And anyway, why would Ron use 2 words for the same thing (thetan and static)?”

                  As regards this definition of thetan: “a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects,” I think it would be the same idea as the definition of “cat” as “an animal with soft fur, claws [etc.]… “In other words, “cat” does not EQUAL “animal” but a cat is in the category of being an animal – just as a thetan is in the category of being a static. But obviously, you have the right to work it out for yourself – and to disagree with LRH.

                  There is certainly truth to the idea that the materials can be perplexing or contradictory. Or seem to be. :P ;)

                  • Yo, about the evaluation that I’ve been getting confused with other’s data: I’ve been doing that all my life. Often it’s part of getting educated and such. You believe the information, you leave out your experience and knowingness-intuition, and you’re in trouble. OK. With SCN I tried to not do it much, I did it a little. My pointing out communications with others is exactly to point out some disagreement with them. And I do it when I notice widely spread ideas, so I think it’s useful to communicate it to many people through the blog. For instance it was pointed out at me that non-realistic SCN (making your life a little better etc) is not SCN, and it’s BS. So, having noticed such an idea being widely spread, I thought it’d be useful to show something different. I think the ‘crazy’, more spiritual, less realistic SCN stuff is senior to the realistic, as the realistic derives from the crazy.

                    That I have a goal to exhibit disagreement with LRH is not true. In evaluating data I try to be neutral –not favourable nor the other side. And I didn’t really point out disagreements with LRH. That was your own assumption. I left it blank whether I disagree with him or not.

                    I think we have some fundamental disagreement about that ‘thetan’ and that is that I think you see him as a unit which is OK. I’m just say that if his BASIC nature was ‘awareness of awareness unit’ then he would be but a piece of the whole (the 8 dynamics, in SCN). BUT LRH states otherwise, in various points here and there –not in the academy levels, as the academy level audit the thetan as a unit, indeed. Those are levels below even Clear.

                    Example: Route to infinity lectures. Be your cat, be the fridge, be this be that –eventually be all dynamics up to 8. Who is he talking to? If ‘he’ can be another awareness of awareness unit, he is BASICALLY not just a specific awareness of awareness unit. Do you see my logic? I don’t disagree ‘thetan’ is an awareness of awareness unit, nor do I say it is bad. I say there is more to being than that. ‘Static’ on the other hand,hasn’t been given the individuality qualities that ‘thetan’ has been given, LRH. Or at least, as far as I know. It seems to me ‘Static’ is pure potential, and not a thing, not even something which is aware.

                  • I quoted in my original post:

                    “There is no self, person, being or life.”

                    Yes, I believe so too –that it is all an illusion, a dream, and so is the self. It doesn’t mean self is invalid. The human as (basic) self is an illusion. And similarly, there can be selves of more spiritual nature –a ghost for example. Deep down I believe they’re all creations and not the basic truth. The basic truth is the creator who is not a ‘he’. ‘He’ doesn’t exist. It’s hard to grasp it with human logic. If ‘he’ doesn’t perceive directly, his creations stick. He creates as nothing and perceives as somebody, and so the creations stick. And then he needs special techniques to uncreate even a tiny piece. If he perceives as Static, it’s all gone. That’s fully alligned with SCN axioms.

                    • Spyros: “My pointing out communications with others is exactly to point out some disagreement with them. And I do it when I notice widely spread ideas, so I think it’s useful to communicate it to many people through the blog.”

                      Okay, got it now. And I agree with you that it’s useful. :)

                      You also wrote: “That I have a goal to exhibit disagreement with LRH is not true. In evaluating data I try to be neutral –not favourable nor the other side. And I didn’t really point out disagreements with LRH. That was your own assumption. I left it blank whether I disagree with him or not.”

                      I don’t know what I said that gave you that Idea but I didn’t mean to, because I don’t see it that way at all. I’ve observed your ability to be neutral – and if anything, my impression is that you’re more pro LRH than not.

                      As for static vs. thetan, I would sum up my views with Axiom 1 – “Life is basically a static.” That tells us that the thetan (life) is BASICALLY a static. But it can, by consideration, have location, wavelength, etc.

                    • Marildi, communication in blogs can get like that considering the condensed meaning we put in -usually- short messages and even more the comm lag. I get an e-mailed reply “Yes.” about a series of messages I have exchanged 3 days before, and I’m like ‘Huh?’. Then I have to read the whole series again :P

                      Anyway, yes, I had the Static’s definition ‘in mind’ while I was writing all that stuff. And it’s what I meant by ‘basic truth’, yes. I agree thetan is basically a static. What I’ve been saying is that a number of ideas concerning ‘thetan’ make him appear like he is not. A thetan can ‘develop’ ideas about what he is. ‘I am good, I am clever I am big, powerful, tired, this and that’. It’s as if each thetan tries to find out what he is, yet does the opposite by adding significance onto himself. So I believe LRH reffered to ‘thetan’ as Static plus all those added significances. That the thetan is inside the head and exteriorises is not Static’s quality. That he has case in general, is not either. Static you can say is the purest form. But then, I don’t think there is individuality either. You see he says ‘life (generally) is basically A static’. I haven’t read anywhere that each individual thetan is an individuated static. (If you know more about that, please add.) I see Static as 8th dynamic, and it can be a thetan as much as it can be a chair. Potential to be –The Factors. Yes, thetan is basically static, but static can be all.

                      And just so you know, by pointing out Zen (my knowledge about it is so tiny, really) I didn’t say anything whether that is included in SCN or not. From such a viewpoint we could say that a large portion of SCN is included in Buddhism. I don’t know that first hand, but so I’ve heard. The point from my perspective is to learn something, not antagonize between each school of thought. Many times have I read arguments about SCN, that ‘something is not like this but it’s like that’, and I know that both ‘this and that’ are included in SCN. SCN reffers to both the truth and the lie. But plays more with the lie so as to uncreate it, piece by piece. That in theory. The bottom line that matters the most (which is why I want plurality in spirituality) is that the theory in SCN is not reached, by the top practice (OT 8). So, I’ve concluded by talking with such people. And whether LRH intended that or not is irrelevant now. The point is a free spirit wouldn’t have trouble with that COS 3d or more. And if that COS wanted wants to suppress, it wont want anyone to be a free spirit. That’s human logic. To say ‘oh the COS is bad but all I’ve been taught there is good’, seems a little bit conflicting to me. Or to say ‘DM is bad but the COS is good’ is about the same.

                    • Spyros: “I haven’t read anywhere that each individual thetan is an individuated static. (If you know more about that, please add.)”

                      Here’s one place where I think LRH clearly indicates that a thetan is “a” static:

                      “A thetan makes something. And because he himself, natively, is a static, capable of consideration, has no mass, no form – as a spirit he has no form, he has no mass, he has no wavelength; he only has potentials: potentials of locating objects in space and the potentials of creating space, energy and objects and the action of locating those objects in that space.” (Phoenix Lectures)

                      What I get of Ron’s viewpoint is that there are individualities that he called thetans, which NATIVELY do not possess any mass, wavelength, location, etc. – but that they can POSTULATE that they do possess physical universe characteristics. Nevertheless, each one of them is natively “a” static which has the ability to postulate and to create.

                      It probably isn’t possible to prove either that we are all individuals or that we’re all one. The Buddha may have been right that it’s a waste of time to even debate it (at least that’s the idea I got from a Buddhist friend of mine).

                      You also wrote: “The bottom line that matters the most (which is why I want plurality in spirituality) is that the theory in SCN is not reached, by the top practice (OT 8).”

                      Well, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. Per LRH himself, OT 8 was not full OT, only the first OT Level (and before that were the “pre-OT” levels). Obviously, LRH either wasn’t able to follow through with his original postulates, or he changed course for whatever reasons.

                    • Ahoy Marildi. Yes, I think so too that it can be a waste of time to analyse Static, there is probably nothing to analyse, specially with our more human frame of logic. There was the concept of ‘infinity’ aka ‘8th dynamic’ in SCN and LRH said that it’s up to each person to realise it.

                      The quote you gave me says that a thetan is a static, with which I agree. A spirit can (potentially) appear as kinetic in MEST, but MEST is not motherland.

                      From my view the differences between 7th and 8th dynamic are but a bunch of ideas that the 7th has about itself. Logically, if all case is no more, there’s only 8th dynamic –‘basic truth’. By ‘is’ I don’t mean an is-ness. It’s just hard to find words. We use words to describe human experiences. I don’t believe that we are all one (one being), but rather we all all potential (which is not a unit, a being a something), and from that units of awareness can be created. That’s for me the difference between 7th and 8th dynamic.

                      LRH had that hat of the tech maker (when he didn’ hold an admin hat as well), but I don’t attribute all that failure to him. He as well as the rest of the group are responsible for the whole game. If he couldn’t -for example- create tech for all auditors to theta-clear everybody, it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t theta-clear anybody. That’s how I see it. His goals was the ‘uniformly workable’. Deep down and bottom up it should be up to each one of us to take responsibility for our case –assuming there is such a thing. Case is one’s own creations/experiences for which one doesn’t take responsibility. Blame is further exhibition of case. In any case, I don’t believe he meant harm in creating processes. Maybe he shouldn’t had pushed people, if he did. I think now they push way harder in LRH’s name.

                    • Ahoy, Spyros! Btw, do you realize how fluent your English has become?! So much so that I suspect you have spoken English before this lifetime. (Is it okay with you if I make that qualified [“I suspect”] evaluation?) Or do you think it’st a result of all your blog and FB practice? LOL

                      I concur on everything you wrote on this last post. On the last part about LRH and Scientology, I thought of some things Ken Ogger (“The Pilot”) wrote in his book *Super Scio*:

                      “For the last decade, I have been researching on my own, trying to carry the subject [Scientology] on to its next stage. No subject has ever been researched completely by a single individual, nor has two ever been enough. It’s an ongoing process, and the number of great names connected with even a single practical area such as electricity is enormous.”
                      […]

                      “This document attempts to confront various things which are wrong with Scientology. It is not idle natter or an unjustified viscous attack. I believe in the stated goals of the subject and wish to see them achieved. To some degree, the subject has become its own worst enemy and this needs to be handled so that forward progress can be made. It would be wrong of me to simply shoot without offering something positive as well. For this reason, I ask that anyone making this document available to others should also include the remaining, more positively oriented, documents in this series.

                      “…Hubbard was a self-educated, intuitive genius capable of great leaps of inductive logic.”

                      Here’s a link to the book, which you can also download if you want: http://docs.admirology.org/Pilot/SuperScio/Super.Scio.eng.pdf

                    • Thanx. The pilot is among the first SCN-related things I found online (still haven’t read his book). I was still in the COS when that happened. I had some bitter taste because he said he was a squirrel. I was 100% with standard tech then, and kept being for long after I left the COS. Ironically, the guy whose website helped me (due to high agreement) to get out of the COS was pro-SCN, and is now anti-SCN and anti-LRH as well. I’ve found much of the data he had written were widely spread in the fz, even before he spread them further. Well, regardless, I’m grateful. Damn, I’d hate to still be in there. I might give the pilot’s work a read. For the moment, I don’t want to read anything longer than a small article, about any subject. For my own spiritual stuff, I’ve ‘found’ something really good I play with. It is ridiculously easy and simple –no techniques. I keep it for myself because I’ve been seeing it written all my life in various forms, but I had never never gotten it like now. Words suck :P

                      Yeah, I think Ron was a good person. So, he doesn’t deserve to be worshiped nor obeyed nor passively agreed with. That’d be like calling him a dictator or something. I don’t know what happens in the SO, but although I did have some high agreement with him, I was aware of self-determinism, and I wouldn’t put anyone ‘above my head’. That was my continuous conflict with SCN as 3d. I’d take whipping by nobody that I wouldn’t see as an enemy, no matter the good or ‘good’ purposes. I’d like to see LRH as friend.

                      As for my English, thanks again. I’ve been surrounded by mostly English-speaking people, as I work with tourists. Was that ‘have I’ instead of ‘I have’ that made you think so? I was wondering whether it was correct, in that case :P

                    • Spyros:
                      Ken Ogger did some excellent and important work. It is well worth reading. Start with “History”, it will keep you interested. His work on GPMs and how we were given a set of basic purposes is quite important. Basic to physical universes, not basic to the being itself.

                      He is the reason a great many of us began to look at the Church with open eyes and became Independents. Myself included.
                      Mark

                    • Thanx for the info, Mark. From the little I had read in his website I figured he was bit of a revolutionary, but not hostile. I might give it a read in the future. I wonder where his tech lead to, in theory and practice.

                    • I use the techniques of Ken Ogger and several others quite often. His work falls under the category of positive processing, working in present time or postulating the future.

                      Since most of my work is a full and complete examination of my past existence, positive and future processing is needed, even necessary to prevent solidifying myself. I am not my past, but I have a past which has affected me.

                      The bulk of my work, FOR NOW, is a form of Routine 3 for OT’s which I have developed for my personal use. Ron warned of the dangers of doing too much Dianetics and rightly so. I have incorporated additional methods which have eliminated these pitfalls. At least, FOR ME. This was first realized while working with Ken’s techniques.

                      I have found, for myself, that Ron’s primary methods of looking at the past indirectly, through a via, to be temporarily therapeutic, yet superficial and the results unstable. Blowing large amounts of the MEST bank by mechanical means (spotting spots, masses and energies) feels great and can give a tremendous boost, but without a full understanding of the origin of these masses, they are destined to be mocked up again by one’s self.
                      Enough rambling. I’ll hang up now.
                      Mark

                    • I see. Mark, I had misunderstood you. I had assumed you only used standard tech. You hadn’t say so, but usually, pro-SCNs (which is a generality anyway) -unless they say otherwise- do so.

                      I no longer process. The last thing that I used was spiritologie’s ‘mirroring’ which is -in a way- a form of creative processing, plus some more theory –which is why I used that instead of creative processing. It’s author no longer supports it like he used to, because he said it didn’t fully reach the goals of the theory. I understand and respect that. Still, I don’t think it would be bad to be used. For me it was very good. I soloed it without a C/S.

                      I don’t take your comms as rambling. Speak freely.
                      :)

                    • Hi Spiro.
                      I am very much a southerner, but I do not believe that deep frying and smoking is the only way to cook meat. I am very much a Scientologist, but I do not believe that Spiritual knowledge is complete or that everything Ron did or said is perfect or correct. That does not sit very well with those who are supervising the organization of the Church of Scientology.

                      The IAS, in my opinion, is moving in some wrong directions and producing some overt products. My membership has expired.
                      Mark.

                    • This must be my third attempt to reply to you. I got a tablet and sometimes it %^$#^%^#$

                      Anyway, I got what you said. I don’t think the only standard techers are the COS people. I myself left the COS -and not SCN in general- as I thought it squirreled. Now I have revised both ‘standard tech’and ‘squirrel’. ‘Squirrel’ actually has no meaning for me anymore, because I think LRH got thoroughly misunderstood by many in SCN. So I don’t think ‘standard tech’ exists either, but as a word in texts.

                      I can’t tell whether LRH was always right or not. I have only read few stuff compared to his 2000 lectures. I think being ‘right’ in this case, wouldn’t compliment LRH, as for me good SCN is that would open the door to your own throughts and I don’t mean that in a selfish, narrow minded manner. It’s just that if one doesn’t know his own thoughts, how can he know the thoughts of others –understand others? For as long as SCN -or anything else- does that, it’s good for me. SCN education should revolve around that and not explaining ‘how things are’. ‘How things are’ aka is-ness is considered BS as per LRH, as an is-ness needs BS to continue to exist. Truth is not an is-ness, and it’s not to be studied.

                    • For every good thing on a high scale there is (at least) a mockery o it on a lower scale. Responsibility beomes accountability, freedom becomes not caring, acceptance becomes passive agreement, trust becomes fixation and so on. The lower part immitate the higher part and tricks the person into buying it, although they may actually be nearly opposites.

                      If SCN was making it to help everbody realise that and un-buy those concepts, we wouldn’t need to make such discussions now. The average SCN has adapted to the average case. SCN is what people think it is, and then the actions follow. If Hubbard said this and that, it is no reason to pound it like a dogma. And if LRH threw somebody off the Apollo is no reason to make it a routine on the Freewinds.

                      Also, SCNists rely much on clearing misunderstood words and then they assume they have understood. You thoroughly understand by own experience, study cannot make you understand it all. You can only approximate something by writting about it, as words symbolise generalities. God knows what each person thinks when he reads ‘God’. I don’t know either, just saying…

                      Buddhism got it’s dark side too as a religion. First born males were made to become monks and women got excluded (body too important?). Buddhism adapted to already-existing ideas and now for some it’s just rituals and Siddhartha is seen as a superior one. Before one can evaluate LRH he should know what he meant to communicate, not what people think and do with SCN.

                    • Mark, Spyros, Elizabeth and Monte,

                      Here’s an excerpt from the “Cosmic History” part of Ogger’s book. He differentiates the “ZERO-INFINITE LIFE STATIC” (theta, I think) from the “almost-statics” or “near-statics” (thetans)

                      “Of the four basic components of this universe, namely Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, only Space can be conceived of without reference to any of the other factors. Therefore, the first creation must be Space rather than Matter, Energy, or Time.

                      “IN THE BEGINNING, THE ZERO-INFINITE LIFE STATIC CONCEIVED OF SPACE. AND IN THE CONCEPT OF SPACE, IS THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION. AND THE ONLY THING THERE WAS WHICH COULD BE SEPARATED WAS THE LIFE STATIC ITSELF.

                      “But the basic Life Static which is the unchanging nothingness is senior to space-time and therefore cannot be affected by this separation. It is not made less by it, and therefore it may again separate. And from the view of the basic nothingness, the separations cannot be before or after each other because it is indeed timeless, but from the lesser view of that which is separated, the separated almost-statics can conceive that one separated before another and therefore we have time. And the lesser near-statics are also nothingness with the potential for infinite creation, but they have the experience of time and therefore the experience of what they have created.”

                      (from *Super Scio* by Ken Ogger [The Pilot] http://docs.admirology.org/Pilot/SuperScio/Super.Scio.eng.pdf )

                    • Marildi.. thank you. this just reassures acknowledges the same what I have realized and written about in my blog… The only thing is different that KO is somebody and I am not acknowledge by the group.. therefore what I write is not quoted as something ”important..valuable.
                      I am crying into my coffee daily because of this kind of accuracies!

                    • E. I know! But I’m sure you remember that I’ve commented on some of your posts and said that theoretical physicists and astrophysicists should be taking note! And now, with your perceptions about earthquakes, I’ll add seismologists too. :)

                      Although, it seems that usually when I acknowledge you, you tell me you don’t need or want any acknowledgement. Or did I get that wrong?

                    • Marildi. FROM YOU I DEMAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT!!!! By now as you I only place values on stimulation bigger than better because as I view it and feel is power I know there is a treasure inside that turbulent mass of unknown!
                      But also you know the reason I value your reality I think you hold me here to this Planet with your perfect logical views!

                    • Wow, thank you, Elizabeth! I value your reality too, since no one else I know has the kind of direct perception of the substance of the universe that you do. ;)

                    • M…. hehehe and people believe that they are substance!!! I believe you got the meaning here. Long as the person believe ”I am” and that point will remain under on unconscious layer that person is substance. Saying I am a spiritual being is indication of something:: a body of beliefs which the persons thinks means spirituality.. Spirituality is a huge subject it contain behavior, how to, how be..

                    • Hi Marildi.
                      You quoted Ken Ogger:
                      “Of the four basic components of this universe, namely Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, only Space can be conceived of without reference to any of the other factors. Therefore, the first creation must be Space rather than Matter, Energy, or Time.”

                      This is one of the few things that I disagree with him on. The first thought I can recall is the intention to exist, to continue, to persist. The next thoughts, intentions followed that and so on and so on. That was the origin of time, the first of the parts of MEST.

                      If space was the first construct, then there was no time, so there was no ‘first’.
                      Some say that time is dependent on motion, on change or movement of MEST. This may be one’s perception of time, and will orient one to the agreed upon time rate in the space one is looking at, but is far from the primary basis of time.
                      Time is one event, thought, action, intention, consideration,etc. existing while some other event, etc. does not exist. Once another event, etc. comes int existence, it follows the former and adds to it. Time is non stop addition, with no subtraction.

                      I’m not saying that Ron or Ken were wrong, they just fell short of the whole picture. I’m not saying that I’m smarter that those before me. It’s just that they showed me the first ten miles of the trail, and I’m continuing to walk.
                      ARCL, Mark

                      PS: The rules and properties of MEST as stated by those who came before me are basically correct and MUST BE UNDERSTOOD WELL in order to handle the related foibles. But once you get to the considerations underlying and primary to MEST universes and MEST bank, the rules dissolve.

                      The definitions of “Time is an agreed upon rate of change”, and “Time is one thought, event adding to those already in existence” are BOTH completely true, only under different circumstances. This will become apparent as one begins to look at one’s most primary considerations.
                      My observation, opinion.

                    • Mark..” intention to exist”. applies to matter when one believes one is matter made of something. when one the self identifies with the matter. that is on implanted belief..

                    • Erzsebet.
                      Read the entire comment again.
                      Mark

                    • Mark, it blew me away when I read where LRH wrote that time is both an apparency AND is ACTUAL – because I personally “sensed” that to be the case. Here’s a reference:

                      “As in earlier writings Time is actual but is also an apparency. (See Dianetics ‘55 or other similar material.) Time is measured by motion. Motion is Matter with energy in space. Thus a person can conceive of Time as only Matter and energy in space. Such as a clock or a planetary rotation. Time is actual. But the person has become so dependent on Matter moving in space to tell Time that his Time Sense has become dependent on Matter, energy and space.” (HCOB 28 JUL 63 “Time and the Tone Arm”)

                      On the Independent Spiritual Technology forum, 2ndxmr came up with an interesting model of how space came before time. Check it out and see what you think. I’d be interested in any comment you might want to make there. Here’s the link: http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php?topic=534.msg968#msg968

                    • Marildi, where how do you find all these references. This one is beautiful. It says, in ’63’ almost exactly what I put together from observation in the early 2000’s. But then it goes on to describe, in detail, how it affects auditing. What goes wrong and why, and what to do. (The exact processes are referred to other HCOBs.)

                      I have recently learned (last few years) that finding the exact time and location of an event, for any process, speeds up and smooths things out tremendously. Tough at first, but it gets easier and easier with practice and as your past unravels.

                      I am very disappointed that auditing has become so valuable, so dear, that it is done sparingly. PCs and auditors need to be free to do a few hundred of a few thousand hours, without concern. Going over only what has been adjudicated to be key incidents or areas of concern is just not enough.

                      Thank you for your help, you’re quite a gal.
                      ARCL, Mark

                    • Mark, I don’t know if I told you but I worked as a word clearer for a number of years, and that’s where I got a start on really delving into the materials. Students would be perplexed about things, and I would help them search for references, including using the SIR (“Source Information Retrieval”) computer. Students’ difficulties are not always a matter of MU’s – there can also be skipped gradients in understanding.

                      I still research for what LRH had to say about whatever happens to come to my attention – simply because he was so often spot on! It’s not that I any longer assume whatever he said was necessarily true, but I consider it worth looking at.

                      Sometimes I will google a phrase I remember, putting it in quotation marks so that I get those exact words, and a lot of the time someone has used the same exact quote, on one or another of the HUGE number of websites that talk about LRH and Scientology.

                      I’ve also downloaded all of the most basic materials, so if I have an idea which book or lecture series has the datum I’m looking for, I’ll do a word or phrase search on that. Plus, I have the hard copies of all the basic books, and if I’m not sure of any key words to search, just the general idea, an index works best. There you have my “secrets”. :)

                      Thanks for your usual kind ack. Your name should be spelled Marc ;)

                    • Thank you, Marildi.
                      I find the quantity of info quite daunting. I have, to this point, been unable to create the time to make a serious dent. But I’m working on it.
                      Mark

                    • “Was that ‘have I’ instead of ‘I have’ that made you think so? I was wondering whether it was correct, in that case :P

                      Yes, it was correct where you said, “Many times have I read arguments about SCN…” That’s pretty literate English. ;)

                    • I’m not cheesy nor PRing pro-LRH when I say I’d like to see Hubbard as friend. I talk strictly for myself, from my own viewpoint. I’m very well aware of intentions to enslave and be enslaved in the group, in my experiences as well, in all 4 flows. And I don’t invalidate that. And I’ve seen Hubbard’ s references being used for that purpose. After all, even in the Church, ‘if it’s not LRH it’s not SCN’. But I’ve also seen that last sentence being used weirdly. Some people took an couple of LRH sentences and added their own conclusions over that. The IAS uses LRH to raise money, as an example. Another might think that if it’s OK to scream at an ashtray or ‘use force for a fair cause’ it’s then OK to be a tyrant. For me ‘fair cause’ is like if someone attempts to mug you on the street then it’s not an overt to kick their behind. Of course, it’s better to not put yourself in such a situation at all. Well, I just didn’t agree with all that as much, and so my trophy is that I’m free from that. And so now, even as a non-SCNist I have some good things to say about it all. Remember that ‘what beings agree over, is their bank’ (or however it was worded). I understand that better now. The average SCN is a mess, from my perspective. But is not a characteristic of SCN alone. One may think that if others do it, then it is right, and visa versa. They invalidate and lose themselves in that fashion. I have some pro-SCN and pro-LRH but I try to be neutral. Which means to not talk in order to prove them right or good etc –not even to myself. I just honestly try to communicate what I know. Afterall, I don’t and don’t intend to audit anymore. And just like you can have negative viewpoints from exterior observers, you can also have positive.

                    • “Well, I just didn’t agree with all that as much, and so my trophy is that I’m free from that. And so now, even as a non-SCNist I have some good things to say about it all. I just honestly try to communicate what I know.”

                      This is what I’ve always liked about the little Greek devil. :P

                    • :) I’m with all stuff that I think to be ‘good’, M. I want my criteria to be the substance, not the label. Still, I believe that essense is exactly what you make it be. Thus, the different (and the same) viewpoints about SCN. One reads ‘Clear’ and thinks that it’s a superior being, another thinks it’s somebody sane, another thinks a different thing, etc. I have vastly revised my thoughts about ‘OT’. I have figured that it is true that I as Spyros will never be OT. I think that all the ‘OTness’ of somebody is not that some body or else it would be just another valence or identity, but I think it’s the absence of such things. Thus, I can ‘marry’ SCN with other stuff that say so, even in much different words.

                    • Most excellent post, Marildi.
                      My opinions on Ken Ogger’s work are well known. I don’t consider it squirrel of even ‘other practices’. I consider it Scientology in addition to Ron’s work.

                      My only problem with it is that a proper CS should be thoroughly researched and written. Perhaps a C/S would look over one’s folders and suggest Super Scio part 11, 12 and 14 before going on to OT-2, or something like that. Perhaps, if a PC crashes on R6-EW, he should study the Tao and do a set of exercises, then continue. Knowledge is knowledge.

                      I read a paper on actual vs. implant GPMs a couple of months ago, I can’t recall from whom. Ken also mentioned this and did quite a bit of work on it. This should be worked out and perfected.

                      There is truth to the statement, ‘One must follow his own path’. There are hazards to being ‘led’ along any one path. But there are some things that are common to all or most that must be handled. THERE IS NO REASON WHY A WISE AND HONEST C/S AND AUDITOR,TEACHER, CANNOT ASSIST ONE IN HIS PATH BY POINTING OUT THESE PARTICULAR THINGS AT THE RIGHT TIME. Sensibility, workability must prevail.
                      Mark

                    • Oops, the above reply should have come under your previous post above.

                      In reply to this one, I’ll ask if you agree with this Axiom:

                      AXIOM 35. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.
                      A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length, no time, no location
                      in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth”.

            • I can imagine that being eternal and eternally aware, as a hell, not paradise.

              Let me be dogmatic: In truth there is no being, there is only potential to be. So, essentially, you can say in truth there is nothing. That’s the difference I understand between ‘eternity’ and ‘infinity’.

              And I believe that unconsciousness, and other things that resemble that original state, can work as implants just because they resemble that native state –infinity. You get a concept attached onto unconsciousness (engramic content) and it can seem like it comes from infinity, from nothing. So you ‘obey’, as basically you are infinity, and that concept appears like your own concept…

              • Interesting construct. You could probably even develop a workable tech from it. I think you and MarkNR are birds of a feather. ;)

                • Hi there Marildi.
                  Spyro said; “I can imagine that being eternal and eternally aware, as a hell, not paradise.”

                  We were (I was) in this condition of all knowing, no doing, once. Why do you think I came up with this idea of randomity/not knowing everything.

                  Something to do.

                  But then I forgot what I was not doing and it all went to hell.
                  Mark

                  • From a clearly spiritual point of view, we don’t do anything. We put our pets to do, to feel and other things. But it gets too far when we also put them to think for us. A spirit that actually does something, would be an actual OT :P

                    • …well actual OT as per the definition –cause over the dynamics and such. Or is being a part of the movie, being cause over the movie? I confess most of the (body’s) time, I’m asleep. How funny ‘lazy’ and ‘I’m in action’ sound…

                    • SP… humans have layers, sections, class-#numbers. judgment: what where should be, what where is.. why it is put there, humans do file. In my reality what it is like to be totally cause to that there is no definition because that is unknowable for humans who classify and judge But assumptions we do and that do not count.

                    • Hi there Marildi. Spyro said; “I can imagine that being eternal and eternally aware, as a hell, not paradise.” We were (I was) in this condition of all knowing, no doing, once. Why do you think I came up with this idea of randomity/not knowing everything. Something to do. But then I forgot what I […]””
                      Elizabeth.. In my reality you haven’t the clue what you taking about.. words you are throwing around, that is about that much.
                      Do you have any reality what is all knowing? what is all knowing. what that incredible knowledge contained? Tell us a bit about that, what do you really know and don’t say you have forgotten because if you really have forgotten on purpose than you would remember some of that all knowing stuff.
                      You really believe that it is you have created all the random stuff, like sleep, eat, having the body, talking and having thoughts etc..etc.. just to amuse your self?
                      You really believe that you have become helpless, little human just to amuse your self? If that is the case, all you have to do is let the forgotten stuff vanish and again create new stuff by free will..
                      Have you put your self into the position when all your needs have been met, covered, and all your dreams have materialised in solid form, and you can create ‘ help others to do the same?
                      What is all knowing, Vinnie talks about that too yet, outside of those two words those of you who say them cant say anything new, and when some one say something mostly Vinnie say it is not so.
                      The all knowing thing is beyond the understanding of the mind, of the ability to speak of, think of guessing, about or even to assume what that body of knowledge could contain. We can even assume. and if all would be available for us to do you really believe we would be blogging?

                    • Elizabeth, was the question “Do you have any reality what is all knowing?” addressed to me?

                      If so, I don’t know what all knowing means. I know it’s possible to cause something and know it, and know I you are the cause of it. That was called ‘knowing cause’ in Scientologese, or else responsibility.

                      Also I said yesterday if I find out how to deal with all my human problems, I’ll let you know.

                      I don’t think the rest you mentioned either.

                    • If you point out at me some thought of mine, I can sit and talk about it further. But I just don’t mean what you think I mean. I don’t assume any arrogant viewpoint of “I-know-better-because-Im-OT”. That’s what you understand.What I talk about OT here is that the OT victim/perpetrator is a funny thing, and it usual reffers to a human condition called ‘OT’. And I explain that our troubles are not inevitable, because we can be better. I dont compete against others OTness. An OT wouldn’t need to compete, anyway.

                      I agree all that sort of thinking is human thinking.

                      Valkov is so pro-SCN, but when I invalidated the bank and validated the thetan it was too unreal to him. He said im like Vin. I dont know what Vin says. If he says that, good for him. The viewpoint expressed by Valkov is the why I don’t want to be associated with SCN anymore –or should I say ‘alterative psychology’ like they correctly pointed out in south park. It’s all about case now in SCN. Your case, your insanity. You dont see reality. You are wrong. Let me ‘help you’ get down to earth. Who said SCN was about seeing reality? That was the bloody objectives. How many decades are you gonna run the objectives for? Have fun with it, but don’t tell me what to say again, V pro-LRH.

                    • spyro… I must have a big MU I am very sorry.. I never sais you were like V… please reread that part. and I never said anything what you should do.. why would I do that? I beg your pardon for asking a question… to be sure it will not happen again. rest at easy.

                    • No prob, Eliza. Only the first paragraph was addressed to you. The things I said later were addressed to Valkov, not you, and I was being ironic. He had told me to not speak anymore. I only metioned him because he compared me to Vinaire too.

                      I get jumpy with that, because way too often too much is assumed that I say, which I don’t say. So then, there’s something ‘wrong’ with me. Even an ED once called me names because I mentioned something I shouldn’t had, according to him.

                      If I point out anything about OTness then I’m wrong for them, because OT is but a label they like to wear to gain status. But it is OK for a Scientologists to insist that case exists and people are invalid, because it feeds those orgs and auditors, well. The bank must be real. It just has to be. Oh wait, LRH used to call that kind of people ‘merchants of chaos’.

                    • Hi Spyro,

                      I’ll jump in this conversation briefly because you are being compared to me. Here is a recap of my discussion policy that is applicable here:

                      (1) Be interested in knowledge and keep your focus on learning something new always.

                      (2) Others have their reactions. Those are their reactions. Let them have their reactions.

                      (3) Address those reactions simply by explaining your viewpoint better.

                      (4) Don’t let those reactions distract you from learning. 

                      (5) Be willing to experience fully and learn from it.

                      Regards, Vinaire

                      ________________________________

                    • Vinaire:

                      I took liberty to upgrade and expand your discussion operating data :) :

                      (1) Be interested in knowledge and keep your focus on learning something new always.

                      Be only interested in knowledge and the highest truth possible and clearing the aberration. Always keep your TRs on learning something new. Have an eye and mind focused towards the highest truth possible.

                      Pull in the “up the tone scale”/” up the theta scale” direction.

                      Focus towards the highest truth possible. Always take the high road. Truly competent or genuine auditors are expected to walk the highest road possible. Unconditional love and ARC and focused on deaberration.

                      As was said in days of old: Love the sinner and hate the sin.

                      New version for auditors and counsellors: Love and educate the aberree, and process the aberration.

                      (2) Others have their reactions. Those are their reactions. Let them have their reactions.

                      Let others have their aberrations. Those are their aberrations. Let them have their reactions. They are their aberrations.

                      Don’t condemn or punish the aberree for being aberrated or ignorant.

                      Such situations are the true auditors work appearing in front of him.

                      (The universe is testing the auditor.)

                      Know and understand that aberrations are cries for help.
                      Know that you are processing. Do everything to keep your TRs in and make processing part of your discussion. The aberration will eventually run out, if you handle it right.

                      If the aberration did not blow, you did not do it right.

                      Be only interested in the highest truth posible and clearing the aberration. Always keep your TRs in and on learning something new. Pull in the “up the tone scale”/” up the theta scale” direction. Focus towards the highest truth possible. Always take the high road. True or genuine auditors are expected to walk the highest road possible. Unconditional love and ARC and focused on deaberration.

                      (3) Address those reactions simply by explaining your viewpoint better.

                      Address those reactions (aberrations) simply by explaining your viewpoint better, and clearing/processing the aberration. Process on the fly.

                      (4) Don’t let those reactions distract you from learning.

                      Don’t let those reactions (aberrations) distract you from learning and focusing (keeping your TRs in) and processing and clearing the aberration.

                      (5) Be willing to experience fully and learn from it.

                      Your critics are your best teachers.

                      Be thankful for your critics.

                      Low toned and low theta beings argue to defend opinions and beliefs, argue to defend the past or status quo, argue to defend their mistakes and crimes, argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity and aberrations, and argue to defend their false and limiting data.

                      High toned, high theta beings discuss subjects and use evaluation, reason and logic to compute the highest computation, the highest truth possible.

                      You know you are talking to a real fool when you talk sense to a person and he calls you foolish, or slings mud or some other low toned low theta aberrated reaction.

                      Dio

                    • Dio,

                      Thank you for your expansion. :)   Vinay 

                      ________________________________

                    • I don’t want to add further to the misunderstanding which started this now.

                      Other than that, I don’t feel I owe any respect to guys who claim ownership of a subject to fully control it and make monies with it, and mock whomever argues with them as they themselves are fake PR idiots. It would be cool if they some time got out of that COS spiritually too. I’m referring to the SCN tech masters. Nothing to do with my discussion with Elizabeth.

                • Excuse me, I have missed (havent been notified) some replies of yours.

                  I dont mean to brag, but yes I could :P But there could be the ‘uniformly workable’ issue again. For the moment I tell myself, unless I deal with something thoroughly myself, Im not going to point out ways -to deal with it- to others. I have issues in my life which I dont deem ‘inevitable’. If I get to handle everything, I promise to let you know how :P

                  • No prob, SP. :P

                    You wrote” “For the moment I tell myself, unless I deal with something thoroughly myself, I’m not going to point out ways -to deal with it- to others.

                    Well, I don’t know – I think we learn a lot from each other, and sort of pull each other up by the bootstraps. But your point is also true – we could mislead others at times. Life’s a gamble and “you pays your money and takes your chances.”

                    Or, as in playing poker, you gotta know when to hold ‘em and when to fold em’.

                    • Thanx. One of the things I’ve noticed while in blogs is how big responsibility it can be to talk about important stuff. Even if what you say is not harmful, it doesn’t matter –if the other person doesn’t get exactly what you mean. I say something that could be categorized as ‘pro’ the antis feel invalidated, i do something close to the the opposite, the pros feel invalidated. Too much right/wrong dichotomy. So then you make overts by being misunderstood. Good intentions are good, but there can be such a thing as an unintentional overt. I always only mean to offend (if i ever mean to offend) the intetional overters, but them have no sense of own ethics. They’re like numb. Only people that can feel react to what I say, which is unfortunate.

                      That was a bit irrelevant, but imagine a ‘tech’ about ‘being yourself and…’. Each person would understand his own things according to what he thinks ‘being’ and ‘self’ mean. I myself have a hard time with it sometimes not being permanently aware of that, or unaware of the lie. However, whenever I ‘do it’, the troubles of the world melt like ice cream, and they all seem like (gone) lies. The skies the buildings the everything is fine. It’s me who is fine. By the way, my objectives EP was that I was being the whole room. Do you think I should adapt to reality? :P

                    • Great post, Spyros. It seems to me that what you said, in your own words, has everything to do with what LRH worked out in order to achieve the goal of Scientology, a workout he summed up with two fundamentals – ARC and KRC. And the rest of Scientology was just to assist people to use those two triangles and get the kind of result you, for one, have had the intention to achieve.

                      Take the C in ARC – TR’s was a way to drill all the factors of Communication. With the A, we have, as just one example, the knowledge about tone levels and how the Affinity level would apply to the R on both ends of a comm cycle – which is why A, in turn, can improve the R. Knowledge is another key to the R of each person, and here we have the KRC triangle – which points out the necessity to be (R)esponsible enough to gain the (K)nowledge needed to achieve the kind of (C)ontrol that would bring about… guess what? The good intentions you wrote about above. And, like any true triangle, with both of these – ARC and KRC – any corner can be used as a starting point to raise the other two.

                      Hey, what a cool EP you had on objectives – sounds pretty OT to me! :P

                    • Thank you.

                      When I perceive as ‘myself’ (the word self may not be correct, you could also say noself) I discard all my thoughts. And most importantly the thoughts about self. I don’t really discard either, I see them as something separate from me –they’re part of that identity. They are not mine. ‘Sorry’ to say, but all my thoughts are BS. Logical thinking and such are all part of what is called a mind which is part of what is called man. It’s all his BS. It only becomes my BS when I think Im him.

                      A being of no substance doesn’ need logic’. It doesnt need to know how to turn a knob to open a door. Things just are or are not. Actually, they are not. No thoughts, feelings, emotions, location etc. I dont perceive any quality about me either, just really nothing. All qualities are attached on the identity. I can make things for my body better, but for me they are the same –nothing. I cant fight, have a g/f, get arc broken, feel happy, sad, apathetic –nothing. I used to think you go from point A to point B with spirituality. No more. You never were point A. And point B doesn’t exist (it’s nothing). :) Imagine nothing but potential for creations to exist. That’s all.

                      Oh so many words for nothing.

                    • Nice, Spyros. That reads like poetry. :P ;)

                    • I hope you mean it. Or else……………….. :P

                    • Of course I meant it! :P

                      Hey, here’s a song for you. Very poetic. The line I think you’ll like is “I have tried in my way to be free.” ;)

                      Like a bird on the wire,
                      like a drunk in a midnight choir
                      I have tried in my way to be free.

                      Like a worm on a hook,
                      Like a monk bending over the book
                      it was the shape of our love (that) twisted me.

                      If I, if I have been unkind,
                      I hope that you can just let it go by.
                      If I, if I have been untrue
                      I hope you know it was never to you.

                      Like a baby, stillborn,
                      like a beast with his horn
                      I have torn everyone who reached out for me.

                      But I swear by this song
                      and by all that I have done wrong
                      I will make it all up to thee.

                      I saw a beggar leaning on his wooden crutch,
                      he said to me, “You must not ask for so much.”
                      And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door,
                      she cried to me, “Hey, why not ask for more?”

                      Oh like a bird on the wire,
                      like a drunk in a midnight choir
                      I have tried in my way to be free

                    • Thanx. To trying to be free is like putting yourself inside a net and trying to break free from it. But the irony is you cannot put yourself inside that net. You can put your cat and say if the cat is not free, I am not, because I am the cat. Yes, you are the cat and the net as well, but basically you are neither.

                      I felt I was supposed to say something :P

                    • I agree. The cat, the net. You are neither.
                      Because there is no cat. There is no net.
                      And no spoon either. :P

                    • Yes. See, it can work as both as-isness and not-isness to say there is no spoon, no cat etc. It depends on the intention of the sender and interpretation of the receiver. Plus, it’s most people’s favorite game to invalidate each others illusions…because they know the true illusion :P

                    • Now we’re back to ARC. :P

                      Tom Campbell says the same thing in only slightly different words.

                    • We weren’t out of ARC as far as I know. When we talk here, even if we just address each other, we communicate with many. Some of them think -for example- that the labels Clear,OT, Class …. put them or others above others, because then they are sane (the others insane), right, powerful etc. So then if you communicate anything of that sort, they think you mean that –that you are being right, because that’s what they would do. I only have something good to say after all, because for me, as one ‘rises’ seeks to raise others too, not pwn them. I’m not into psychiatry and don’t intend to make the wrong ones right.

                    • No-no, I didn’t mean that you and I were out of ARC. I can’t remember a time we ever have been. :P What I meant was that we were back to the subject of ARC – like what you just wrote about as regards communicating on a blog. That little video I posted is all about the challenge of communicating with people by keeping in the Reality. Did you watch it? C’mon, it’s only 4 minutes. :P

                      “I only have something good to say after all, because for me, as one ‘rises’ seeks to raise others too, not pwn [own] them.”

                      I knew that. :P :)

                    • Oh OK I got it now (about reality). I also watched the video, and didn’t regret it. I like Mr Tomas. I’ve noticed you or others have posted here or in Geir’ s before, but I hadn’t watched.

                      Marildi, I have implied it before, but I keep seeing it myself over and over, more and more –that things are not what I used to think they are. Specially about this ‘self’ topic…I keep revising and revising it. But it’s for good. I would delete all I have ever posted :P Who am I? How do I operate? Through which vias? It all falls apart. But it’s fortunate.

                    • Spyros, I’m glad you like Tom Campbell! He is one of the best “teachers” around, IMHO, even though he stresses that we shouldn’t accept (or reject) things from anyone, including him, that we haven’t directly experienced for ourselves – just remain “open minded but skeptical.”

                      He says that the only true reality is consciousness (theta), and that we are all “pieces” of this “consciousness system.” And all information and knowledge is stored in that system – it’s a complete collection of the knowledge of all of us. He often refers to it as “the data.” Sometimes he calls it “intuition” when we interface with it – and you and I would probably say “knowingness.” It’s kind of like the Akashic record.

                      And everything else is illusory. The physical universe is only “virtual.” BUT it has a purpose – which is to give us a way to interact with each other, because in that interaction we are able evolve to a higher state of LOVE. He says that’s the whole reason we’re here in “this reality frame” – to evolve and increase the quality of our love.

                      Your post above is what reminded me of this particular vid, because what I get from him is that any time we try to put into words what we experience outside the physical universe, it can only be as a metaphor – because all language is derived from the physical universe.

                      Nevertheless, words and language are necessary for us to communicate to others about our non-physical experience – or even to THINK about it for ourselves and be able to interpret that experience for ourselves. The metaphors aren’t the truth, but the truth is there “behind” the metaphors.

                      So I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that you have been having trouble expressing your interpretation of “self,” a piece of consciousness, and why you keep changing the way you express it or even the way you interpret it as “time” goes on. But if it is true that it’s impossible to express such a thing literally, maybe you shouldn’t be so hard on yourself? :P

                      Here you go – under 15 minutes! ;) It’s part 6 of a series of interviews, but I think you’ll be able to follow it. Smart little devil that you are. :P

                    • I like this video too. He said many thing I’d say to myself as a SCNist, so I used to tell other SCNists instead –stuff like that reality is not truth and “you don’t need to get out of body, as you’re not here (actually, anywhere) anyway.” We used to discuss that as we talked about TRs. I had an objection about ‘being here’.

                      My ‘problem’ with all those discussion is that you need to place information in exchange of other information, and I think that whatever word we assign to what Campbell called ‘cosciousness’ is not representative enough, as we don’t talk about a thing. The word Consciousness, is not as much of a material thing, but still it is something, and sounds like it exists continuously (in time). I understand he needs a word to communicate with words, OK. :) Same with ‘we are all one’ etc. It could be understood in a different manner (one being).

                      I think what I used to call the thetan, the I, the awareness unit etc is not what I thought it was. But it isn’t that it was something else than I thought it was, either. It isn’t that I was something but I thought I was something else. I think all the ‘I’ I had was related to my body and it’s…thingies… That’s the least informative information I can give with words about me :P I think it’s more useful to determine what is not, than what is, in this case.

                    • “That’s the least informative information I can give with words about me :P I think it’s more useful to determine what is not, than what is, in this case.”

                      That sounds good to me. Very good. So if you are happy with it, take a win! :P :)

                    • Thank you.

                      I think Campbell is surprisingly impressive. What’s mostly impressive is that he doesn’t try to create impressions. He talks so simply and lightly. I like. And he reminds me of somebody else I know. Thanx for letting me know.

                    • Your perception is great. It matches mine. :P ;)

                      Seriously, I’m amazed at Tom’s beautiful, natural TRs. I mean, flawless! It says a lot about him. Did you notice how he subtly made the interviewer right, even when the guy asked dumb questions that show he had missed some basic point Tom had already explained? And when he laughed inappropriately a number of times, Tom just handled it like a comment and paid it no heed – but in a way that grants beingness. A natural expression of who he is.

                      Like you said, the man is simple and light – you expressed it well in those few words (as you often do :P ). I’m sure we’ll hear more of Tom Campbell as time goes on. He’s already been all over the world giving lectures and seminars and steadily increasing the number of his followers. He has a huge forum. I’ve been following him for the last few years.

                      Who does he remind you of? :)

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      I think I need to get to know Tom Campbell
                      Mark

                    • Hey there, Mark. I think you would really like Tom Campbell. He’s even a Southern boy, like you. ;) And he says a lot that aligns with LRH.

                      As a good example, reality is described by Tom as virtual, simulated by collective consciousness (which includes all of us) – in other words, it (reality) is “rendered” to individuals for their perception of it. That, so far, is pretty compatible with LRH’s definition of reality as agreement.

                      TC also says that we as individuals have the ability to tune in to the data bases of all virtual realities (both physical and non-physical). Similarly, LRH talks about individuals “implanting” sensations – or we could phrase it as “inputting” them – in order to then receive them. Here’s an excerpt from 8-8008:

                      “…an individual with the “very best MEST universe, Mark 10,000 ears” takes no responsibility for having implanted [input?] the sensation of sound in order to receive the sensation of sound. A preclear as he comes up the tone-scale more and more often catches himself doing this, and even though he does not know the principles involved (for no preclear has to be educated in Scientology to receive benefit from it), he recognizes that even in the case of a loud crash, his continuation of association from his environment permits him to perceive with others that a crash has taken place of objects which he with others continuously recreates solidly, and that he must actually cause for his own perception the sound of the crash.”

                      If you get a chance, watch on youtube the “Reality 101” series of talks that TC did at the University of Calgary in Canada, to get a broad picture of his Big TOE (TOE meaning Theory of Everything, and “Big” meaning that it covers both the physical and non-physical – i.e. both physics and metaphysics). Here’s the first of those talks, which is an introduction and overview (the two talks that follow go into more detail).”

                    • p.s. Just wanted to note one other thing re this part of the 8-8008 quote:

                      “…having implanted the sensation of sound in order to receive the sensation of sound. A preclear as he comes up the tone-scale more and more often catches himself doing this…”

                      That is like those experiments Marty wrote a blog post about – where subjects’ bodies indicators show what is to occur several seconds before it does. And, per my understanding, TC would say that their higher selves are simply connected to the data base – which would have all the data in the situation and thus know what is almost certain to occur.

                      It’s not absolutely certain, because the future is only PROBABLE, based on statistical probabilities (which itself is based on the probability distribution in quantum physics). So what is likely to happen within the next several seconds has a high probability, but as you go further and further into the future, the range of probabilities increase exponentially, which is why such predictions have a low rate of success. (Sorry, I got on a roll. :) )

                    • Sorry, of this is misplaced. I’m having (or at least my program) some confusion with notifications.

                      Yes, he let’s things be. And he doesn’t seem to get charged. I think those two are interconnected —no resistance. And he talks about ‘other universes with people’ like another would talk about his breakfast. Lovely.

                      Sorry, if that other person (that Tom reminded me of) wants, he can speak for himself. I think we should keep some private things private. I dont think all privacy is witholds either btw :P

                    • Got it, Spyros. I guess I thought you were referring to a similarity between the person you know and Tom as regards being simple and light – and I assumed that this would be a compliment, but maybe that’s just my way of looking at it. In any case, if you were referring to the person’s specific viewpoints being similar, I would agree that this would be a matter of privacy and up to him or her to say so.

                      And you are right, of course, that privacy doesn’t equate to withholds. LRH basically said that too when he wrote that we have the right to communicate as well as to not communicate if that were our wish. (Of course, we know how that principle got abused with the disconnection policies.)

                    • Yes, I was reffering to both kinds of similarities, and I yeah it’s compliment. Still there can be a choice to go public or not.

                      Well somebody who wants you to tell him/her everything bu t is himself full of secrets and fake PR, has some weird idea of Pan determini sm. He thinks it means total effect. Know=effect, no? :P Of course such a person could only cause destructive stuff, so it’s better to dig or mock up people’s dirty secrets instead. Yeah I’m full of hints. Yeah I bet they wont get it.

                      About disconnection: I dont want everybody in my life either. I just don’t force others to not-have them along with me.

                    • Overall, what I said about that similar guy and his privacy, is no big deal. So, dont be upset about it, if you were. I think maybe you misunderstood me. Generally speaking, I dont think there need to be reasons behind our every action/inactions. For me self determinism is when the reason (cause) is you. You can see how it doesn’t fit with self determinism when we are driven by other reasons. At that point I considered it better to not mention him. Call it intuition or whatever you want :P

                    • Okay, I probably did misunderstand you. So are you saying that what you didn’t want to do was to basically evaluate for the person as this could possibly influence them and take away some of their self-determinism?

                      Even if you weren’t saying that and I still haven’t duplicated you, I got a cog out of it anyway! I’ve never quite resolved why it is that even evaluation of a positive kind can have an adverse effect sometimes. Now I just have to figure out when it does and when it doesn’t. :P

                    • Sorry M, sometimes I throw in irrelevant stuff and confuse people. It’s some nasty habit of mine –fun though :P

                      About self determinism (that was irrelevant) I only meant that if you operate with ‘reasons’ (to have a reason to do something), you reduce your self determinism. Because then ‘reasons’ make you do things. Of course you’re self determined to do that, so self determinism is not truly reduced. Anyway, this topic had nothing to do with the other topic.

                      To answer your last question. I think it’s because positivity is not truth. The truth is nothing/potential for something. And positive/negative are additives. Or else instead of processing we’d be going around telling people they’re good, and free and this and that –or even people would tell that to themselves, and it would work.

                    • SP, I like your answer! :P

                      See Geir’s latest thread. It’s along these same lines.

                    • I guess to push somebody to not watch his movies can work as an overt too. But then what is left to talk about, reality? I include ‘reality’ when I say ‘movies’. Just because there are movies within the movies doesn’t mean the prior movies are not movies. But since that’s the most popular movie, it is also the widest invalidation. ‘All you know is wrong’. I accept that for myself. That’s enough and concludes the whole thing for me.

          • Spyros: “Anyway, I think it’s a matter of gradient. First body, then thetan, then…it needs to move further. Again I’m pointing out to you the being 8 dynamics. You can’t be the whole 3D (any 3D) if you’re a unit.”

            Maybe the following would serve of an example of how that could be:

            “What’s perfect reality? We’d have perfect reality as agreement, just like we’ve said all along, because the most perfect agreement would be to be in the same space with, thinking the same thought as and feeling the same emotion as somebody else. But there is a position on the Tone Scale where you and somebody else could, and then you and somebody else would be actually, basically, the same person. Be the same person and then simply on determinism be different people? You know, be the same person, then be other people? And then be the same person and then be two people?

            “Could you do this? Yup. Way up. Way up on the Tone Scale. That’s the way you do it. So way up on the Tone Scale, there is no such thing as a hidden communication or a hidden influence. You have co-beingness, co-communication, co-agreement, winding up in a reality with a tremendous flexibility of beingness and determinism, tremendous loose flexibility. A person is as happy as he can be his entire environment…” (Lecture of 25 Mar 53, “The Elements, with Stress on How to Run Matched Terminals”)

            • Yesssss only I think the word ‘person’ could be misleading. I tend to grant human personality to the word ‘person’. If you be a few persons, you be all those persons, I think, as basically you’re no person.

      • Marildi….AWARNESS IS DOING_NESS. Being aware, becoming aware that the candle was burning low..
        Awareness awareness unit is what? a unit of something? The unit is doing something? than it has a size occupies space and acts-upon what it has become aware of… This concepts are dealing with energy-mass and energy is not the creator.
        Name tile, description do not exist to describe the indescribable.

        • Elizabeth: “AWARNESS IS DOINGNESS.”

          Again I think the problem is trying to use words to describe something that is not in the physical universe. Let me ask you this – when you yourself are exterior and “in the theta universe,” are you aware?

          • there is no awareness… when someone ask “what are you?” there is nothing, no answer-no words.. no shifting of energy. Simply IS.

            • E, I agree with what you say – “Simply IS.” The only thing I’m saying is that you are aware of the “simply IS” – aware that it exists.

              • Marildi.. I cant not give answer to that.. No words. the best was IS.

              • M.. I been thinking… and come to conclusion: long as one is attached to the body one can not fully experience being without the body. So not much point trying to explain because that is only assumption.

                • E. According to LRH there are different gradients of exteriorization. In a new unit of time, you might find the “Gradient Scale of Exteriorization” of interest. It’s included in the latest edition of *Scn 0-8* but was originally from the book *Creation of Human Ability*:

                  “There is a gradient scale of exteriorization which could be described as follows:

                  “First, the thetan without contact with a universe;
                  Then, a thetan in full contact with a universe;
                  Then, a thetan in contact with part of a universe, who considers the remainder of the universe barred to him;
                  Then, a thetan in a universe without any contact with any part of the universe;
                  Then, a thetan unknowingly in contact with a large part of a universe.

                  “The first condition would be a true Static. The last condition is called, colloquially, in Scientology, ‘buttered all over the universe.’

                  “As it is with a universe, such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan, who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself, may be in contact with a physical body in the same order:

                  “At first he would be without association with a physical body;
                  Then, with occasional contact with bodies;
                  Then, with a fixed contact on one body but exteriorized;
                  Then, interiorized into a body but easy to exteriorize;
                  Then, in contact with and interiorized into a body but withdrawn from the various parts of the body;
                  Then, obsessively ‘buttered all through the body;
                  Then, obsessively and unknowingly drawn down to some small portion of the body, and so forth.

                  “This is the gradient scale which includes inversion and then inversion of the inversion.”

                  • Marildi.. that is made to sound complicated.. important… OK.. he broke it down but one can’t audit in levels, one can’t ‘’see’’ in levels.
                    Here is my take on being interior or exterior.
                    By now I have expressed my own reality-experience what is exteriorization. That is impossible to do because we as Spiritual do not move: only matter shifts.
                    We CONSIDER: I am inside the house: with that consideration the person “SEES” inside the house.
                    I am outside of the house: the person ‘’SEES” the portion of the house which can be observed with the EYES.
                    The Looking Bit, using the EYES is the confusing factor because the being looks at object inside or outside therefore believes the being inside or outside of the house.
                    Having the mental picture of the house that picture automatically gives the person all the considerations which the house is made up from.
                    When one mention: inside the picture of the inside pups up.. But please understand that picture is not real, it is there because it was considered agreed to that its exist because the ‘’eyes’’ can take the photograph of it. There is a picture is called inside, there a picture called wall, stairs, celling hallway etc.. and the other concept added: Inside wall, inside stairs, outside wall, outside stairs etc..
                    The Spiritual can see observe without the use of the optical lenses Holographic pictures.
                    As the person erases more and more of the existing pictures which are barriers: seeing them only by that person gotten stuck, since long as they are in place the person cant observe other pictures. So more of them are removed the wider range of pictures can be seen.
                    The interesting thing is…. Long as one beliefs he sees inside, only that can be seen. After eraser of this planet all the considerations-agreements going with it, plus when one erases the need to use the eyes to see with. The being will be able to see anything which will be THE NEW REALITIES GAINED, now he can see holographic pictures of anything he wants to.
                    All he needs is put his attention on the subject.. and He will view that item.. Full perception and have not moved one inch… Objects moves since they are energy.. but not the viewer.
                    Example: view inside the Sun… good one.. when viewing the Sun the Viewer will also have total understanding when the Sun was created how it become as it is now and what will happen how it will end up.. since all matter sooner or later will change shape.
                    One can look inside a boulder and see interesting things-pictures and these pictures are not available for the optic lenses to view.

                    • Elizabeth: “The being will be able to see anything which will be THE NEW REALITIES GAINED, now he can see holographic pictures of anything he wants to. All he needs is to put his attention on the subject and he will view that item.…when viewing the Sun the Viewer will also have total understanding when the Sun was created how it become as it is now and what will happen, how it will end up.. since all matter sooner or later will change shape.”

                      Fascinating post, Eliz. It seems to me that you have personally witnessed and validated what are known as the Akashic records:

                      “The Akashic Records are an energetic imprint of every thought, action, emotion, and experience that has ever occurred in time and space. The Akashic Records can also be understood as the imprint of all experiences of all lifetimes in all realities. They are an etheric [“theta universe”], holographic repository of information for human consciousness for the past, present and potentials for the future…

                      “The Akasha is available everywhere, all the time. Everyone can access information from the Akashic Records at any time, and indeed we do! The flashes of intuition and knowing hunches that occur every day are glimpses into the divine wisdom contained in the Akashic Records. Every being in the Universe contributes to and accesses the Akashic Records.”

                      http://spiritlibrary.com/spiritual-entities/akashic-records

                    • Marildi… validation from you is appreciated.. Thank you very much.. You are the most gifted Librarian this Universe has!
                      I can seen everything I put my attainting on.. light when it is born, how it travels, and disperses, I have traveled up and down on California’s earth quake fault line and seen a new development where on the fault line there is becoming huge pool of lava and the pressure is building up which when reach level will cause a major eruption but that eruption will be huge-devastating. California will be reshaped.
                      I have seen how stars is born. most fascinating thing to watch.. Everything can be seen, let me tell you this is a most fantastic adventure I ever had..
                      By the way our sun will spit into two… she is working on that… that procedure how suns split is very interesting.. I can draw it but I cant describe that phenomenon by words.
                      Marildi I have given up reading simply because to look and see thing as they are much more interesting than reading some second data. Looking at the original action.. now that is the cats meow..
                      And people say auditing don’t work.. well… what can I say?

                    • Erzsebet;
                      Wonderful hearing about your recent revelations. The Sun will split, Calif. will be reshaped. BUT WHEN? Handy info to have.

                      My future may be postulated, but not written in stone. Each time I go to the store to get tomato plants, then decide to plant beans instead, I have changed mine and everyone else’s future. (The farmer, the sales clerk, my daughter when I give her some of the beans, etc. etc.

                      Something you said that caught my attention. To paraphrase: The I, the Self don’t move. Only your considerations move. The universe moves to you, for you.

                      This I kinda knew, but never put it in words or a coherent thought. Since, at the deepest level, you are not in the MEST Univ., it is actually within you, and you simply look where you wish. Events and considerations can fix your attention. Once you clear that up, the actuality becomes apparent.
                      Thanks.
                      Mark

                    • Mark… have you ever really thought about what are those choices you can have? coffee or tea– tomatos or beans? When these choices you make where they were born, out of what?

                    • Erzsebet.
                      I cannot, I will not accept that anything in my future is pre determined. Call it a hard fast fixed opinion or just past case, but the simultaneousness of past and future just does not resonate with me. A being is capable of creating something that has never existed before and was not brought about solely by past experience. The future may be postulated or intended, but does not come about until it is created.

                      The future has no existence until it is created. Random chance and creative thought rule existence. Others intentions for the future are merely a suggestion. The momentum of past and current events will influence the future, but do not rule it.

                      My opinion, Mark

                    • When the concepts of the ”past and future” are confronted than one really understand that there is no past and there is no future can not be! only a moment the NOW what is..

                    • Got it.

                    • PS.. I read it.. OK. but it has nothing to do with love or joy.. Simply means I can SEE -OBSERVE THE UNIVERSE On ALL LEVELS BECAUSE I HAVE REMOVED THE BARRIERS. FUTURE IS EASY TO SEE simply because all matter is postulated into existence so the Planet was born and it will die a violent death. The matter will dissolve, change shape means end of the ”original” and new shape is created from that old left over! By the way the ”human race too will end” It was created therefore it has to end too.:)

                    • Marildi… people cant comprehend what I have achieved… they simply cant understand what happens when the MEST U is erased, because of that what the being capable of doing and KNOW!

                    • M…. I just had a chuckle… I am pleased of the acknowledgement.. yet it has no importance… you see by now what I know do not need ack.. of any kind from any one. simply APROVAL IS NOT NEEDED. I KNOW AND THAT ENDS THERE.

                    • “I am pleased of the acknowledgement.. yet it has no importance.”

                      Glad you were pleased. Interaction and communication between each of us with others are the pleasures in this universe. ;)

                    • Hi there Marildi.
                      In order to have a game, something to do, you have to ‘not know’ something. To have a big game, lots of things have to be ‘not known’. This is so deeply ingrained that we are totally unwilling to know all.

                      Are you completely willing to know the ending to a story from the beginning? Would it spoil the story? Are you completely willing to either play or lose the game. By ‘Lose’, I mean not have the game anymore, not to be the loser.

                      This may sound idiotic, but is exactly the cause of not being willing to look at broad data. It is all there. It’s fine to not know for the purpose of occurrence, activity, challenge, to play the game. As long as one knows exactly what they are doing. Knows that they are doing it.

                      As far as all the knowledge of the future being available? We have the right and ability to change our minds. We might want to ask everyone else. They have the right and ability to change their minds as well.

                      To change the past, we would have to gather up all the players and convince them to do it again. To decide the future, we would have to get everyone to play along, follow the script. Doesn’t sound like much fun.
                      ARCL, Mark

                    • Mark… you have one reality on what is the condition of the game.. and was LRH’s in the first place what you read and you are assuming forming on opinion which is built something which you have not experienced.
                      Game conditions you are talking of belongs to the football field.. but not in the Universe where Free Beings roam.
                      Knowing the Future: the life span of solid objects which seems solid is not part of the game. That kind of knowledge is simply ” knowing” and not available for those to understand who are still boggled down by conditions -rules-regulations -laws and most of all assumptions how is…
                      30 years back I have had the same reality as you have now.. the fear was there stopping me to know and to understand what the future will be, the dread to lose of what I believed in.
                      Solidity that idea is difficult to give up.

                    • Erzsebet.
                      When EVERYTHING is known, there is no randomity, no purpose for activity, experience. No doingness, no future. It’s fine to sit on a mountain and know, for awhile. But sooner or later I have to get up off my ass and do something. When ALL is known, what’s the use. Even Ron admitted that the ideal chronic tone level is somewhere around 20, not 40. There has to be at least some unknown for action to be of any use.

                      Now, don’t misunderstand me, Erzsebet. An ideal state would be completely able and willing to know all, and equally able and willing to not know something. After any activity, where a bit of mystery was necessary, do a complete cleanup, learn and understand everything about that activity, then go on to do something else.
                      My point of view.

                    • There is no such a thing as to ”know it all’ THAT IS IMPASSIBLE since one do not know what one do not know! Knowing do not take away randomity.. don’t confuse meditation sitting in the cave with knowing.. The two is not on the same page. Knowing will never ever stop any one from experiencing.. Tell me who is there someone who can say I know it all?

                    • Erzsebet.
                      ‘Not knowing’ as related to games and activity was a basic principle in the ‘early days’. It was instrumental to the separation of beings (viewpoints). Glance back over my paper, “From the Beginning”. You should know, you were there. It was just a few years ago. Barely half an eternity. Don’t you remember playing catch?
                      Mark

                    • Mark… Eraser of knowledge or any other awareness happened countless occasions since the first light come to be by accident. There were no game conditions what so ever.. just hit and run experiences.. ”smart’ ‘knowing” etc.. those concepts are relatively new. ‘. Separation. is again a concept.. We believe we become separated because we have identified being something, that is all to separation. Mark, when one believes that there is separation than one should run that Item and its opposite the one-ness too plus again all the related belief and agreement. As you go along confront you will notice that life in general and beliefs you have become less and less complicated. The basic is very simple.. very.. and I like it like this.. :)

                    • Erzsebet.
                      I use the word ‘games’ broadly to mean any interesting or amusing activity. Pretty much any doingness. I use the word ‘memory’ to include any knowledge of the past, not just facsimiles stored as a mest diary. I find it more understandable to most people I talk to.
                      Mark

                    • I am glad you have it totally under ”control”

                    • Totally under control? No. Working in that direction? Maybe.

      • marildi, you wrote…”It seems to me that the main confusion comes about because of the different concepts of the word ‘self.'” I would like to expand on that thought.

        It seems to me that the main confusion comes about because of no differentiation between content and concept with ‘concept’ being synonymous with form and symbol. We can get so attached to a concept; we take concepts so personally; we identify so closely with concepts…that we cannot see the content beyond the concepts. For example, the concept of an individual and separate self that has free will and choice is a concept we really get attached to and take very personally. This concept of there being an individual and separate self with free will and choice begets myriad upon myriad concepts (the concept of relationships for example – that’s a biggie) and thereby the ‘movie’ keeps playing.

        Thanks much for the prompt marildi! Love you, Monte

        • Hi Monte. I get what you’re saying about concepts vs. content. Beyond that, however, ANYTHING we try to put into words can thus be relegated to being a mere concept, such as the “concept” you gave of – “an individual and separate self with free will and choice.” However, that is no more or less a “concept” than the idea that “there is no individual or free will”. You can’t know/think about even an isness, an actuality, without it now also being a concept. See what I mean?

          Nevertheless, I think Deikman in his article “‘I’ = AWARENESS” did a very good job of putting into words the idea that ‘I’ as Awareness does exist, distinct from concepts and content. Another article you might appreciate is Geir Isene’s “On Will” http://isene.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/onwill.pdf

          Love, marildi

          • marildi: “You can’t know/think about even an isness, an actuality, without it now also being a concept. See what I mean?”

            Big long sigh….yes, marildi, I know exactly what you mean. But wait! According to other statements I’ve made previously on other posts of Marty’s, it is impossible for me to know exactly what you mean. I’m going to get another beer now. :)

            • I’ll drink to that. :)

              But what makes you think you can’t know exactly what I mean. How could you possibly know that? ;)

      • Brian The Experimenter

        the confusion is in the definitions. Some thought clubs call the “ego” the “self”. They don’t distinguish.

        The Self/Soul is incorporeal consciousness which creates false selves when identified with matter, identities, name, fame etc.

        The soul is not the ego. The ego is an experiencial construct made up of information as recorded with the 5 sense telephones that the awareness of awareness unit mis identifies as Itself.

        I have breasts: I am a women
        I play guitar: I am a musician
        I fell down: I have pain

        The “I'” is the awareness of awareness.

        BTW, the person to first come up with the term “awareness of awareness” was Paramahansa Yogananda. It is in his lessons, written many years before Ron talked about it.

        • The term “awareness of awareness” was also used by Ramana Maharshi and others, as you probably know. But it doesn’t really matter who said it first, right? Any one of them may have come up with it independently anyway. The important thing is that each recognized it as truth, whether or not they coined the phrase themselves, or thought they did, or knew they didn’t. ;)

          Btw, I think “Brian the Experimenter” suits you much better than “Brian the Exterminator.” :D

          • Brian the nudge

            It’s all a matter of view. Touchiness on Ron criticism considered an extermination? Something else is going on there Mirilidi. Just sayin :-)

          • Brian the Exterminater

            Ron claimed false originality on ideas. Ramana and other’s do not. They actually promote each other.

            So for Ron, he gets the prize of being revealed as a huckster for claiming source for things he was not.

            Ron is not in any way in their category.

            • Yes, I see you’re back to being Brian the Exterminator alright. Or maybe I should have called you Brian the Sermonizer. ;)

              Seriously, you are much more effective as Brian the Experimenter. More aesthetic even – and that is so much better than an unaesthetic, over-repetition of the negative, whether it has truth to it or not. Art communicates. Just sayin’ :)

              • Brian the Sermonizer

                Brian the Sermonizer!

                I love it! I always appreciate more titles.

                I will use that one for shure ha ha ha !

                Thanks Mirildi :-)

              • Brian the Honest

                The only trait I can promise is authentic. Popularity is not my purpose.

                • Hey Marildi, Brian the ………
                  Did you catch my post near the beginning of ‘Feet’. It may have slipped by a little early for most to get it. I’ll be busy for the next few days. Hopefully there won’t be many more tornadoes this year.

                  Come on down to the south. We could use the help. That’s my best recruiting line, I never was a Reg.
                  Mark

                  • Thanks for helping out Mark. That is wonderful. If I had the time I would take you up on it.

                  • Yes, I caught it, Mark. It brought to mind the KRC triangle – one of the two most fundamental basics of Scn, along with the ARC triangle. Two workable truths that could change the world all by themselves. But I’m no doubt preaching to one of the top choir boys. ;)

                    And I’ll join Brian in thanking you very much for your help on the 4th dynamic. The positive ripples will flow outward…

                    • Thanks Marildi.
                      Please catch my second comment to Elizabeth on ‘5th Flow’. I believe it is an important discovery on ferreting out forgotten, stuck considerations, the basis of one’s case.
                      ARCL, Mark

                    • Hey Marildi.
                      Thanks for the ack.
                      Don’ forget the Action, Doingness, Gettin busy part of my post.

                      It is my primary purpose for posting on this site.
                      Mark

                • Authentic is a good trait. I have a hunch that alone will lead us to enlightenment

                  (But, of course, Scientology gives us a head start. :D)

                  • Authentic…… Yes……… What an amazing trait. What ever we are, that is what we are. i have spent so much time and energy on peeling off layers of identities I unconsciously mistook to be more real and desirable than the simplicity of my own being.

                    I love authentic people: live wires and characters

                    Some of my friends are atheists. But they are more true as authentic people than folks who darn the fashion of spiritual living.

                    I consider those atheists more spiritual than some who are in a spiritual thought club.

                    Autheniticy…… Most definitely Mirildi, an essential quality of the road to truth. It is being and expressing the truth and natural tendency of one’s nature without assumed identities as an insecure cloak masking the soul.

                    • “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” Shakespeare said it best, didn’t he.

                    • Yes he did Mirildi. Such genius of words.

      • marildi, I would like to explore this identification the you’ve made i.e., “LRH had the same concept…” between Diekman’s ‘I’ = AWARENESS and LRH’s ‘awareness of awareness unit.’

        From the same paragraph in the article that you’ve excerpted from Diekman goes on to state: “`I’ means that we know awareness by being it…” What I get from this marildi is that the ‘I’ that is identical to awareness is non-conceptual. In other words, AWARENESS IS. However, LRH’s ‘awareness of awareness unit’ is conceptual as it states an observer and something which is observed.

        What spyro cited…There is no self, person, being or life.”…that you replied to…how can anyone possibly discuss this and not sound as if they’ve lost all their marbles!? :) Obviously, they can’t yet they or ‘?’ still does. The following video (Tony Parsons being interviewed) is a wonderful demo of this. Note how the interviewer, Sabina, struggles with no concepts. Haha…Sabina is not the only one that struggles with this. :)

        • Monte: “…LRH’s ‘awareness of awareness unit’ is conceptual as it states an observer and something which is observed.”

          It might seem that LRH is stating that, but that’s because of the difficulties of language. You’re right that the phrase could easily be interpreted as meaning that an observer is “observing (being aware of) an awareness” or “observing an observing.” And, as you say, that would mean there’s an observer and something being observed. But I don’t think LRH was saying that. I think he meant that an individual is aware of the state of being aware, even at times when there is no object of awareness – that is to say, there’s only awareness which is the being himself.

          As for Tony Parsons, I watched the other video you posted on the previous thread and what I got from it is that he looks at existence as being like one long 3-D “movie” which no one has any effect on – in fact, no one even exists. But somehow we can all talk to each other about the movie, although that is apparently also just a part of the movie… Hmmm. His view of existence leaves no meaning or purpose to living – and no credence to awareness of awareness either, which is something I find to be actual. Correct me if I got it all wrong!

          • marildi…”His view of existence leaves no meaning or purpose to living – and no credence to awareness of awareness either, which is something I find to be actual. Correct me if I got it all wrong!”

            It’s impossible for me to correct your interpretation. I can only agree or disagree with it as it compares to my interpretation. Of course, in order for me to make an accurate comparison between our interpretations I would have to assume that we are interpreting the exact same thing. And that I know is not the case. No two people in a world of perception will ever perceive the exact same thing. All that said, even though I realize that we are not perceiving the exact same thing, I do agree with your interpretation. :)

            • Monte, I really like you. :)

              • I really like you too marildi. I am your reflection marildi as you are mine. There is no separation between us and there are no two individuals to make an ‘us’ even though our name tags implies differently. At least we can’t bring our bodies to these discussions to give even more weight to the idea we are separate individuals. We are Pure Knowing but as soon as we use a label we objectify and seem to separate. Rupert, in this clip, does a pretty decent job (I think) at explaining this.

                • Monte! Rupert is saying the same thing as Diekman!

                  With Rupert it’s basically “I know, therefore I am.” And for Deikman it was “I am aware, therefore I am.”

                  Nevertheless, my friend, this still doesn’t resolve the issue of who or what “I” is – i.e. whether it’s an individual or a oneness. My present idea is that we wouldn’t be “thinking” or “being aware” to begin with if separation didn’t exist. That is to say, separation must have come about, considering the fact that each of us has to be located in the universe in order to be capable of thinking or being aware of anything in it (the universe). I hope that communicates. :)

                  Please tell me what you base your view on that there is no separation between us; that we are one and the same.

                  • M… I hope you don’t mind me leaving a comment.
                    The separation or being one. these are just concepts. Describing matter. The separation or being one happened when the ”person” was describing matter.. Only speaking, the language is the separating thing.. since the person is describing matter-energy.. the one who ”sees” can not be described it is not matter.,

                    • “The separation or being one, these are just concepts…the language is the separating thing…the one who ‘sees’ cannot be described, it is not matter.”

                      E, what you say makes sense.

                  • Yes, marildi…Rupert and Diekman are saying the same thing as is Tony Parsons, Adyashanti, LRH and so many others who attempt to explain and describe that which no symbol can represent. Thus, the forms of explanation from one person to another can and do vary widely. However, behind the form is the content and if one can somehow bring themselves to detach from the specific meanings and values that they’re assigning to the form and perceive the content absent of all filters…well, I suspect they will discover the content to be the same from person to person.

                    marildi, I love this paragraph you wrote…”Nevertheless, my friend, this still doesn’t resolve the issue of who or what “I” is – i.e. whether it’s an individual or a oneness. My present idea is that we wouldn’t be “thinking” or “being aware” to begin with if separation didn’t exist. That is to say, separation must have come about, considering the fact that each of us has to be located in the universe in order to be capable of thinking or being aware of anything in it (the universe). I hope that communicates.”

                    In this paragraph I believe you have managed to place in the proverbial ‘nutshell’ the basic story of ‘Life’, that is; Life believes that it is an individual and it has a sense of itself as being a separate individual in a universe of other individuals. Yet the individual cannot ever seem to obtain an enduring feeling of being complete. Thus, life is stuck in a perpetual mystery and is constantly seeking to discover this unidentified, unrecognized, inconceivable ‘thing’ that must obviously be apart from itself. And, if Life can manage to discover this missing part and bring that part back to itself, thereby restoring its integrity, the ever evasive mystery will be solved. This (I think) is the ‘issue’ of resolving the who or what “I” is.

                    marildi, I believe that the only way Life will ever solve the mystery of itself is to finally recognize that there is not and never has been a mystery. The so called mystery has never existed except as a pretense, dream, illusion or whatever other concept of unrealness one might want to apply. In other words, of the infinite number of lessons Life feels it needs to learn or is compelled it needs to learn in its journey through time and space…the only lesson worth learning is that there never was anything to learn. EVERYTHING is eternally KNOWN. Not know is an unreality.

                    Life is but a dream.

                    You ask… “please tell me what you base your view on that there is no separation between us; that we are one and the same.” I apologize if it seems that I’m taking the easy way out marildi, but I have come to realize that the request you make of me is one that I will never be able to answer from a viewpoint in ‘Life.’ Symbols and the experience of Oneness (pure nonduality) are irreconcilable. Yet, that noted, I do believe that one can use symbols in a manner that will return them to a recognition of True SELF.

                    Much Love, Monte

                    • “Yet the individual cannot ever seem to obtain an enduring feeling of being complete. Thus, life is stuck in a perpetual mystery and is constantly seeking to discover this unidentified, unrecognized, inconceivable ‘thing’ that must obviously be apart from itself. And, if Life can manage to discover this missing part and bring that part back to itself, thereby restoring its integrity, the ever evasive mystery will be solved. This (I think) is the ‘issue’ of resolving the who or what “I” is.”

                      I must say, that is poignant.

                      And thank you for the song! Nice rendition. :) Here’s one for you:

                  • marildi, just came across this guy, Scott Kiloby. His form; his approach, interests me (content seems to be the same). This is part one of I don’t know how many parts. So far I’ve followed him along on parts one and two and I’m still interested. See what you think.

                    There sure seems to be a lot of folks out there that are looking for Self. :)

                    • Turns out there are five parts to this series “Unfindable Inquiry” from Scott Kiloby. I watched/listened to them all in chronological sequence and found Scott’s perspective, as well as his approach at examining the unfindable, to not only be interesting but also quite useful. I would certainly recommend it to anyone who is drawn to Marty’s blog and especially to anyone who was drawn to this particular blog post, ‘The Self.’

                      marildi, IMO, Scott does the best job I’ve experienced yet of addressing the subject of separation and oneness in a simple way that I find really viable. This is a good demo of what I was referring to earlier when I wrote…”I do believe that one can use symbols in a manner that will return them to a recognition of True SELF.”

                    • Thanks, Monte. I will get to all these videos. ;)

                  • Hi Marildi’
                    My observation is that we are viewpoints. Everything else is added. It is our nature to look outward.

                    That is not to say that these other considered, forgotten aspects of self should be ignored. The Id, Ego, Subconscious, Reactive bank, Animal mind, etc., should be completely brought to light, viewed, understood, as ised, and discarded. This can require looking inward with the full knowledge that the goal is to get back to looking outward from your viewpoint. My observations.

                    Clean and simple. Might take a little work, time to get started.
                    Mark

  2. I am simple.

  3. “Who Am I?” – Enquiry 

    “For all thoughts the source is the ‘I’ thought.
    The mind will merge only by Self-enquiry ‘Who am I?’ The thought ‘Who am l?’ will destroy all other thoughts and finally kill itself also. If other thoughts arise, without trying to complete them, one must enquire to whom did this thought arise. What does it matter how many thoughts arise? As each thought arises one must be watchful and ask to whom is this thought occurring. The answer will be ‘to me’. If you enquire ‘Who am I?’ the mind will return to its source (or where it issued from). The thought which arose will also submerge. As you practise like this more and more, the power of the mind to remain as its source is increased.”

    Ramana Maharshi

    • Brian only energy can increase.. in fact since everything contain the same energy particles the energy when increases it just shifts, continually evolves…

      • Brian The Experimenter

        Thinking I know it all is dying. Thank God!

        Spiritualizing personality, letting go, expanding, identifying outward beyond my body, identifying inward beyond my mind.

        That which was once precious is now like a gravestone.

        That which was once to be avoided is now liberating.

        • Brian The Experimenter

          Brian The Experimenter

          • Brian The Experimenter

            BTW, experiment has the same Indo European root as fear. The original Pre-Historic reconstructed word for fear was “per.”

            Per meant: to try, to risk, to learn by trying.

            So the original definition of fear was not a psychological paralysis like terror.

            The original definition of fear was a word that denoted an attitude, an approach. Thus an expert is one who has “learned by trying.” Someone who risks.

            Go back to the beginning where Unity reigns. That beginning is the ever present now.

            Scientology can introvert a person into constant creating of the mind Elizabeth. Permutation upon permutation upon permutation. Never ending chains of associated events. Always looking in the past to comprehend the present. Always in the mind and reasoning to comprehend reality.

            Scientology can be like an instruction that says, “put out the camp fire with gasoline.”

            A sage one said:

            “I came to the mango grove to eat mangoes, not count branches”

        • hehehe. lots of moving considerations.. phoenix rising -.. but again that to is action.. oh.. hell, we all have to find our own way out of our self created myriad dead ends.

          • Brian the nudge

            Lay the mind aside Elizabeth. Somehow you default to clarifying other people’s reality. They make a statement and you try to “help” them with understanding.

            I would take that need to “one up”, on understanding, and go to it’s source.

            The source of that need will bring great light to you, when you understand why it became part of your personality.

            It could be you have spent too much time in time. Too many associated chains of never ending thinking.

            Looking looking looking for peace and understanding in only auditing will form a lot of mind around the ego.

            “Intelligent” reasons why “my” reality is hear to show you how your reality is flawed in some way.

            Go for it. Find the source of that one. It will bring great release. Great release.

            • Oh.. that is what you see-understand..how you understand, but not duplicated what it is.

            • Brian the know it all…. you judge the persons universe by reading a few posts? you are really good.. and dish out advise? Have you walked in my shoes? go fly a kite! your ignorance is admirable!

            • Brian by the way your advise is good, and when are you going to exercise your self what you advise for others to do? Look into the mirror, that reflection your eyes will see is built by your ego, maintained by the ego and the rest: thoughts, beliefs you have is your havingness collected by the ego. The advise you give is because you believe that you are better off than I am. that what you know is real and valuable enough to push it on others. And that belief is given to you by your EGO.. so mate, don’t tell me about the ego.. I have one, by demonstrating with respond to your comment here. But I am not in denial like you are.. You should not pass a judgement on something and put it down before you FULLY Experiencing IT like 100%!. till than all you have is on assumption on idea.. guessing only.. that is the indication of ignorance..

              • Brian the nudge

                I am constantly deconstructing myself. I actually love the process as I seek freedom and joy. I have found that by being as constructively aware and critical by way of looking, as I suggest you do for yourself, I am offering not a destructive criticism to you but constructive.

                What I suggest for you, I do to myself on a daily basis.

                The emotions you felt, that inspired your above posts, is a pool of uninspected mind that digs in and needs to fight Elizabeth.

                Needing to be right is a tough one to get over. Being in a good realationship has helped me with mine.

                How do you overcome your need to be right?

                It is great work. The first step is knowing it is an issue to be worked on.

                • Brian you do your own thing and let me do mine… we are not on the same page or even the same universe. be happy with what you have and let me enjoy my creation what ever that is.. I do not need your suggestions, please understand that. What ever you are offering believing that is better that indicates you do not allow being-ness. you offer change simply because you cant see that others can be different than you, or they are fine as they are… work on your self don’t work on me… When you have finished the work on your self than you will realise that others are fine-perfect as they are.

                  • Brian the know it all

                    :-) I only gave that point of view Elizabeth because you are quite frequently doing to people that which you are accusing me of, and asking me to stop doing. Namely: evaluating for others.

                    When someone says I am doing something not to their liking, the first question I ask myself after I neutralize energetic knee jerk ego reaction is : is what they are saying true?

                    It is a ball buster of a question. I have learned the fine art of self deconstruction by that question. Ha ha. I have found myself undisturbed and calm and able to see a fault with an open heart and head.

                    And sometimes inspired to say, “I’m sorry.”

                    It is universally a very potent process.

                    Reactions…………. They are full of wisdom underneath their surface

                    • When I step on somebodies toes they can tell me them-selfs.. it is not up to you to correct me in any way. on your way please!

                    • by the way what gives you the bloody idea that I am reactive and emotional..???? I am a Hungarian we all talk like this, we all pour everything into our communication… we love the flowery expressions! We as Hungarians have one of the most expressive languages on this planet!. And we who now use English we bring into our communication the same fiery expressions, energy flows. We Flow baby. we are liquid and me are not stuck on some narrow band of emotion. Go suck your thumb.

                    • Reactions…………. They are full of wisdom underneath their surface.

                    • go for it.. you are in a great need.. you walk your walk, I walk mine.

                • Brian here is something… I can write not as good as you since I do my battles with dyslexia among other things. But I don’t have to be polite to be nice because what others might think of me if I let it fly. So.. now to get to the point, some other times I would hunt you down club you on the head and than eat your liver first.. those days it was not contaminated by chemical, so no fear existed that I might accidentally poison my self, than the rest of your body would be roasted: crispy on the outside tender in the inside and the whole tribe would have a feast on that tasty carcass. Now.. call this what ever you like… go for it…
                  PS I have learned long time back that we cant change peoples mind how they see us, no matter what we do or tell them ..no I am no like that at all! Enjoy your self!

                  • Brian the Food

                    Yum!

                    • Brian the Second Glass of Champagne

                      Elizabeth, I bet you are, or can be, a writer of stories.

                      I have never in my life had a person say to me, (paraphrase) “at some other time I’d eat your liver.”

                      This is the most singularly interesting thing anyone has ever spoke to me.

                      Now, I know you are really communicating, to me, that in a past incarnation when things were, how shall I say, vicious and with expressed animal nature, you would deal with my audacity with eating me and roasting my flesh to golden brown.

                      This could be the wildest thing any human being has ever said to me.

                      Thank you for being a first!!!

                      Joy to you Elizabeth:-) .

  4. The robber is a product of failed parenting.

    Prevented from having.

    Dio

  5. Now, we’re talking.

    • there is only experience…. the WHO’s are valances, personalities enquired in order to identifying with matter therefor existence: time and place. The WHO’s exist in order to be and have but that still remain only a experience.
      Robber? to me that is a riddle… I never heard that before… guessing here;concept of death which erases life?

      • ‘Robber’ used like this is new to me too Elizabeth. My interpretation is that the ‘Robber’ is a metaphor for the ‘Ego mind’ (or whatever else you want to call it). This is a false mind that made the illusion of separation which was its way of appearing to make a pure Oneness into a twoness. In other words, the ego mind is always trying to rob from the real SELF (pure awareness) and make its own individual and separate self (a small and divided self). This is why Chih-men replied ‘Who is asking?’ And when the questioner asked to be helped more, Chih-men knew it was the robber who was asking. The robber is always looking for validation and any address to the robber is a validation that the robber is real. But, Chih-men did not address the robber. Instead, he made a statement that invalidated the existence of the robber i.e., ‘the robber is a coward at heart.’

        • Monte.. right…right.. that the ego is the robber. I never used that concept-considerations -connection. I never felt that I was robbed of something since I was not aware enough till I have entered the Path of Self-discovery with solo auditing.
          Awareness is product of cognitions.

    • you should have written: now there will be something to read… :) since outside of that very sort comment so far you have not written another word.. or we are in telepathic communication and I have ignored yours.. more likely.. that figures.. oh well, what can I say… :) and not likely you will ack this either since you never have acked. my comm in the past.

  6. After pondering this, it’s really quite brilliant! Which brings to mind….

    “A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

  7. Mary Rathernotsay

    I do not know whether there exists an answer that can be expressed using words.
    A helpful and profound practice: Imagine the world without you in it.
    Imagine you are already dead. Your body has disintegrated away.
    Imagine the world.
    Where are you?

  8. The Self – what ‘Self’ are we talking about?

    From A Course in Miracles: “You will believe that you are part of where you think you are. That is because you surround yourself with the environment you want. And you want it to protect the image of yourself that you have made. The image is part of this environment. What you see while you believe you are in it is seen through the eyes of the image. This is not vision. Images cannot see.”

  9. “The robber is a coward at heart.”

    So much rich learning, in those 7 words. If you take from another what you could make for yourself, what is the impetus? Fear of lack?

    Demanding something from another, even just information or clarification, is a way of taking. Give me. Tell me. Teach me. Show me. Fear — the fear of not having, of not knowing, of not resolving a question or curiosity — can become an insistent drumbeat of demands. The mind demands answers.

    I have heard it said that the mind is a thief — demanding Truth, wrapped up with a bow, revealed and resolved forever — a ruthless robber. It would steal your eyes from your head, to ensure you never see another question begging an answer, or a mystery unsolved, simply to escape the fear of uncertainty.

    • Hi Chocolate,
      I like yours and Monte’s views on “The robber is a coward at heart”.
      I stewed around with that for quite a while last night. Finally in bed,
      I came up with what I thought and felt satisfied enough to go to sleep…lol.
      Don’t create fear and misunderstanding by invalidating the fact that you are you. By not taking away from you, you will not fear that knowingness and
      will become stronger. The closer to being you, the simpler things become. Simplicity seems to occur the closer one reaches a point of knowingness of who one is. Complexities seem to branch out from one when the robber comes around.

  10. What I have discovered so far is that the less I identify or allow myself to get attached to (very different to me that connected to) with anything that exists in and out of my universe, the more soul I feel , and the freer, the stronger, the wiser, the more heart/intuition driven, the happier, kinder, the more generous, the more lovable :) I become.

    Regards,
    Luis

  11. Thank you Marty, the posting says it all.

  12. ‘The robber is a coward at heart.’

    Some *random* life wisdom, in order to make the point, that he considered the “Who am I” – issue conclusively covered by the “The one who asked” – answer?

    • I think it means you can’t take a shortcut to understanding

      • That was also my second thought, in order to give it some relation to the issue (if any is intended…).
        The “robber”, instead of searching his own way to salvation, or self-finding, tries to find someone elses way, thus “stealing” it, for being too shy to trust his own “heart” (or capacity to cognite etc.).
        But, for sure, A’s way doesn’t work for B. So, robbing doesn’t work right? That’s why we left Scn, isn’t it?

  13. What is my self? Who am I? What does not come and go?

    I Am.

    • Monte…. soon as you say-think ”I am” with that you have established self as something.
      Even if all is said “I am” that 3 little letter when said or thought of activates a huge energy mass that mass of energy is with one has identified self for the very fist time and the rest of identities-valances-experiences; beingnes- were built on that foundation.
      ”I am” is the first indicator of solidity becoming solid. Every time one say writes ”the letter ”I” with that re-establish the selfs the continuation existence in the MEST U.

      • Hahaha!…..What can I say? SELF is silence. The instant a concept is used, even a little 3 letter concept e.g., ‘I Am’,,, I’m in the world of subject and object. The world of ‘self.’

        Elizabeth, much thanks, for pointing this out. I appreciate it.

        • Monte… most welcome…you see I have learned something from you…we have done a good exchange . We are here to learn.. that is the reason I blog, I am looking for different reality… I you ever looking for different you might find it in my blog. 230 post they are all based on basic-basic cognitions I have had in the past few years. have a lovely evening!

        • Monte… see how this resonate . had this cog.. few years back. let me know. “Looking for power, to boost personal power in order to have more power and to become more powerful? With that one boosts the “I”.

          This realization, cognition had the power of the strongest thunderbolt one ever can perceive.

          Over the years, I put in many hours solo auditing on that subject, “SOLID”s and other related words- concepts-thoughts in connected with that item and every possible combinations:lists

          while in session with that item: solidity I had the major cog.

          The cog, is not easy to explain, but here it is, every time one say “I” with that single concept, one’s drives on anchor point into one’s own universe re-establish self as the creator.

          THAT “I-self ” holds one, keeps one remain solidly in that consideration, agreement and that “I” separates-segregates and creates “LIFE” for self because the “I”=me, by having that consideration that confirms one’s existence.

          With the concept “I” the being refers to self, that establish ones Universe in place, has location, the “I”as a singular identity has memory, considerations, agreements, track, and all those experiences of one’s selfs created universe is locked in with that concept “I”.

          THE LETTER “I” IS THE RIBBON WHICH ONES UNIVERSE IS TIED UP WITH AND ANCHORED INTO THE MEST UNIVERSE: into solidity.

          This cognition is the most important of all cogitations one can ever have yet without the other cogitations in place this understanding would not come.

          Can you see, I was looking as “solid” and I have found the meaning of “I”, with that, I have found the most solid item? “The “I”….. The “I” is which segregated the being, makes it into a singular person.

          This “I” its importance gives existence which gives all the problems all the ARC B’s with others and things in general, with the MEST UNIVERSE, for the spiritual being, to have and to hold.

          One defends that “I” with the entire power one hold in one’s Universe. Flaming swords, Guns, use of law, in and out of law courts, have good rip roaring war, have a few divorces, greed, killing, poison, or just roll over somebody with the steam roller.

          We, defend that “I” with the last breath of the body if that is needed to be done to keep it alive to remain connected into the MEST U be part of the family, the group.

          In order to remain intact, to remain and represent the bank, the track, all our recalls, the so called our LIVES we have and had, which is our having-ness.

          How spiritual one can be with a solid core in place as “I”???

          • Elizabeth, that was one helluva cognition!! SILENCE.

            The ‘I’, though, abhors Silence; is terrified of Silence as it somehow knows that Silence is its death. Thus, the ‘I’ is very busy making lots of noise to so as to keep the Silence hidden. This I suspect is the real purpose of a problem rather than something to keep Spirit from being bored by making games. Problems, I suspect, are the ‘I’s’ most effective means of keeping the Silence hidden from view. But, just like clouds do not extinguish the Sun’s shining light, all the noise generated from problems cannot take away the Silence.

            • Monte.. You got it…
              In my reality there is no free will we just roll along from one incident to the other. We have some choices.. elizabethhamre.wordpress.com
              When the first light happened the with that the “I” was born with that the admiration because seeing experiencing that light ‘’I’ went WOW WOW.. and promptly got stuck glues to that light mass of energy since the accumulation of those tiny particles were the strongest heaviest [[[NOT a CREATION OUT OF FREE WILL BUT BY EXIDENT]] experience ‘’I” was having till that happening.
              THE LIGHT WAS BORN AND SO WAS ”I”., gotten stuck to that and become one with that experience therefore the saying ’’ I am the light’’.. hehehe so are you my dear..
              Than the second thing happened the second WOW different-new light was born, two now graced the endless indigo space! The “I”’s focus was split now simply because the ‘’I’’ have had two different experiences.
              The problem with the ”I” had and have is it can’t move away from the experiences being stuck to them from the first moment on and on that large energy mass the “I” piled on the second energy-mass than the rest of the happenings, actions experienced they are all rest on that basic experience when the first light was experienced.. The track is the chain of events the “I” accumulated and still have.
              One can’t leave this MEST U. can’t go home till the “I” removes separates from the accumulation of experiences.. The “I” needs to confront self; all the reasons have to be understood in order why it has happened in the first place. If you care to read some of the discoveries by all means help yourself.. I write in the blog and emphasise that what I write is my reality, the cognitions are the revelations how I have accumulated my pile of energy..
              I haven’t created anything, just rolled along from one energy mass to the other, always something new happens every moment-THE ENERGY SHIFTS CONTINUALLY…and therefore the continual stimulations.
              Problems arises when the ‘’I’’ gets stuck on one mass-incident and can’t move on.
              The power the ‘’I’’ feels is not self the “I” but the energies the mass has been stuck to, that is the reason ‘’I” loves and needs to accumulate stuff in order to experience that energy-mass and that experience is the feeling of power!
              Have a lovely day! Elizabeth

    • Monte,
      Great voice, great words, great photography.
      Thanks!
      Greta

      • Glad you liked it Greta. I encourage you to explore the music of Kirtana. She writes and sings some wonderful spiritually oriented songs!

    • A satsang with Mooji. Don’t give up. I think what is said goes well with Kirtana’s song.

      • Brian the Student

        I like him. This is what is called Jnana Yoga. Jnana is Sanskrit and is the etymological root of the word knowledge, knome, knowing etc.. The Yoga of Self Inquiry. I’ve resonated with all his talks.

        Scientology could be said to fall under this catagory. Auditing is definitely a self inquiry.

        But with Scientology the Inquiry seems to go on and on with no ending to mind inspection. Or, so it seems to me.

        He is in the lineage of Ramana Maharshi.

        There is so much release and light reborn in this direct inquiry.

        (message for Dave. You are drinking too much at night. Learn to relax: practice yoga postures, they teach it in hospitals for people with heart problems. And meditation can calm down the body so disease doesn’t form)

  14. All right everyone, this is a hold-up, hands up in the air!

    Good!

    Where’s your guru?

    Ah, there you are…

    … now, let me pick that brain of yours…

  15. I am dull enough to not get the quote, and humble enough to admit it. I will offer another take on the self. There is a “Triune” self, as Percival describes in his book “thinking and Destiny”. Three parts, the Doer, the Thinker, and the Knower. The “Doer” is you in and around your body. The other two parts of the Triune self are not readily available to the Doer. But the goal is to unite them all. Its a long story. The book is online at the Word Foundation for anyone interested.

  16. eristic
     
    adjective
    characterized by disputatious and often subtle and specious reasoning
     
    di·a·lec·ti·cal
    1.
    relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions.
    “dialectical ingenuity”
    2.
    concerned with or acting through opposing forces.
    “a dialectical opposition between social convention and individual libertarianism”
    di·a·lec·tic
    n.
    1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
    2.
    a. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
    b. Hegel’s critical method for the investigation of this process.
    3.
    a. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb.
    b. The Marxian critique of this process.
    4. dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions.
    5. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.
    [Middle English dialetik, from Old French dialetique, from Latin dialectica, logic, from Greek dialektikē (tekhnē), (art) of debate, feminine of dialektikos, from dialektos, speech, conversation; see dialect.]
    di′a·lec′ti·cal, di′a·lec′tic adj.
    di′a·lec′ti·cal·ly adv.

    1. (Philosophy) of or relating to dialectic or dialectics
    ˌdiaˈlectically adv

    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
    di•a•lec•tic (ˌdaɪ əˈlɛk tɪk)

    adj. Also, dialectical.
    1. pertaining to or of the nature of logical argumentation.
    2. dialectal.
    n.
    3. the art or practice of debate or conversation by which the truth of a theory or opinion is arrived at logically.
    4. logical argumentation.
    5. Hegelian dialectic.
    6. dialectics, (often used with a sing. v.) the arguments or bases of dialectical materialism, including the elevation of matter over mind and a constantly changing reality with a material basis.
    7. the juxtaposition or interaction of conflicting ideas, forces, etc.

     
    “Dialectical argument is a cooperative, two-sided truth-seeking art that requires a constructive and balanced attitude, whereas eristic dialogue is one-sided, quarrelsome, and antagonistic.” — From Douglas Walton’s 1999 book One-Sided Arguments
     
    “Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into … the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying ‘uncle’?” — From an article by Mattathias Schwartz in the New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2008

  17. Nice post Marty,
    The idea of self or non-self is indeed a subject for debate.
    Here is a quotation from the Ancients:

    “There is no doer of a deed
    Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
    Phenomena alone flow on-
    No other view than this is right”

    In my practice, the idea of no-self or no-soul is
    a working construct in meditation. The Buddha
    recommends its use especially in insight meditation.
    One of the great comical Buddhist similes I like is the idea
    of a monk swinging on a rope in order to cross a stream.
    Eventually the monk needs to let go the rope and land on the
    farther shore.

    Kind Regards,
    George M. White

  18. You have to earn understanding by living?

  19. This approaches a swan song to the ‘founder’….

  20. I did not have an aha moment on reading the dialogue with Chih-men. Oh well. A book I liked was A Roaring Stream which traced the zen lineages back to China with chapters on major teachers. What struck me in that book were the stories of enlightment that came from zen masters offering the most non-sequitur responses to the student seeker. It made me wonder if that was the whole point: to be as non-sequitur as possible. I highly recommend the book.
    As for the question of self: I was thoroughly indoctrinated in the scientology catechism: we don’t have a soul, we are our soul. The awareness of awareness. I AM. While I don’t dispute this idea, post-scientology I ran into the dicotomy of higher self/physical self and later essence/personality. At first I thought, what do they know. Later I came to see this artificial duality can be useful. It seems to me our essence/spirit needs a vehicle to navigate the physical world and so it creates a physical expression to be its eyes, ears and what have you in this more condensed medium. The highs, expansiveness and moments of “enlightenment” are when we as personalities are aligned with our essence/spirit which by nature is not of the physical universe.
    So many practices are focussed on spirit, oneness and the higher states. In doing so they forget living in the present and doing what you gotta do though I can hardly begrudge a moment of bliss or satori.
    What I’ve become fascinated with PS (post scientology), is something called the Michaeal Teachings which offers a system of archetypes that we employ over a course of numerous lives to obtain mastery. You could think of it like a role playing game like Dungeons and Dragons in real life. For me it is fun and fulfilling. Unlike scientology it isn’t something that recruits (there is no organization)… you gotta find it interesting to pursue it.

    • There is a lot of good material in the Michael teachings. I liked what I read. I think you would like the Book, “Thinking and Destiny” by Percival. Though he does not explicitly call it channeling, I suspect that is what happened to Percival over 100 years ago and is responsible for much of the material in the book.

  21. This view is not inconsistent with the wonderful graphic of the post: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-journey-into-hofsta/.

    It strikes me that when I am immersed in the flow of something, my “I” vanishes. It emerges again when I consider myself — when I put my awareness on my being aware.

    I’ve experienced states of exteriorization and even the ability to immediately postulate very real-feeling objects into existence (like say hands). Despite that, I must, as a scientist at heart, hold out the possibility that I am seeing the incredible constructs of the mind. After all, out-of-body experiences can now be stimulated in the lab, many people have mastered lucid dreaming, and there are compelling arguments that there is no “self” — at least not as an independent entity of spirit in the mind-body dichotomy school of thought of which Hubbardism is an offshoot.

    Hubbard went on occasional rants about Darwinism and “man from mud” theories. I made my peace with the conflict as follows. Either I am (a) a spiritual entity who will survive bodily death, or (b) I am a strange loop of MEST gaining consciousness in a literally enchanted universe — and either way I win. I am either an eternal part of the 8th dynamic / godhead / etc. or I have won the cosmic lottery in existing in the first place. Either way, I win — if there is an “I.” “Man from mud” in a magically, enchanted universe of shifting dreams of Shiva or an immortal being lost in an endless dream — either way, a life spent studying these things would not be a life wasted.

    I will describe a true experience in an exterior state. You can be the judge on its significance. I was in an exterior state in full communication with a friend. I experience a fear of separation. My friend called me to her. I went in that direction. She showed me a place at the center of all things. I was there briefly; I “saw” that seeingless place and experienced it with every fiber of my being. At that place, I saw/knew with complete certainty that we are all connected. We cannot be estranged. We cannot be lost. We are always “together” in some sense of the word when we so desire.

    That place at the center of all universes is still as real to me as the sunlight falling on the plowed field outside right now, or the gentle breeze flowing through the open windows. Whether that reality has emerged from an enchanted universe or from our reality as a static, both are incredible, and neither view may matter in the end: the truth of things will be what it is.

    I remember that once I was leaving work in a somewhat troubled state of mind. Outside the building, I paused and looked at the sky and trees. Suddenly a clarity came to me, Zen-like, and I laughed. This is what it is — this place, these trees, the dusking sky, my illusion of self. There is nothing hidden. Here again, if there is nothing more than I see, I am already rich beyond measure.

    I appreciate this blog post from Marty, the simplicity of the graphic, and all the discussions of the commenters. If “I” exist, I wish you all the best.

    • FOTF2012,
      Thanks for the link. The book sounds very interesting.
      Will check it out in further depth.
      My wife and I are currently reading “The Chemistry of Conscious States” by
      J. Alan Hobson, M.D.. In 1994, he introduced a unified model of the
      brain/mind. It is a very good book especially about dreams and
      psychosis.

      As a child, I played the following game from a book I found
      in the library:

      “Hide and seek we played today
      the merry wind and I”.

      Kind regards,
      George M. White

    • FOTF2012 – I really like this.

  22. It’s kinda embarrassing to say but I will anyway …
    I (me) pretty much went gradually into shock as my dreams got shattered bit by bit or I could say by RPF, kid loss, Sec Check trouble, non-enturb order for listening to an ‘alien abduction’ CD, family losses, more kid loss, another RPF, kicked out (all with no regard to my stats/production), ED Int disapproved an extended LOA or my return, CLO turned against me and turned down approval of a correctly done comm-ev then took sides with a x client ‘wanta be whale’, X glued to his SO job, new husband auto accident TBI and then the wake-up evolution back to me ~ Amy’s book [betrayal & regret], husband shot himself in our home [deep sadness], no money for a year [ very interesting], and if not for remembering my goals in life and the many wonderful persons granting me beingness no matter what I was going through and then finally me being more me then the other stuff so I could force myself to learn again and then understand enough that my past became a pleasurable story to remember, my life became bright again with colors and eyesight better too. I still must force myself out for a week of no electricity, eat what is on hand and conserve water just to create a change in life and appreciate the little things. The one thing I have not been able to do with out (I start the generator for) to read my favorite blogs Marty, Steve, Chris’s and Karen & Jeff’s videos for fun :)

    • Cece, good for you on coming through all that. Very well done. :)

    • Still Awakening

      Cece – I understand your story. The fact that you can write about it shows how far you have come. I really connected with your comments about going out for a week in the “rough”. I was reminded of a couple of my favored passages. Hope you enjoy.

      “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” Henry David Thoreau
      &
      “It is one of the blessings of wilderness life that it shows us how few things we need in order to be perfectly happy.” ~ Horace Kephart

      Who knows, we may see you comment like this:
      “Suicidal lizards and barefoot worms.
      btw i got chiggers on my butt.”

      No matter what your experiences – this blog and the others you actively follow will lead you to a better understanding of “self.” It will be your own personal awakening of your unique self-nature you will find. Others may not see it, but that doesn’t matter. It is your’s and for you to know and enjoy.

  23. With ‘The robber is a coward at heart.’ Chih-men is probably referring to current members of the Co$

  24. The only difficulty is that the questioner asked the wrong question. Who dreamed up this idea of self and not-self, and why did we ever go along with them?

  25. Imagine that there is a person standing on the very top of Mt. Chimborazo in Ecuador (the highest point on the planet). The incredible feelings of exhilaration and ecstasy that occurred the moment the person realized that they had actually made it to the highest point on earth; their life long goal; their life long journey, has already come and gone. The feeling they are stuck with, a feeling they are enormously familiar with, is the same feeling they had back when they were a kid living on a wheat farm in Kansas. The feeling that initiated their journey. The feeling that has been their impetus for their entire life. The feeling that something was missing and that ‘something’ was the key to their being complete.

    This person, in their journey, has accumulated many, many stories (some gruesome) of having to overcome one formidable obstacle after another in order to move ahead toward their destination. These are dramatic stories of confronting the trials and tribulations of learning everything they had to learn to make possible this very moment they were experiencing. Yet, as they stand on this mountain top, knowing that there is no higher mountain top to climb, but still not finding that ‘something’ they’ve been searching for their whole life…well, they are in a pickle. Here they are on the edge of something and it isn’t a mountain cliff, it’s the edge of physical and abstract. And this person has no technique, no gear, no training, no understanding, no know-how that they can attach to the abstract so as to pull their self into it. However, that has certainly not stopped this person from trying absolutely everything they have at their disposal and from every which angle one could imagine. Their mind has gone into high gear and it is determined to get this problem figured out one way or another or die (as many times as necessary) trying.

    Of course, the mind never will be able to solve this problem as it is a key part in the problem.

    I suspect that every ‘person’ that has an attraction to Marty’s blog, whether they contribute their perspectives to it or not, are ‘persons’ that have been standing on the mountain top for quite some time. At least long enough to have the recognition that each person has a path, script, journey (whatever) peculiar to them. And that no person needs, permission, approval or agreement from anyone or anything in order to pursue their path. And whatever language, words, symbols a person chooses to use to describe their journey is their choice. And while those that do contribute their views to this blog often times communicate with much authority, we all recognize that there are no authorities here. There is no person more or less than any other person.

    We are all standing on the edge of physical/mind (self) and abstract (SELF) and those two will never meet. They are irreconcilable.

    To move on up a little higher, to ‘move’ into SELF, we don’t have to get anything or arrive anywhere. We just have to Be who we really are.

  26. My sense is that another person cannot give you realisation. Ultimately, one must look inside to the heart of awareness and recognise opposition to what is. Just let it all be, including oneself.

    • “A friend is someone who gives you total freedom to be yourself-and especially to feel, or not feel. Whatever you happen to be feeling at any moment is fine with them. That’s what real love amounts to – letting a person be what he really is.”

      ― Jim Morrison

    • One more for the road:

      “Probably the most neglected friend you have is you. And yet every man, before he can be a true friend to the world, must first become a friend to himself.”

      – L. Ron Hubbard

  27. Well said.

  28. Many people have “out-of-body” experiences, which they fondly remember for the rest of their lives. Such experiences are never under one’s control. They cannot be consciously repeated. Usually they do not repeat on their own either. A big deal is made out of “out-of-body” experiences in Scientology. In fact, Scientology has made itself a big $$$ “church” by exploiting this phenomenon.

    .

    For most people, body is an intimate part of their self. The Scientology command, “BE THREE FEET BACK OF YOUR HEAD” may simply serve to jar, momentarily, one’s fixed attention on the body. It may give one a glimpse of what it is like when the attention is not fixed on the body.

    This command may not have any effect on a person whose attention is too fixed on the body, or whose attention is not fixed on the body in the first place.

    Those who are affected by this command may believe that they have suddenly separated from the body and are ‘exterior’ to it. In actual case there is only a shift in viewpoint of the person. He didn’t even know how fixed his attention was on the body.

    Scientology uses strange vocabulary, such as, ‘thetan’ and ‘exteriorization.’ It believes that the person is a spiritual entity, called ‘thetan’, which has separated itself from the body, called ‘exteriorization’. But what has actually happened here is a relief from fixation on the body. This sudden relief may be surprising, but soon that feeling of ‘exteriorization’ is gone.

    Only a memory of that feeling remains. But it is enough for people to wanting to keep going up the Scientology “bridge”.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/thetan-and-exteriorization/

    .

  29. Pingback: Akasha Records.. below is on exchange between Marildi and I in Marty’s Blog | Elizabeth Hamre's Blog

  30. This is my understanding about why Dianetics cannot be run on OTs.

    Dianetics has to do with running pictures with somatics. Here one may come up with a past life incident that blows one’s present time somatics. This works when one has such pictures, which, in fact, are very few on a case.

    Majority of aberrations come from embedded alter-isness in the form of ideas and significances that one has accepted. In this category we have assumptions, speculations, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc.

    By the time one reaches OT levels, the pictures with somatics are supposedly erased. What is left to audit are embedded significances that are alter-isnesses but one is convinced of their “truth”.

    But because one is conditioned to audit past life pictures, and tolsd that there must be a basic-basic, one continues to dig into one’s past lives pictures. This is where it goes wrong because one is auditing through the assumption of past life pictures being responsible for one’s case.

    Instead, one should simply audit inconsistencies that one sees in one’s present environment.

    • auditing is looking at inconsistencies… that is all. if you have done it differently and believe it being different than you have a huge misunderstanding what auditing is.

    • Vin.
      I’ve been running a variant of whole track R3 for years with no apparent ill effects, ill effects, ill effects…….Wait, what was it I said. Who am I…..Uh….I’ll get back to you.
      Mark

      • Did you get any somatics after going clear?

        • Hi Vin.
          The varying states of release called ‘clear’ are states of release which help one to let go of the idea of carrying their charged memories around with them. But these memories can be mocked up as MEST pictures again at any time. It is a wonderful and valuable state.

          But there are an infinite number of computations which can cause one to impress energies and aberrations on the body. There are also other individuals somatics which are not recognized which can affect the body. (The so called OT-3/OT-7 phenomenon.)

          As one goes up tone and more in PT, these fade but do not disappear. You take a more active, conscious role in controlling your body, but it is a gradient. When I have a body problem which does not seem to have a PT source, I track it down and see if I can find a reason I am causing it.

          There is a great deal of quantity involved. The number of grains of sand on the beach. This can seem like a daunting effort, but you just plow through and after awhile you begin to look forward to the next discovery.

          Example: The number of computations and considerations that are attached to back pain can be, well, a s##tload. Clear up that gun thing, and the moose incident can bring it back. Track that down, and that fall off a cliff can kick in. After awhile you get an overall understanding of the mechanism you were using and the somatic ceases, and the body just starts doing it’s job correctly. Various emotions and computations hold these somatics in place. They go back to considerations created before the MEST bank was invented, but attach to later incidents.

          ‘Clear’ is one aspect of case, an important one. But one of many. The implied answer to your question is ‘yes’.
          Mark

          • Hi Mark,

            The varying states of release called ‘clear’ are simply letting go of filters through which one has been looking all his life. It is a wonderful and valuable state. But it doesn’t mean that there are no more filters.

            The filters have both spiritual and physical aspects. As long as there is body and there is spirit there are also filters. Body and spirit are not things that are separate.

            As body dies, it reduces to an electromagnetic field that now houses the patterns of the spirit. This electromagnetic field becomes part of space where other electromagnetic fields reside. Parts of these fields then precipitate into a new body, and we have a new self.

            Neither ‘soma’ nor the ‘somatics’ ever disappear because they are needed to house the spiritual patterns.

            When they do disappear, they disappear together. Buddha called that Nirvana.

            I think this explanation is much simpler. I like it better.

            Vinaire

            • Hello Vin. Been reading your comments but not replying to all of them.

              From what I gather, this is a simplistic version of what I understand to be your view on individualism, spirituality.

              Imagine a large piece of paper with iron filings sprinkled evenly over it. (Theta, God, the Ether, Life.) Now place a small magnet under the paper at any point. Some of the filings will congeal, coalesce to form a point, a single density (Birth, Creation, the beginning of an Individual.) Remove the magnet and shake the paper (Death) and the filings will disperse, but are still there, spread back out among the others.

              The physics of magnetism and quanta apply.

              This is a crude metaphor, but basically what I am seeing here.
              Mark

        • In an earlier comment to Vin.
          ” I’ve been running a variant of whole track R3 for years with no apparent ill effects, ill effects, ill effects…….Wait, what was it I said. Who am I…..Uh….I’ll get back to you.”

          Apparently I am not yet completely ‘Clear’ on the subject of humor.
          Mark

          • I had a lovely discussion with Pip on the reality of God. I ended up with the realization that God is the reality beyond the filters. The last is the “filter of separation” and that is the “filter of self”.

            The bible is the word of God and the bible says “be still and know that I am God”. Of course, when the filter of separation, or the filter of self, has disappeared , then I shall be one with God… and then I shall know who or what God is.

            http://vinaire.me/2014/05/25/a-lovely-discussion-on-god/

            .

  31. I see time as an aspect of motion. So is space an aspect of motion. And so are matter and energy… they all are aspects of motion.

  32. I just saw this on the South African blog and thought the readers of this blog should see this:

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-building-gold/

    Dio

  33. After reading MIke’s write up of how DM spends money, (which I never imagined to be so outrageous) the idea of DM being absolute dictator of the COS, having absolute power, has revealed a new meaning for me.

    I knew it was bad, but this a new meaning of bad or outrageous.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutly,cannot be truer.

    It is absolutely criminal.

    And to the church members and especially big donaters, who put up with this, I have this to say:

    A fool and his money are soon separated.

    Dio

  34. I’ve spend a lot of time studying, pondering trying to perceive and differentiate between a being, other beings and bodies. A conclusion I reached which is 100% empirical to me, and I’m speaking for myself alone, is that there is no such thing as a being (a thetan, a spirit). Also, there is no such thing as the case of a being. A postulate CAN exist for a being to come to existence, to be. This is not the case for the body. The body always exists for itself. It can perceive itself through it’s perceptions. It is real –an isness. A ‘being’ is not so. Without a body, unless I think of a self, there isn’t any –no identity, no point from which to perceive, no point of effect, nothing. The óut-of-my-obvious-control ‘spiritual action’ within my body, is not mine, as a spirit, either. I don’t have a case. All case is but a soup of identifications between spirits bodies and I don’t know what else.

    I just wanted to share. I’m happy to see through that maze.

    • Oh speaking of ‘spiritual action’. I cannot really define it thoroughly. You know, due to data, I used to consider anything I perceived which was of a high wavelength to be mine (my case) –stuff like dreams, or thoughts that ‘pop up’ without me obviously making it happen, and other stuff. But I found that the more I didn’t identify, the less I had a self, the less I had all that –up to an absolute point of having nothing. That’s why I’m saying now that case is identification. From a totally exterior from everything viewpoint, what is ‘mine’, is only what I consciously create. The rest I can perceive due to communication or identification with other things, but they’re not mine. My ‘world of thoughts’ is under my full control, for as long as I don’t confuse it with other’s ‘worlds of thoughts’.

      What’s my responsibility about those others? My game is to understand that better.

  35. From a comment on Vinaire’s site concerning John McMaster’s statements on PTS/SP tech as researched in 1965.

    Mark:
    “Did no one notice that a solution is available for the subject of PTS/SP aberration as researched and nearly completed by McMasters and his team?

    Was this completely ignored by everyone due to their emotional discord with Hubbard or the church. Look people, look. What was really important in this post? A MAJOR piece of potential tech that could improve the lives of many. Just a little bit of additional research and we could have something really worthwhile. What do you consider important?

    I have seen this phenomenon in the distant past. People could not see the importance of what is right in front of them due to their own fixed opinions and emotions. I am disappointed to see it again here at this particular point in time.

    I have a few thousand $’s to chip in. We would need a few insightful, compassionate auditors, a few PCs and a site to do a few years work. Saint Hill all over again, with 50 yrs. of knowledge to build upon. We have a real chance to do something worthwhile. Eh?
    Mark”

  36. Mark, isn’t that what David St. Lawrence is doing on his Independent Spiritual Technology Forum?

    http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php

  37. We need a process to exteriorize Scientologists from Scientology. Here are some thoughts in that direction.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/30/being-self-centric-scientology/

    .

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s