Myth, Mysticism and Insight

 

In The Tao Of Physics, Fritjof Capra makes some interesting observations on the subject of myth in mysticism and what those of insight come to understand about such.   I had as much in mind when I wrote of constructs in the book ‘What Is Wrong With Scientology?’,  but clearly did not articulate it nearly as well.

“Indian mysticism, and Hinduism in particular, clothes its statements in the form of myths, using metaphors and symbols, poetic images, similes and allegories.  Mythical language is much less restricted by logic and common sense. It is full of magic and paradoxical situations, rich in suggestive images and never precise, and can thus convey the way in which mystics experience reality much better than factual language.  According to Ananda Coomaraswamy, ‘myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.’

“The rich Indian imagination has created a vast number of gods and goddesses whose incarnations and exploits are the subject of fantastic tales, collected in epics of huge dimensions.  The Hindu with deep insight knows that all these gods are creations of the mind, mythical images representing the many faces of reality. On the other hand, he or she also knows that they were not merely created to make the stories more attractive, but are essential vehicles to convey the doctrines of a philosophy rooted in mystical experience.”

If there is truth to this, what does one make of the understandings or motivations of those who insist upon literal conceptualizations of imaginative religious mythology?   Are they of deep insight themselves?  Are they actively preventing others from developing or attaining deep insight?   You might have experienced some of the cognitive dissonance (or analytical and/or intuitive enturbulance) that is concomitant with inculcation of fantastic mythologies, not as part of an acknowledged ‘mystical experience’ but instead as cold, hard, unquestionable fact.  Or perhaps you are comfortable with the security that comes with faith and belief in mythology.

395 responses to “Myth, Mysticism and Insight

  1. I’ve been watching Joseph Campbell’s Power of Myth video series and it made me think about you Marty. I kind of felt like I was tuning in to something that was on your mind as well, so it’s funny that you wrote this post today.

    My thoughts on this are that the Myths allow us to use our imaginations and tap into a visceral place can not be experienced in words…So we can understand it on a deeper more personal level. And that is what all art gives us. Whether it be poetry, painting, dance, etc. It creates an experience that happens in you and through you. We can learn about our shifting landscapes that exist inside of us by embracing story, about the potentials that we possess inside ourselves and transcend through this. I believe that if you get too literal and insist upon cold hard facts, then you will be hindered. Your creativity will be stunted and your imagination won’t be able to live. And therefore you will have less understanding and less of an experience.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for your thoughts on this Jamie. The energy webs that synchronicity weaves are incredible. That is apparent only when one develops the intuitive powers to see and appreciate them. I am really glad to hear you are developing yours so splendidly.

    • Jamie, I very much appreciate your perspective. I guess you could say it ‘resonates’ with my own interpretation of that which I am perceiving.

      You wrote: “My thoughts on this are that the Myths allow us to use our imaginations and tap into a visceral place can not be experienced in words…So we can understand it on a deeper more personal level. And that is what all art gives us. Whether it be poetry, painting, dance, etc. It creates an experience that happens in you and through you. ” As I read this I was reminded of a video clip I recently watched of Rupert Spira’s where he talks about what art does with thought. Here’s that clip:

    • Hi Jamie,
      Nice comments. Simple and informative for me.
      I always was literal when it came to myths and never
      really let my imagination be part of what was showed
      or was being said. It was a problem…what is he saying,
      what does that mean? I can’t figure this out. The idea of
      letting and using my imagination to digest what I observed
      just wasn’t there. Or should I say I didn’t let it be there.
      I recall a time I was at an art museum in LA. As I walked
      through I noticed people discussing the art etc. I had this
      dull feeling, sort of what the hell are they talking about point
      of view. What is there to say about that painting….stuff like that.
      Then as I walked into another room I saw a figure piece and thought
      the poor guy looks to be in despair. As I looked down, I noticed the name
      of the piece…..Despair. Did my whole life change and all things flow in
      the direction of perceiving things as I saw them so as to make my own
      decisions? No it didn’t but at that point I was able to validate myself for
      having some ability to (in nano seconds I might add) imagine what was going
      on with that piece of art and feel what it was communicating.
      Being from a Midwestern state, the general point of view was very literal
      and those who choose to let themselves observe things with imagination and
      interest were labeled odd or weird.
      When I got into Scientology I moved to LA and was around more people with
      varied points of view. This helped me lighten up a bit but since Marty started
      commenting on these various ways to observe and use ones imagination and point of view all of the old stuff got stirred up. This is not a bad thing. Got me
      thinking again. Big words and concepts seemed to intimidate me and my once
      again burgeoning literal point of view started popping up. This post by Marty is a good one for me and your simple to understand comment is the cherry on top.

    • Jamie , there is not much to add to your comment.
      I am reading the “Tao of Physics” right now with the help of my physicist husband and finally understands the use of myths and paradoxes.
      It fits my longing for not having to use words and yet be able to use them without compromising my inner experiences.
      Imagination is key , and yet I have seen it killed by literalness in loved ones who find refuge in it for comfort and their world shrinking to the confines of it.

    • Very well explained Jamie!

    • Jamie, I was watching your new video about the enslavement of the Sea Org people and I want to agree with you on that. VWD to you in the film by the way and your education of the children there. It is like walking through the Auschwitz National Museum.

      The tech with which to not wind up trapped in a dwindling spiral in the MEST universe existed whether L. Ron Hubbard ever discovered it or not. The fact that he did discover it paves the way sooner to a lot better and greater understanding between people. Using this tech as the basis by which to trap people (as the Church of Scientology does) although an injustice is actually a favor to Mankind. It shows for the first time anywhere eternal true tech being twisted by people “sharing” it with others.

      L. Ron Hubbard’s confidential materials are no longer confidential in this universe nor are they dangerous to people’s sanity and well beings’ as L. Ron Hubbard expected his churches followers to believe they were. The enslavement of the current church’s congregation (both labor and finance wise) proves this. There are many cases that exist in the world of people that were members of Church of Scientology for 18 to 22 years full time and never went Clear. Some of these people have never even had any reality on the subject of after life implants. So how is their situation helping to free the rest of Mankind?

      True tech belongs in the hands of people that can better themselves and those around them with it, and no one else. So what in the hell is the Church of Scientology doing with their hands on it? :) Certainly not helping all the people they claim to be, this much I know. :)

  2. A strict literal adherence to the words of LRH comes from the same well as the Christian creationists who insist the world is only 6000 years old. Both are examples of the “hobgoblin of little minds” that Emerson spoke of.

    • Is this an attempt to rationalize away the absurdity of the time, place, form, and event, “engramic” incidents given to Scientologists to duplicate and “run,” while holding the electrodes of their e-meters, so as to accomplish “perfect duplication” of the time, place, form, and event of those (meant to be) literal – down to the tiny details and sometimes fractions of a second – time track incidents, so as to “as is” the (“body thetan”) “engramic” content and “charge”?

      I hope it’s not that.

      Let it be a discussion that has nothing to do with Scientology.

      • If that’s what it means to you, you’re welcome to it.

      • B. V. Orts, I came to realize something without holding the cans. Tory Christman (an acquaintance of mine, once said she is no longer a doormat for the Church of Scientology, so did my sister tell me the same thing). Both of those two ladies are strong believers in Karma both good and bad. I may have been used as a doormat but they stepped all over me and tripped and fell with their O/W’s still in their hands. :) LRH says “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others”. So, I guess I did my part to help others see the differences between L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy and the practices of the Church of Scientology. Which would you rather choose? Is it any wonder why the people in the church have the amount of real opponents that they do? :)

        • Lawrence.. people don’t want to see the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND LRH’s auditing technology.. You see, if they would admit there is a huge difference than they no longer could rant and rave but they would have to go and finish that BRIDGE… Go OT than continue with solo auditing the rest of their life like i have and give up all of those O/W’s :)
          I wonder if you read Geir Isenes blog. [ I comment there for 3 years now]
          In his last post he said he would do the Bridge all over again if he needed to re do it and he would do it in the church of scientology and put up with all that garbage-shit because it was worth it. Geir is OT8 and I too say the same and would crawl to Hell and Back if it needed to re do what I have done. Here is one session out of the many thousands I have had in 40 years. this was one of the most difficult; and I would do 40 more if needed to redo…

          I would like to share the most difficult sessions I ever had out of the tens of thousands.
          The topic was HELL but I won’t repeat the auditing question which triggered off such a huge mass which I could not erase for three days. That concept whatever it was held me twisted bunched up in agony and nearly un-conscious.

          The session started early afternoon, yet I could not get out of it by late evening, I was exhausted hungry, felt panic since I could not see pictures but felt that twisting agony.

          This never happened before to have 8 hour session in one sitting, but I had to end it. Fallowing morning I went to work I was in the zombie state all day and driving was very difficult since I was not conscious.
          At home back to session I went, same all over, occasionally I could surface enough to repeat the auditing question: Again I could not get out.
          This time I stopped to eat than back to unconscious state. The session was almost 11 hours long. In the morning back to work same state continued, but by being having some thoughts surfacing I realized I was in trouble and felt panic what if I can’t pull myself out? big time heavy panic set in…

          At home eat, than back into session, with the same auditing question. The most difficult part of the session just started, because realization has come I must look beyond the unconsciousness, I must find my way out in order to see what I was in: that I must find a tread, a picture which will give me something to continue with something to fallow.
          It worked, very slowly; I pounded the walls of ” Hell” at first with just a smidgen of returning energy, since my thoughts were less than whiff of smoke in the autumn evening.

          But the auditing questions continued, the ack.’s were there to. The pictures started to roll and I have come out of the depth of Hell. The cognitions rolled in for days and I could not go into session for a month. Auditor’s code well learned and being kept can take any PC out of any incident. That session was 6 hours. Wins galore, Hell as=ised, the universe rejoiced…………
          Lawrence, some people will never get it.. never in million lifetimes. Best to you Elizabeth.

          • Elizabeth, one can not go back something one never originally had in the first place unless one causes it to be for one in present time. The Church of Scientology has NEVER been anywhere that I thought I should be, doing what the rest of the people there were being mistaken for doing. I wish that there could be such a place for people to go and do that, but there isn’t and I am a sort of hard core type critic. I kind of agree with people iike Arnaldo Lerma that if there is something wrong with the “tech” then it is because there was something wrong wih the guy “LRH” who wrote it. I have never had a problem with that viewpoint, it just requires a high degree of confront. :)

      • And plus, the NOT’s Class IX C/S at Flag Mark Campbell got into a fight with me about why I didn’t have the case he was supposed to be addressing. How does that make sense? It is just like saying to someone “Excuse me, you are already a responsible person so f*** off”. Thank you Mark, I can see how much your training and auditing and paid off. Thank goodness I decided not to give them another dime. Can you imagine getting auditing there at Flag and in between sessions the C/S is nattering about you and backflashing. I didn’t have it in my heart or anywhere else to backflash back.

        • Flag IS NOT the friendliest place in the whole world. And the environment IS NOT distraction free. At least when I was there it was not. It was full of distractions. Everywhere I went at Flag I met up with church criminals. The EO from New York the extored money out of so and so to pay for her OT IV, the DOT that impersonates ethical people to people he’s ripping off, the reg that travels to New York rips people off and then goes back on post at Flag. How can anyone let anyone like that audit or sec check them or even share the space with them? Flag was not a 100% standard place when I was there.

  3. All the “space opera” material in scientology was never presented to me as myth or symbolism or allegory or anything other than what was and is there. I just happened to reject most of it. Those who did not reject it may be in a mental box. I don’t recall it presented other than as fact. The old man sold it as truth. At least that’s my recollection. There is a lot of value in symbolism and allegory as teaching tools. Freemasonry’s teachings are full of it. Symbols are great teaching tools and can be timeless. Scientology has a few. ARC/KRC triangles are a good example of a symbol. But I do not recall the material being presented as myth and allegory. It was a packaged product. My way or the highway.

    • Thank you for those insightful observations. And thank you for being willing to confront the truth.

    • Very true in my view Tyler. It seems to me that people who are defaulting to the OT materials being an alegory is a sort of “logical” insulator or buffer against being perceived as looney for buying into it.

      Allegory? LRH was running BTs till the grim reaper came a callin.

      On the other hand, I believe that allegory and the power of myth are ideational representations of real internal forces of thought and mind.

      That is why the OT materials bite. That is why people are having reads and blowing charge.

      My brother is a long time student of Campbell and works with the orgainization. My brother goes to a therapist who engages my brother in dream therapy. He runs the symbols in his dreams and seeks to get to their underlying seed thoughts that represent aspects of his real waking state world. My brother gets a lot of gain from it.

      I am convinced that this is the reason OT prossesses run and cause realizations.

      They are running concepts, not realities.

      But the danger in Scientology is this: my brother knows he is running dreams, Scientologists believe they are running realities.

      And therein lies the societal danger:

      Hubbard was fighting fantasies that he believed were realities.

      And that inner battle of his, with his own fears and suffering, became the institutionalization of the GO/OSA.

      Real people were harmed because of his dream therapy.

      • martyrathbun09

        It is interesting how condescendingly and facilely you are able to dispense psycho analytic evaluations. What you and Tyler seem to be mocking up is a contention in the original post that it was ever intended to be presented as myth or construct. Notwithstanding repeated protestations to the contrary you continue playing out the dichotomies by judging, choosing sides, and attacking. Not a wonderful demonstration of the transcendence you preach your chosen path allegedly bestows.

        • Marty, what I took away from your original post was that scientology was not presented as myth or allegory, and that by being presented as a reality it channeled and restricted one. I did not think your contention was that it was meant to be presented as myth. I thought Brian’s response was pretty much in line with that interpretation as well.

        • Good morning Marty. I am simply a student. I have never said anything but. With faults and worts.

          But my intention in writing this regarding the OT materials I believe is important. What has been done in the name of this OT materials story has harmed real people.

          Telling the difference between realities and allegories is important.

          I heard you on a radio show when pressed about the OT materials that it was just an allegory.

          It could be I pressed a sensitive button.

          Lets see how this plays out.

          Tell me where I am wrong in my view of the OT materials. Disagree with an idea as opposed to making it personal.

          Where do you dissagree with my thoughts?

          • Will get back with you later. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

          • martyrathbun09

            Your first paragraph, and its judgmental evaluation from whence the post came. I find it particularly ill-conceived given all I have shared and how I have bent over backward for so long attempting to educate people out of their self-imposed mental prisons.

            • My comment was informed, I think it was MarkNR, not sure. Actually it could have been a response from Mike’s blog but here was the content:

              Someone had mentioned that it was actually church policy to mislead when talking about OT 3. It had to do with acceptable truth (lie) and to tell people, when cornered by press to say it is an allegory.

              And after hearing numerous people use that “story” I concluded it must be true.

              That acceptable “truth” it seems to me is the buffer so that a Scientologist is insulated from the judgement that wogs would make. And the judgement would probably be a judgement toward the looney side.

              That was my point to agree with Tyler.

              Concerning your back bending; be assured we all appreciate it.

              I know I do.

              Regarding me, please understand, I am a work in progress. I work on humility every day, I never said I was good at it! ha ha.

              And…………… I have confessed to being an arrogant fool many times here.

              So when I get out of hand just have mercy ;-)

              If I ever am in conflict with your standards I will default to you. This is your blog, your home.

              • martyrathbun09

                Sorry. I am the only person that I know of who has written or spoken publicly to suggest that Scientologists ought consider their mythologies as construct. So, I thought you were addressing me. My apologies Brian.

                • No problemo. Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I did not even have you in mind. Well actually I did, but a few others as well. It was the idea of hiding the real story as opposed to judging anybody for doing the hiding. I simply thought it was church policy.

                  It is possible that it is not church policy and this person gave me wrong info. Maybe someone can clear it up for me.

                  Sometimes texting can be difficult without the body language, tone and such. I appreciate the clarity.

        • I am confused about this response from Marty.

          • Interesting thread / conversation.

            From all I studied, Hubbard claimed truth rather than allegory. But what if he created allegory without even intending to do so?

            Xenu imprisoned in a mountain. Satan cast into a pit. Loyal officers as guardian angels or angels loyal to a god. Our unwanted thoughts and fears personified as body thetans, compared to say demon possession. Creation involving even cherubs. Supernatural abilities. Heaven decayed and forlorn compared to say, paradise lost. Being a spirit rather than having one. A spiritual universe transcendent of and causative of the MEST / physical universe.

            Looked at as allegory — whether Hubbard intended it that way or not — Scientology’s theology could be worded something like:

            In the beginning, spirit created the MEST universe. The universe was a place for games and learning, with the greatest prize being the love and admiration of other beings. Over unimaginably long periods of time, spirits lost their knowledge of their true nature. Evil beings further destroyed the identity of these spirits and so they dropped ever further down a dwindling spiral until they believed that they themselves were the creations they had made. Spirits of the lost and damned clustered and possessed the bodies inhabited by other spirits. In this dazed and semi-conscious state, all the spirits sank ever further into stupor, falling ever deeper into believing they were the muck. Occasionally, beings would awaken in whole or in part, and try to waken their fellows. But they sleeping beings, floundering in their forlorn state, had been programmed to destroy any enlightened being — any messiah — who might try to destroy them. Though these beings cannot die, they can become unconscious, and lost in the illusion of time, sleep — forever alienated from their divine nature.

            Now really, paraphrased in non-Scientologese, it’s not that outlandish as far as beliefs go.

            And it does (for me anyway) resonate on an allegorical level at the most personal of levels: there is good and evil; I must strive to become ever more awake; this universe may have been created and I (and you) may be entrapped in its illusions; and so on.

            I would have loved to hear what Campbell and Fritjof might have said looking at Scientology from the perspective of myths and allegories about the human condition.

            • Excellent post! I especially liked the following:

              “Our unwanted thoughts and fears personified as body thetans, compared to say demon possession.”

              One would be out of any dwindling spiral in no time if one can only start recognizing inconsistencies and looking at them more closely.

              • vinaire stated: “One would be out of any dwindling spiral in no time if one can only start recognizing inconsistencies and looking at them more closely.”

                vinaire, as I took in what you wrote my course in miracles lesson for today instantly came to mind. Particularly these passages…

                “Choice is the obvious escape from what appears as opposites. Decision lets one of conflicting goals become the aim of effort and expenditure of time. Without decision, time is but a waste and effort dissipated. It is spent for nothing in return, and time goes by without results. There is no sense of gain, for nothing is accomplished; nothing learned.”

                [...]

                “Choosing depends on learning. And the truth cannot be learned, but only recognized. In recognition its acceptance lies, and as it is accepted it is known…Decisions are the outcome of your learning, for they rest on what you have accepted as the truth of what you are, and what your needs must be.”

                [...]

                “In this insanely complicated world, Heaven appears to take the form of choice, rather than merely being what it is. Of all the choices you have tried to make this is the simplest, most definitive and prototype of all the rest, the one which settles all decisions. If you could decide the rest, this one remains unsolved. But when you solve this one, the others are resolved with it, for all decisions but conceal this one by taking different forms. Here is the final and the only choice in which is truth accepted or denied.”

                http://www.acimdailylesson.com/lesson-138-heaven-is-the-decision-i-must-make

              • Remember that movie “The Exorcist” about the little girl that was possessed by the demon Pazuzu? The OT levels were already out at the time at the AO’s. Why didn’t somebody just go over there and tell Mrs. Macneil “Mrs. Macneil. Your daughter is not possessed. That’s her body thetans!”. At which point a Class IX auditor and C/S would have been summoned to the set, to finish the movie by freeing Regan Theresa MacNeil from the grips of the noon day devil. :) You have to admit, some of those medieval exorcist stories ARE pretty far fetched. It was probably their clusters or the porridge was too hot. :)

            • FOTF2012, really enjoyed your post! Thanks.

              Perhaps one of the most well known allegories is Plato’s Cave. And for me personally, that allegory serves as a viable representation for the process that life is involved in i.e., being fixed in illusions/myths that it perceives to be real, then eventually coming to recognize the illusion for what it is, which frees it to let go and reach for the next myth that will become its new reality; its new truth.

              It seems to me that there is a hierarchy of ‘caves’ that life, symbolized as being an individual, is compelled to ascend in order to find the beginning of itself. And each individual has their own hierarchy of caves to ascend. Certainly, the lion’s share of individuals that interact with Marty’s blog have, at some point, to some degree, and for some time, personally experienced the ‘cave’ labelled Church of Scientology. And so for several years now we have been gathering here to share our stories about the ‘cave’ of Scientology. But now we are sharing even more. More and more we are sharing our stories of exploration into and out of other ‘caves.’

              If the ‘cave’ is not recognized for what it is one can easily become imprisoned within its walls where it becomes the only ‘cave’ there is. What is it, though, that prompts the self-made prisoner to remove the shackles and venture forth from out of the cave? And then, once outside the ‘cave’…

              An excerpt from A Course in Miracles (yet another illusion): “Prisoners bound with heavy chains for years, starved and emaciated, weak and exhausted, and with eyes so long cast down in darkness they remember not the light, do not leap up in joy the instant they are made free. It takes a while for them to understand what freedom is.”

              For me, a viable representation of the ‘hierarchy of caves’ is a ladder with each rung on the ladder symbolizing a particular ‘cave’ (myth/belief system) that one enters, fixes upon and then lets go of. It is in our reaching for the next rung (the next myth) that prompts us to ascend the ladder. But, in order to reach the next rung we have to let go of (at first with one hand then the other) the rung we’ve been grasping.

              I had fixed myself quite solidly within the ‘cave’ of Scientology and what eventually prompted me to venture out from that ‘cave’ was the recognition that I had ceased to ascend. With this recognition (kept to myself), I began seeking another myth. Of course, that’s not at all how I articulated the process when it occurred but that seemed to be then and this seems to be now and my language for describing and explaining my journey through space and time is being adjusted continuously.

              By the way, I must say that my experience in the ‘cave’ of Scientology really did serve my best interests. It was most definitely not a random event that anyone did to me. It was the next rung on the ladder that I consciously reached for and pulled myself up to. And It was a rung up from the rung I was on prior.

              • Hi Monte, I like that cave analogy.

                In reading your post, I found myself thinking about epistemologies (study of human knowledge — in a way, that field has goals similar to Scientology).

                One epistemology is positivism: the universe is “out there” (outside myself) and it exists and we can discover the truth of it absolutely. Another view (which I tend to subscribe to in part) is post-positivism — the universe is “out there” and some sort of truth can be discovered, but we can perhaps only approach that truth and never attain a full, 100% understanding of things.

                So in a way, post-positivism is like the caves — you escape one, and you are simply in the next level of assumptions and incomplete understanding — but you have progressed.

                I guess if I had to describe my beliefs in terms of big words like epistemology, I’d say I tend to be a post-positivist (a universe does exist and we can progress in our understanding of it), constructivist (we create models of reality and often believe them to be real), spiritualist (the universe probably cannot be fully understood by strict “scientism”).

                Plato’s caves. Hmm. Very apt analogy. I had a friend who felt that the ancient Greek’s had nailed all the key points of knowledge. Maybe they did!

        • Marty, I am glad I got ahold of you. You know what I was thinking today? I realized that when I first got into Scientology that I almost mistook the out-ethics and the O/W’s of the staff as real LRH tech. Almost, because they had already drawn up programs and donation rates to sell it to me! Isn’t that encouraging to know? LRH was right, I have never been the same since! :)

    • Hi Tyler,
      I don’t agree that Scientology is a total packaged product
      being LRH’s way or the highway. Yes some of it is. The
      stuff I consider to be in this category is the lower end of
      the grade chart…..Life Repair, ARC Straightwire, Objectives,
      Dianetics and the Grades. When one understood what was being
      said for these levels and applied it, it worked. Not only for the auditor
      but the preclear as well. You might find that many on this blog, Mike
      Rinder’s blog and the South African blog had many wins on these levels….coming away with a new self determinism to then decide for themselves what worked and what was BS when LRH said things.
      Was it LRH’s way or the highway for me when he talked the space opera
      stuff?….hell no. Most of it was amusing and thought provoking but I never
      once thought that was what I had to believe.

      • Potpie, you were wise and fortunate to not feel you had to believe or align any cognitions to the space opera part. Not everyone ventures outside the lines after KSW has been hammered on over and over. The space opera material is amusing and thought provoking. But how many just took it as such? No idea. But independent thinking was not promoted, suggested or tolerated if it went against any tech, green or red. Scientologists who stay end up as “followers”, despite how any could be variously classified them when they began their journey.

        • Let me tell you a secret: If you think KSW was about keeping people inside the lines, you missed the point. It amazes me how many people think KSW was written to shut down thought processes or force rigid conformity.

          But here’s the thing: You can’t learn Scientology without thinking and applying and seeing what works and doesn’t work. But you can ONLY do that if you study the technology, you learn how to apply it, you apply it as written, you find out what works and what doesn’t.

          If you go into session, have bad technique, invent something on the fly because you know better, and then something bad happens – what happened? Did you actually do Scientology? No. You invented something. But what happens? You think Scientology sucks.

          But, you know I am talking to deaf hears. The entirety of Scientology sucks and L. Ron Hubbard was a shyster, madman, and con artist.

          • It is a false datum that if you did not get result from Scientology then it was your error. There are errors in the way Scientology has been developed. Granted there are things in Scientology that work, but there are also things that do not work. Scientology lacks poke yoke and blames the practitioner.

            >

            • Poka Yoke
              The pronunciation is “Poh-kah-yoh-keh”.
              Very flat pronunciation for each character ; no stress, no inflection, no silent part, no long part.
              The last “ke” is pronounced as in “ke” of “kettle”
              Wiki:
              Poka-yoke (ポカヨケ?) [poka yoke] is a Japanese term that means “mistake-proofing”. A poka-yoke is any mechanism in a lean manufacturing process that helps an equipment operator avoid (yokeru) mistakes (poka).

          • I would be interested in hearing your view on why Scientology is imploding and suffering from such poor PR. My hearing is quite good.

        • Hi Tyler,
          Thanks for your comment. Grasshopper pretty much
          answered your thoughts about my comment. I will say that
          KSW did not intimidate me nor did it intimidate many others. It was
          more like a pain in the ass.
          Not to say it could have been intimidating and did indeed intimidate people. It still intimidates people to this day.
          But if one understood the tech and could apply it with success why would one be intimidated by KSW or the idea of independent thought?
          I mean if you understand how to start a car, turn it, stop it and turn it
          off, why then would you be intimidated by someone telling you all of the
          ways you could fuck up a car? You KNOW how to drive the car. Such
          intimidation should not interfere with that in any way.
          Independent thinking didn’t have to be promoted. The tech in the levels I described in my first post created self determinism (independent thinking).
          And many of those independent thinkers are in this blog today.

          • Potpie, I am with you on viewing KSW as being a pain in the ass. That’s probably why we are both outside the bubble. Possibly a majority of those who accepted and took it to heard are still inside the bubble.

            • Hi Tyler,
              Yes we do agree on KSW being a pain in the butt.
              And yes I’m sure there are many still in the bubble
              simply because they are so intimidated by that PL.

              I think we all have our own personal reasons for not being
              involved in the COS these days. Thank goodness for
              Marty, Mike and the South African group having these blogs for us to voice those reasons and opinions. Sharing and discussing these things
              help us understand from different points of view.

              Me being a tech guy, I sometimes like to give data on how there are many simple yet powerful things that LRH developed that did work and still work now when applied correctly. I’m fully aware that LRH was no angel.
              But hey, if something works….it works.

              What is going on in the current COS tech wise is nothing short
              of abominable.
              They accuse independent Scientologist of being squirrels when in
              actual fact they are squirreling in such a way that people of my
              era would have never thought to be possible.

              Thanks for your comm Tyler….peace out.

    • You’re right. Past lives including “space opera” is not presented as an allegory, it is presented as something that may need to be addressed (and later presented as something you must address). The idea that you had a past life is not allegory, it is a statement: The Scientological view is that you actually had a previous existence to this one.

      And the only reason this matters in Scientology is that some things may have happened in earlier existences that are holding you back from living this life and future lives better.

      Past lives have nothing to do with myth. You either lived before or not. There is no myth here.

      • There is no continuation of a thetan from one life to next. Just because an incident comes in auditing which is not from this life is not enough proof that something called thetan has continued from previous life to next. A ‘past life incident’ can be a symbolism of something that exists in this life. Mind is wonderful in creating symbolism.

        >

        • Vinaire:
          You state this flatly and boldly. Evidence for your ‘opinion’?
          Mark

          • Mark, the evidence of my opinion is here.
            http://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/01-the-quest-for-certainty.pdf

            The past life phenomenon can be explained in more than one way as you can see from my response above. If something can be explained in more than one way then the absolute certainty cannot be there. The past life proponents have no objective proof of past life either. It is all subjective.

            • I’ve had personal experience of an objective proof – a memory of a past life location (recalled during auditing) which I confirmed physically by driving to that location. The jaw dropping aspect of that return was that the cityscape of that locale had been virtually unchanged from my recall, save the vintage of the automobiles on the street. You may dismiss what you wish but I cannot dismiss a personal memory, recalled with clarity and visually proven by test of physical equality to the earlier time. At such a point one can no longer dismiss one’s own memory as delusion.

              • The quantity of such objective evidence is quite large. An enduring individual being is the simplest, most logical explanation for many observed phenomenon. Occam’s Razor.
                Mark

              • Why is it not objective to others?

                • It has been, but for whatever reason this information seems to be largely suppressed.

                  • I see it as subroutines from one program being used in another program. I do not see It the whole program reincarnating again as a unit.

                    As I see it, the soul is like a program that breaks up into its memory subroutines after death. These subroutines are then picked up by new souls.

                    So, it is very possible that more than one person may have memories, say of Hitler. Does that mean that Hitler has reincarnated into several persons simultaneously?

                    The point I am making is that there is no objective evidence of an indivisible ‘soul’ like a thetan. Thetan is merely a conjecture from scientific point of view.

                  • It is easy to blame or give spacious reasons.

                    But I think that suppression comes from those who profess absolute certainty, because they are not willing to look further.

                  • Marildi.
                    The recorded evidence for an individual spiritual being, separable from the human body, is quite large. Several television shows have evenbeen produced documenting evidence of such. Written reports that I have run across number in the thousands.

                    Are they all true? Probably not. But the quantity of evidence should make it a viable possibility to the most skeptical.

                    When one has fixed opinions, such as myself and everyone I have met, they will find data or present opinions which support their views and discount or disregard data to the contrary. Actuality can be difficult to discern.

                    I hope that when I present ideas that do not align with observed phenomenon, some of you will highlight it for me. None of us seem to be able to do it alone.
                    Mark.

                    • Yes, I know there is a lot of recorded evidence, but I don;t know if “science” gives it the open-minded attitude it deserves. My impression is that it it is still pooh-poohed by the “authorities,” as with other spiritual findings – and not given as much attention as it should get from the media. If it did, more people would be aware of all the recorded evidence, and these phenomena wouldn’t be rejected by as many people as they apparently are.

                    • Marildi… there is on order in the universe… those who are not aware now, for that there is a reason….hehehe they are in the middle of some postulate, agreeing into some who knows what, that there is no awareness! we all are where we need to be.. :) having fun playing what ever and they are saying I am a body! My reality of course!

                  • Nobody is suppressing anything. The “past life” idea has not been thought through systematically all the way. Please see my response above.

                    Just because there is a past memory does not mean that the whole past person is there again.

                    • “The ‘past life’ idea has not been thought through systematically all the way.”

                      Apparently, the Buddha thought it through and came to the conclusion that there is indeed such a thing as past lives and reincarnation. But in the case of the Buddha, it probably wasn’t a matter of “thinking it through” because the path to true knowing is not by thinking but by experience. You may be limiting yourself when you have logic and science as your entire methodology and belief system.

                    • My terminology is probably not correct. Here’s a quote from a Buddhist website:

                      “When we die, the mind, with all the tendencies, preferences, abilities and characteristics that have been developed and conditioned in this life, re-establishes itself in a fertilized egg. Thus the individual grows, is re-born and develops a personality conditioned both by the mental characteristics that have been carried over and by the new environment. The personality will change and be modified by conscious effort and conditioning factors like education, parental influence and society and once again at death, re-establish itself in a new fertilized egg. This process of dying and being reborn will continue until the conditions that cause it, craving and ignorance, cease. When they do, instead of being reborn, the mind attains a state called Nirvana and this is the ultimate goal of Buddhism and the purpose of life.”
                      http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda05.htm

                • Why is a gamma ray not objective to everyone? Why is the color blue meaningless to a blind man?

                  • Gamma rays are objective to everyone through the description of experiments that describe how gamma rays were discovered. Those experiments can be observed by those who have access..

                    A blind person simply does not have access to the perception of light. Once his sight is restored he can see blue.

                    • Seriously? “Gamma rays are objective to everyone through the description of experiments that describe how gamma rays were discovered.”

                      “…through the description of experiments …” That is no different than being told what to believe or simply being told of what has been observed by someone else. It is not personally objective and is only as objective as there is machinery to validate it. If you didn’t have the machine in hand to measure a gamma ray, then your objective proof would be no different from someone with a personally objective experience of, say, a past life recall relating the experience. But, of course, all “personal” experiences are conveniently under the label non-objective. You do not perceive a gamma ray. Your rely on an electronic clicker to tell you one passed by. Without your education in the area you would be as likely to be disclaiming unseen, non-objective gamma rays as you disclaim non-objective (for you) experiences of past life memory or exteriorization.

                      A few years ago science did not have the means to measure the existence of the Higgs boson. Many “scientists” had a certainty it was a false idea. How quick many of those naysayers were to jump on the bandwagon of “actuality” once the theoretical boson became announced as “a strong probability”. It is still unproven yet it is accepted because phenomena indicate its presence. (I wonder how many were man enough to look back at the smug comfort of their little naysayer shells and go “oops” and realize that they didn’t really know it all.)

                      That is the point, the point of posturing to indicate you know what you don’t when you are basing your posture on self-proclaimed axioms. When you start with your own hypothesizing (and a hypothesis should be based on observation rather than lack of observation) that is then turned into an axiom, a pronunciamento, a proclamation and declaration of “truth” – with truly no observations other than your own lack of having observed a phenomenon – then you really risk having the legs of the high horse you are on cut out from under you.

                    • Gamma rays is an explanation for a phenomenon that is observable. Gamma rays are electromagnetic in nature. That concusion has been arrived at by eliminating inconsistencies. I am sure that further research shall provide better understanding as we continue to remove inconsistencies.

                      So, there is no absolute truth. Truth is relative and it is proportional to the absence of inconsistencies.

                      How does one know the truth of the nature of a past life memory? I have experiences what may be called past life memories. So there are such memories. But that is about it. The rest is theorizing. The idea of an eternal thetan is simply pulled out of air. There are so many inconsistencies in that theory.

                      When one says that the thetan moves out of the body during exteriorization, then one is admitting that thetan is something physical, otherwise it won’t be literally moving out of the body. But then thetan is described as anti-thesis of physical. Now this is so inconsistent that people seem to ignore it completely. I think that they simply go unconscious and some robotic thinking takes over.

                      So there are memories that cannot be explained from the experiences of this life. So, somebody comes up with the idea of “past lives”. But past lives of “who”. Is this “who” something permanent or is it a changing phenomenon. Do we really understand what is going on here?

                      Let’s not count the chicken before they are hatched. As long as inconsistencies abound on the subject of “past lives” we are far from claiming the truth.

                    • Perhaps that’s why LRH lumped ‘past lives’ into a bin he called ‘para-scientology’, along with many other things he felt were hypothetical and unproven, like Dianetics, ‘thetans’, etc. These were constructs that might be inferred on the basis of observations of phenomena, but were not proven.

                    • V:” I am sure that further research shall provide better understanding as we continue to remove inconsistencies.”

                      This is an example of your own inconsistent approach.

                      On the one hand, you will allow for science to take time to resolve its basic conundrum of what is a particle – a “something” which cannot be directly viewed and which can appear ambiguous in form when measurements are attempted to view it.

                      On the other hand you allow no time for proof and reject outright the observations and experiences of rational individuals because they don’t fit within the limited scope of your knowledge or experience, and because there are no current devices to measure the phenomena.

                      You reject these observations by saying they are inconsistent with physical reality when, as someone who proclaims to be a nuclear engineer who also believes in a spiritual aspect, you should also be asking “Alright, if these phenomena are being observed, what parts of our physical universe knowledge are consistent with the observation?” Answers to that question can help provide real observations that can be used as the basis for a workable hypothesis.

                      A core difficulty for you seems summed up by your statement:

                      “When one says that the thetan moves out of the body during exteriorization, then one is admitting that thetan is something physical, otherwise it won’t be literally moving out of the body. But then thetan is described as anti-thesis of physical.”

                      This resolves when you consider observations of “exterior” and look at the thetan as something which can create space.

                      You simply have it inverted where you think space creates the being. By that logic the physical universe had to exist before beings.

                      When you look at it from the point of the being making space then it follows that beings could make the space of the physical universe and could have caused the condensation of energy to matter known as the big bang.

                      Also, if the space of the being is the origin of the fabric of physical space then it is not inconsistent for the being to be able to locate itself within the space of the universe or within the space of a head within the universe.

                      From this I could conclude that the thetan-being is not really “the antithesis of (the) physical (universe)”, it is simply a unit capable of producing and locating in the very most fundamental element of a physical universe: space.

                      That is a hypothesis that can be tested against observation and can be used to refine physical laws to where physical and spiritual phenomena agree.

                    • You can have all the time you need for your proof of past lives. It is not just there yet.

                       

                      ________________________________

              • 2nd..hi!
                there are factor which I have becoming VERY AWARE of that there is a second universe and those who belong into that World are programmed so strongly with that I mean that universe is made up from tremendous energy forces, they have harnessed energy and that energy is used to keep that Universe intact.
                Its soldiers a very large force of robotic beings: [f course it is a valance these beings are stuck in.] Are programmed to destroy anything which has to do with spirituality, =art, beauty, nature as in greenery. example: the song birds are replaced by rappers, floating beauty of the female form: chunky booths, leather, spiked hair, black make up etc.. Verdant forest are devastated to wasteland.. rivers of energy where life was expressed in thousands of magical forms flow now as ugly lifeless dead bodies cant support life.
                By Looking around one can see how these solider of distraction change the landscape of beliefs.
                Many went into Scientology and from within they have altered what had to be altered..
                These beings don’t have a free will, their program do not allow any ”thinking” for self.
                By now I have come to understanding how to recognise these robotic beings.. They relentlessly insist, they cant change, nothing works on them even when proof presented it is rejected and explained how it is and that is the only way it can be.
                Many went into the ‘Spiritual field” they have become ‘spiritual’ by memorising and quoting the Masters and now they are talking that language but the experience is missing.. they can talk so convincingly but the words are empty..
                They infest for one reason: to destroy since to them the fret is spirituality.. the free-ness of believes, where control do not exist.
                it is easy to see the divided World… machinery-computerises everything even the communication is degraded controlled by machinery.. and the other universe where we share and believe in magic.. beauty.. and can see the Little people, the Fairies, and know that there are there.
                The robotic society is stuck in some incident.. their belief is the prison they are in and dramatize.. scientology to them represented danger, had to be destroyed by continually pointing out what not working, what’s wrong with it, but first it was made ugly and twisted mass.
                Not one of these individual point toward that there is the tech. available and hey guy auditing works.!
                In the past 3 1/2 half years I was attacked by these individual, and heavily invalidated, pointed out that I was crazy, Hallucinating, hysterical, delusional, needed lots of help because I was in deep shit of a mass and that showed that all the auditing did not help me could not help me because it do not work!
                Interestingly I live in the house I rent from such on individual who has done the ”WHOLE BRIDGE”” and she has been working on me to demolish by invalidation what ever I have achieved.. Her ”rationality” cleverness, reasoning is mind boggling enough to cave in any person and she even uses ”love and friendship -communication” by withdrawing these to have her way or to punish, etc.. she is my younger sister and she teaches yoga and spirituality! Hehehe.. what a game we are having!

                • E. “Hehehe.. what a game we are having!”

                  If anyone was up to being a strong competitor in that game it would be you. Cheers!

                  • 2ndxmr.. I am the “elected’ by and speak up for those who do not have the voice but have power. We are One in this adventure and this is not just a game but a major battle.. The dark side loses ground every time someone cognites!

            • Hello Vinaire.
              You flatly STATED,”There is no continuation of a thetan from one life to next. ”
              I asked for evidence and you referred me to a nebulous writing of yours that goes on to explain that there are no certainties or absolutes.

              I have offered evidence in the past that I have lived before. I visited a southern Georgia, US area and confirmed locations where I had lived. I also visited an area in western France where my father had lived. He never traveled overseas in this lifetime. His descriptions were accurate.

              This is ‘evidence’ of past life existence. I understand that it is also possible that the actuality could be some sort of sub-conscious telepathy or astral projection, however unlikely.

              I have made statements of opinion in the past and failed to label them as such. I later backed up and injected disclaimers and apologies.
              Mark

              • How come science has not followed it up. This would be worth a Nobel prize!

                • Ooooh! Snark attack! Got your lampoon armor on? :) Your mocha dorsal might soon attract more attention than just from Elizabeth!

                  Just for a start, bear in mind what it took science to follow up on the Higgs particle.

                  • Science is an approach. Let’s call it the scientific method. More broadly it is mindfulness. More work needs to be done before the subject of past life can be sewn up. I have my doubts about the current explanations of past lives. Mindfulness is leading me in the following direction.

                    http://vinaire.me/2012/09/30/souls-between-lives-dark-energy-matter/

                    These concepts are mystical and seem to be over the top. They are part of the ancient to most modern beliefs.

                    (1) Soul is a set of mental energies and forces released after the physical death of a body. This is discussed further in The Self and the Soul.

                    (2) The body is made up of macromolecules that have a physical structure, as well as programming capabilities in the configuration of that structure.

                    (3) The various programming patterns allows the macromolecules to function as molecular computers and regulate the physical and mental functions of the body.

                    (4) The physical structure may represent “physical energies and forces,” whereas, this programming may represent the “mental energies and forces,” that make up the “I.” This is discussed further in THE STRUCTURE OF “I”.

                    (5) The soul of a person comprises of these mental energies and forces (programming patterns), which when functioning in a live body, may be considered to be alive.

                    (6) After death the physical body is reduced to a number of physical organs that gradually disintegrate into physical elements. A single physical entity is no longer there.

                    (7) Similarly, after death, the soul of a person is reduced to a number of programming patterns that remain. A single spiritual entity is no longer there.

                    (8) The soul to be alive, needs to be manifesting itself through a live body. After death, neither the soul nor the body are alive.

                    (9) Any identity that existed as “I” is extinguished at death.

                    (10) After death, the soul seems to get “stored” in space as numerous individual programming patterns .

                    (11) These programming patterns are “retrieved” back from space just before birth. They are retrieved in a combination that is compatible with the physical structure of the new body.

                    (12) A new identity comes into being only after the physical and mental aspects have recombined in a new body.

                    (13) Past life memories and child prodigies may be explained in terms of the mental patterns obtained from previous souls. The new “soul” may be looked upon as a recombination of previous souls.

                    (14) Apparently, there is no “life” in the “between-lives” area. There are only numerous programming patterns stored in space.

                    (15) How these programming patterns come to be stored in space requires another wild conjecture. Space is not nothing. Space is something.

                    (16) The ripples in the “fabric of space” are the electromagnetic waves that contribute to the formation of matter, while the fabric itself seem to contributes to the characteristics that regulate the behavior of matter.

                    (17) The stored patterns in the fabric of space influence not only humans but also the plant, animal and marine life.

                    (18) Certain aspect of these patterns may even be responsible for the Periodic Table of elements.

                    (19) These patterns probably are the blueprint of the universe, which exists as space.

                    (20) The postulated dark energy and matter could very well be the programming patterns from dead souls stored in space.

                    .

                    I admit this is as wild as it can be. Note that this conjecture is not entirely materialistic. We still don’t know how all this comes to be this way. There is a spiritual dimension to it all.

                • Science is the study of the observable. Yoga is the science of the observer.

                  If you put an electrical tester into a bucket of water and get no reads, that does not mean there is no water.

                  An electrical tester is the wrong tool for the detection of water.

                  Similarly The mind is the wrong tool to detect consciousness in it’s purest form.

                  Jus because the physical sciences cannot detect a conscious being with an apparatus does not end the investigation.

                  That investigation goes beyond theorizing Vinaire.

                  That investigation requires us to follow the advice an disciplines of the Masters of Life.

                  But few are ready to for such ego busting transformative life long discipline.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    The use of ‘the’ to modify ‘science’ in the second sentence, and the entire second to last sentence, of your post evidences what I consider to be, in essence, what is wrong with scientology.

                    • Ok fair enough. You can replace it with the word study.

                      Let me rephrase:

                      The external sciences is the study of the observable. That which can be perceived with the five senses or devices created to observe external phenomenon.

                      Yoga, specifically meditation is the study of the observer.

                      One is focused on the infinite continued expansion of mechanical and quantum knowledge: the observable

                      And one focuses on revealing knowledge of the observer.

                  • I am confused about the point being made in this post from Brian. It is not clear to me.

                    “Similarly The mind is the wrong tool to detect consciousness in it’s purest form.” I don’t know what this statement means because I have no idea how the word “mind” is being used here. Something is being assumed which is not clear to me.

                    I have no problem detecting consciousness with mindfulness. But I still have problem with the theory of “past life” I see inconsistencies in that theory in terms of “omitteds”.

                    “That investigation goes beyond theorizing Vinaire.” What investigation?

                    What is this thing called “Masters of Life”. Talk about inconsistencies. There seems to be assumptions galore in this post.

                    • There is at least circumstantial evidence regarding the nature of the soul, God and life. There are many Masters, Rumi, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Yogananda, Jesus, St. Francis, Merton, Swami Satchitananda on and on and on. All say that God is light. That the soul is one with God. That the soul exists. That is who I mean by masters: sages.

                      Regarding reincarnation: my take is that the soul is never born, never dies, never begins and never ends. Like God.

                      So, we are not a different person when the soul assumes different forms. This “I” that is conscious of having bodies and different lives is the same being, life to life. The difference being in expanded modifications of knowledge and life: learning

                      And my take on experiencing these things is this: the mind is part ofvthe problem as it only has data stored of the 5 senses and extrapolations of the 5 senses.

                      Mindfulness does not end when your body dies. Mindfulness does not begin when we are born.

                      Mindfulness is the witness of experience and ultimately unconditioned by it because it is the creator of experience. Experience is self generated.

                      But to comprehend, directly, the true nature if the soul, the mind is the wrong tool. Like using a measuring tape to find temperature.

                      The only condition neccessary for awareness of the nature of the soul is to have the incessant fluxtuations of thought completely stilled. Not suppressed. Stilled. And that is meditation.

                      The deep stilling of mind will produce awareness of the soul/consciousness.

                      And those Spiritual Masters that I personally respect all say we have lived before in different bodies as we evolve in the ever expanding universe.

                      I have experienced it personally. But I have made the experiment and found these things to be true.

                      I am not special with this knowledge. All spiritual masters essentially say the same thing.

                      But we have to go beyond theory and mind. They are the wrong tool to register the infinite.

                    • The difficulty here is that the Hindu defintion of atman is very different from the Christian definition of the soul. So one needs to communicate one’s points in more detailed manner with good reasoning instead of just dropping some names of the masters, without understanding of them. 

                      My guru has been Swami Vivekananda since my teenage years. Here is an excellent summary of Hinduism presented by Swami Vivekananda at the world’s Parliament of Religions, Chicago September 19, 1893. My comments on his speech are in blue. This will give you a good idea of where I am coming from.

                      http://vinaire.me/2012/09/13/paper-on-hinduism/ .

                      ________________________________

                    • “This “I” that is conscious of having bodies and different lives is the same being.”

                      The above, which you have stated goes against my understanding of the Hindu masters. One has to be very careful of not attributing their own misconceptions to the Masters.

                      In another recent post, Marildi was attributing her own misconceptions to Buddha.  

                      ________________________________

                    • Brian: “All say that God is light.” That is an interesting statement.

                      It seems that in computers harware and software go together. The software part may be considered “light” since it is made of patterns of electrons. This may be more so in the brain where the software part seems to be closer to patterns of electromagnetic waves.

                      ________________________________

                    • One more fun philosophical argument Vinaire:

                      I disagree with you regarding absolute truth being non existent. Here is my take. Consciousness is absolute truth.

                      In a dream at night we can say that all of the dream images are relative to each other. There is no absolute truth to constant change (although now that I think of it, it is absolutley true that change is consistent), but what about the dreamer. The dreamer is the absolute truth of a dream. A dreamer can exist without a dream, but a dream cannot exist without a dreamer.

                      Consciousness is the absolute truth as consciousness creates all experience which is relative.

                    • Brian, I respect what you are saying. But to me dreamer is part of the dream. At the fundamental level, to me, the observer and the observed are the same. 

                      ________________________________

                    • I have only learned from Yogis. My first contact was being initiated at 17 from Swami Satchitananda, student of the great Sivananda.

                      And have been taught that there is no real difference between spiritual realities east or west. I have been practicing Vedanta since I was 16. I am now 61. Meditating every day since.

                      Your country’s philosophy is my entire world within and without. At least Vedanta or “end of the Vedas”: direct perception through superconscious bliss.

                  • And Vinaire, I go for clarity over agreement. And where you and I part ways is that you do not experience yourself as a conscious being independent from matter and mind. All you think is real is matter and mind.

                    I, and I know many more here, experience one more essential thing:

                    The Experiencer, the Atman, Purusha, JIva, Soul, Dreamer, Spirit, God. Independent Conscious Being, Atman Jnana, Samadhi, The Awareness OF Awareness.

                    One is a materialistic view of life and one a spiritual view. Can’t cram the spirit down anybody’s throat so we will have to agree to disagree.

                    • Brian,

                      Here is my view, and it is my view only. I don’t expect anubody to accept it.

                      It is error to separate space from time, spiritual from physical, and thetan from body in one’s belief.

                      When two things are aspects of the same phenomenon, they are not actually separate even when you separate them in abstraction.

                      Affinity, Reality and Communication are not separate from each other. The eight dynamics are not separate from each other.

                      If we study one aspect at a time. It does not make it some independent enity. Just because we have different concepts, it does not make the actualities referenced by them to be separate.

                      See things as they are.

                      Regards,
                      Vinaire
                      .

        • for the person who never experienced ”past-life”’ well to that person is real what they have experienced this life only thing.
          those of us we experienced past life’s so to us that is real existing…

    • It was left to every individual to sort it out the real from the unreal.

  4. I believe anyone who takes myths as absolute truths are misguided. I think they miss the point. I don’t, for example, believe in a literal hell, but I believe that someone who sins enters a hell of their own creation. I don’t believe in the literal tales of the Bible or Greek/Roman mythology, but their stories convey profound principles that “Science,” for example, does not convey.

    I know people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a mistake to say they do not have deep insight. Pope John Paul, for example, was the Pope, for crying out loud, and believes the canon of the Church – and had very deep insights into the value and nature of life. I don’t believe people give up their intellect because they choose to believe the unbelievable on faith.

    Reality is an illusion – or, rather, what we call reality. There is a creditable hypothesis that we all are in one big computer simulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis I don’t buy it, but it could be true. If it is true, than anything is possible. Even if not, what we see is not what is “real.” We see only a small fraction of what is there, we hear only a small fraction of what could be heard. We experience a narrow – very narrow – band of reality… if we use only our senses to “tell us” what is “real.” Hence, the insight that “[Mythical language] is full of magic and paradoxical situations, rich in suggestive images and never precise, and can thus convey the way in which mystics experience reality much better than factual language.” Because reality cannot be fully experienced using the vehicle of the body.

    Or consider the Big Bang. The entire universe as we know it springing up from a single location the size of, well, nothing. Current philosophical thinking (by some at least) is that there is no free will, all is determined and was cast in stone since the Big Bang. You can trace all action, cause-effect, back to the Big Bang – and this includes all the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven and Naz (not to mention “The Naz” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA1VQxaRQOI ). That is what physicists believe (or rather “know” because they are just that way). Except, that if this is a simulation then anything can happen.

    Interesting note on The Big Bang: If it is true that there is no free will, and all is a chain of cause-effects over the eons, then all creation and all the works of art and all people and everything that is and ever was and ever will be existed at the instant of the Big Bang. Just real time back and forth along the result, and you will see it all. According to the theory, the future should be just as readable as the past. Makes me wonder who set up the cards and lit the fuse on the Big Bang, because it is pretty unlikely that a single point of extremely dense, well, everything could mushroom into the Ninth Symphony.

    The point is that belief in myth does not mean you’re crazy. Everyone believes in myth. Take your pick as to which myths you like.

    “Are they actively preventing others from developing or attaining deep insight?” No, not on its own. People can say and write whatever they want. People can try to enforce their beliefs on others, but that is not the same thing as believing in a literal interpretation of myth.

    Mark

    • Nice thoughts, Mark. I can imagine the day that it will be the fashion to describe the big bang as metaphor… with lots of I-knew-it-all-along’s. I believe it was suggested on this blog that the Xenu story was metaphor. I didn’t get that it was presented that way but as you loosen up your mind seems that anything can be metaphor. Words can be like Alice in Wonderland and mean what you want them to mean…. being both literal and synchonistic pivots to different realities. The business of mystics and comedians among others.

      For what it’s worth. Today I was at lunch and with 3 other males and the discusion was on the subject of curbing sexual appetite. One being a fundamentalist Christian said no thinking about it or talk was worth while. It was like the Gordian Knot (famous metaphor). One of the other guys said what do you mean. I said he means you have to cut right through it moving my arm like I was cutting the knot. The other guy, a natural comic, feigned misunderstanding and backed up: “You want to cut off my shlong??? I’m staying away from you.” That got us all in a jolly state.

      • maxim: “I can imagine the day that it will be the fashion to describe the big bang as metaphor…”

        maxim, I’m beginning to believe that the entire cosmos is a metaphor and any attempt to discern fact from fiction within a metaphor is just going to beget more metaphors that will be presented as being either fact or fiction that will then beget even more metaphors. And so it goes.

        • Monte, here is Berdyaev’s thought-provoking take on it:
          “In objectification there are no primal realities, but only symbols. The objective spirit is merely a symbolism of spirit. Spirit is realistic while cultural and social life are symbolical. In the object there is never any reality, but only the symbol of reality. The subject alone always has reality. Therefore in objectification and in its product, the objective spirit, there can be no sacred reality, but only its symbolism. In the objective history of the world nothing transpires but a conventional symbolism; the idea of sacredness is peculiar to the existential world, to existential subjects. The real depths of spirit are apprehensible only existentially in the personal experience of destiny, in its suffering, nostalgia, love, creation, freedom and death.”

          The world as symbols and metaphors.

          • Thanks much for the Berdyaev quote valkov! The world as symbols and metaphors. That’s definitely a perspective I can work with. No more looking for truth and understanding in objects. Yet, I’m of the mind that a person can perhaps use objects/concepts to construct a ladder of sorts that one can climb (metaphorically speaking of course) up to the outermost edge where symbols cease to exist and Reality IS.

      • The Big Bang is interesting. It happened 13.82 billion years ago. Everything in this universe expanding from that one minute point. As far as we know, this happened only once. One little point, smaller than a pin point, expands into the entire known universe. Why only once? Why can’t there be another Big Bang from a little tiny point located in, say, Cleveland? If everything known came from this little tiny nothing point, why can’t it happen again from some other little tiny nothing point?

        It has been said of the Big Bang and Science “You give us one free miracle, and we’ll give you the rest.” Everyone believes in one myth or another.

        • Hello young Grasshopper.
          The way this world is going, one might think that the one single point of creation, the Big Bang, occurred in Detroit.
          Mark
          PS: Since I do a lot of outdoor work, my Shaolin name has become ‘Weedeater’. “Do you hear the crabgrass which is growing beside your feet?”

        • Grasshopper, re the Big Bang…I would suspect that there are probably as many stories (perhaps more) of creation that have fallen into obscurity as there are creation stories that are extant. Personally, my knowledge of creation stories is incredibly limited, but, with regard to the Big Bang theory, I have always wondered…if that is so…what was happening before it took place? Whenever I have gone there to look, I got nothing. No story appeared.

          A while back (almost tow years now) I read the book, The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard. In that book, a story is told about what happened before the Big Bang as well as what happened before the ego thought system came into existence. For whatever the reason this particular story instantly resonated with me. Consequently, many solid considerations and perspectives I had been holding onto and propping up for quite sometime, began to tumble around me. The only way I could describe what was happening was to say that it was a mind fuck! That said, I want to share with you and anyone else here who might have an interest in the Big Bang, a portion of that story of what happened before the Big Bang as it’s told in the book. Here goes…

          From chapter 4: “So, believing that the separation has actually happened, and given your fear of God’s punishment and retaliation that you desperately think you need to defend yourself against, you’ve already developed – by listening to the ego – a thought system that says you’ve sinned, your’re guilty and God’s inevitable punishment requires a defense. You feel completely vulnerable, and the ego has told you it has an idea – a place you can go where God will never be able to find you. In your confused state, you are now a follower of the ego and not of God’s will, and you listen to the ego’s brilliant but twisted idea to make you safe from that which you no longer remember is actually your own true reality – but which you now live in mortal fear of instead.

          “So now the instant has finally arrived in our spectacular revue where the ego is about to give you its grand answer to you nightmarish but imagined predicament.

          “The awesome magnitude of the painful shame and the acute guilt in your mind, resulting from what you believe you’ve done, appear to require an immediate and complete escape. So you join with the ego, and then the incomprehensible power of your mind to make illusions as a perceiver – rather than make spirit as a creator – causes the method of your escape to become manifest. At this point the ego, which you are now totally identified with, uses the ingenious but illusory method of projection to hurl the thought of separation out of your mind, and you – or at least the part of you that seems to have a consciousness – appears to be projected right along with it. This instantly causes what is popularly referred to as the Big Bang, or the creation of the universe. Now you appear to be in the universe, while you do not realize that you are actually quite literally out of your mind.

          “Now, the enemy you live in terror of, God, no longer seems to be in the mind with you – where you thought you wouldn’t have had a chance against Him. Instead God, and for that matter everything else, is now apparently completely outside of you. The making of the cosmos is your protection from God, your ingenious hiding place. At the same time the universe itself becomes the ultimate scapegoat.

          “Now, both the cause and the blame for your problem of separation, not to mention the blame for all your new, illusory replacement problems, can be found – if you look hard enough along with the ego – somewhere outside of you. Indeed, a whole new level has been made in which the thought system of sin, guilt, fear, attack and defense can be acted out in such a way as to protect your seemingly separated mind, which you presently think of as your soul, from your terrible, yet completely subconscious guilt and fear.”

          From chapter 11: “It’s true that the Big Bang symbolized separation, but what you should remember is that on the level of form it was so tremendous that it rendered an unfathomable force of energy. This in turn predetermined all physical laws and the fate of every cell and molecule, how each one would evolve and which direction they would go in. When we say the movie has already been filmed, we’re saying that everything that would seemingly occur was already set in motion at that instant, and in fact couldn’t really occur any other way. All the different dimensions and scenarios are simply symbolic of different big bangs within the Big Bang that occurred at that same instant. Even though it was all over immediately, you still have to wake up in order to recognize reality.”

    • Mark, you wrote… Even if not, what we see is not what is “real.” We see only a small fraction of what is there, we hear only a small fraction of what could be heard. We experience a narrow – very narrow – band of reality… if we use only our senses to “tell us” what is “real.” Just a few minutes before reading your comment I was reading my lesson for today for A Course in Miracles. When I came to the part of your comment that I excerpted above, a particular paragraph from today’s lesson came to mind. Here that paragraph is:

      “Every defense takes fragments of the whole, assembles them without regard to all their true relationships, and thus constructs illusions of a whole that is not there. It is this process that imposes threat, and not whatever outcome may result. When parts are wrested from the whole and seen as separate and wholes within themselves, they become symbols standing for attack upon the whole; successful in effect, and never to be seen as whole again. And yet you have forgotten that they stand but for your own decision of what should be real, to take the place of what is real.”

      http://www.acimdailylesson.com/lesson-136-sickness-is-a-defense-against-the-truth

    • Simple reality is out there. It is made much more complicated by our filters. My recent realization has been that reality is not agreements. Reality is messed up by agreements.

      http://vinaire.me/2014/05/12/reality/

      • A profound realization vinaire! I too have had a similar realization. As a result I’ve had to rearrange some of my conceptual preferences to better facilitate my exploration into the concepts of body, mind, spirit; duality and non-duality. For example…I now prefer to use the symbol ‘Actuality’ to denote and embody ineffable concepts such as Love, Joy, Truth, Knowing, God, ISness, Eternity, Perfection, pure non-duality. And I prefer to use the symbol ‘reality’ to denote and embody physical objects, concepts, perception, consciousness, interpretations, levels, judgments, separation, dichotomies, agreements, goals, purposes and so on.

        As you say vinaire…”Reality is messed up by agreements.” My thought is…’reality’ is inherently messed up.

        The way I see it per my preferences (my hierarchy of interpretations of perception), ‘Actuality’ and ‘reality’ are irreconcilable.

    • Well, if Big Bang contained the seeds for imagination and visualization, and because imagination and visualization is limitless, we have a limitless universe.

      This comes back to the question, “What is reality?” and “How do we differentiate real from unreal?”

      The answer seems to me as follows:
      Degree of reality = the degree of consistency among our perceptions.

      • Well, see, here’s the deal. If you accept that everything, including consciousness and humanity and love and imagination, is the result of physical processes, and specifically, the physical process of cause and effect starting with the Big Bang, then imagination and visualization must be limited. According to this view, everything is predetermined. And apparently, most physicists believe this.

        • I am a nuclear engineer and I don’t believe in just a physical process. To me this universe is not a physical universe. It is a spiritual-physical universe. Spirituality does not lie outside of this universe. It is part of this universe. If there is a God it is part of this universe and not separate from it.

          So I look at Big Bang as a spiritual-physical event.

          >

          • The problem we have as a viewpoint located in ‘reality’ is that we can never zoom out far enough to get the “big view.” We can never pinpoint the beginning so there is always more of the story that we have to discover. And with each discovery we eventually realize that’s not ‘it’ there’s something else ‘out there’. Of course, the ‘something’ and the ‘out there’ are always just around the corner waiting in the future and thus can never be obtained. But we use the concept of ‘hope’ to keep ourselves hooked into the story that we’re almost there; we’ve almost got ‘it’; we just need a little more time and a lot more money; we just need to be patient yet remain tenacious and so on, and so on, and so on it goes. We are chasing dreams.

            Trying to find the elusive ‘it’ or trying to find the beginning is, I think, like the fish in the ocean trying to find water. And you have to wonder what the hell is going on with a fish that is seeking for the very thing he’s in? What’s wrong with this fish? Where does this fish think s/he is?

            • Monte, I thought the way you expressed yourself in a previous comment was much more positive, beneficial, and “actual.” ;)

              You wrote: “No more looking for truth and understanding in objects. Yet, I’m of the mind that a person can perhaps use objects/concepts to construct a ladder of sorts that one can climb (metaphorically speaking of course) up to the outermost edge where symbols cease to exist and Reality IS.”

              JMO :)

              • Opinions not money are what makes the world go round marilidi. Opinions are all we have in this movie. :) And there is no one who has the exact same opinion as anyone else.

            • Hi Monte

              Basically I feel that the search for any kind of “answer”, or “truth”, falls under the heading of a “why find”. (I have come to feel that most, if not all, auditing, is just a series of steps or questions that assist the person in finding a “why”.) (The “cognition” is a statement of a “found” “why”.)

              Many of the flaws in the results of in any given “why find” are due to insufficient or inaccurate data, and by not having asked the “right” question in the first place.

              When one is attempting to find a “why” for a phenomenon, for which he has little or no personally perceived data, he is at a distinct disadvantage.

              The results of such an attempt often leads to “myth” or “belief” in the place of a “real why”.

              It seems that, to most beings, there is a distinct aversion to not having an answer, and so we often find ourselves clinging to “any answer” rather than “no answer.”

              Eric

          • Could be – but why limit ourselves?

    • Here is a simple yet far out explanation for the
      Big Bang Theory…..A group of thetans, beings,
      souls whatever you wanna call them, were in another
      boring universe. They all got together and said lets
      start a new one…..Bang!

      • Could be – which is why the Factors in Scientology work for me. There once was nothing. Now there is something. What happened? The Big Bang as a purely physical phenomenon is irrational.

        • Grasshopper.
          There is an origin, history, and intent behind the large common universes, such as this one. Can send it if you would like. I haven’t gone to the trouble of creating a website for my collection of data. I just e-mail them personally. I found some wild cherry and I’m making a bassinet and crib for my ‘soon to arrive’ niece. That and some other furniture are keeping me busy.
          When I build, I cut the tree, mill the logs, season and plane the wood, and design, assemble, and finish from scratch. It becomes a part of me and vise versa. I then release it to an appreciative soul.
          Keeps me off the streets.
          Mark

  5. For me, the mystical part of life is the best part….it helps me go deeper than with just the “facts”….It’s not true that the word “myth” means not true or not factual….that is a definition many religions gave to the word so as to keep their flocks from delving deeper.

  6. Brian The Graduated

    As we evolve, we go from outside to the inside, from exoteric to esoteric.

    External religions deal in external symbols, ethnic custom and practices, rituals and church dogma. And being identified with the group, having no other options, people tend to believe their path is senior to, or the only way.

    After souls see through the limitations of assigning great importance to exoteric religions, as a result of not finding true immortal happiness life after life; the soul then turns within it’s own inner Light.

    God then is not perceived as separate being in some far away heaven ready to send to hell any non believer, God then is seen as the very source of life itself. And that experience is perceived directly in the state of superconscious bliss and wisdom in deep meditation.

    It is natural for souls in the body identified state to believe in an “only way.”

    But at some time or another, the natural evolution starts to look within for answers and not in belonging to some thought club with “only way” dogma.

    The reason Yoga ( meaning union of individual soul with the Supreme Being), the very essence of Hinduism, is gaining in popularity in the west, is because it offers a path of experience and not just faith.

    You can throw all the gods and goddesses away. You can throw away all rituals, churches and beliefs; the meditator needs non of these to find God and true lasting freedom and happiness.

    That is why the Vedas are so powerful. Faith is good. But faith is not required for liberation. Just ask the Buddha. Just ask any sage.

    The bible says, “be still and know that I am God.”

    It is the monkey mind that creates all this trouble.

    Roar like a lion in the world. Be a spiritual warrior and conquer the only territory worth owning: Self Realization

    May all beings be free and happy.

    Om

    • When I was a kid, I read a little Nicholai Berdyaev. He wrote many books. Here is a small sample from Spirit and Reality (1946)

      “Spirit is never an object; nor a spiritual reality an objective one. In the so-called objective world there’s no such nature, thing, or objective reality as spirit. Hence it is easy to deny the reality of spirit. God is spirit because he is not object, because he is subject.”

      Berdyaev wrote quite a bit about the nature and relationship between “subjective” and “objective”. Good stuff.

    • I grew up as a Hindu. Hinduism takes the athiestic viewpoint. Here are my comments on the theistic viewpoint.

      http://vinaire.me/2014/05/13/the-theistic-viewpoint-of-god/

      • I essentially agree and disagree with you Valkov. But I think those disagreements are semantical-definitional.

        In principle I believe we agree.

        The argumant between the Jnanis (path of impersonal knowledge) and the Bhaktis (path of personal with devotion/love) is as old as creation itself. It is as dual as the wave/particle conundrum.

        I believe they are both true in the ultimate sense.

        I sweated over this argument many sleepless nights. God/no God. Buddha said no God, Jesus and most all sages say God.

        So what is happening here?

        Yogananda has this very simple line that sums up my present understanding and I paraphrase:

        “that power which has the capacity to create persons is certainly not devoid of that capacity.”

        And so, in the path of love God is personal/particle In the path of intuitive knowledge and wisdom/wave God is the self and only the self.

        In other words, why limit the Infinite. The Infinite being Infinite can be what ever it wants.

        I have personally experienced both aspects. In the ultimate sense Wisdom and Love are One.

        • And think of this Vinaire:

          do you think any scientist, prior to the discovery of the quantum leap (electrons instantaneously moving from one orbit to another without traversing any space) , could have seen that phenomenon as sane or even possible?

          I think not.

          It was only through the direct perception of scientific investigations that showed the quantum leap.

          God is the Ultimate Quantum leap enigma. The limited human intelligence is not equiped to comprehend the infinite powers of God.

          Just as the quantum leap destroyed Newtonian Mechanics, experience of God reveals God to be Infinite/no limits- Personal and Impersonal.

        • Sorry, I meant Vinaire not Valkov in my above opening response to Vinaire

        • Brian, I am impressed with your familiarity with Hinduism.

          Hinduism acknowledges four main paths of Jnana (abstract knowledge), Raja (mental constructs), Bhakti (devotion), and Karma (action). Hinduism maintains that all four path ultimately lead to the same enlightenment.

          Theistic and atheistic is a pair of opposites and the true understanding probably goes beyond it. That understanding may be difficult to express.

          Bhakti (devotion) tradition in Hinduism does worship avatars, such as, Rama and Krishna, but only as avatars (physical manifestations of divine attributes). This is very different from worshiping a God in western tradition. It is not a single God in India, but a number of manifestations of divine attributes. What is “one” is the abstraction underlying all such manifestations. In the western tradition the idea of God is not so abstract. The God is a single manifestation.

          Bhaktas worship the avatars because that is more natural to them. They find it difficult to contemplate upon the abstract. One may call them theists, but for them avatars are just a via to understand divine attributes. Jnanis, on the other hand, find it natural to contemplate upon the abstract. They respect the avatars, but do not use them as a via. My natural affinity is to the path of Jnana.

          Here is my view of God. Hope you find it enjoyable.
          http://vinaire.me/2010/10/29/can-god-be-defined/

        • Brian,
          Your communication came through fine, considering what you are trying to articulate is enough to give you an aneurism.
          Nice insight,
          Thanks

  7. Brian, have you ever looked at the use of punctuation marks, or lack thereof? For example:

    Be still, and know, that “I am God”. Punctuation marks can entirely change the meaning of a set of words……

    • Hey Valkov!

      I responded to this but somehow it fell out of sequence. My resonse is a few entries below.

  8. knatherthomas

    Thank you, Marty. Since leaving Scientology I’ve felt spiritually like a little kid on the beach disoriented after being caught in an undertow. After reading your 3 books and several others (especially Messiah Or Madman) I read 5 books on Zen Buddhism by Brad Warner and a number of books having to do with the Tao. As attractive as zazen seems, LRH’s dire warnings against meditation kept ringing in my mind. It has nearly gone quiet now. I can only hope I am close to unraveling the final ties that bound me to that white whale.

  9. I’m not sure what the question is? “Or perhaps you are comfortable with the security that comes with faith and belief in mythology”.
    I adore my memories and knowledge of the myths I grew up on ~ they were lessons for me and gave me understandings I could not (and didn’t need to) put into words. But I certainly don’t consider that a ‘security’ nor a ‘faith’. The knowledge that at any time I could be reminded of those truths – that was security and it still is.

  10. Marty,
    Good post, and yeah you are telegraphing nicely and clear.

  11. Sounds like a fun guy to read Valkov. Early twentieth, century a lot of metaphysical schools of thought. My Grandfather was part of that. I think he vibed me or we are just similar.

    Regarding my quoting the bible, I’d rather keep the entire thing in quotes as that is how the bible says it. I am not editorializing on a given meaning. Just showing that stillness is a quality that is ubiquitous in spiritual texts. That stillness is a prerequisite for God communion.

    Jesus also says, “therefore when thine eye be single, thy whole body is filled with light.” In yoga treatise, the cosmos is composed of light, science has caught up. When the yogi focuses the attention on the point between the eyebrows, something opens up within us and we can actually see the body composed of shimmering light. That is the third or single eye of the astral body or theta body. People who have near death experiences see a light and a tunnel. That is the spiritual vision of the single eye or in our tradition, we call it the Christ center. Or the Ajna center when refering to it as a chakra.

    The chakras are also the plexuses in medical/biological terms. Is all about energy and wires baby! The west is slowly catching up.

  12. From my viewpoint I think that those who insist on a literal interpretation without understanding of some religious myth may often do so in order to control others. While doing so they convey fear of something unwanted if you don’t believe such and such.

    Example – catholicism has used fear of loosing one’s soul or eternity if you don’t believe in its dogmas or God’s will. Thus, you have a dogma instilled with fear whereas Hinduism purposely used allegories to make it easy to understand the philosophy of how to transcend to higher states. In fact Hinduism invites you to look at other philosophies, religions, compare them and learn from them; it also allows you to choose the God or Goddess that may represent what you think is best for your personal improvement.

    So, those who demand literal understanding have a vested interest to control any possible personal choice the individual could have if left to decide for himself which way he wants to evolve.

  13. Thanks for this post, Marty. It was like the final puzzle piece for me to the question of whether words can communicate spiritual experiences. I somehow knew they could but couldn’t express very well why. Your post did so and opened the door wider for me.

    And not just myths but poetry, music and every other art form can communicate beyond strictly physical universe understandings with the constructs of logic and science. These other less factual forms of knowledge and communication should take a greater importance in our lives. And I can now see better why there are activists who are pushing for more art in schools, due to it having been gradually dropped out to a large extent because of the emphasis on science and more “practical” subjects.

    That said, individuals do differ and some do better with literal meanings while others can think more conceptually and through images. Even with regard to the OT levels, as an example, there are people who accepted the narratives literally and ran them in that way – and were highly benefited. Others, from what I’ve heard, followed the procedures but took the theory with a grain of salt – and yet they also benefited.

    I think LRH tried to communicate his insights in an era that stressed logic and science, although he knew very well there was a higher level of knowingness and said as much. And at times he himself wrote poetically.

    Now that I think of it, even simple communication between people can have a mystical effect, depending on the individuals – their beingness, intention, etc. I’d say all knowledge has its place and people should be free to choose what works for them.

    • Wonderful post marildi!! Much Love ~ Monte

    • marildi…”And not just myths but poetry, music and every other art form can communicate beyond strictly physical universe understandings with the constructs of logic and science. These other less factual forms of knowledge and communication should take a greater importance in our lives.”

      • Thanks, Monte. Great video. It reminded me of the Art Series, where LRH wrote about both the TECHNOLOGY of an art form – what Rupert Spira refers to as the skills needed – and the MESSAGE, which is what brings a person to the that higher state within. Here’s LRH’s definition: “ART is a word which summarizes THE QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION.”

        Also, a quote from *Science of Survival* about artists:

        “A culture is as rich and as capable of surviving as it has imaginative artists, skilled men of science, a high ethic level, workable government, land and natural resources, in about that order of importance.”

        • Marty, the above post is still “awaiting moderation” although you have released posts several times since I posted it.

        • I don’t have a lot of room to talk since I made my largest income as a professional entertainer. But I always felt there was something fundamentally wrong that I was taking home a bigger paycheck than a farmer who was working in the fields all day, or a coal miner that was down in the coal mines. That I even lived in a society that had a higher value placed on my dancing around on some stage.

          Not that I have used my money for anything except getting up the bridge and keeping a roof over my head.And providing that for others. But if people don’t have food the table it becomes a situation. If a dancer quits there are 4000 others standing in line for an audition.

          Farmers are artists that go unacknowledged. They create something where nothing existed before, food. Coal miners create fuel for heat. Women who have children create human beings that didn’t exist before!

          The artists among us are many. We take the labor of a lot of people for granted. The “skilled scientists” have fucked up the food chain with GMO.

          I see this lack of concern for the laborer in the Church as well. Where the staff are thrown under the bus for people we could really live with out and nobody would really be effected. It is some kind of aberration when you dismiss the value of the children, the food growers, the workers and the people that are the glue that really hold it all together.

          And the fact that I can see this value in others is seen as an aberration in some policy, (I can not recite it as I went so red reading it I went blind) called “worker mentality”. Whatever chance the Church had of surviving was built on the backs of volunteer workers. For whatever reason they had no problem “sacrificing bodies”. Of volunteers!

          Yes, it is my faith and imagination that when I pick up a vegetable and smell it, I think of the hands that planted it, and all of the hands it took to bring it to my table. If everyone in America was told tomorrow they had to figure out how to grow their own food, how many could even feed themselves? As people see themselves becoming more and more “independent” I see them becoming more and more dependent without realizing it. There are entire cities now where people can not drink the water that runs from their faucet.

          The Hare Krishna as a group have become self sustaining investing in large parcels of farm land. Not huge buildings that require constant dependency upon the city workers to stay open. Pushing the movement into inner cities where they will all die if the grocery stores close for a month.

          When you drop a seed in the ground and food pops up, that is magic.

          ” When tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of human civilization.” Daniel Webster

          • Good post, Oracle. As another variation on the theme – a while back, when I read the following on the last page of the book *Problems of Word*, I was so moved I almost cried. I had to call my sister and read it to her:

            “It is a mechanism of old philosophies to tell men that ‘If they think they are indispensable they should go down to the graveyard and take a look – those men were indispensable too.’ This is the surest foolishness. If you really looked carefully in the graveyard you would find the machinist who set the models going in yesteryear and without whom there would be no industry today. It is doubtful if such a feat is being performed just now.

            “A workman is not just a workman. A laborer is not just a laborer. An office worker is not just an office worker. They are living, breathing, important pillars on which the entire structure of our civilization is erected. They are not cogs in a mighty machine. They are the machine itself.”

      • I think a culture is as capable of surviving as long as people can care about the people in front of them. As long as we support and honor the farmers. As long as we treat the women with the honor and regard they are so deserving of. As long as we permit our children to rise above us in voice and action and encourage them to do so. As long as the people are encouraged to be problem solvers.

        This is more about character traits than identities. Because with out these above mentioned things, the rest can not survive, neither be heard or seen. With the above a reality we would not need government and people could govern themselves and be trusted to do so.

        Skilled men of science walk among us to the extent a woman had labored to give him a life. If people cared about others we would not create pollution and we could honor natural resources.

        I categorically disagree with Hubbard’s assessment as to who is the most valuable among us and why.

  14. And I may add, why some accept it literally? Because they do lack deep insight and mystical experience; it can be said they just accept it then as something that IS because someone else said so. Comfortable? Don’t think so, he simply is just a follower, not one that looks, thinks, experiences and concludes on his own. As he can’t create (or at least thinks so) then he has to believe, to depend on another’s view.

    • Silvia, you wrote…”And I may add, why some accept it literally? Because they do lack deep insight and mystical experience; it can be said they just accept it then as something that IS because someone else said so.”

      Silvia, you’ve sort of touched upon something that I’ve been exploring of late and that is…does anybody ever really think for their self? And… Why is it that so many people seem to prefer to follow rather than lead? Why is it that people, much more often than not, look outside of themselves for knowledge and understanding? Why do people assume they don’t know? Why do people assume they know and understand but, in fact, are only parroting what they have received from sources outside themselves?

      Do the above questions point to behavioral characteristics that are inherent in a person’s genetic code or do they point to a teaching/learning/programming process?

      A wonderful and enormously remunerative exploration begins when one takes all the questions stated above and turns them back toward self for self and only self to respond to. But, much less than all these questions, It’s amazing how deep and vast a simple exploration within can become just by asking self to inform self of everything it knows about a particular one word concept e.g., freedom.

      What do you think Silvia…is freedom just another word for nothing left to lose? :)

      • Monte…These are wonderful questions:

        Why is it that so many people seem to prefer to follow rather than lead? Why is it that people, much more often than not, look outside of themselves for knowledge and understanding? Why do people assume they don’t know? Why do people assume they know and understand but, in fact, are only parroting what they have received from sources outside themselves?

        I have tried to answer the gist of these questions as follows:

        “A problem persists as a problem as long as it is not viewed in its entirety. The moment we view a problem thoroughly it ceases to be a problem because it reduces to an understanding. Similarly, a reality persists as a reality as long as it is not viewed in its entirety. The moment we view it thoroughly we recognize it to be made up of certain considerations that we hold in common.

        “Thus, reality may be changed if we can only muster up enough courage to view it thoroughly, and recognize our own considerations leading up to it. But the fact of the matter is that when one is very much attached to a reality, changing that reality would be a terrible thing indeed.

        “Is God zero, one, or infinity? One can answer that question only when one is willing to examine it thoroughly, along with a thorough examination of one’s own considerations involved, from a non-attached viewpoint. Reality or considerations may be changed, but the inherent condition or actuality can never be changed.”

        The full essay is here: http://vinaire.me/2011/06/05/essay-17-zero-one-infinity-and-god/

        • Enlightenment is the recognition of the truth. I think this is basically what you’re saying vinaire. Only with more words. :) That’s OK with me. I like the words.

          • Monte, I do not see enlightenment as the recognition of the truth because there is no absolute truth. To me enlightenment is the continual process that accompanies the dissolution of the filters. I don’t think that this process ever comes to an end..

      • Monte said:
        “What do you think Silvia…is freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?”

        Quite the opposite. True freedom is the ability to handle anything that comes along. It’s not quick and easy, but it is the valuable final product. Besides, I’ve got a few thousand with nothing better to do.
        Mark

        • Correction:
          ….few thousand YEARS…..

        • :) Mark….

          Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose
          Nothin’, don’t mean nothin’ hon’ if it ain’t free, no no
          And, feelin’ good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
          You know, feelin’ good was good enough for me
          Good enough for me and my Bobby McGhee

          Exploring the concept that freedom is just another word for nothin left to lose…well, what can I say…could be that someone could not only find their beginning but also their end by way of a thorough exploration of this concept.

          • Actually, Monte,
            I was just looking for a chance to make that statement, which I have made before. It goes along with a story I posted a couple of weeks ago when I said I admired those who could easily leave a job (not blow), knowing that they could always get another.

            Similar to Ron jumping ship on the china shore, knowing he could always get by on his wits.
            Mark

  15. Another, very interesting post, Marty.
    As any SciFi writer will tell you: any myth is based on a truth, maybe long forgotten but a truth nonetheless.
    I have read, by now, a great amount of holy scriptures, magical textbooks, philosophical treatises and so on. All of them claim to be factual, of course. Only a few ever admit to a symbolism being used so as to impart a deeper teaching.
    It is known that Christ would use stories to teach his followers — these were called parables. They had a moral teaching underneath it that the story itself demonstrated how it was applied in real life.
    Let’s focus on the Bible a bit. The Old Testament is really a record of the history of the Ancient Jews. However, there are a number of factors involved:
    1. Myths are based on truth. The truth may be a fact that has happened so long ago that one cannot really prove it to be true. One can only rely on what is still existing as reported fact. This is true of the Bible, like for the Quran, the Vedas and so on. Here comes in the second factor,
    2. One may chose to accept a myth to be true. Whether one is told to believe something as a fact or not. One must make the conscious decision to be in agreement or in disagreement with a particular myth, legend or symbol to later recognize it as true. This may occur in a number of ways, whether by life experience or by simply following the mores and customs of the people he has been born and raised with.
    3. Myths have an unknown that sticks a person into a mystery sandwich, as it is called in Scientology. The fact alone of whether the myth could be true or not is sometimes enough of a mystery to be able to attract people like flies. The unknowingness forces people to want to know more about the myth. It is apparently fascinating. It develops controversies. It is just such an awesome premise to an intellectual game. Look at the great game being played on Earth thanks to some guy allegedly being crucified 2000 years ago.
    4. A few thousands of years ago from present writing, the way knowledge was imparted was orally and not in writing. Once writing was adopted, it took quite a while to become a proficient medium of communication of knowledge. A lot was lost in terms of understanding what was being taught. Beforehand, when your teacher, guru or spiritual leader would be teaching you, he had a definite system (a key) that allowed you to understand what he was trying to teach you. Everything you learned was thanks to that key. Later, when writing was adopted, a door was also opened to misinterpretation, unless the key was also given to you. This is quite tricky. On one hand, knowledge was now available to a lot more people; on the other hand, only those who had the “key” could really interpret correctly the knowledge written in books, parchments, rolls, etc. This is what happened to the Bible. When the original books of the Bible were first being written, they were written in a language that did not use vowels in its mode of writing. All semitic languages use an alphabet known as an “abjad”. Vowels are not normally written in this language. At least, not all vowels, as we know them. Some time later, a certain order of Jewish priests (called the Masoretic Order) decided that the Bible needed to be better understood by all the followers and went ahead and developed a system of marks that told one what the vowels should be so that their holy book could be interpreted correctly. This opened the door to alter-is, of course. They believed they had the correct key and therefore entered a few thousand mistakes into the scripture. Later, it was translated into Greek. There, it was further altered. Meanings and words were changed semantically to suit their new public. From Greek, it was translated into Latin and more changes ensued. Then, it was translated into a number of other languages. At the time, people decided that some words must really mean one thing instead of another and so on. Meanwhile, each different sect or branch of Judaism and Christianity hold they have the correct key to interpret these words. When the scission between catholicism and protestantism came along, a whole bunch of people suddenly felt they held the key to correctly interpret these words and chaos ensued. This is what we have today.
    5. History, what should be the factual record of facts and incidents that actually happened, is always written by the side that won. It does not really matter what the truth behind a myth may be. The accepted truth is the one the winning side proposes and people will accept it, either because they belong to the winning side, and therefore it is part of their ideology, or because they were on the losing side and they were overwhelmed. By way of example, the unification of Italy by the kingdom of Savoy was always presented to us kids in school, as such a positive thing. For the first time in history, Italy was a unified country. That whould be a desireable achievement, correct? However, when one researches into the motives for this unification one will not find a true sentiment of wanting to be whole. No patriotism or feeling of being “Italian” comes into the picture. There is a darker purpose to having Italy under one flag, even to this day. The same applies to religion: History tells us that Constantine was converted to Christianity because he had had several experiences that proved the existence of God, or some such. Unfortunately, it is not so. He was losing his kingdom so he made Christianity the religiion of the Romans and won the favor of everyone. He was scared that the then Pope would wrestle the power from him. He did not realize that, once the Roman Empire would fall, that is exactly what would happen. The Papal Kingdom later recorded that Constantine was the first Christian Emperor of Rome and hallowed his name. They exalted his memory. The truth was that he had been duped and strongarmed into giving the Church an enormous amount of power.
    6. Myths, legends, truths and facts are a very coy thing — prone to the slightest alteration. Even Scientology with its steadfast resolution to maintain its scriptures in a standard and original format is prey to this. Especially, when there are those who maintain that its body of knowledge is anything but true, factual or workable. Mocking and unmocking a truth is quite an interesting process, I find. However, one should also try to mock and unmock an untruth and see where that lands you. I did and I have a very interesting viewpoint. All the must-have on religion and myths, truths and all of this stuff is as-ised. One thing is certain: do not try this unless you have done FPRD on 8 dynamics and have your Grade IV flattened. Fixed ideas and evil purposes cloud your view. (This is for those who know Scientology grades and processes; there are other ways I know to achieve the same result using other methods).
    7. Finally, what I believe is one of our most basic desires is to know. This is linked with a desire to control and to be responsible for something. Unfortunately, though, a lot of people get involved into the aberrated games that come with a chaotic physical universe and thus these desires become complicated. However, this is all preceded by one desire that goes before any other one — the most basic one: to understand. It appears that, in order to understand, we, as Mankind, do not particularly need to understand the truest truth of all. Based on our level of overwhelm, we are very content to accept and understand “truths” that are far from factual. I am not saying this is a good and desireable thing. I am saying that is a factual thing.
    Hopefully, this helps someone.
    P.S.: Mocking and unmocking truths and untruths comes with a side-effect where one is later rahter astonished to find out how much people are really dumb. Beware this false feeling of grandeur because the object, here, is not to lose hope in humanity but to open one’s eyes so we can help it.
    P.P.S.: The danger of being Source, by postulating that one is, is that one may develop a God complex. However, one also manages to tap into an unseen universe of understanding and knowledge that we, as humans, may not be completely prepared to experience just yet. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating and exhilarating experience. Writers do this all the time, even though they may be unaware of it.

  16. I grew up in India surrounded by Indian mysticism any reading mythological stories. My mind was saturated with them when I encountered Scientology soon after arriving in USA for engineering studies in 1969.

    Scientology did provide an organized approach that appealed to my study of engineering approach. I did like Hubbard’s idea of applying engineering approach to the field of mind and spirit.

    It has been 45 years since I came across Scientology; 31 years since I left the Sea Org, and 8 years since I got declared suppressive. I have continued to pursue that idea of applying engineering and scientific approach to understand mysticism better. That approach has now broadened into mindfulness of “seeing things as they are.” I have a much better understanding of the meaning underlying the Creation Hymn of Rig Veda, and the significance underlying the symbolism of Shiva and Shakti of Hinduism. I have expressed that understanding in the following essay on my blog.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/

  17. I am now using the mindfulness approach to discover the curves thrown into the basic concepts of Scientology. Here is the most recent essay that takes a closer look at Hubbard’s key concept of ARC.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/15/arc-affinity-reality-and-communication/

  18. Mythology lies in the fifth dimension of this universe, which is abstraction.

    http://vinaire.me/2013/08/01/khtk-model-of-universe/

  19. Lession 1:
    read the text and say the words with your mouth. Yourself.
    Lession 2:
    The teacher points out to you how to exactly voice it. (technically the different frequencies of each letter, combination of letters, words or sentences.)
    After you learned it…
    Lession 3:
    You read it aloud, but not with your mouth.

    Purpose:
    The sound (technically the frequencies and modulation) creates the communication. Reading words and understanding words is camouflage. Plus the mind is more able to memorize words that make sense than just letters and words that make no sense.

    It is said it takes many lifetimes to master this art.
    I cannot do it. But as far as I can remember a language not spoken on earth better fits this purpose. When I am mad and curse sometimes I talk that language. Has much more power than our languages. A language can be quite powerful in itself. (a splinter of the knowledge is in the movie Dune. The old one with Sting)

  20. Necessity of all the symbolism through out the ages was for the general uneducated masses. After the eastern handling of spiritual and scientific subjects, so goes Egypt and belief down through not then Britain’s Druids, the early Europeans all used the same methods. I particularly like Joseph Campbell’s explanations. I suppose it is to make it easier but hey you have to learn that system too. ARC Bill Dupree

  21. Vinaire.
    You have amassed quite a body of work. Without people such as yourself, Marty, Marildi, Erzsebet, Ron, Brian, and countless others, my more personal work would not be possible. Monte, Flav, Oracle, I cannot possibly list you all.
    I must acknowledge and thank you all beyond what human words can convey. DO NOT STOP.
    ARC with love for you all,
    Mark

  22. Truth shines day and night, and perhaps those without filters can perceive it. Those who already ‘know’ just know their own certainty and see no more than that.

    I feel that myths speak to the heart, to the felt sense of being. It is only recently that I have come to see this, after doing my own emotional work. Perhaps they speak on all levels, literal, emotional, spiritual, and we understand what we need to as we occupy each level of understanding of ourselves. What to me was once not even symbolism, just a meaningless jumble, then focused into symbols, coalasced into layers of emotional meaning, and suddenly I can see so much more in the world around me.

    Is it just the human desire and capacity for narrative? All stories, whether they add meaning or not, still are not what is.

  23. An interesting post and video Mark.
    Thank you.
    A wise man once said to me, ” No one and nothing did it to you, you are the author of your inhabitations”.

    • The Dude.. I got in scientology 73, left 82 after OT7 and NOT’s. than continued with solo audit on self- as a subject and others, this planet and everything in it, than I have taken into session every idea-reality belief I ever had about the gods, devil, mythology, fairies, giants.. everything I could think of and I explored beliefs of others, and the universe of the Free beings who don’t bother having bodies.. in other word every idea belief agreement.. and I never ever seen anything in this universe what I can blame others for that they were the cause.. hehehe..

      • How about taking up the idea in session of considering others to be ignorant!

        ________________________________

        • Hehehe. V once I thought you were brilliant! but not any more.
          For that thinking I stand corrected and I do admit I was wrong.. But you never ever answer my questions when I ask you to explain how you come to conclusion what you state.. and you ignore those questions… now comes the big gun… you cant answer simply because you have ”copied” those wise-intelligent remarks from some place but you do not have the understanding of their true meanings.. So V.. there goes your intelligence out through the window.. Compiling material yes you can but you have no idea the meaning of that material.. all you know “ITS SOUNDS SMART” because famous people have said it!.. Oh,,,

          • Hi Elizabeth!

            Hey, I have a question for you; Who are these people, that those who disagree with you, just copy other’s words from ?

            It usually happens when you are challenged, then you say the person is stupid ha ha ha, then you claim that their thoughts and words are a plagiarizing of someone else’s thoughts and words.

            Can you me us who these people are? Maybe starting with me.

            Who’s telling me what to think and say?

        • V.. yes I have, just done that and the session confirmed that you are truly ignorant! hehehe.. you have walked into this one! Ugh… V….. you make your self into a wonderful target.. :)
          you see.. I do know that what I know is limited and limiting I don’t have the illusions that I have all the answers…in fact the opposite.. and I also know that I have acted experience incredible things which could not be called smart-intelligent by the like of you.. and I also know I will in the future play the ignorant role of the fool and that to will be fine.. I leave ”smart” to you. enjoy!

  24. Here is another myth I realized about Scientology.
    (1) Existence is beingness.
    (2) The communication occurs within the larger beingness of existence.
    (3) The origin and receipt points are within this larger beingness.
    (4) These points choose to have their separate identity.
    (5) The idea of thetan is part of this identity.
    (6) This identity is a filter in its own right.
    .

    • and will you swear on the shadow of the gods that it is true?

    • V…..(1) Existence is beingness. Why that point is a myth and scientology created that Myth?
      Is it not true that existence is always called beingness by humans.
      Example: I am a Engineer.. I am a Wizard, I am a lover, I am a baker…a soilder. No… the job is doing engineering etc…. But humans associate self with doing-ness and rightly so since they do experience what ever that may be.. It is having that experience.. Now how it is a Myth please explain..
      (2)The communication occurs within the larger beingness of existence
      Please explain… truly have no idea what your point is.

      • The Scientology myth is that beingness of thetan is separate from the beingness of existence.

        • V.. you really got stuck in scientology.. you need to snap out of it.. your hate is affecting your life!
          We are here to talk of Mythology. and there are some incredible stories been told of experiences of the past… why not enjoy the beautiful realities of different worlds?
          Those tales existed for those who have written them… these fantastic tales show how differently one can create and experience., there is magical realities to be experienced while one reads those stories!
          The Universe is a beautiful place… full of wondrous things.. every blade of glass, every flower, building, sparkles of the diamonds, beauty of the deep star studded indigo night all is created by us for our own enjoyment!
          So much beauty and it is here to be experience!

        • I don’t know about that since I am not a scientologist, I left the church in 82..

        • That is not what I believe in.. and I am not into scientology as you are so I would not know..

  25. Marty one for you…!
    THE BIRTH OF THE RAINBOW…
    The myth has it and it has been told, has been repeated many times by the Spirits who are still part of the ever flowing starlight indigo light.

    There was an evil Witch whose jealous nature was the foundation of darkness and that darkness was needed in order to balance out the creative forces in the Universe: and this Witch was evil as evil can be, wicked to the core and of course powerful beyond understanding….

    Hate, jealousy, greed, destruction distrust was her manner, her ways and what she hated most of all when creations of other beings were better and more beautiful than hers: jealous rage ruled her universe and all she wanted to do to destroy everything in the universe which was created by others.

    She wanted to be the best and wanted to be the most important: the paramount creator: So she decided to do something incredibly spectacular, something which never had been seen before in the whole Universe.

    She believed if she can do that than she will demonstrate that she is the most powerful being and having her creation admired by everyone she will be the victor and with that will win everybody over to her side than everyone will be her slave for ever: with this thoughts she created a new side to her personality: must control.

    So time flowed and over the eons the Witch ranted and raged in her frustration because she have designed countless traps, deceptions to catch every body’s attention but not one of those trickeries were beautiful enough to hold those admirers- followers spellbound fascinated for ever and that what really she wanted more than anything.

    As she looked on as those astounding creations appeared all-around her and not one of them were hers and in her fury the Witch filled with jealous hate burning hot she snatched two stars out of the Heavens and crushed them with her mighty hands [which were invisible of course] and hurled those kaleidoscopic shimmering lights: the sparkles sailed across the velvety indigo space, up in great arch and fell toward into the infinite distance.

    The universe become still, hushed as all looked at this great wonder as the shimmering light bridged which now connected Universe from one end to the other.

    The Rainbow was born.

    The legend has it that one end of the Rainbow ended an Earth and the other end still is in the Spiritual Universe. All the unsuspecting souls who have stepped and walked fallowing the brilliant trails the magical stardust of the Great Rainbow Bridge are all captured by the evil Witch when they reach Earth and with that they all have become under her spell and her slave for ever.

    By now over the eons there are many unsuspecting beings crossed over the Rainbow Bridge, including Fairy folk, the Gnomes, all the Souls who are now live in animal forms here on Earth.

    The evil spell “is” as the legend say: when one crosses over and steps off the Rainbow and touches the ground of the Earth with that one forgets the past, forgets it forever because the evil Witch gives a body for that Soul and that shape becomes the prison for ever and a day for that being.

    There is gold at the end of the Rainbow an Earth, but looking for gold also the part of the evil Witches spell, since the gold is the “importance and values” and having believing in those considerations hold that person in prison on Earth.

    But it is also whispered by the Ones who still live among the stars, that one day the spell will be broken by the one who dare to step back on the Rainbow Bridge and walk back into the Spiritual Universe and by doing that “WALK” the evil Witches spell will be broken for ever.

    The stars shine brightly they beckon and they light that Rainbow Bridge all the way home…………….. I am here waiting for you…

  26. Our beingness is not separate from this existence
    (1) But we mistakenly consider it to be separate
    (2) We are both the origin and the receipt points
    (3) We are also the filter of existence in between
    (4) We view ourselves through this filter
    (5) But think of it as a different identity
    (6) This illusion is wonderful

    • Hey.. V … how can view self through the filter when the self is not solid, has no mass, holds no space. it is a illusion? Now answer please and don’t ignore the questions as usual !!

    • Actually, quite an intelligent and correct assessment of how things are, Vinaire. The concept of a duality in this particular dimension of the universe is enforced on us, so to speak. Of course, it could only be enforced because somehow we have agreed to it.
      However, it is, as you say, just a filter. You and I (and everbody else) are both cause and effect, we are one and everything else, we are alpha and omega, we are source, creator and god and, finally, we are love.
      Ideally, all one would need is to start postulating the above and everything else should and would follow. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who still play the duality game in this particular plane of existence.
      What we really need to do is get them to understand the above.

    • Number 6 has to do with our tendency to take “drugs” and “thrill seeking” behaviour.

  27. Beingness is composed of desire to know, filters and awareness
    (1) Desire to know triggers awareness
    (2) Awareness flows through the circuit composed of filters
    (3) The flow of awareness determines communication
    (4) How encompassing that awareness is determines affinity
    (5) Perception changes as awareness passes through the filters
    (6) Perception tapped at any point is the reality
    (7) As filters decrease the flow of awareness increases
    (8) This is increase in communication
    (9) There is improvement in reality
    (10) There is enlarging of affinity
    (11) ARC increase with decrease in filters and not by some vague ‘intention’

  28. There is no beingness without this existence
    (1) There are origin and receipt points without this existence
    (2) There is no communication without this existence
    (3) There are no filters without this existence
    (4) Even we are not there without this existence
    (5) We can’t tell what is there without this existence
    (6) Probably not even nothing!

  29. “If there is truth to this, what does one make of the understandings or motivations of those who insist upon literal conceptualizations of imaginative religious mythology? Are they of deep insight themselves? Are they actively preventing others from developing or attaining deep insight? “

    Well, the irony is that for the most part, the literalist really means well and is honestly trying to help you.
    But unfortunately, it always ends in disaster for everybody involved, including the well-meaning religionist.

    No, I don’t think they have a truly deep insight, and they eventually will prevent you from developing deep insight. They will, they can’t help it since they have not attained it themselves.

    Here is something to consider:

    Beyond that who obsessively projects and its convoluted projections, and beyond the never ending sate of recycling phenomena, there is a projectionless state.

    This is the actuality devoid of projections, no mock ups, and no illusions whatsoever, void of any substantial entities. This is the end.

    But it does not mean that the world of projections and recycling comes to an end, nope, it means whatever we want to make of it.

    This seemingly nonexistent state, becomes visible when we stop obsessively projecting and compulsively recycling the world of phenomena. It is that simple.

    Please, stop pushing your spiritual/material fabrications on everybody and realize that THEY HAVE NO FACTUAL EXISTENCE beyond what we give them.

    Thank you.

    • Interesting viewpoint. Entertaining.
      Mark

    • I wonder why some people feel pushed even when no one is pushing them. Probably the push is coming from their own disagreement. The other person had simply stated his reality. He had no intention to push.

      So, the person who is feeling pushed should look more closely at his own disagreement. Why is that reaction called “push” is occurring within him. One way he can handle it is by isolating the inconsistency and stating it very clearly and analytically without unnecessary emotional reactions.

  30. The difference between you and me
    Are the filters in between.
    Take away the filters
    And the You becomes Me
    But there are no filters
    To keep even the Me there.

  31. What are these filters?
    These filters are matter, energy, space and time
    These filters are also the communication
    These filters are also the origin and receipt points
    These filters are existence.
    These filters are the beingness
    You and Me are filters.

    • V…. Filters??? Filters???? I believe we have only NOW… We experience one moment at one time. In that moment of experience filters don’t have any use. Now is Now where there is no past or future… Example touch that soft fur of your cat.. In that touch there is no past or future existing. None!
      And your filters are in the garbage dumpster!

      • Elizabeth, when you touch the cat, that is a filter. It implies that you are one thing and the cat another thing. In order to have any communication at all we must use a physical medium — well, that’s a filter.
        However, you are the cat and the cat is you — no filters needed there.
        That would also transcend time, of course.

        • F… right you are! via is a via! :)

        • F… look a bit closer… touching the cat is in the ”now” yet it is a via…explain your reality please!

        • F… I go back on my agreement … NO.. the now is NOW.. It was not yesterday or will be tomorrow, But you can have your now yesterday that is Ok by me.

          • Dear Elizabeth,
            I don’t know that I fully understand your concept of having “having only a Now”. From what you said, I can sort of glimpse the meaning that the present is the only experienceable moment, so it is the only one that is important.
            However, we remember these moments of “nowness” and this gives an appearance of there being a past and then we hope we are going to have more moments of “nowness” later so we can experience such concept as a future, is this what you mean?

            • F… where I am at, the view point I hold, there is no time, no space, existence of future or past is only a belief a consideration which exist by agreements. Therefore one can be only in the NOW.. experience only this moment .. and the moment again.. this happens when the beliefs are eliminated that there is past or future are in existence.

              • Elizabeth, there is a common belief that the perception of linear time has three stages – past, present and future. However, there is no ‘present’ in time, there is only past and future with nothing in between. There is no time in NOW thus time and NOW are irreconcilable. With this in mind, I suspect that objects can only be perceived in time which would mean that if I am perceiving any object, whether it appears as a solid or as a thought with no mass, I am not in the NOW. Indeed, I am unable to even conceive of an actual NOW. But I do have my own version of NOW or the Present that I perceive as existing sandwiched between the past and the future (it is a part of time). This is the moment where I knowingly or unkowingly choose and the choice I make actualizes what was, until the choice, existing as a future probability.

                I used to ask myself the question…”Exactly how long is NOW?” Of course, though, that was not an accurate question to ask as it states that NOW is part of time. But, it was the question that led me to the realization that NOW does not exist in time.

                • I think that the idea of NOW should be all inclusive of past and future. This is because past and future simply consists of considerations, and these considerations are part of the makeup of “I”.

                  “I” would not exist without its considerations. If “I” exists then all its considerations also exist with it no matter when they were conceived. Considerations can be removed only by as-isness. They cannot be removed by not-isness. 

                  One may say, “I am creating this consideration in a new unit of time.” But if this is a consideration that existed before then it is being created again automatically in a “new unit of time” anyway, because one’s attention is going back to it.

                  That is why Hubbard said that NOW can be very narrow or broad. One can consider a period of thousand of years in NOW!

                  ________________________________

                • Monte.. thank you for sharing your reality.
                  there is no time. no space..only energy and one can see that energy where they reality is.
                  beliefs are puff of nothing -pictures are illusions so what one really has?
                  what the person beliefs in.

                • M.. I reread what your post.. right.. ‘now’ don’t exist since now is a consideration related to ”time” and that too is a consideration therefor we don’t have that either.

                  • Erzsebet.
                    How can different people at different gradients of awareness use your knowledge of the nature of time and space to achieve defined results of improvement.

                    By the way, please read and think about the post I wrote to ‘Oracle’ today.
                    Mark

                • Monte… your understanding these concepts you write of, you have gained through sessions -cognitions or you have compiled your knowledge from study different gurus-teachers etc.. ?

            • If one always experience the moment of now.. than that person don’t need to look for the future for experiencing.. .I do hope I explained this.. but if not ask again and I will do my best to communicate how I see this NOW.

          • As I see filters can exist in “now.” “Now” is simply a prerequisite to recognizing filters.

            • long as you are in the mode of sorting out filters… that is a good place to start from.
              The problem is with sorting out you will never know when you have gotten rid of the last filter.. BUT WITH AUDITING AND CONFRONTING ONE SIMPLY KNOWS That ONE JUST EASED THE LAST FILTER! but of course robotic thinking will not allow that much understanding how auditing thachnology works.

            • There was lots of mistakes in my lost posting but not with the meaning but my spelling and editing was not corrected.

  32. This seemingly all-important point that Capra makes illustrating that it is not literary affectation but is instead a literal requirement that higher concepts be communicated in terms of allegory, myth, legend, parable, simile and homily certainly applies to the literal minded.

    I suspect that this is the primary reason why some people can extract so much more benefit from Hubbard’s materials and practices than others can.

    With that in mind, I’d like to recommend another book to those who read here and would like to know what you get when you enlist the help of the Buddha:

    • Scott,
      This book is hilarious, and apropos to the discussion.
      Thanks

      • Thanks Conan. I hope some people read it as it gives a great perspective on what a “God” is, vs. your “ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety” immortal being. It also destroys any false assumptions about pretended virtue among heroes.

    • I believe that higher concepts have been stated all along and they can be communicated directly. The only requirement is that they should not be filtered. To understand these concepts one has to work on ridding oneself of filters (assumptions, speculations, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, ideas of rightness and wrongness, good and evil, feelings of grandeur, etc.)

      • Yes, vinaire.

        I too feel that the myth and mystery are best left out of any “spiritual enhancement” activity and suspect that Marty feels – (and he may no longer) – largely the same way and that the process itself should lead the seeker to discover his own truth without a “story” to influence him.

        I also feel that these types of allegory are best taken with “a grain of salt”. In other words, not be taken literally. Yet I personally have not undertaken those steps on the journey leading to an ability to assume higher states at will as some (such as Neem Karoli Baba) have been purported to achieve. So I cannot comment on that subject from personal experience this lifetime. I have however experienced higher states that manifested involuntarily for varying lengths of time on several occasions due to (lower level) auditing processes I was doing at the time.

        And so we are still left with the problem, “The tao that can be described
        is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name. The nameless is the boundary of Heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of creation. Freed from desire, you can see the hidden mystery. By having desire, you can only see what is visibly real. Yet mystery and reality emerge from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness born from darkness. The beginning of all understanding.” — Tao te Ching -as translated by Stephan Mitchell

        Other variations of this passage are available here:

        http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Laozi

        • Scott, Mythologies are important only in that they may lead one to an insight. They are not important in themselves as to the story they contain, whether that story is considered true or imaginary. The story is not important. It is the potential for insight through that mythology that is important.

          I have come to believe that more important than knowledge are insights. After some time insights themselves become widespread knowledge. What then is more important are new insights.

          Basically, what I am saying is that the dynamism of knowledge in the form of continual insights is the most important element.That is what I term as spiritual progress. Static form of knowledge is neither exciting nor is there any progress in it. It is just hum drum. Scientology has become static and hum drum. It has lost its punch.

          What are exciting to me are inconsistencies and the potential of new insights underlying them. If some knowledge in Hinduism is inconsistent with knowledge in Christianity then that gets me excited. I look at that piece of knowledge more closely both in Hinduism and in Christianity. I then start to find alter-isness by the followers of either religion, and finally, by eliminating alter-isness, I get to the original ideas both in Hinduism and in Christianity. While doing this I am also examining my own filters, how they could be contributing to the inconsistency. It is when these filters start to dissolve that I feel wonderful.

          So in my experience my spiritual progress is directly proportional to the dissolving of my filters.

          • V…”Scientology has become static and hum drum. It has lost its punch.”” Now V.. if it has last its punch.. how come you are still drumming that scientology drum and shuffling filter on that subject?

            For my self I just go to the near Jiffy lube and have my filters changed regularly.. it saves lots of work..Hehehe.. And I can be sure that i never look through dirty filters …:) I know this is not in the policy..how to communicate. but take it or leave it this is I have.. Oh I know it is not intellectual.- smart– and up to par with those who believe they know but again I only went to kinder garden but I have graduated top of my class and the first price was mine I can prove that because I have a photo of me holding up a lollypop! :) I had a fantastically smart teacher.. she recognised the brilliance in me.. woof :)
            Top that one Vinnie!

  33. Hey Elizabeth Hamre, nice one, he he indeed!

  34. Martin Gibson

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
    Just as L.R. Espoused scientology as the philosophy of the everyday man – why not take what works and expel that which does not?
    OT Level evaluation = meh.

    A better way, hell yeah.

    2 way help. “How can I help you? How can you help me?“. Trust, if it results, gold.
    Love heals all.

  35. Day1 am – Mind and Life XXVI: Mind, Brain and Matter

  36. Marty, I just have to say thank you for this post and many similar ones. After leaving the church in a very messed up condition I felt I should do the OT levels in the indie field. I had great results up to a point. By the time I got to the upper levels, something seemed incomplete or “off”. By reading your posts going beyond scientology, and with so many comments to give various views on them, I have finally come to a really good place and have ended the cycle of bridge and feeling “there’s always something wrong with me.” I also wish to thank the many commentators who can really think with this. I now enjoy exploring the spiritual realm with all your help. Keep it going!

  37. Desire to know acts as the battery creating the potential difference in the circuit in which awareness flows as the current. Filters offer resistance in that circuit.

    Total Know would mean no desire to know. There would be no battery creating a potential difference in the circuit. As a result no current of awareness will flow.

    • V.. please explain how could someone say I know everything there is to know..or having total knowledge.. To gain total knowledge that person would already have to know what was there available to know in the first place.
      One can have total knowledge how to bake a bread or prune the grapes etc… but total knowledge.. that is impassible to know.

      • Elizabeth, you need to follow the discussion policy first before you can learn something in a discussion with me. Otherwise, it will be just the same and more of the same.

        • V.. thank you.. why not fallow my discussion policies for the change and you might able to lean something from me..? I am open on that.. we already did your way and that did not work.

        • V… what make you belief that you have something so valuable ”knowledge” that I can learn from you? Just because you believe that I am clueless of the universe how it is. how it works, what it contains and you believe that I am delusional that do not means it is so.. That reality-belief of how I am exist only in your universe. You are totally closed to see otherwise. There for you are not fit to teach..

  38. Great questions Marty. My personal understanding is that there are parallel universes for some people. Imagination, the super natural, faith, mythology, the invisible, these are parallel universes. Or parallel dimensions. Such as Valhalla for the Vikings. Or Olympus for the Greeks. Or Heaven for the Christians. These were parallel dimensions.

    References to Valhalla, Olympus, Heaven and various other parallel universes appear in literature, dance, poetry, theater, music, and other forms of art. Music is invisible yet it effects people. Sounds of words are invisible but it effects people also. The invisible can produce effects. These parallel dimensions are invisible and they are usually translated through invisible methods. Such as word sounds and music.

    Letters, music notations, the literal, were just symbols created to identify and translate, the invisible. Some people are attuned to the invisible in ways maybe only they can understand or identify with. Sometimes this is seen as “awareness: and for those that have no access, it appears as an aberration.

    I tend to see everything “literal” as only a translation or symbol of the invisible.

  39. “…what does one make of the understandings or motivations of those who insist upon literal conceptualizations of imaginative religious mythology?…”

    I would have to infer one, or several, of these possibilities:

    Perhaps the person has had experiences that have somehow confirmed for him the “reality” of the “myth.”

    Perhaps these myths have been accepted as “whys” or “false whys” for the existence of some phenomena for which the person has no first hand experience.

    Perhaps it is based on fear. Fear of “not fitting in”. Fear of retribution. Fear of being thought of as ignorant, or delusional, or even “suppressive”.

    Perhaps the person has come to see that people can be manipulated and controlled with the myth, to his own benefit.

    Perhaps because of the mental or emotional “force” that has been used in its communication. The person may have been overwhelmed to the point of “hypnotic” acceptance.

    I do not see a simple, “one-size-fits-all” answer.

    Eric

    • This is a central question, about ‘myth’, that I feel has not been fully addressed. In fact there is evidence that some “myths” contain references to historical events. One such is the story about the occurrence of world-wide flooding. Some of the evidence is that this story exists in many cultures around the world, which have never that we know of, had any contact with each other. There are Flood stories in South America, in China, in the Middle East etc. Some are very detailed. Some scholars have speculated that volcanic activity and catastrophic flooding on a world-wide scale did occur in the past.

      Other myths from around the world contain accounts of the activities of powerful spiritual beings, in Japan, China, India, Australia, the Middle East, Greece, Europe, Africa, and the Americas as well.
      Is this coincidence. or do all these stories reflect past realities of some kind?

      Scholars publish books like “The Bible As History”, etc. More speculative and imaginative writers like Graham Hancock assemble myths from around the world together with geological evidence, weather and astronomical studies to paint a realistic case for a Flood to have occurred. See “Fingerprints of the Gods”.

      The situation is similar to that of the claims for existence of a “collective unconscious”. Jung and others have been quite convinced its existence. Is it just ‘coincidence’ that part of the content of the human mind is shared among people who have never met or communicated with each other?

      I wouldn’t dismiss or try to ‘explain away’ the idea that there is a historical basis for much of what it is nowadays fashionable to dismiss as ‘just fantasy’. It is quite possible that some of the most common myths have a basis in reality.

      • Other considerations have to do with the origins and evolution of languages and cultures. These are shrouded in mystery, even those of fairly recent origin, by which I mean those originating 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. No-one knows where and how the Slavic people originated, much less the Roman, Greek, or any others. One day they don’t exist, the next day there they are, with their unique languages, customs, styles of dress, gods and spirits, methods of survival etc. Academics create stories to explain human evolution of millions of years based on a jawbone fragment, yet cannot account for events occurring only 2,000 or less years ago……

        I think the outer limits of human knowledge are not much farther out than a few yards beyond our noses.

        • Hi Valkov

          Yes… History, perhaps more in the long past, also seems to come forward as “myth”, in some cases, and as you say, in some cases seems to be born up, at least in part, by geologic or archeological evidence.

          The book “Worlds in Collision” is an interesting relation of “myth” and geographical and/or human historical records, of world-wide phenomena, such as “the flood”, “the sky falling”, “mannah from Heaven”, and other favorites of the Bible, Mayan records, Chinese records, etc.

          As you say, “the long past” is often no longer ago that a thousand or so years.

          Also, when several unique areas of the have similar “myths”, one would do well to consider it more than coincidence.

          Here is an interesting “myth” that seems to have some basis in reality.
          I believe it is the Dogon people of Mali who told early explorers who contacted them that they came from a certain star (the Dog star) which they would point to in the sky. They said there were two stars even though there appears to only be one, They said that they came from one of several planets orbiting one of the two stars. The white men that heard this poo-phad this claim as total “myth” because they had only been able to see one star, at that time. As better telescopes became available, it was found that “the Dog star” is actually a double star, and that one of them has several planets in orbit around it, both only visible through powerful telescopes.

          Perhaps it still falls into the category of “myth” but there does seem to be corroborating evidence.

          Eric

          • Yes, that’s what I’m talking about Eric. I had forgotten about that book, Worlds in Collision. I have’t read it but I recall hearing about it. I did read Fingerprints of the Gods by Hancock. That book is meticulously detailed, even if its basic thesis turns out to be wrong. I respect writers like that because they try to account for all the known facts, some of which others ignore.

            I think it’s too simple to dismiss all ‘myth’ as purely allegorical mental constructs without basis in history.

          • It is actually a myth. I have a history book, published in the 19th century which makes a point about Charlemange’s lesser-known brother by comparing him to the smaller Sirius star. If a history book written for a general audience could make such a reference, then Sirius B (discovered in 1862) would have been general knowledge among explorers. Especially those in an astronomical expedition that went to the area to observe an eclipse in 1893. The ‘early explorers’ who are said to have been impressed by Dogon astronomical knowledge were from the twentieth century.

  40. Marilidi, you seem to be assuming quite a few things here.

    (1) You are claimimg to exactly know what Buddha said after listening to some general.translations. A lot gets lost in translation it seems. Do you know that Buddha didn’t believe in a permanent or eternal atman, soul, or thetan?

    (2) Buddha used mindfulness, This is what I try to follow. This goes much deeper than logic and science. My understanding of mindfulness is provided below.

    http://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/

    So. I do see holes and inconsistencies in the past life theory popular in the west. It is not what Buddha believed in. Buddha did not have a theistic viewpoint.

    I have my understanding of Buddha arrived at after deep study and contemplation.

    • Here is my commentary of the Theistic viewpoint. I do not subscribe to it as it leads to inconsistencies.
      http://vinaire.me/2014/05/13/the-theistic-viewpoint-of-god/

      The theistic viewpoint germinates from viewing one as a self separate from others and imagining God on the same basis. The theistic view is, therefore, a self-centered view.

      The view of self starts from fixation on the body. It comes from a condensation of the universal view. Instead of looking at the universe as a single, vast entity or body, one’s viewpoint condenses by first separating mankind from all other forms of life, and then separating mankind into groups, and then separating groups into individuals.

      The idea of self comes from this fixation on individuality. It is then projected back into the idea of divinity as God.

      This is the theistic viewpoint. It is self-centered.

      To me the theistic viewpoint is an aberration. It views God as a being.

      The atheistic viewpoint does not deny God. It only objects to viewing God as a being.

    • “Do you know that Buddha didn’t believe in a permanent or eternal atman, soul, or thetan?…So. I do see holes and inconsistencies in the past life theory popular in the west. It is not what Buddha believed in. ”

      Yes, I do know that the Buddha did not believe in a PERMANENT or ETERNAL soul, but that doesn’t equate to there being no such thing as past lives. And the Buddha DID believe in past lives. The following excerpt was taken from an article that includes several authoritative quotes of the Buddha himself on this subject:

      —————————————————

      The Buddha’s remembrance of thousands of past lives during the first watch of the night he achieved omnipotent enlightenment gave rise to a vast body of Buddhist literature, in many versions, called the Jatakas or Tales of the Buddha’s Past Lives. The Pali Jatakas record 357 past lives as a human, 66 as a god, and 123 as an animal. For Buddhists, the biography of the Buddha consists of not one but many lives.
      [...]

      The Buddha is our greatest authority on rebirth. On the very night of his enlightenment, during the first watch, the Buddha developed retro-cognitive knowledge which enabled him to read his past lives. “I recalled,” he declares, “My varied lot in former existences follows: first one life, then two lives, then three, four, five, ten, then a hundred, a thousand…” He beheld the “base and the noble, the beautiful and the ugly, the happy and the miserable, passing according to their deeds.”‘

      These are the very first utterances of the Buddha regarding the question of rebirth. The textual references conclusively prove that the Buddha did not borrow this stern truth of rebirth from any existing source, but spoke from personal knowledge, a knowledge which was super-normal, developed when he achieved enlightenment and which could be developed by others as well. In his first paean of joy, the Buddha says: “Through many a birth wandered I, seeking the builder of this house. Sorrowful indeed is birth again and again.”

      In the Dhammacakka Sutta, his very first discourse, the Buddha, commenting on the second noble truth, states: “This very raving is that which leads to rebirth.” The Buddha concludes this discourse with the words: “This is my last birth. Now there is no more rebirth.” The Majjima Nikaya relates that when the Buddha, out of, compassion for beings, surveyed the world with his Buddha-vision before he decided to teach the Dhamma, he perceived beings, who, with fear, view evil and a world beyond.

      In several discourses the Buddha clearly states that beings, having done evil, are, after death, born in woeful states, and beings having done good, are born in blissful states.

      Besides the very interesting Jataka stories, which deal with his previous lives and which are of ethical importance, the Majjhima Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya make incidental references to some of the past lives of the Buddha.
      [...]

      So, if anyone says there is no such thing as reincarnation, they are basically calling Buddha a liar.
      ———————————————–
      http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-buddha.htm
      —————————————————————

    • Marildi, I find the following from Wikipedia more authentic:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

      Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika-viññana)[1][2] or stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana-sotam,[3] Sanskrit: vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or citta-santāna) upon death (or “the dissolution of the aggregates” (P. khandhas, S. skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream.

      You may say that an atom in a banana had a past like in an apple because the atom which is now in a banana was in an apple at one time. This is the Buddhist concept of past life in terms of energy (masses) that may migrate from one structure of “I” to another structure of “I”.

      But this Buddhist concept is very different from a thetan going from one body to another. You need to study Buddhism more carefully.

      • Vinaire,

        YOU, need to study Buddhism more carefully and more deeply.

        Buddhism is predicated on the ancient Yoga tradition of self exploration, through meditation and contemplation. It is a vey personal, heuristic and experiential set of methodologies not a dialectic or discursive process.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogic

        The object is for you to attain insight into mind and reality, and answer those questions EXPERIENTIALLY to your own satisfaction..

        The nature of who you are and what reality is, cannot be fully arrived at analytically, as discursive thought can not comprehend fundamental reality.

        I hope you continue with your meditation practice and I wish you the best of luck on your journey of self exploration.

  41. lit·er·al·ism [lit-er-uh-liz-uhm] noun
    1.
    adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation: to interpret the law with uncompromising literalism.
    2.
    a peculiarity of expression resulting from this: The work is studded with these obtuse literalisms.
    3.
    exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature: a literalism more appropriate to journalism than to the novel.
    ——————————————————————————–
    Origin:
    1635–45; literal + -ism
    C14: from Late Latin litterālis concerning letters, from Latin littera letter ]

  42. When fixed ideas are challenged people get upset. That is natural. But his is the moment when one needs self-control.

    The Discussion Policy (see below) helps bring about this self-control and opportunity to learn something new. There is nothing wrong with inspecting anew an idea that has been around for some time, and which has been taken for granted.

    The idea being challanged is not the person. If that idea is being challenged then it does not mean that the person is being attacked. These two things are not the same thing. They should be kept separate, otherwise one would not be able to inspect such ideas.

    So, here is the Discussion Policy. It simply asks one to look instead of not-ising.

    http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/

    • christianscientology

      Hi Vinaire

      I enjoy reading what you write and invariably look on your site when you leave a link. This particular link caught my interest http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/

      On it you say under point 1 “Some people literally view God as a person who had created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space ……… So God cannot be a person ……”

      I believe you are making several assumptions here. Firstly the dictionary definition of “a person” is only one definition and fails to capture the essence of PERSONHOOD. The word “person” comes from persona which is defined as “a mask”. In Scientology terms “a valance”. This still falls short of what a believer mean by “person” when referring to God. In the Greek when referring to God as “a person” the word is hypostasis, which is essence. Baring this in mind I find it reasonable to suggest there may well be an “essence” behind creation that causes that creation to come into being.

      I would go further to suggest that that which has being is preceded by PERSONHOOD. This I would see as the fundamental difference between SPIRIT and SOUL or in Scientology terminology between THETA and A THETAN. SPIRIT/THETA is un-differentiated and is therefore PERSONHOOD. SOUL/A THETAN is differentiated and is BEING. This suggests that “PERSONHOOD PROCEEDS BEING” http://www.leithart.com/archives/003435.php
      Which is a reversal of how most people see it and indeed in common with all secular thinking Scientology postulates that ARC leads to love. Whereas Christianity in its purest form would say that love precedes ARC.

      I would very much appreciate your comments on what I have written here. I like to think I am open to alternative viewpoints.

      Regards
      Pip

      • Pip, you are making a good point. “Personhood” in the Christian context means to me that God is ALIVE, the living ‘subject’ as Berdyaev would put it, the living essence of the universe.

        • christianscientology

          Thanks for your acknowledgement Valkov. I had not heard of Nikolai Berdyaev but when I read what Bishop Zizlous had to say about the relationship between personhood and being it made a lot of sense. It’s all very well to say God is love but if I look for the source of love the only thing that makes sense is PERSONHOOD, out of which everything emanates. In fact I would go as far as re-writing the opening line of “THE FACTORS” to read “Before the beginning there was personhood which was the prior cause and the entire purpose of personhood was the creation of effect. In the beginning was the decision and the decision was TO BE”

          This way personhood is expressing as BEING, in the same way as THETA expresses as A THETAN or that LOVE expresses as UNDERSTANDING=ARC.

          Regards
          Pip

        • Yes, the universe is alive. God is that essence of the universe that we recognize as aliveness. Thus, God is the spiritual aspect of the universe.

          • “Yes, the universe is alive. God is that essence of the universe that we recognize as aliveness. Thus, God is the spiritual aspect of the universe.”
            Vinaire I prefer:
            Yes, the universe is alive. Love is that essence of the universe that we recognize as aliveness. Thus, Love is the spiritual aspect of the universe.
            Or one could say Affinity. :)

            • Here is my nuclear engineering approach to all this…:)

              The circuit is the universe.
              The battery is the desire to know.
              The current flowing in the circuit is awareness.
              The amount of current flowing is affinity.
              The resistance in the circuit are the filters.
              The voltage at any point in the circuit provides the reality at that point.
              The voltage drop between any two points in the circuit provides a measure of filters.
              Any two points in the circuit may act as the “terminals” in communication.
              They are different in voltage (reality) because of the filters between them.
              They “become one” when the filters between them are removed.
              The two terminals of the battery are the ultimate terminals in communication.
              One terminal is perceiving the other terminal through the filters of the circuit.
              As resistance (filters) reduce, the current (affinity) increases and the reality improves.
              Ultimately, a short circuit takes place as the filters vanish.
              The desire to know is satisfied as the two terminals become one.
              There is no awareness, no affinity, no reality, no communication.
              As these are no longer needed..
              .

          • christianscientology

            Hi Vinaire

            God is indeed alive but is also life itself. In Christian thinking God is said to be both IMMINENT AND TRANSCENDENT. Not one or the other but both. LIFE is a STATIC and therefore is not located in space or time, when life becomes located in M.E.S.T. it becomes LIVING and living is always involved with MOTION. The transcendent God is spiritual, and the imminent God is soul, the fullness of God is both SOUL and SPIRIT.

            Pip

            • Hi Pip,

              My understanding is as follows:

              KHTK Postulate M-1: Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness and electromagnetism.

              KHTK postulates that the theoretical ground state for this universe is an undisturbed primordial field that has no frequency, wavelength or period.

              For disturbance to occur in the primordial field, a primordial energy must also be postulated.

              In the ancient scriptures, these two fundamental postulates of primordial field and primordial energy are referred to as Shiva and Shakti respectively. A reference to them is made in the essay ZERO, ONE, INFINITY, AND GOD.

              The resulting disturbance arises as the phenomena of awareness and electromagnetism, which are intimately related, and which form life.

              http://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/
              ..

      • Hi CS,

        I appreciate you writing this. I have already taken quite a bandwidth on Marty’s blog and I am thinking of giving him some rest. Would it be ok if we continue with the discussion on God on my blog.

        Thanks, Vinay 

        ________________________________

        • christianscientology

          I would be glad to; hence I am posting my reply to Valkov to your site too, and await your comments.

          Regards
          Pip

  43. This is an interesting piece on bringing the mystical and mythical into the literal:

    Origins of the Written Bible

    Biblical literature became a tool that legitimated and furthered the priests’ political and religious authority.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/origins-written-bible.html

  44. I apologize if I am coming across too harsh in my posts. That seems to be the streak of autism in me. I don’t intend to use that as an excuse though.

    We all take different paths in life. I respect the paths that others.have taken. I don’t intend to impose my understanding on others. I just want to state it as best as I can.

    • Hello Vin.
      Good to see you here.

      My method of discussing, arguing a point, interactive thought has become as such:

      “Interest idea, concept, thought you have there, From my point of view, observations, I see it this way.”…….

      Sometimes I will state things as fact. Old habits are hard to break. Sometimes I state things as fact because I was there, watching it happen. It is hard to relay an occurrence as an opinion. I have been guilty of forming an opinion from incidents I was involved in and stated those as facts. I am aware of this and working on it.

      One thing I will do when I catch myself, is to relay the incident so the reader can get an idea of the basis of my opinion. Again, I’m working on doing a better job at this.

      When others point out my errors, either in thought or in how I relay that thought, I am appreciative. I consider it a favor that others went to the trouble to assist me.

      Sometimes I over soften my stance. That is also an error, but no more serious than over stating my rightness. Knowledge, I believe, is best conveyed when offered freely, rather than thrust with force.
      ARCL, Mark

      • Mark, everything I say are my opinions. They can’t be anything else. Even when I am passionate about what I say, they are still opinions.

        Everyone observes through their own filters. Who knows what is beyond those filters. I observe through filters too. So, I don’t think in terms of facts any more.

        I only think in terms of the “degree of consistency”. The more consistent the data is the more useful it may prove to be. But, what is consistent for me may not be consistent for another.

        I don’t believe what I say to be gospel. But I do believe that what I say is the best understanding I have. I don’t expect what I say to be taken as gospel. I know every person has their own peculiar viewpoint, and they should take what resonates with them, and reject the rest.

        So, I don’t much care about how my fingers tap out my ideas on the keyboard. I only care that what I tap out is the best understanding I can give. Others are free to accept or reject it. That doesn’t bother me.

        To me my integrity to myself is most important.

        Regards,
        Vinaire
        .

        • Hey there Vin.I believe
          I have made an error. I love reading your comments and enjoy your discourse. I had some recent wins and was explaining my feelings of affinity for those I communicate with and I came across as demeaning. That was a mistake.

          I often have to re-read my comments to see the message they actually communicated to others. I get a bit enthused at my own thoughts and just bang them out on the keys.

          Confidence in one’s own knowledge and integrity of self is paramount. Hope may last comment on your site confirms that. A spiritual research project would necessarily include individuals of many different schools of thought.

          Buddies?
          Mark

  45. Brian said:“There is at least circumstantial evidence regarding the nature of the soul, God and life. There are many Masters, Rumi, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Yogananda, Jesus, St. Francis, Merton, Swami Satchitananda on and on and on. All say that God is light. That the soul is one with God. That the soul exists. That is who I mean by masters: sages.”

    You are right, but I see these as hypotheses that need to be researched further. My ideas on soul are as follows.

    In physics, the center of mass is the weighted average location of all the mass in a body or group of bodies. Various important calculations in mechanics become simplified when quantities are referenced to the center of mass, or when the entire mass of a body is treated as if it is concentrated at the center of mass.

    We may regard the Self and the Soul in a similar manner.

    A SELF is a weighted average location of all physical and mental energies and forces related to a person, much like the “center of mass.”

    So, underlying this concept of self there is an actual structure of energies and forces. This may be what Buddha was describing as summarized in THE STRUCTURE OF “I”.

    If we look at a soul as something left after the body dies then we may describe it in a similar manner as follows:

    A SOUL is a weighted average location of the mental energies and forces, remaining after the death of the physical body, much like the “center of mass.”

    By definition, spirit is the essence of something. It also refers to the mental energies and forces remaining after death. Therefore these mental energies and forces remaining after death constitute the spirit of a person. Spirit is not different from the mind.

    As it is obvious from the above interpretation, a soul is what remains of the self after the removal of physical energies and forces. The soul does not have the same characteristics as the self. Soul does not behave the same way as the self did.

    A soul is pretty much frozen until it creates a new self by becoming part of a new born baby. The last thought of the old self is the first thought of the new self. There are no “in-between life” after death and before birth. Ideas about “in-between lives” seems to be the projections of live self.

    The new self of the baby has only certain elements of the old self. This may explain the inexplicable talents and memories from some other life. But there is no “self” that continues from one body to the next.

    We are not talking about reincarnation here. There seem to be no heaven or hell where souls may be stored indefinitely after death. There is recycling in nature.

    Here we are looking beyond hopes and expectations. We are looking at physics on the plane of metaphysics.

    http://vinaire.me/2012/07/29/the-self-and-the-soul/

  46. I apologize to Brian, Elizabeth Hamre, 2X and others, if I have come across as too harsh in my criticism of their ideas.

    Everybody has a right to their ideas. My idea is to simplify knowledge as much as possible. Here is my contribution to the area of education.

    SUBJECT CLEARING

    When studying a subject one should be able to detect the hidden assumptions and distortions present in it. This is especially necessary when one is studying the fundamentals of a subject. Such distortions can be very pervasive. They may even enter the definitions of words provided in dictionaries.

    The following procedure may help one detect and clear assumptions and distortions present in a subject being studied.

    1. Make a list of key words that describe the concepts in that subject.

    Skim through the chapter that you are going to study, and make a list of key words that introduce new concepts in that chapter. Put that list on an Excel worksheet, so you can rearrange their order as necessary. You may add key words from previous chapters, or from other books, that you have studied. This list may grow as your studies get deeper into the subject.

    2. Write down the basic concept associated with the word.

    In a dictionary you may find the broad concept listed under ‘history’, ‘origin’, or ‘derivation’ of the word. This may appear either before, or after the definitions. For example, when you look up ARITHMETIC, you may find the underlying concept expressed as “skill with numbers.”

    Look for broad concept only. Sometimes you may have to piece together the concept from the derivations given. Ignore most other details. Once you have grasped the broad concept note it down next to the word on your Excel worksheet.

    3. Gradually build upon each concept for that subject.

    Study the materials in the chapter one paragraph at a time. Summarize and reduce each paragraph to its main thought before proceeding to the next. This may provide you with additional conceptual understanding. If so, then note it down next to the appropriate word on your Excel worksheet.

    If the paragraph is difficult to reduce to its main thought then look for words in that paragraph that may not have been understood fully. If the difficulty with a paragraph still persists then note down the confusion on your worksheet with the location. It may get clarified by something you read later.

    Since the required information may easily be accessed these days, the purpose of study is not to memorize but to sort out relevant data.

    The true purpose of study is to resolve inconsistencies (things that do not make sense) as you come across them. This develops a clarity of mind and the ability to think fast on your feet.

    4. Arrange the key words with their concepts in proper sequence.

    The key words should be listed starting with those that express the fundamental concepts. These are followed by those key words, which express derived concepts.

    Start by arranging the key words in the sequence they appear in the chapter. As you gain familiarity, rearrange the key words in the sequence that concepts seem to have evolved. Move the words expressing more fundamental concepts toward the top. Move the words expressing derived concepts toward the bottom.

    A “Priority” column may be added to your Excel worksheet. You may place numbers in that column to readjust the sequence, and then simply sort the list by that column.

    5. Note any inconsistencies among the concepts and clarify them.

    As the study of the subject progresses and better understanding comes about, the list of key words may be continually rearranged to achieve consistency among the concepts.

    If you notice any inconsistencies then this motivates research deeper into the subject. First review your materials to clarify any inconsistency. If it does not clarify easily then note it down on the worksheet and research through other materials in the library or on Internet.

    6. Clarify the fundamentals of the subject as a priority.

    The fundamentals concepts of a subject must be consistent. Any inconsistency at the fundamental level must be handled as a priority, since on this depends the consistency of later concepts in that subject.

    Look closely at the inconsistencies starting from the top. If an inconsistency does not resolve then look for underlying assumptions. Arbitrary assumptions may reveal gaps in the subject itself.

    There are likely to be many contributors to a subject. For example, many different cultures have contributed to the broad subject of religious knowledge. You may find similar concepts referred to by different words in different languages. Note down all those words and differences among the concepts. Seek consistency among these concepts and develop your own understanding.

    7. Make the subject as complete as possible.

    There are many examples in the subject of religion where gaps in knowledge are hidden under assumptions and dubious explanations. This may be the case with any subject where inconsistencies abound.

    When such assumptions and dubious explanations are ferreted out, then the gaps in knowledge become obvious.Real progress becomes possible now.

    Fill gaps in the subject with wider research. Make the subject as complete and consistent as possible through experimentation and direct experience.

    .
    Thus, subject clearing may occur.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/

  47. Emaciated:

    If Mama Cass had shared that piece of chicken with Karen Carpenter, they would both be alive today.
    Mark

  48. Beyond all of that, I just want to say, you always have someone to turn to if you trust in yourself. Build on you. Thanks Marty, I learned that from you.

  49. It is unfortunate, TO ME, there are a few commenters who want to air their differences here. And others who feel the need to explain rather unexplainable concepts ad infinitum.

    I enjoyed this post by Marty as I didn’t *really* understand it — but felt that the first response from Jamie was heartfelt and I was interested in hearing from her. And a few others were great.

    The rest is boring (sorry), pedantic (sorry) and should be taken off line and discussed privately —

    This type of blathering drives people away — or at least it drives me away.

    Seems like a LOT of “ego” for people who claim to have figured out non-ego — IMHO

    • On the other hand windhorse, what a study in human interaction and what goes on in la cabesa.

    • Well, can I interest you in some Rockabilly music? This guy has just come on the scene with a Rockabilly / Jazz fusion sound that is really great! Also, there is something supernatural about his story. His want and need to recreate a 50′s era, and his ability to make to fiddlers appear from no where! His affinity for a time gone by, and bringing it right back in the “now”.
      Yes, there is something very mystical behind this literal new album, and this guy’s insight into “the past”, and the way he shifted it into his “future”, in his mind, to land into a “now”.

  50. SCN contains reading about and dealing with some really ancient and unusual for people incidents. I mean they’re not out of ‘every day life’. I cannot tell what the deal is with those incidents. Ever since I remember myself I was fascinated with what is different and unusual and out of the dull routine. Some say about aliens ‘I want to believe’. Well, I want to know –not just about aliens in specific. Belief is confusing information for truth. knowing is knowing truth by direct perception. The end of all beliefs would be such a nice state of (no) case. For the moment I trust more and more in what we were talking about here ‘intuition’. And I take for granted information less and less. I don’t always know truth, but in a way I have a BS detector. If I get charged about something, I know there’s some BS lies involved’ to say it in Scientologese. This compass leads me well, at least much better than my previous ones. For me it doesn’t matter as much whether those incidents occured or not, what matters is whether a condition resolves or worsens. How long do you run an engram for? Untill EP, right? So then what is the EP? It isn’t my business to answer, as I don’t play that game.

    I’m really not going to try to disillusion anybody. I have found myself in trouble for denying my thoughts and swallowing other’s to fit in or to win and so on. So, I only propose that as well. Know>information. Know only what you know.

    • * I usually seem to have something to clarify after I post. About that measurement of charge that I mentioned, I didn’t mean with an e-meter. I mean you can perceive it when you ridge with something (charge). Somebody says something like ‘it’s all bad’ or ‘its going to be OK’ and even if you believe it, you still ridge with it, if it isn’t the truth. Then you can experience the ridges. You experience that its all bad or that its going to be ok in the end… You can practically implant somebody by lying to him. Or you can skip that whole game by not believing.

  51. With Marty’s permission I would like to post the following here because it not only explains the myth of OT levels (how they came about), but it also clarifies where exactly Hubbard went off the rails and sowed the seeds of the destruction of Scientology.

    First a bit about Hubbard’s fixation:

    The trouble with Hubbard’s theory is that it is “self-centric”. On the other hand Buddhism is “isness-centric”

    NOTE: isness = what is out there instead of one’s opinion of it.

    This makes Hubbard’ theory ‘subjective’ and Buddhism ‘objective’.

    In the ARC formula, Hubbard regards affinity as BE, communication as DO, and reality as HAVE. But Buddhism will say that reality is BE, communication is DO, and affinity is HAVE.

    ARC increases as filters (biases, prejudices, fixed, ideas, engrams, etc.) are reduced.

    Reality is more like the degree of appreciation of what is there. That is how one recognizes filters This is BE. This is TR0.

    Communication is the process by which the filters are recognized. (DO).

    Affinity is the state achieved as filters are reduced. (HAVE).

    Affinity is not just attraction-repulsion, or reach-withdraw. Affinity is ‘all-inclusiveness’. Affinity is the lack of filters. Affinity is compassion that Buddha championed. Affinity is the final havingness that is truly OT.

    .

    This self-centric fixation is what made the following happen to John McMaster’s research per the account at http://vinaire.me/2014/05/22/come-home-john/, namely,

    “We decided the listing question would be something along the lines of “Who or what is causing difficulty?”

    “We made a list and then we’d get whatever the item was, and then put the item into a Represent (“Who or what would item represent?”), and then list away. If the item on the first list had been a person, one blew the charge off that person by getting the Represent out of it…

    “We took the results to Hubbard, and he kind of hemmed and hawed and told us it was a little bit long-winded and we could do it faster another way. Eventually he changed the thing down to: “Who is suppressing you?”, and it had to be a person. And when that person was spotted, the PC had to go to the ethics officer with the folder.”

    This process outlined by John McMaster in 1965 would have undercut the OT levels. It seems that Hubbard;s item to “Who or what is causing difficulty?” was what Hubbard came up on OT III.

    Hubbard should have followed it up with the next question, “Who or what would item represent?”

    .

    Here we find the subversion of ethics by Hubbard. Ethics is discipline. It would have to do with the application of mindfulness, the auditor’s code, the code of a Scientologist, etc. It is something applied to oneself by oneself and not by somebody else.

    From this point in 1965, ethics got subverted being used as a convenient escape for failures in Hubbard’s own auditing. You will understand this remark after you have read John McMaster’s account linked above.

    Thank you.

    • “Affinity is the final havingness that is truly OT.”

      That sounds about right. Except what happens when a person has an affinity for ill will? What happens when a person has an affinity for making less of others?

      I have come to think people can be in arc with out of arc purposes.

      Affinity can be a positive or a negative. It can push people up or tear people down. The village folk standing around to view the public execution can have an affinity for sadism.

      Son I feel there is a flaw in this standard of yours. Respectfully submitted because you know, I know you are a very nice man Vinny.

      This standard for OT, I do not believe belongs to the Church of Scientology. And I do not think they have exclusive rights about creating such promise. All thetans are operating thetans as far as I can tell. Otherwise they could not lie, manipulate, wallow in sadism, ser fac, and do all of the things thetans decide to do with their time depending on their purposes. The homeless man on the street is an operating thetan.

      I think personally, the OT thing has been a bit of what people think it is or should be. Imagine what they might like to be. As one puffs up beyond the walls they have created for themselves and forgotten about, they just have more room to spread around. At least out of some fixed ideas.

      When someone goes clear they are often going clear of the reactive mind that is connected their current identity on this time track. If you clear a guy and not his purposes, which were used forward forward identities, he can become dismayed. Because some people do not want to read or understand, they just want someone someway to carry them above it all.

      Money will take not you there. Being obedient will not take you there. Making everyone else disappear will not take you there. Only your mathematical skills at figuring out the problems or challenges you embrace will take you there.

      In the end, every person makes their own choices and follows their own path according to their own purposes. All the good will in the world can not make you wise, aware, perceptive and neither above another person who has the purpose to make nothing out of you.Neither your love for them. If you do not remove yourself from their path, if you are not that intelligent, you can become very much the effect of them.

      The wise men of Tibet were slaughtered by robotic and superstitious soldiers. How OT was that? They just didn’t glow it right with love. A person who is consumed with a purpose to destroy doesn’t want your love or affinity. They do not a place any value on that.

      You write about your purposes here Vinny. Your understandings. What makes sense to you. And you get into even more complexities.

      I see it as a simple thing. If you have a purpose to win, you win. If you have a purpose to know, you know. If you don’t, you don’t. It doesn’t matter who comes along and offers you and hand up or a hand down. This is not about Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard . This is the way it goes in every group, every relationship, every country, every family in every corner.

      This is just the way I see it. It comes down to the person’s purpose.

      I do agree with McMaster’s assessment . But even knowing this, he had purposes also.

      A person can be redirected to re organize their purposes. That is really all a person can manage in Scientology. But this is highly beneficial as far as I can see.

      • Oracle said: “That sounds about right. Except what happens when a person has an affinity for ill will? What happens when a person has an affinity for making less of others?”

        The simple answer is that when a person has affinity for ill will, the ill will dissolves. When a person has affinity for making less of others, he realizes why he is doing so, and he ceases doing so.

        You become what you resist. Affinity comes about when that resistance ceases.

      • Oracle says: “I have come to think people can be in arc with out of arc purposes.”

        When one is truly in ARC, understanding comes about and any out-of-arc manifestation simply dissolves.

        As I wrote above:

        In the ARC formula, Hubbard regards affinity as BE, communication as DO, and reality as HAVE. But Buddhism will say that reality is BE, communication is DO, and affinity is HAVE.

        ARC increases as filters (biases, prejudices, fixed, ideas, engrams, etc.) are reduced.

        Reality is more like the degree of appreciation of what is there. That is how one recognizes filters This is BE. This is TR0.

        Communication is the process by which the filters are recognized. (DO).

        Affinity is the state achieved as filters are reduced. (HAVE).

        Affinity is not just attraction-repulsion, or reach-withdraw. Affinity is ‘all-inclusiveness’. Affinity is the lack of filters. Affinity is compassion that Buddha championed. Affinity is the final havingness that is truly OT..

        I think that the concept of affinity has become subverted in Scientology because of the reversal of order (see above) by Hubbard. Buddha had it right.

        That is why we do not see compassion in Scientology. Scientology is all business.

        • “That is why we do not see compassion in Scientology. Scientology is all business.”

          I have no idea who “we” is here Vinny. It is just not me. I have known many people exploring Scientology and involved with Scientology that had no problems manifesting compassion. I realize you have been sailing in the winds of ill will but these are seasonal. And a minute portion of the over all will of the people, most of who are still curious.

          • Oracle.
            I agree on many points. Most of the people I have met through Scn. were warm and truly caring.
            Mark

      • Oracle says:
        “Affinity can be a positive or a negative. It can push people up or tear people down. The village folk standing around to view the public execution can have an affinity for sadism.

        Son I feel there is a flaw in this standard of yours. Respectfully submitted because you know, I know you are a very nice man Vinny.”

        I don’t think Oracle knows me! Haha. I am probably terrible for Scientology as Hubbard constructed it.

        Scientology has no concept of true affinity. Reality is the sadism (BE), Communication is seeing why sadism is there (DO), True affinity arises as the filters causing sadism are dissolved (HAVE).

        • “I don’t think Oracle knows me! ”

          “Scientology has no concept of true affinity. Reality is the sadism (BE), Communication is seeing why sadism is there (DO), True affinity arises as the filters causing sadism are dissolved (HAVE).

          As I mentioned, people can be in ARC with out of ARC purposes.

        • V…..”Scientology has no concept of true affinity. “‘
          Elizabeth.. Scientology has no concept of true affinity.. Of course not, but those who studied scientology do…and those who have had auditing know what affinity Is and exists…and every one on this planet has reality on the subject+ experience.

      • Oracle says:
        “This standard for OT, I do not believe belongs to the Church of Scientology. And I do not think they have exclusive rights about creating such promise. All thetans are operating thetans as far as I can tell. Otherwise they could not lie, manipulate, wallow in sadism, ser fac, and do all of the things thetans decide to do with their time depending on their purposes. The homeless man on the street is an operating thetan.”

        One sees a thetan because one is looking through the “self-centric” filter of Hubbard. When that filter is removed the view becomes reality-centric. That is what it is. So as-isness can now take place.

        There is no thetan or operating thetan in reality. There are only filters and the reduction of those filters.

        Scientology is like an onion made up of layers upon layers of filters. OT is simply another layer of filter on top of the layer of filter called ‘thetan’.

        There is wonderful freedom when one gives up the self-centric filter of the belief that one is a thetan.

        Haha…. I must apologize to Hubbard on Buddha’s behalf.
        .

        • “One sees a thetan because one is looking through the “self-centric” filter of Hubbard.”

          Who or what is “one”? Your blanket evaluations are reckless and lazy math.

      • Oracle says:
        “I think personally, the OT thing has been a bit of what people think it is or should be. Imagine what they might like to be. As one puffs up beyond the walls they have created for themselves and forgotten about, they just have more room to spread around. At least out of some fixed ideas.”

        OT is a reality constructed by Hubbard. He marketed it by the lure of super abilities and powers. He then used people’s affinities to build up this fiction from which he personally benefitted.

        He discarded people after their affinities were all used up. That’s what he did to John Mcmasters and anybody else who came close to him, including his own wife and children.

        He chose as his successor somebody who was like him.

        I am glad that I kept my distance from him when on Apollo. He did like me enough to put me on the Data Series course and make me a Programs Manager, and later CO India.

        But India is a tough nut for Scientology to crack.

        .

        • Your ruds are out on Hubbard. You have elected yourself into a prosecutor identity, not one of Buddhist. I think your purpose is one of judge and prosecutor.

          To lay out the crime scenes, to point the finger at the “guilty”, to argue law of who and who not has crossed the crime scenes. Who and who not has guilt. Who is guilty of ignorance and why. Who should be entitled to the “ruling class” of the spiritually supreme. To list the daily crimes.

          Vinny, you are town crier.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_crier

      • Oracle writes:
        “When someone goes clear they are often going clear of the reactive mind that is connected their current identity on this time track. If you clear a guy and not his purposes, which were used forward forward identities, he can become dismayed. Because some people do not want to read or understand, they just want someone someway to carry them above it all.”

        Clarity comes when filters are removed. Clear is simply a step in the process. Here the gross filters are removed and a person feels a lot better. But the finer filters are still there. They cannot be removed by OT processes which use the filter of a self-centric viewpoint.
        .

      • Oracle write:
        “Money will take not you there. Being obedient will not take you there. Making everyone else disappear will not take you there. Only your mathematical skills at figuring out the problems or challenges you embrace will take you there.”

        The total amount of money I have spent of Scientology is not more than twenty thousand dollars, fifteen thousand of which I simply wasted.

        I could not be brainwashed in Sea Org, so I was let go because the “Fitness Board” found me unfit for Sea Org.

        You are right that my mathematical shill has helped me see the curves placed there by Hubbard. You are right about this, Oracle. MIT did come to my rescue, and so did Buddhism.

        You are welcome to my MATHS SELF-LEARNING CENTER.

        http://vinaire.me/mathematics/
        .

      • Oracle writes:
        “In the end, every person makes their own choices and follows their own path according to their own purposes. All the good will in the world can not make you wise, aware, perceptive and neither above another person who has the purpose to make nothing out of you.Neither your love for them. If you do not remove yourself from their path, if you are not that intelligent, you can become very much the effect of them.”

        Haha! You are looking through the self-centric filter again, Oracle. Hubbard reached deep within you.

        There is no one to be made wise, aware, or a super hero. There are no different paths. There is no one to be made nothing of. There is no cause separate from the effect.

        There is only reality knotted with inconsistencies. Recognize those inconsistencies for what they are without looking through the filter of self, and dissolve those knots.

        You are that knotted universe. When the knots are removed you flow freely bathed in universal affinity.
        .

      • Oracle writes”
        “The wise men of Tibet were slaughtered by robotic and superstitious soldiers. How OT was that? They just didn’t glow it right with love. A person who is consumed with a purpose to destroy doesn’t want your love or affinity. They do not a place any value on that.”

        Take the self-centric filter off and you simply see a play of postulates and considerations. There is simply the reality knotted up due to inconsistencies.

        Oracle, you are making things too complex. All you have to do is recognize inconsistencies one by one and start resolving them on a gradient. That is where SUBJECT CLEARING comes in.

        http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/
        .

      • Oracle writes:
        “You write about your purposes here Vinny. Your understandings. What makes sense to you. And you get into even more complexities.”

        Quite an evaluation, isn’t it. But the complexities you see are your own because you are looking through a self-centric filter.

        What you are seeing as my purpose is simply the postulates and considerations in the process of unknotting themselves. There is nobody trying to make sense out of anything.

        • I do not see your audition on the stage of life as a complexity. You are into illusion and ceremonial magic. You have purposes to make nothing out of others, when they are already nothing. You effort to make zero from zero. To make something from zero. The wrong items and wrong indications you dispense with freely are of a carnival nature. The crams you toss on others negates their point of view as invalid. What words and knowledge you have acquired, you employ to dominate. If you had real certainty you would not be so threatened by the thoughts and actions of others. That is not very complex and you are not very hard for me to understand at all. You struggle with math. Like so many others.

      • Oracle writes:
        “I see it as a simple thing. If you have a purpose to win, you win. If you have a purpose to know, you know. If you don’t, you don’t. It doesn’t matter who comes along and offers you and hand up or a hand down. This is not about Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard . This is the way it goes in every group, every relationship, every country, every family in every corner.”

        What is winning? What is knowing? Who is winning and knowing? There is just a wonderful illusion.

        But underlying that illusion there are postulates and considerations in play. There are knotted up into small knots and there are big knots. There is also the Gordion knot of the self-centric filter. To me this view is very simple.

        Do you find it complex, Oracle?
        .

      • Oracle writes:
        “This is just the way I see it. It comes down to the person’s purpose.

        I do agree with McMaster’s assessment . But even knowing this, he had purposes also.

        A person can be redirected to re organize their purposes. That is really all a person can manage in Scientology. But this is highly beneficial as far as I can see.”

        So it comes down to a person’s purpose. But you see that purpose is an after thought. First you need to define what a person is?

        Hubbard used this subjectivity of “person” to build up the fiction of Scientology. This works only in those areas where the tradition has been self-centric. The theistic tradition is self-centric.

        The Hindu and Buddhist tradition is reality-centric. It may have been corrupted here and there, but the core is reality-centric. That is why East would be a tough nut to crack for Scientotolgy.

        First one would have to promote a self-centric culture in the East before you can lure them into Scientology.

        OK. I am done.
        .

        • “But you see that purpose is an after thought. First you need to define what a person is?”

          No, I do not see that purpose is an afterthought.

          No, I have no need to define what the person is.

          You are doing a different form of math which involves symbols. I see the symbols as an afterthought. You are using them as a premise. Knots, Identities, circles, forms, locations and cultures. These are are symbolic.

          Who is winning? The person who is simply aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

          You ask, “What is knowing”? That is knowing.

        • “OK. I am done.”

          Oh, I think you are a long way from done. And I think you are a long way from curious about. I think you will continue plodding down in the enforce band working to convince others of your spiritual supremacy for a long time to come. This has become a tradition.

          The embalmers of Egypt filled their coffers by recognizing the “spiritually supreme”.

          • Making nothing out others is fun, isn’t it, Oracle?

            • I found this amusing until the guy came to pick up my trash this afternoon. I only saw him from the back and I raced to hand him something. When he turned around and flashed that smile ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Whew!

              He ran a big CAN HAVE with the affinity! Really caused me to lose interest in this meddling with you.

              • VINNIE..”Making nothing out others is fun, isn’t it,?
                That is your kind of fun since that is what you been doing for years..

                • Thank you, Elizabeth, I love you too. :)

                  • V.. if that would be true we would be friends, really good friends..So we have missed out on that experience… Have a lovely evening!

                    • Egoistic attitude and blaming others is always a barrier to friendship.

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      >

                    • V.. you should have thought of this before and apply this principle to yourself.

                    • You seem to be implying that it just applied to me.

                    • We cant share our realities since you have yours and I have mine.. We just have communication but no reality on each other universe… that is how I see it.

                    • Does that mean you have to be nasty toward my reality? I guess it means to you just having fun, isn’t it? Your policy is not to follow any rules, isn’t it?

                      And then you go up the wall when there is only a hint of criticism about your behavior.

                      In truth, that is a just a garden-variety nasty disposition, and not at all enlightened.

                    • right you are as always :)

                    • I just have one PS : you don’t like when your reality is opposed.. Well, you have a method, used that method and learn what you don’t like when someone opposes you beliefs.
                      I am not delicate, I have no manner, don’t fallow rules. I just comment, put there what I believe in in that moment. And you are making lots of assumptions and I seem have different assumption on the same subject. You need to confront your side and I need to do the same here. So go put out what ever. and I do the same.! Stop complaining.

                    • I just don’t like the nastiness.

                    • You always treated me as a nasty garden variety weed which never been hybridised =never made it into better class-knowing class, so you are wondering why I trait you this way? You have put me here, so this is what you get… weedy thingy…:) not a bad place to be..knowing ones faults..

                    • You need to handle that reactive mind of yours. :)

                    • V your reality, your assumption You need to work on the concept why you see every one as you do.. If you would allow some beingness, By that I mean if you would allow others to have what they have you would not be pushing -promoting your blog your beliefs.
                      Now If I would be allowing you beingness and let you say what ever you want. we would not need communication. Sift this through your filters..:) I don’t want you to swallow this in one lump sum undigested, that would be to hard on your old body. :)

                    • V.. enlightened? what you possibly know of enlightenment? You don’t believe anything outside of what you know, nothing can be true, it is impossible to be real, simply because that belief don’t have the seal of approval from you.

              • Permanent improvement in ARC cannot take place until some filters are permanently dissolved.

                http://vinaire.me/2014/05/15/arc-affinity-reality-and-communication/
                .

    • I might add that if one has a purpose to negate the value of others, The Church with it’s values placed on people, is a place where such a purpose can be fully dramatized. It is the temple of making something out of nothing, and making nothing out of everything. These are purposes too. To make something out of nothing, to make nothing out of everything. Making things appear and disappear. Very magical. Once these kind of purposes swell up they can gobble up a person in unique ways.

      You find people coming out of that place who for the remainder of their time are making everything out of nothings, and making nothing out of everything. And they align with plenty of other people that are doing the same thing that have never been a part of Scientology. They just have the same purposes.

    • Hi Vinaire

      Here is a little something that you may find interesting.

      At one point I did the “Route to Infinity” course. Somewhere during that experience I had a cognition.

      What happened was I “realized” that, for me, “A”, “R”, and “C” are not actually three separate things at all. I suddenly saw them as three “aspects” (viewpoints) of the same thing. What that single thing is, I find hard to put into words. I actually do not consider that the word, or concept, of “understanding” fully embraces it.

      I had always had some dissonance with the concept of their separateness when I tried to view “pure Affinity”, “pure Reality”, etc. Each always carried with it aspects of the other two. You simply cannot have “Affinity”, at any level, without also having “Reality” and “Communication.” You cannot raise one point of the ARC Triangle, one iota, without also immediately and inextricably raising the other two. You cannot have more Affinity than you do Reality or Communication, etc., because they are all simply different “ways of looking at” a single phenomena.

      From your comment, I turned this realization back onto the related concepts of “Be”, “Do”, and “Have”. They also appear to be inseparable, on closer inspection. Seemingly, what they are all inseparable aspects of is Life. Turning this look back onto ARC, I get another look at what A,R and C may be three aspects of.

      Projected further, one could potentially view many similar “triads” in a similar light… Start, Change, Stop… Birth, Living, Death… Space, Energy, Matter, etc. (I am even so bold as to extend it to my selected understandings of Ethics, Tech, and Admin).

      Anyway… Thanks for shaking the tree.

      Eric

      • Eric.
        I also see many principals of existence which come in threes.
        According to Ken Ogger, 3 dimensions of space are the minimum and simplest system which can contain substance. That is why we settled on 3.
        Mark

      • Eric, LOL! You are welcome.

        .

      • Amazing coincidence, Eric. This is what I wrote to MARKNR this morning.

        It is error to separate space from time, spiritual from physical, and thetan from body.

        When two things are aspects of the same phenomenon, they are not actually separate even when you separate them in abstraction.

        Affinity, Reality and Communication are not separate from each other. The eight dynamics are not separate from each other.

        If we study one aspect at a time. It does not make it some independent enity. Just because we have different concepts, it does not make the actualities connected with them separate.

        See things as they are.

        http://vinaire.me/2014/05/15/arc-affinity-reality-and-communication/#comment-21485
        .

        • “Affinity, Reality and Communication are not separate from each other.”

          LRH already stated that back in 1951, in *Science of Survival*.

          “The triangle of affinity, reality, and communication could be called an interactive triangle in that no point of it can be raised without affecting the other two points and raising them, and no point of it can be lowered without affecting the other two points. The postulated reason for this is that affinity, reality, and communication are component parts of theta, and thus affinity, reality, and communication are three manifestations of the same thing.”

        • Vinaire and Mark

          Ahhh… How little the concepts of the separation of things (and “non- things”) holds up to careful scrutiny.

          Eric

  52. Myth, Mysticism and Insight — somewhere in all of that to me is magic …

    As in. the magic of synchronicity or the magic of something “out of the blue” happening that I might have been thinking about etc etc

    As a child I adored Greek Mythology and had trouble figuring out IF it was real or not – constantly bugging my mother – is this real? Seems real to me – I’d say as a 5-8 year old.

    I’m not speaking to the magic of spells as that ultimately is always “power over”

    BUT I digress — there is talk about reincarnation on this or other threads, and OTs and LRH’s intention etc

    Some have said that other wisdom traditions don’t have the intrigue that is connected with LRH/Scientology — or at least have implied that wisdom traditions (read Eastern thought) *might* be more pure.

    For those interested in intrigue, subterfuge and yes, murder read:

    Karmapa: The Politics of Reincarnation by Lea Terhune

    Keep in mind that the Karmapa is now the 17th Karmapa – head of a Tibetan Lineage (Kagyu). The Dalai Lama is the 14th Dalai Lama – head of the Gelug Lineage as well as spiritual leader/political leader of Tibet.

    Based on how many Karmapas (17) there have been versus how many Dalai Lamas (14) you’d think that the Karmapas would be the political and spiritual leader of Tibet.

    Nope — the Geluk lineage won that battle.

    You won’t think of Tibetan Buddhism in the same way nor of reincarnation.

    The current scientology/indy/ex/proLRH/antiLRH intrigue has MANY similar aspects.

    We, as human beings, seemed to be wrapped the same AND differently. What attracts us to something can either be our aberrations OR our wisdom. Our aberrations can become our wisdom though depending on what we do.

    I determine IF the path I am walking seems workable is IF I’m willing to step off of it for awhile, test out something else and perhaps step back on the path OR bring the something else TO the path.

    Otherwise it might be akin to walking a yellow brick road …

    • Yes, Magic. Possibly ALL is Magic. In order to live successfully, one must perform the correct rituals. To drive a car to the store, one must use the right ingredients and perform the correct rituals with them. One must select the right key, insert it in the right receptacle in the car, and turn it the correct amount in the correct direction or the car won’t start. Life is all about peforming the correct rituals in order to get the results you want. Magic.

      • Valkov… right you are, people want magic but few see understand what is true magic; no matter what we do what we see-experience is a magical moment.

      • “But mysticism/occultism isn’t our source. Our source, actually, is magic.” from a Lecture given on 29 January 1958, The History of Clearing by L Ron Hubbard.

        “Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. This is from 1954 edition of COHA.

        Hubbard: “If you want to get real tragic, forget it was just magic.”

    • Fabulous post! XXOO

    • Windhorse,

      You made a very good point. Thanks

      I think that what it all boils down to, is that people really need to learn to see a mystical system as just a vehicle or tool for what they are trying to accomplish.

      And some people really need to learn to let go of the obsessive deification of their gurus or so called prophets.

      Both of those flaws are pervasive in almost every system, but they were taken into embarrassing heights in Scientology, in part because of all the deception and trickery that Hubbard used to hide his positioning as a quasi-divine being.

      The good news is that we live in times where information flows freely, and anybody can study any system without getting stuck in the machinery of devotion to a single speaker or system.

    • Windhorse, maybe SUBJECT CLEARING may halp you understand what the eastern tradition truly is, and also the original western tradition.

      http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/

      • I do not agree that she is ignorant and confused Vinny. And neither are you. You need not create myth in others that do not align with the myth you create of yourself.

        • Hello there Miss Oracle.
          So good to hear from you and speak to you. You have a strength and directness that I find refreshing. Are you enjoying life and spreading your wings after your ‘Ls’? Any related experiences to relate? I’d love to hear them.

          I have enjoyed your banter with Vin. It is bringing out a variety of ideas. With every retort I find useful information which helps me in my work. Whether positive or negative. There have been several times that I saw an odd or inconsistent thought or fixed opinion that I also recognized in my self. I did a search and found the source.

          Oh, by the way, I did a thorough investigation of that ‘authority’ thing that I asked you about last year. Since there was no pre set path or written procedure to follow, I went at it unstructured and just looked and looked. I noticed that i was ‘concerned’ about this area of case in myself. This was a stop in itself. I released the concern and replaced it with curiosity and adventure. A few thousand incidents later (some scanned, some studied in detail) I found there were a large group of purposes, considerations, postulates, and opinions, all loosely woven together. It was a bit time consuming but so much clarity and, well, lets call it breathing room, was released.

          Many of the ideas that were stuck in my thinking were instructed or suggested to me by those I admired. (Thanks Erzsebet) There were at least 75 to 100 very old computations and little side thoughts along with thousands of confirmations and confusions which locked in and distorted my thinking and ‘feelings’. There was no one or two original considerations which these areas depended upon. Like I said, it was more like a web than a column resting on a single base. This surprised me. My definition of respect for others has completely, totally changed. It now more closely resembles love and curiosity, if that makes sense.

          I made another important tech discovery that some others may have already found. There were several groups of incidents that had to be looked at in their entirety, instead of grinding on one at a time. This was necessary to see how the series of decisions had grouped together to form an unconscious thought process. (Thanks, Vin.) Most aberrations do hinge around key incidents, but many groups of incidents congeal to form their own single entity. I consider this another bit of data of magnitude.

          There was something that I lost in the process, which was a great relief. I no longer have other’s opinions, statements or instructions/orders as a stable point to hold on to, operate from. I was using that as a means of avoiding doing the work myself. I was also using authority figures as a means of establishing ARC with those around me who were following the leaders. I am now much more free to investigate, observe, and think and decide for myself,….or not. It’s really wonderful.
          Those around me are starting to look upon me as an authority figure, asking for assistance, guidance. I always work WITH THEM as a partner to handle life’s foibles and make decisions. It’s really enjoyable.

          There are too many other insights and realizations to list. Thank you for your help this last year. You are quite a gal.
          Love, Mark

          • Mark…
            when one believes that one is or can be a teacher better head back into session with great speed. Teacher-guru.. authority these concepts are solid considerations which makes one believe that they know more than others do, that they are important, above others, that they are the one who can show the way.. [show the way to where.. when self do not know the path it self]
            There are few hundred considerations-agreements on these subjects. This subject is like walking in the maze and leads nowhere but to a realization which is the only thing they are good for= those considerations.
            My biggest. OVERT I HAVE COMMINTED IS IN THE RECENT MEMORIES OF HUMANS.. and it is on overt of immense magnitude because I believed I was leading out and in fact I lead into!
            The blind was me and I was leading those who could not see.. [ this overt wrong belief-teaching is still continues by others who believe it was true and leads to freedom of the soul]
            Leading being a leader or on authority is to take responsibility of the outcome of ones teaching..

            • Hello Erzsebet.
              Thanks for you help on this subject. I have seen many times when I was the leader and many people looked up to and followed me. Lots of really exciting and crazy adventures ensued. Lots of insights to be had on this subject. Lots of good times, lots of disasters. Saved some people, got a lotta people killed. Good guy, bad guy, it all depended on the viewpoint at the time. My benevolent or twisted intentions and the source of those intentions were the key to releasing the hold they had on me. All flows.

              The adventure continues.
              Mark

          • Hi there Mark! Actually I have only done 2 of the L’s. Haven’t done L10 yet. Not sure about spreading my wings but my appetite for reading has become insatiable.

            Yeah, the curiosity makes a lot of sense. And I do understand the power of decisions and the realities that manifest as a result.

            I am grateful for your curiosity and your refreshing want for more.

            XXOO T.O.

            • Hello young lady.
              Thank you for the reply and acknowledgement.
              Actually, I wanted to highlight some of the details of my recent work. Especially that some areas of case are grouped together under a series of incidents that need to be studied in their entirety. That some chains need to be scanned up the track after basic to get a complete understanding of how it affected you. That ‘concern’ over an area of case can hinder it’s resolution. That the area of authority may be a common phenomenon which, if thoroughly investigated, may be of use to many others.

              I have not worn the hat of developer of processes in the past. Working with others is quite different than an undirected journey. You have read other comments from me that I considered tech advancements.

              Your thoughts and opinions are desired and appreciated.

            • Oracle.
              The New Life Rundown. Do you have a new life?
              I haven’t done any L’s. From what I have read, it is a different direction from the work I have been doing. I intend to do all directions of work, but would you recommend these sooner than later? Not asking for a C/S, just your opinions.
              Mark

              • The sooner the better. It was a game changer for me.

              • I was one of the guinea pigs for LRH on the New Life Rundown. I was run on it at Daytona Beach on our way to Fort Harrison. The final results were fantastic for me.

                I was later surveyed for a name for this rundown and I had suggested “Revitalization Rundown.” It was later issued under the name “New Vitality Rundown”. It could be a different RD.

                There was one experience on this RD that I can never forget. I was run on an L&N process. It touched something very fundamental within me. The auditor gave me the wrong item. Suddenly, everything seemed to go dark around me. I was totally engulfed in depression. Those were the worst few hours in my life. The folder was rushed to LRH who was in Daytona Beach too. I was then taken in session and given the right item. Suddenly, everything around me was bright again.

                I can never forget that “switch off / switch on” phenomenon. It was beyond anything to which logic may be applied. It was almost like something that happened at the level of DNA.

                Maybe someday it would be explained. :)

                • V.. it can be explained by any auditor or those who had auditing.

                • Wonderful story, Vin.
                  Thanks for letting us know some of your experiences.
                  Any lasting benefits? You seem unusually bright to me.
                  I was referring to L-11, The New life Rundown. I don’t have any specific info on the New Vitality Rundown. Care to give the uninformed some details. basic purpose, direction of the auditing?
                  Mark

        • I am just going by what she wrote. I don’t think she is ignorant or confused either.

  53. Scientology is an engine counstructed by Hubbard that takes affinities of the people as input and then outputs a reality favored by Hubbard.

    Buddhism is an ancient engine constructed by Buddha that takes inconsistencies in reality (filters) as input and then outputs universal affinity.

    Take your pick.

    • “Scientology is an engine counstructed by Hubbard that takes affinities of the people as input and then outputs a reality favored by Hubbard”.

      The output reality certainly is not one that would be favored by the late Hubbard. Maybe you should view the output.

    • Hubbard’s gift was, he was able to keep people motivated about exploring the super natural.

      So was the person who invented the Uoija Board.

      David Miscavige is the anti of the purpose, where he brings punishment to those who explore the super natural.

      You have people that are aligning with both purposes. Even people that think they are opposing Miscavige, who are actually on board with his purpose. To punish anyone who explores the super natural.

      People can easily become lost in the supernatural with out over head lights, street signs, and groups to keep them based in the literal. A scout and a team leader. It is not easy to occupy two dimensions at the same time for a lot of people. They must either be in the literal, or in the supernatural. Alive, or dead. In the real or in the unreal. And it is discomforting for them to think there may be people that can shift between parallel dimensions. Because their values will shift. And this can cause wedge in reality. It erodes at the “one for all and for one” method of surviving.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija

      • No one occupies two dimensions.. those are just considerations… there is one MEST UNIVERSE… and MEST is only energy.. time do not exist, matter is energy, and definitely there is no space since ”space” is illusion it self baecause what the ”EYES”” can see is not real.
        All awareness is on spiritual level, no matter what the person beliefs in that is still happening on the SUPERNATURAL UNIVERSE… even if the person believes that he is solid as the brick outhouse, that belief belongs to the supernatural universe..
        All thoughts, beliefs, illusions pictures any one has is the supernatural universe.
        When your thoughts become solid: they appear in solid form front of your eyes fall on the ground in that moment than you can you are a solid person. You think solid, you see solid, even the air you let out falls on the ground and clanks than you are solid citizen..

    • V… knock off the Buddha bit.. you don’t know a bloody thing about that person, who he was, how he lived, what were his realities and where those realities have come from. and GAUTAMA have not constructed any kind of crap you are talking about. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS LIVING THE MYTH!!!!!!!!!!

    • V… once more with intentions…Gautama has constructed nothing…Words he has spoken the sounds melted away in the same moment as they were born.. What ever there is about that guy… is THE MYTH CREATED BY THOSE WHO NEEDED TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
      Live that guy alone, he has a new body, old by now and happen to have a grand time.

  54. People don’t see the myth they have incorporated within themselves. Thus, the myth of self, oberver, etc. are born.

    There is awareness of objects just like there are objects to be aware of. That awreness is always associated with an object. Why do we need to create a mythical observer to associate awareness to?

    Let there be awareness of objects. Let there be objects to be aware of. No more additives please! Keep it simple.
    .

    • V…. ”Why do we need to create a mythical observer to associate awareness to?”
      Those myths were real and people not only seen them but lived them it was their lives… Giants and Unicorns roamed the lands and still do… Myths are still lived… interestingly being a human too is a myth. To bad you cant see that.. therefore you cant see either the Fairies, and the little people who live in the forest. You see, eyes don’t see the real universe we live in. Robots don’t have other realities, they only can see through the lenses.. that is the reason they are robots.. they don’t have reality outside what they have been fed—learned from others..
      insult? no…no insult intended, just my reality how I view this universe, I see the magical place, full of wondrous things..where 2+2 can be any number at all, in fact here we don’t have numbers :)

    • V ….. I am ten day late reading here your comments and they still stink of nonsense; after ten days! Wow.. man if stupidity could kill [ it do in fact] you should be down under years back..

  55. Vinaire,
    Of all of the comments you have made on this
    post, it comes down to two paragraphs asking us
    to pick between Scientology and Buddhism?
    I understand you are well versed and fully studied
    on these two subjects. I think we all know what your
    pick would be.
    Your offer of picking between Scientology and Buddhism
    is an enforced reality. That to me is a break in affinity.

    • I have no intention of forcing anything on anybody.

      It is just my recent realization how the sequence R-C-A is reveresed in Scientology as A-C-R. You may not agree with this, and that is fine.

  56. Potpie.. if you would pick Buddhism he would point out that the way is scientology.. His whole point is to make you wrong no matter what is your beliefs are.. He will evaluate, invalidate than when you run out of anything to say than he will point the way into his blog and tell you that he will show you the way..his way to enlightenment. He want to implant.. the only knowledge there is, which is only known by him..

  57. I see the following as the first postulate of Metaphysics:

    KHTK Postulate M-1: Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed, gives rise to awareness and electromagnetic radiation.

    The theoretical ground state for this universe is postulated to be an undisturbed primordial field that has no frequency, wavelength or period. But this ground state is unknowable because awareness arises only when the “primordial field” is disturbed. The disturbance then appears to be traveling through a primordial field.

    The spiritual aspect of this disturbance is awareness (consciousness). The physical aspect of this disturbance is light (electromagnetic radiation). These two aspects are referred to as PURUSHA and PRAKRITI in the ancient scriptures.

    Awareness appears to be the property of the disturbance. Light appears to be outward expression of the disturbance. Awareness at this level is of a primordial nature. It builds up as perception and discrimination as light gains wave-length and frequency.

    There is no self at this level. The universe consists only of radiating awareness and light. The universe itself is the primordial self. While matter and objects are generated from electromagnetic radiation, soul and self are generated from awareness.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/

    .

    • V… In my reality… awareness it self is doing something, being aware is already connecting to ”knowing”, if one do not know than cant possibly being ”aware”.
      Again in my reality, “awareness ” is relatively new term since becoming aware one has to know what one is aware of, and that is judging, comparing.
      Toss these thought about, but before you do please remove those occluding filters. :)

    • V…PS;; have you occurred to you that there is another universe outside of this Universe which is nothing more than on energy field?
      And the awareness was there long before we become aware of this Universe, have it occurred to you that this energy field is really nothing more than on energy field and the awareness is outside of this fiend?

    • V…… I have total recall of the track and not only mine but millions of other beings too. So this bit of reality gained gives me a very different view of the Universe.
      Here is something to think over: the reason scientist and others who do their best ”by trying” to figure out this universe but cant and that is simply because the puzzle pieces don’t fit together.
      The pieces which they want to fit into each other belong to a very different universe : ”awareness” is one of them.
      Of course those who are in this place here have some of the ”memory” …reality available now of that Universe but they do not know that it belongs a very different reality which is not based on energy field.
      The guessing will be going on for long time, but one has to step out of this energy-field to understand what is beyond..
      Of course, I understand that this view-reality I have presented is totally unacceptable by you. since to you I am nothing but on airhead, delusional person.. I find it most interesting that people like you by the millions went into scientology for one reason only: to find reality beyond what was or is available, yet, when reading that yes some one in this case me have achieved that, that can see beyond the ”normal human beliefs’ is labelled as delusional, out of her mind.. :)

    • V….. If I would have gone into a well know university same as you have, and studied sciences, and become a scientist my self, because of that credibility I would have collected, my findings now, what I see and understand these realities about the energy fields, in this Universe and the existence of the Universe outside of this I have written posted in the past few years would have brought incredible earth shaking new realities to the science community and this findings would be recognised as something brilliant..wow wow wow stuff… But I never went to University, did not become a scientist but I have spent 41 years being audited and solo auditing.. every day.. That sure takes me out of the realities of the’ ‘scientist” who at the best to their abilities can only assume what is this Universe made of, and how it works.

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