Basics

Some simple facts would appear to be:

Objects arise in consciousness.  ‘Objects’ is used in the broadest sense to include thoughts, feelings, emotions, pictures, impulses, anxieties, fears, ideas, and all of physical matter reality.

When simply viewed for what they are, objects that arise in consciousness pass through and depart from consciousness just as inexorably and as surely as they arise.

There seem to be two fundamental acts on the part of awareness (or consciousness) that make objects within it persist, become solid and have a lasting, negative effect upon awareness.

Those two acts are pining for (desiring and clinging to) and resisting that which arises in awareness.

Throughout the ages thousands upon thousands of methods and philosophies and religions have been proffered to resolve the effects of these simple facts.

Those paths have been effective to the degree that they have assisted in increasing understanding of and ability to apply the mechanics outlined above.  Those paths have served as betrayal to the degree that they have utilized knowledge of these mechanics in order to obtain conformity, loyalty and labor.

294 responses to “Basics

  1. Makes sense. Those pesky tractor beams and ridges will get a person every time.

  2. I like that. Simple and clean. Thanks.

  3. Beautiful simplicity, Marty.

    A further perception I have had is that “stop” is what makes things solid and persist. A resist is an attempt to stop. Desire is a stop in that it is trying to hold on or keep from going away. From that viewpoint stop seems to be at the root of all difficulties. Flowing seems to be the answer.

  4. Buddhism offers minfulness as the solution, which I like.🙂

    The 12 aspects of mindfulness are:

    1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
    2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
    3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
    4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
    5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
    6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
    7. Experience fully what is there.
    8. Do not suppress anything.
    9. Associate data freely.
    10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
    11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
    12. Let it all be effortless.

    .

    • Feet back on the ground

      http://tinybuddha.com/blog/7-steps-to-prevent-getting-stuck-in-an-emotion/

      Excerpt:

      Here are 7 simple steps to help you move through your emotions without getting stuck:

      1. Learn acceptance.

      Acknowledge what you are feeling without judgment. Offer yourself reassurance that it’s okay to feel whatever it is that you are feeling, no matter what anyone says or thinks.

      If you ignore what you’re feeling or pretend to feel something you don’t feel, the charade will prevent you from moving through the emotion. You will remain frozen in denial. The feeling will take hold and anchor you like a dead weight.

      By accepting what you feel when you feel it, you release the possibility of getting stuck.
      2. Practice patience.

      Some feelings last a few moments. Others last a few hours or a few days. Some feelings can last a whole year or longer.

      Let the feeling stay as long as it needs to; don’t force it to leave. It will only come back until it is done.
      3. Seek help early.

      It’s okay to seek help for dealing with a difficult emotion. If you find yourself overwhelmed, call a friend who can listen and offer advice or hire a professional who can provide expert insight.

      It’s better to get assistance as soon as you need it rather than waiting until you are stuck with an emotion you cannot release.
      4. Avoid self-medicating habits.

      Don’t try to mask the feeling. Drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, and shopping may temporarily relieve you from the pain of your emotion, but they will not solve your problem.

      Self-medicating habits create a labyrinth around your emotion. They offer the illusion of freedom while imprisoning you. Eventually, you’ll have to face what you are feeling head on without the benefit of an addiction to cushion the impact.

      By refusing to indulge in avenues of escape, you will learn the invaluable skill of self-reliance. You will grow confident in your ability to process your emotions quickly and efficiently no matter how joyful or painful they may be.
      5. Develop a routine.

      A consistent routine provides the foundation to build a life. Without it, chaos takes over. Feelings will either run rampant or hide in dormancy, both of which are unhealthy.

      Wake up at the same time every day. Schedule your meals. Go to sleep at the same time each night.

      Make sure you have quiet time for prayer, meditation, or reflection. Include hobbies on a regular basis. Spend time with your loved ones on a daily basis.

      The more structured your routine, the more likely your emotions will flow.
      6. Introduce something new.

      Once you have developed a routine, add something new. Boredom leads to apathy, which can encourage an emotion to take root and not let go.

      Variety leads to excitement. Trying something new keeps things fresh and alive.

      Take a class or join a club. Visit somewhere you have always wanted to go. Be adventurous.
      7. Honor the past, present, and future.

      Life is more than random moments. It’s a journey of self-discovery on a continuum of time. You can easily get stuck in an emotion by dwelling on the past or not paying attention to the present or worrying about the future.

      Embrace the whole spectrum of your life: the past with its history, the present with its immediacy, and the future with its potential.

      If you only think of the past, you’ll be stuck in the mire of what once was and miss out on what is going on all around you right now.

      If you focus only on the moment, you will neglect to remember the lessons you have learned through past experience and fail to pay attention to any future consequences. If you only dream of the future, you will become lost in fantasy without a compass to guide you there.

      By honoring the past, present, and future, you can truly live each moment to its fullest.

      Emotions are meant to come and go, not stay with you forever. By following these steps, you will train your mind and your body to process emotions in a healthy manner, leaving you free to explore the next chapter of your life

    • Nice Marty, and beautiful Vinay.

      And all o

      • And all of these processes have one goal in mind: peace.
        Peace from the stilling of the wavelength of thought. Not suppress, not deny, not crave, not judge.

        And when the stream of consciousness achieves that stillness, through whatever procedural preference, we perceive the true nature of things without mind. Or more exactly; without filters as Vinaire says.

        Then bliss and wisdom is realized as one’s own nature. Then we realize the immortality of all sentient beings.

        That is native state.

        • A Model of Reality 

          Reality is essentially what is there.

          Reality may be distorted by the personal filters (biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc.) being used by the observer. But then such filters shall also be part of the reality.

          So, the reality is made up of what is observed by the observer, whether it is straight or distorted. But then the observer also should be included in that reality!

          The  filter separates what is observed from the observer, while modulating the observations.

          But when the filter is gone then that which is observed and that which is observing are gone too.

          In a sense, the very existence of what is observed, and the observer, depends on the existence of the filter.

          Thus, reality is the filter that is observing itself.

          The ultimate reality remaining after the filter is gone is something else. .  

          ________________________________

          • I would agree Vinay, all is gone.

            Yet it is also my experience that I have never felt so full in that “emptiness.”

            Pure unending joy, bliss: It’s very nature minus all filters.

            The Uncreated Absolute, Brahma, Nirvana, God, Vishnu, Satori, The Void, The Static, The 8th Dynamic, Moksha, Christ Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness etc……………………….. There are many names for water; agua for instance.

            But that State of Being; water, never changes. It is we who give it different names.
            Water does not change, as a reality, because of a name.

            Name and Form: the king and queen of all filters

            I am a this I am a that, I am attractive, I am repulsive, I am man, I am women, I AM a body…………. bla bla bla.😉

            Best,
            Brian

            • What is beyond the filters may be called the ultimate reality.

              The Ultimate Reality is basically a starting postulate one uses to make sense out of all existence. If the reality of existence is not consistent with the starting postulate then that starting postulate is not the right one.

              Abrahamic religions use a “super self” or God as the starting postulate, or ultimate reality.

              Vedic religions use “neti, neti” (not this, not that) or the shedding away of all that is relative, conditioned and impermanent to define their concept of ultimate reality as “Brahma.”

              Scientology uses a “Static” or “an abstract ability to postulate and to perceive” as its ultimate reality. This ability is postulated to have no mass, no motion, no wavelength, and no location in space or in time.

              The postulate of Ultimate Reality is true only to the degree that it brings consistency and coherency to the understanding of all existence.

              All existence seems to boil down to the fact of awareness. It is anything that one can be aware of. The belief in “God,” “Static” or “Brahma,” simply means the awareness of a starting postulate that brings consistency and coherence among all the beliefs and logic that a person uses.”

              The rarest of all awareness has to be the awareness of pure disturbance. Prior to that there would be no awareness. Only a theoretical ground state may be postulated in terms of undisturbed primordial field that contains no frequency, wavelength or period.

              But this ground state shall forever be unknowable and shall remain only theoretical because there is no awareness to go with it. Awareness arises only when this ground state is disturbed. The awareness then accompanies a disturbance that looks like light and which seems to be traveling through an invisible field that looks like space.

              Therefore, the starting postulate of ultimate reality arrived at in KHTK is as follows:

              The Ultimate Reality is an undisturbed primordial field of no frequency, wavelength or period. This primordial field produces awareness only when disturbed, and therefore it is inherently unknowable. This is a theoretical postulate, and not something actual.

              http://vinaire.me/2014/06/19/the-ultimate-reality/
              .

              • That’s one way of looking at it.:-)

                • To me, at some point, all the theories and thinking, labeling and categorizing, opinions and biases become the barrier to directly knowing.

                  The actual experience is so so so so simple.

                  But the wavelengths of thought, the constant oscillation of mind make actual knowing impossible. Then one postulates that ultimate truth is unknowable.

                  I love the Buddha’s message. Shut up and meditate.

                  No theory, no matter how accurate, will ever reveal that which some consider unknowable.

                  It is only unknowable when we don’t know. Or don’t know the procceedures or don’t want the discipline it takes to still the wavelength of intellect.

                  It is work…………… Way way beyond conjucture and pedagogy.

                  Be still

                  • Direct knowing is still limited to awareness. It doesn’t stop there.🙂

                    • It depends on what you are directly perceiving: knower, knowing and known as one.

                    • R = Od + F +Or

                      Reality = Observed + Filter + Observer

                      .

                      UR = R – R

                      Ultimate Reality = Reality – Reality

                      .

                      In ultimate reality there is no observer and nothing to observe.
                      .

                  • I have to keep trying different ways until I get the right combination.

                    >

                    • “In ultimate reality there is no observer and nothing to observe”

                      I agree with you in the linear sense. But Ultimate Reality is knowable. And Ultimate Reality goes way beyond linear.

                      Samadhi is the result of successful meditation: knower, knowing and known as one. And it is supremely blissful.

                      If you only theorize with the mind about these things, the permutations are endless, the categorizing is endless.

                      If Ultimate Reality, God, Mukti etc, is not knowable, why would anyone seek it? I am not asking that question because I do not know the answer. It is rhetorical.

                      I am going on a limb here: Vinay, you know a lot of data, a lot of relative knowledge “about.” But you do not have actual realization of the things you talk about.

                      I have never heard one mystic, saint, sage etc who says that the Ultimate Reality is unknowable. Not one.

                      They all claim It is knowable and that liberation, enlightenment is All Knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

                      “All that is real in me is God; all that is real in God is I. The gulf between God and me is thus bridged. Thus by KNOWING God, we find that the kingdom of heaven is within us.”

                      Vivekanada

                      Notice he says “knowing’ God. The sages say we are knowledge itself. Only those who see knowledge of the spirit as theory and relative data, only those who see the soul as the byproduct of the interaction of body and mind can say the Ultimate Spiritual reality is unknowable.

                      You must go deeper Vinay. I say that with all humility.

                      Jnana yoga (Yoga of discriminating wisdom) is not the accumulation of more intelligent facts and data. Neti Neti means ‘not this-not that’, and is the essential technique of discrimination, used by the Jnani between to distinguish himself between name and form and the soul.

                      BTW, for all you other folks; the word jnana is the root of the word knowledge. Gotta love them ancient Vedic sages and the divinely inspired Sanskrit.

                    • Brian, I am a scientist at heart. I can’t let that go yet.

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      >

                    • I think I have a pretty good model for Reality and Ultimate Reality now. I have to keep on going.

                    • Dump all models and conjecture in the inner peace of complete silence.

                      The experiment to make, and the most difficult, is to still the monkey mind. From branch to branch it habituously swings.

                      Don’t worry, the mind comes back. You won’t become a blank baffoon.

                      But that is the experiment: daily, devoted, consistent meditation

                      It takes years to become a piano player. It takes years to become a nuclear scientist.

                      It takes years to bring the mind to a perfect still point. For most.

                      When that is achieved, like telescoping into the previously unknown atoms, is a telescoping into the previously unknown self.

                      It has been double blinded by countless sages. The circumstantial evidence is enormous.

                      “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.”

                      Be still and know

                    • Brian,

                      At this point in my research my purpose is not to still the mind, but to fully understand what disturbs the mind.

                      I am currently studying “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra. I am taking notes and putting them on my blog. Things are coming into better focus.

                      Regards, Vinay

                      ________________________________

                    • Thanks Vinay for sharing your views. May your investigations bare the results you are seeking.
                      🙂

                    • Brian, Thank you.

                      ________________________________

                    • Good comment, Brian.

                      Here’s a quote I found recently that expresses a view I’ve had for a while now:

                      “We may liken truth to a mountain, and the various interpretations of that truth to different paths leading up to the summit. Many people are traveling along all of these paths and every one, while he is at the bottom, thinks his path is the only one; he sees only a small part of the mountain, and may therefore be justified in crying to his brothers, ‘You are wrong! Come over to my path; this is the only one that leads to the top.’ But as all these people progress upward, they will see that the paths converge at the top and that they are all one in the ultimate.” –Max Heindel

                    • So true Mirildi. I also love the analogy of the three blind men describing and elephant. One man insists,” an elephant is like a rope!”. He was holding his tail.
                      Another says,”an elephant is like a big leaf!” He was touching his ear.
                      Another says,”no you fools, an elephant is like a big hose!” He was touching his trunk.

                      So of course I agree with you.

                      Yet, it is great to discuss with others our experience and perspectives. As long as there is respect, let the argument and exchange of ideas take place. Vinay and I have discussed before. We respect each other.

                      He has never thrown harsh darts of vindictiveness. He can be challenged to the core. And he remains civil. That means more to me than any words we have exchanged.

                      In a very true sense, we are all sharing what we know with each other. Persuasion is an art. It is called communication.

                      And civility is the master key.

                    • Right you are, Brian. The exchanges are a great learning experience on many levels. I appreciate Marty for giving us the opportunity – with pretty free rein, I might add, and that is important.😉

                    • Also important is keeping to the discussion per the Discussion policy.

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

                      .

                      ________________________________

    • Thank you Marty, Vinaire and Cat dude…

      My version…?

      Accept…

      Learn…

      Balance…

      Repeat… Indefinitely…😊

      • Mark N Roberts

        Hi Cris, good to hear from you.
        The ENTIRE IDEA OF BALANCE is a secondary consideration that was given to you and I. It is an agreed rule and instruction of this and other physical areas. There are several means of enforcement which are entirely unconscious to most individuals. When these rules are broken, these agreements impinge upon individuals.

        Example: “You have to keep things in balance on this world, otherwise things get out of whack and people get pissed and some get hurt. Order is screwed up and you just get a mess.” You look around and say, “Yea, you’re right, I see what you mean.” ” We ate all corn and died of lack of protein.” “I spent my whole life looking for work and didn’t balance it with relationships.” “I put forth communication and if I don’t get it back, I get stuck flows,” etc. etc.

        This is suggested and enforced a few thousand times, not to mention how life was set up to be that way by a few particular individuals.

        This has gone on for so long that, sure enough, when areas of life get out of balance, screw ups occur. BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. Like many other truisms, it is an instructed, suggested, enforced consideration that has gone on so long, and has been agreed so heavily that it stuck, hard.

        But it is entirely possible to be free of these habits. Takes a little time, but it is worth it. All the foibles of life are based on these fixed opinions and when recognized, life becomes very simple and fun.

        Mark

    • I like the 12 aspects of mindfulness. I have been listening to a woman by the name of Pema Chodrin. http://pemachodronfoundation.org/about/audio/

      She talks also on using these principles to deal with suffering. She also talks about transgressions and how to deal with those.

      There is SO MUCH out here in the World to learn about true Spritual Freedom and it is exciting and fun to learn tools that actually work and are FREE – they don’t cost ONE DIME.

      Thanks for sharing this stuff everyone ….I love it and it helps!

      • That is very true, IM.🙂

        >

      • Idle Morgue: “There is SO MUCH out here in the World to learn about true Spritual Freedom and it is exciting and fun to learn tools that actually work and are FREE – they don’t cost ONE DIME.”

        Ain’t that the truth!!

        IM, this morning while on YT I happened across a video of Eckhart Tolle speaking at the Wisdom 2.0 Conference in San Francisco earlier this year. Eckhart’s talk was quite good then I watched Arianna Huffington, Congressman Tim Ryan (all speaking about mindfulness) and, in the past few hours, many others that spoke at this conference. Basically, I’ve been glued to YouTube all day watching speakers at Wisdom 2.0. I highly recommend checking it out. And, like you pointed out…this incredible event doesn’t cost ONE DIME.

        Here’s one of the talks from the conference that I really enjoyed and it seems to be a good fit to what occurs here on Marty’s blog.

  5. This may be the most fascinating passage I have ever read. On more than one level, as in understanding this, caused with me, the action of passing from one place, condition, or stage to another.

  6. Simply put🙂

    In the more mainstream world its considered cleverness to make it more and more complicated . A person with not that many thoughts is not considered that clever. I think that has a portion of truth as one could not-is his capacity to think so much, so as not to think anything but something which resembles ‘blankness’ –but not actually blankness. Blankness would mean no thought but capacity to think. Actually, I created that artificial blackness while on TRs. It’s the misusing those techniques that you mentioned above.

    • Speaking of TRs, if I sat totally still for hours, by myself or with others, I might get body aches. I dont think it necessarily means non-confront. Nervous reactions and moving so as to get the body’s blood to flow better, are not the same thing. I dont think humans and animals are meant to be still endlesly. Even when they sleep, they move.

      • Hi spyrosillusionist

        Yes, lots of misunderstandings around TRs methinks.

        Confront seems to simply be the state of “being other than” and perceiving.

        If one is embroiled in it, one is not “confronting” it. If one is “being” it, one is technically not “confronting” it. If one is “not-ising” it, one is not confronting it. The same with “alter-ising”, misduplicating, mis-perceiving, avoiding, etc.

        In other terms, one is being the “witness” and is “witnessing”.

        Eric

        • Hi Eric. Agreed. And after more than a year of cursing at TRs I might be willing to do them again, but only if sup and twin agreed with me (with you too, it seems) about how to do it. I think it can be wonderful and horrible, depending on what understanding one has about ‘being here’, ‘confronting’, etc. There can be immitations of all good things. And I’m personally not a fan of military trainning.

        • Okay, but what about OT TR-0? For that, one is to “BE there and not do anything else but BE there.” Nothing in the drill is said about confronting, except for this: “HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in June 1971 to give an additional gradient to confronting and eliminate students confronting with their eyes, blinking, etc.”

          And, if I remember right, the first TR’s bulletin purpose for OT TR-0 was “to be there and confront,” but that was revised to omit the last part – “and confront.”

          I heard a talk on meditation recently where the statement was made that beginning meditation may start off with attention on the breath. or a mantra, or whatever, but eventually the individual should be able to (in essence) “be there and not do anything else but be there” without the use of any method or via to arrive at that

          OT TR-0 was the one I always wished could be discussed. One thing I myself took into consideration was the definition of “attention unit”:

          ATTENTION UNIT, 1 . a theta energy quantity of awareness existing in the mind in varying quantity from person to person. (HCOB 11 May 65) 2 . actually energy flows of small wavelengths and definite frequency. These are measurable on specifically designed oscilloscopes and meters. No special particle is involved. (Scn 8-80)

          The first definition would especially seem to fit OT TR-0 – just being aware, or aware of being aware.

          • TR0 was where I had my first epiphany. It then led to mindfulness.  

            ________________________________

          • Hi marildi

            Yes. OT TRO was an UNDERCUT to TRO. It is there as a gradient to TRO. Guy can’t sit there without feeling uncomfortable (mentally, not physically) when he has someone looking back at him, so you have him close his eyes. (another gradient could also have been to first try having the “PC” close his eyes, and see if the “student auditor” could confront that.)

            Yes… and that line ” “BE there and not do anything else but BE there.” opend the door to some of the craziest interpretations one could imagine. … “not do anything else…” OMG! “you are breathing”, “you are perceiving”. “you moved”… This state of being able to “not do anything but be there” if taken totally literally, has been the goal of many spiritual endeavors, but rarely achieved. So…. does that mean that until one can achieve simple and un-embellished BE, then he obviously is incapable of having a comfortable conversation with someone.

            Hmmm… It boggles the mind…. Has it ever been achieved by anyone who has done OTTRO? I find it highly unlikely. So… Did we all “false attest?”
            So where does one step back and re-evaluate the situation that OTTRO was supposedly designed to handle? Does it really take achieving the ultimate definition of “not do anything else but BE there”, or is it a way, way more simple handling that is being expressed?

            However much many of us wanted to use this drill (and TRO) as meditation, I feel that doing so far outreaches its purpose. It seems to have been, at its simplest, to help get somebody able to sit in front of another person without getting all shy, frigidity, nervous, or upset.

            I understand that many will feel that I am totally off the mark on this one, but I feel that these two drills, especially, have been made so esoteric and “out there” as to make them far more time consuming and “difficult” than is necessary to serve their purpose as auditor training drills.

            One of the big problems is when you tell someone that he needs to train to do something that he masters in mere moments, but is made to continue to do it ad absurdum. Beings, being what they are will either get mis-emotional, “blow”, or they will merrily continue, but set the bar far higher, in order to get something out of what would otherwise be a frustrating waste of time.

            Don’t get me wrong. I had marvelous spiritual gains “doing TRO and OT TRO,” but it was over a thousand hours of “TRO meditation” that was not necessary in order to be comfortable enough in front of someone to be able to observe and communicate.

            Anyway… I could go on…. ( and probably will at the least provocation)

            Eric

            • TR’s are done in progression….OT TRO through TR4.
              One TR is done to get a person to a point to do the next one.
              They are the very basics of becoming an auditor. TR’s 1-4
              are only done well when one can be comfortable with a PC
              and confront what they are doing and saying….let alone the
              session set-up, meter, worksheets, C/S, delivering a command,
              understanding and handling what is occurring in front of one at a
              given moment.
              I can’t recall ever auditing a PC and not blinking. If one is auditing
              a PC and has their attention on not blinking then their TR’s are out
              and the session won’t go well. One needs to use some common sense
              and do their job as an auditor….being comfortable and pleasant while
              helping another is the key and many hours of mastering the true use
              of TR’s will accomplish this.
              What did we do first thing EVERY morning on the BC?….TR’s and
              metering…..what did we do first thing EVERY morning on the internship?….
              TR’s and metering.
              As far as the use of OT TR0 and TR0 in life goes….of course use them.
              But to equate them to some sort of major case gain or a form of meditation
              to me is missing the point completely. They were adopted to be the very basic one needs to have to become an auditor. And the fact they are so effective in helping one confront life and livingness is a wonderful extra
              to what they were originally intended to do.

              • Hi Potpie

                Yes, it is actually quite simple and straight forward. Sometimes this seems to get lost.

                Eric

              • Yes, TR’s are the best remedy for anybody uncomfortable with anybody anyplace about anything! I love doing TR’s. I’v been exterior on them. I did not necessarily feel so all powerful but very much myself. I still look back sometimes on my experiences with the Church of Scientology although it is like a closed book type story or case. Once in a while I get scared and sometimes sad re-living those experiences again in my mind even knowing they are over. That is something the Church of Scientology can cause, bad experiences. The mass on the experiences have left, my feelings have not always. Today I was on the web someplace and found my whole diary webbed by some guy that seems fascinated with these things. My web diary from a few years back with the TPFE (time, place, form, event) of my track in the church everything from my first encounter with a DMSMH book to implants. I was flattered, awed, amazed, astounded but glad I am the better person I am today and will be for the rest of time. TR’s help!🙂

              • Potpie, I actually called the Church of Scientology once about 20 years ago, and one of the women that worked there (with her TR’s *IN*) answered the phone, I knew who she was because I recognized her voice, and her name is different than what she told me, because when she answered the phone she said “My name is Takia”. I just thought it was odd she was so intent on misrepresenting herself and her church to the public that way. Her name is not and never has been Takia.🙂 Overts. It all boils down to out ethics and overts.🙂

            • Eric and Potpie,

              I wasn’t talking about the purpose of OT TR-0 as a drill! I have no problem or argument with that at all. And I agree that some students have tried to make it (as well as TR 0) into something it isn’t. Done just as it was intended, it achieves something quite valuable with regard to the most fundamental factor in the ability to communicate both as an auditor and in life.

              Nevertheless, even in doing the drill for its intended purpose, it can (and fairly often does) bring about various spiritual gains, including exteriorization. And I think it is actually a very simple way to “drill” the ability to be at cause over “pining for” and “resisting” – and all the problems those bring about.

              The other idea I had is that it does so more directly and effectively than even TR 0 since in OT TR-0 there is no doingness whatsoever, no confronting or “focus” on anything. At least that’s how it seems to me.

              • Hi Maildi,
                In saying……Nevertheless, even in doing the drill for its intended purpose, it can (and fairly often does) bring about various spiritual gains, including exteriorization. And I think it is actually a very simple way to “drill” the ability to be at cause over “pining for” and “resisting” – and all the problems those bring about.

                I totally agree with you. In fact my wife went exterior her first time doing
                TRO on the comm course. It blew her out and she was sold from that point on. She went on to become an exec on staff and a highly trained auditor and C/S.

                I wasn’t coming at you in any way with my comment. Just my point of view on TR’s. Great things can happen spiritually on the TR’s but to me it is a side
                effect (and a good side effect for sure) to the actual intention of the use of TR’s…auditor basics. But saying that I can see how one would get blown
                away doing the TR’s and never become an auditor. They are a powerful tool
                one can use in life as well.

                And yes you are correct……being there comfortably certainly can enhance one’s ability to confront and be at cause over “pining for” and “resisting”.

                When it comes to TR’s it’s all good!

                • Hi Potpie. I didn’t take your comment as “coming at me” in any way – but I wasn’t very clear in my first post and thought you might have misunderstood.

                  Anyway, we agree: “When it comes to TR’s it’s all good!” Thanks for the duplication.🙂

                • Mark N Roberts

                  Ron gave fairly simple explanations for TRs because they are simple drills with simple principals. He did not inject a lot of thoughts and ideas about it. He did not add a lot of bric-a-brac. He didn’t add a lot of words and significance to lead people in particular directions. This was the right thing to do.

                  There is always a danger to using few words. It can leave the meaning open to various interpretations. “Maybe he meant to do it this way, maybe that way.” But those who would obsessively add thoughts and actions to a basic doingness are going to do so, no matter what you do.

                  Some individuals have difficulty sitting in a chair AND be comfortably in the vicinity and under the attention of someone else. To much to do all at once. OT-TR-0 drilled the ability to sit in a chair. Many people got more. Some never got even that.

                  When I realized I could sit in a chair indefinitely without worrying about it, I was done. I also realized I could sit in the PC chair as long as needed to find what I was looking for. That was just gravy on top of the meat.
                  Mark

              • Hi Miraldi

                OK I got you now.

                Actually, a lot of what I wrote there was just a ramble, and some withheld communication unleashed. I had intended no real challenge to your communication specifically.

                Thank you for your response. Most anything can get sorted out with communication.

                Eric

                • Hi Eric,

                  Yes, I got that “some withheld communication unleashed” from the former Sup.😉 I just wanted to be sure you didn’t think I was coming from the viewpoint of some of those former students of yours.🙂

                  And I so agree that “Most anything can get sorted out with communication.” I’ve yet to see that fail in any of the comm cycles I’ve had with you. So thanks once again.

                  • Hi Marildi

                    Thanks for that. It doesn’t work though unless both ends of the communication line are working toward the same results… duplication and understanding.

                    So… Right back atcha.

                    Eric

          • Marildi, you said:
            “I heard a talk on meditation recently where the statement was made that beginning meditation may start off with attention on the breath. or a mantra, or whatever, but eventually the individual should be able to (in essence) “be there and not do anything else but be there” without the use of any method or via to arrive at that”

            Just start meditating and see for yourself.
            There are 1000s and 1000s of meditation techniques.
            And theories behind those techniques are as numerous as the techniques itself.

            And there are gradient approaches for different meditation techniques.

            In essence, meditation leads to tolerance (of particles or their absence).
            Through this tolerance your whole system (body mind emotions energies) can realign and can lead, ultimatly, to a higher emotion, clarity and vitality.

            But there are a lot of other theories and as I said, so many many techniques.

            • Thanks for this data, SKM. You obviously have studied the subject of meditation a good bit. I know almost nothing, but I do sometimes engage in just “being there” – as per OT TR-O – and I have suspected that it is the basic aim of all meditation and is what yields the gains in spiritual awareness.

              Actually, the question also occurred to me a while back when I took a class in qigong, which is considered to be a “meditative exercise.” You focus on areas of the body and this releases blocked chi, or tension. (The existence of chi has apparently been validated with Kirlian photography, which you may know.)

              There is also simple “sitting qigong,” which basically consists of sitting motionless and focusing on the energy flows and blocks in the body (the chi). One time I asked the class instructor, a qigong Master, if the ultimate achievement was just to be there without focusing on anything (I had OT TR-0 in mind). He paused and looked at me for a moment and then said, “Yes.”

              • Yes/No
                It’s not easy to talk about meditation and meditative states using binary logic. It’s a matter of experience.
                I think having the body entirely free of resistance is a good starting point on the journey of spiritual inclusiveness.
                Kind like what maybe LRH had in mind when he intorduced Technique 80 (route to infinity lectures) , particulary the tape “OUTLINE OF TECHNIQUE 80”.
                This concept is very ancient, actually, allthough LRH introduced (or emphasized) the disctinction of different dynamics (1st to 8th) whereas in other cultures such distinctions have not been done.

                What I can say, you won’t find two persons agree completely about meditation and its techniques, there are just too many different schools and techniques.
                “Being there without focusing on anything” will be a natural outcome of many different techniques, “with the ability to respond accordingly”, I may add.

                I discarded Chi Gong some time ago. With proper meditation (and a vegan diet may help as well) you won’t be bothered by energy manifestations too much. In case you have acute problems with energy, Chi Gong may be good as assist. Other techniques may help as well. But if your energies are not so much in trouble, I wouldn’t concentrate too much on them alone.

                I never used OT TR 0 as meditation.
                OT TR 0 is a preparation for being an efficient terminal (terminal = something which can send and/or recive communication).
                It’s purpose is mechanical efficiency.

                I hope this makes some sense.

                • I said: “Its purpose is mechanical efficiency.”
                  Note also that the highest states achieveable in Scientology are called, OPERATING thetan levels, which in itself implicates that operational efficiency is a high goal in Scientology.

                  (I am not saying that there is something wrong with efficiency in the physical or any other universe at all. Life is a play for all of us being here on this planet. Or isn’t it?)

                  • Let me say again, I do understand the purpose of OT TR-0. Don’t know why people seem to think I need to be cleared up on that, just because I am looking at another use of the simple application of “being there.”😉

                    Anyway, I agree with you that “Its purpose is mechanical efficiency,” but I also think it can be a path to spiritual gains, just as any with other meditation – which simply “being there” seems to be the most basic form of, from what I have gathered so far. But I am open to learning more. In any case, it probably isn’t the most workable for everybody.

                    You asked: “Life is a play for all of us being here on this planet. Or isn’t it?”

                    Yes, I think so. Don’t you? And here is where Scientology could excel if practiced skillfully and with the right intention – i.e. “the playing of a better game,” as per the aims.

                    • Correction of first sentence in second paragraph – it should say: “…just as with any other meditation.”

                    • I agree that the ability to be there, ready to give or recieve communication, is a basic ability, important to handle any other process.
                      Sorry in case I came across as if I wanted to correct you on something regardning OT TR 0. I didn’t.

                      Of course there is spiritual gain in doing OT TR 0 (and any other TR for that matter), as it is the OT whose efficiency to handle communications (particles) is to be increased through the very TR.

                      I encourage you to look up some interesting meditation technique and try it for yourself.
                      If you need some help or advice, let me know.

                      You asked: “Life is a play for all of us being here on this planet. Or isn’t it?”
                      Yes, I think so. Don’t you? And here is where Scientology could excel if practiced skillfully and with the right intention – i.e. “the playing of a better game,” as per the aims.

                      Yes, Scientology is a huge ressource base and a lot of it can be used beneficialy.

                    • SKM, I see what you mean about all the TRs giving spiritual gains. But OT TR-0 is in a class by itself, if I am right that it can achieve the purpose of any other form of meditation – which is to quiet and then still the mind.

                      However, I have also heard that given forms of meditation are more beneficial for particular individuals, depending on a person’s strengths and weakness or some such. So if you come across a link or book that talks more about that, I would be interested.

                      Until then, thanks for all the comm.🙂

                    • The problem with OT TR 0 seems to be, that it gives so much space for interpretation but at the same time, interpretation is not allowed. That’s a problem.

                      Does OT TR 0 bring about the same benefits as other meditations?
                      I don’t think so. And at least not in the way it is delivered (prescribed). The aim is to prepare the being to process (communication) particles. The “training routine” is, “to do nothing”, just being there, comfortably.
                      You will agree that assists or objectives can help a person to enhance his OT TR 0? Or O/W write-ups? And also processing in general?
                      The ability to be just there, comfortably, is enhanced on a gradient and processing is beneficial towards that ability. The OT TR 0 routine itself, as it is prescribed in the very technical bulletins, will not accomplish the higher states the other processes (and meditation techniques) are aimed to accomplish.
                      Just doint the OT TR 0 routine as it is prescribed, won’t do the trick.
                      And anything else is “doing something else” and is not OT TR 0.🙂

                      In short, doing OT TR 0 won’t un-create your creations, as you are not supposed to look at any pictures, emotions, energy manifestations etc. popping up. You just have to be there, doing nothing.

                      There is the possibility to do a process (or meditation), very similar to the training routine, but it than would be “something else”.
                      Of course, you are free to do it and still call it OT TR 0. There is no one who could stop you😛

                    • SKM: “You will agree that assists or objectives can help a person to enhance his ot tr 0? Or o/w write-ups? And also processing in general?”

                      Sure. Those things indirectly bring a person more into present time as a result of freeing attention stuck in the past.

                      You also wrote: “In short, doing OT TR 0 won’t un-create your creations, as you are not supposed to look at any pictures, emotions, energy manifestations etc. popping up. You just have to be there, doing nothing.”

                      Yes, and being there doing nothing means there is no resistance (or ridge) created when any of those things pop up, and thus such energy manifestations “dissipate” (for lack of a better word).

                      Also: “There is the possibility to do a process (or meditation), very similar to the training routine, but it then would be ‘something else.’ Of course, you are free to do it and still call it OT TR 0. There is no one who could stop you :-P”

                      It’s not “OT TR-0” per se that I’m talking about, since it’s not done with another person and so forth.. But I would say that the “process” itself – of just “being there” – is, in essence, one type of meditation, not just “similar” to meditation.😛🙂

                    • p.s. Actually, a better example of how one’s creations are “un-created” by simply “being there” is with TR-0 Bullbait. Why do “buttons” flatten even though you aren’t “looking” at whatever it is, at least not in the way we “look” at something in session. However, you don’t “not look” or perceive either – you simply don’t resist or ridge on it. You are to “be there” – which, it seems to me, accomplishes the point of the blog post.

                    • “However, I have also heard that given forms of meditation are more beneficial for particular individuals, depending on a person’s strengths and weakness or some such. So if you come across a link or book that talks more about that, I would be interested.”

                      Marildi, I will send you something soon.

                      First of all, look up the word Sādhanā. Because spiritual practice in the eastern world is more than just “meditation”.

                      Kind regards,
                      SKM

                    • SKM, thanks for that interesting link. It’s a good example of the fact that Scientology isn’t the only path that has contains a lot of both significance and doingness, and isn’t a quick or simple system to learn.

                      And it also demonstrates very well what we were bothtalking about when I said that that people “color” their understanding of various truths by interpreting them through their own ideas, beliefs, experiences etc. – and that all those expressions are simply metaphors in any case, even though some of them may more closely describe non-physical reality better than others do.

                      And then you stated the same idea even better when you wrote: “What I can say, you won’t find two persons agree completely about meditation and its techniques, there are just too many different schools and techniques.”

                      If my understanding is correct, Hinduism uses the construct of chakras, whereas Buddhism does not. Does this mean that Buddhism is missing some part of fundamental reality? I highly doubt it and I think you would agree.

                      Marty wrote a blog post a while back regarding his correspondence course, and he listed out several categories of people – here’s the one where I fit in:

                      “Those wishing to continue with spiritual growth, but who do not want to start from square zero.”

                      With all of the above said, I would nevertheless be open to and happy to look at whatever you may find to send me!🙂

                    • “If my understanding is correct, Hinduism uses the construct of chakras, whereas Buddhism does not. Does this mean that Buddhism is missing some part of fundamental reality? I highly doubt it and I think you would agree.”
                      That’s not easy to say. Buddhism is rooted in Vedanta (the vedic sciences) and Gautama just threw the books away, alltogether. He was concerned with the suffering of others. If you remember the story of Gautama the prince, who was shocked when he for the first time saw suffering and death? He wanted to end suffering and he gave his royal life away in order to find a solution. He somehow figured, that it can’t be in the books, because suffering was still existing.

                      Hinduism, by the way, is not a religion. You have many many different religions in India. A Hindu is someone who is rooted in this region, India, but it says nothing about his religious beliefs. India is the most tolerant region when it comes to religion. They have a multiverse of religions. You can literally go to your temple, make your homage to a certain deity, and on your way back home you could make a stop in a different temple from a entirely different deity. And it would be ok. Hinduism is a collective name but it is a misnomer. It’s like saying “Arab” and meaning “Muslim”. Or “European” and meaning a “Christian”.😀
                      There is also a multitude of languages in India. And they use english as the common denominator in television and newspapers (“The Times of India” is the largest daily newspaper in the english language of the world).

                      But also in buddhism, you have streams and techniques, where the knowledge of chakras comes into account (mostly tantric buddhism).

                      Chakras are very interesting, but it is an experiential “something”.
                      LRH has said something about the chakras in the early 50s, but I think he had only little to no experience with it – you can’t aquire knowledge through the intellect only.

                      Whether it’s important to look into it or not, depends entirely on what you are trying to achive.
                      Look with what you yourself are feeling at home.
                      It may evolve with time.
                      You can’t lose by widening your horizons.

                      Scientology and study-tech, word-clearing, demos and clay where needed will assist you on your path.

                      “Those wishing to continue with spiritual growth, but who do not want to start from square zero.”
                      Yes, sounds good.
                      Scientology is a tool one can use to continue with spiritual growth. I use some of it’s principles daily. But there is so much more beauty in the world. Why should someone want to limit himself when what he wants is infinity?

                    • Hi SKM,

                      The example of chakras may not have been technically correct in this or that respect, and even among the different Buddhist sects I’m sure there would be different interpretations – but I hoped you would get my point, which was the one we agreed about as regards different ways of viewing fundamental reality.

                      You also wrote: “Look with what you yourself are feeling at home. It may evolve with time. You can’t lose by widening your horizons.”

                      That has been my view for a while now. And for sure there is no need to remind me of value of the tools of Scientology (I’m usually the one who is reminding others, LOL) – or to limit myself to those. This is all included in what I meant by not wanting “to start from square zero” – which implies maintaining what I got and from there evolving further.

                      Thanks again for all your input.🙂

                    • You’re welcome, Marildi.

                      Don’t be concerned too much with the proper communication of the ultimate truth. It’s just impossible to put something which is boundless in its potential into boundaries (definitions).🙂
                      Just experience it for yourself and enjoy.
                      Talking about it won’t make it any better.
                      It’s when we go beyond the complexities and the urge to explain, when the possibility really opens up for us to be experienced.

                      Thank you for being patient with my lack of english skills.

                      Love,
                      SKM

                    • SKM, I saw no problem with your English skills. You may have cleaned a few cleans, however, but that’s okay.😉

                      (LOL, kidding you. I got the intention.)

                      Love, marildi

                    • This guy is talking about OT TR-0.😀

                      (Don’t shoot me!🙂 )

                    • This guys is smart. He said that body-mind-spirit is a composite it stays together. That is very true. Exteriorization is a feeling. Nothing separates from the body. Only the filter of fixation on the body dissolves.

                      ________________________________

                    • *PENG!*
                      😀

                    • Thank you, thank you.😉

                • SKM, you wrote: “What I can say, you won’t find two persons agree completely about meditation and its techniques, there are just too many different schools and techniques.”

                  This isn’t purely my own origination, but I go along with the idea that people “color” their understanding of various truths by interpreting them through their own ideas, beliefs, experiences etc. – and that all those expressions are simply metaphors in any case, even though some of them may more closely describe non-physical reality better than others do. That, to me, explains why there are “many different schools and techniques.” and yet many among them are workable – maybe not for everybody but at least for people who have similar interpretations or can grasp and agree with them.

                  I don’t do qigong any more either (or Chi Gong, the more phonetic spelling), at least not the formal movements. However, l do my own application of the principles now and then. Even simple stretching, as when waking up in the morning or having sat too long in one position, can be done like a Chi Gong movement and handle the blocked chi. Usually there are lots of yawns – and then a revived feeling.

                  • Marildi,
                    I think it’s because, how can you describe something by physical means which is non-physical in it’s nature?
                    That’s the simple why for the manifoldness of spiritual expression.
                    The possibilities are unlimited.

                    Enjoy yourself with any type of spiritual process you may choose.

                    Kind regars,
                    SKM

                    • SKM, your first paragraph is what I intended to say too.🙂

                      Kind regards in return,
                      marildi

          • Hi Marildi,
            “I heard a talk on meditation recently where the statement was made that beginning meditation may start off with attention on the breath. or a mantra, or whatever, but eventually the individual should be able to (in essence) “be there and not do anything else but be there” without the use of any method or via to arrive at that”

            That’s an interesting interpretation. Who said it? There must have been additional instructions.

            Kind Regards,
            George M. White

            • Hi George,

              I haven’t found the larger talk yet (I have watched so many of these!) but here’s a short video with just a brief description of what is called “point consciousness,” a state in which you are only aware of your own consciousness, your own awareness. He then goes on to explain how this state can enable a person to then be able to do things like remote viewing or healing, and in that way confirm for oneself that the state of fundamental awareness isn’t just one’s imagination.

              • p.s. Actually, this video is more about how to acquire and use non-physical-universe abilities. More to the point of your question – in one of his longer talks, he explained that people can get to a point where they no longer need to use a mantra or other “techniques” (my word) to go directly to Point Consciousness.

              • Hi Marildi,
                Thanks for the interesting video by Tom Campbell. I can see where his
                “point consciousness” has roots in modern science and may even be related to quantum theories.
                In one of the lower levels of Theravada Buddhist meditation we have a level
                called “infinite consciousness.” It is more of a training level. The higher levels are more difficult and must be done in supreme virtue in an exact sequence in order to achieve his aspirations of physical mastery.
                There are many different interpretations of meditation. After thousands of hours of training in Theravada, it feels like home to me. The Buddha said
                that it would be difficult to disgard the “raft” once you reached the farther shore. Finding something that really works for oneself surely creates a clinging.

                GMW

                • George, you are so right about it being related related to quantum theories. Here’s an excerpt from a review of Tom Campbell’s book *My Big TOE* (MBT):

                  “Starting with the theory that consciousness is the foundation of all being, MBT makes the paradoxes of quantum physics, being and our infinitely expanding and self-programming universe explainable to everyone. This fascinating book weaves together science, spirituality, consciousness, love, values and paranormal experiences such as the out-of-body experience into a complete unified theory of absolutely everything in a way that leaves room for beliefs such as a universal love consciousness, or as Campbell calls is ‘Absolute Unbounded Oneness’ (AUO), or if you prefer the existence of God.

                  “Campbell puts this larger reality onto a solid footing by combining Quantum Physics with his own ability to enter the single point consciousness awareness state through meditation (the point of fundamental consciousness) and using this, and his scientific knowledge as the basis for the understanding that the connectedness of all beings is the fundamental nature of consciousness.”

                  http://pure-consciousness.com/2012/08/26/my-big-theory-of-everything-thomas-campbell/

                • “The Buddha said that it would be difficult to discard the “raft” once you reached the farther shore. Finding something that really works for oneself surely creates a clinging.”

                  What an interesting irony. Thanks for telling me about it.

                  Best regards,
                  M.

                • “Finding something that really works for oneself surely creates a clinging.”

                  That is a very interesting view!

                  >

                  • vinaire,
                    I have been growing cucumbers and grapes and reading Pali Scripture which is a dangerous combination for the mind. The vines were clinging to the nearest plant. It looked to me like “attavadupadana” which is clinging to self-generated doctrine. I related this idea to the Buddha’s comment about the raft which I always found to be rather comical. Imagine someone carrying a raft on their head.

                    Kind regards,
                    George M. White

            • Here’s one where he describes different ways of meditating – including “doing nothing.”

              • Hi Marildi,
                This description of meditation demonstrates some of the confusion that
                can arise when the different traditions are viewed as a whole. Tom Campbell seems to integrate various techniques into his own viewpoint. This generalization puts him in a position to appear to be an authority. This to me illustrates the advantages and benefits of one specific path. This is not intended to say that one should not follow Campbell since there is truth even in diversity.
                Hubbard probably made a similar mistake if he ever implied that OT TR0 was anything more than something related to the occult.

                Kind regards,
                George M. White

                • Hi George,

                  “Campbell seems to integrate various techniques into his own viewpoint.”

                  That’s probably a very accurate statement in general about Tom Campbell. One of his major premises is that each individual interprets non-physical reality based on their own unique accumulation of experience. And no matter how that reality is expressed, it’s always a metaphor rather than being literal, due to the fact that language is wholly derived from physical reality .

                  He also says a person can take whichever already laid-out path to enlightenment makes sense to them, or – even better – develop their own, because that is the one that will best suit them personally. In fact, the reason he titled his book “My” big TOE wasn’t because of some sort of immodesty about it (in fact, it’s clear in listening to him to any extent that he’s actually a very modest man). The reason he used the word “My” was to make the point that it’s HIS metaphor, and he recommends the individual develop his own big TOE. As well, the reason he called it a “Big” TOE is that it covers all aspects of both the physical and non-physical.

                  As regards what you wrote about OT TR-0 being related to the occult, I hadn’t heard that before. Can you say more about it?

                  • Hi Marildi,
                    Thanks for the information about Campbell. It explains why he appears to be an authority on meditation but is not. He needs to cover many diverse views. He appears to be the “permissive guru.”
                    OT-TR0 is related to the occult because it is not a mainstream idea. While it is possible to draw an inference that it is related to meditation, OT-TR0 is rather unique, in my opinion. In fact, one could argue that Hubbard actually tried to turn meditation on its head. He comes up with the idea to “be their in present time” at a basic level. While this is related to some forms of meditation, they are not mainstream. Most mediation starts with a basic such as the breath and then progresses to higher states. Also, you cannot claim that OT-TR0 is related to Theravada Buddhism. In fact, OT-TR0 would violate the principle of “bhava kamma”. To briefly explain, mindfulness is a different concept entirely and actually tries to slice away the “to be” aspect of Karma. In addition, while Catholics would practice exorcism, it is not similar to OT-TR0. In fact, Catholics try to exteriorize Satan. Therefore, I classify OT-TR0 as occult.

                    Kind regards,
                    George M. White

                    • Hi, George. I see now which sense of “the occult” you meant – not mainstream. Thanks too for the explanation of how OT TR-0 (not the drill as such but simply “being there”) differs from Theravada Buddhism.

                      However, the mere fact that the practice of “being there” isn’t a mainstream idea shouldn’t detract from it, and the same could be said about a path that isn’t mainstream. This is according to not just Tom Campbell and others but the Buddha as well:

                      “Do not believe anything
                      because it is said by an authority,
                      or if it is said to come from angels,
                      or from gods,
                      or from an inspired source.

                      “Believe it only if you have explored it
                      in your own heart
                      and mind and body
                      and found it to be true.

                      “Work out your own path,
                      through diligence.”

                      –Gautama Buddha
                      .

                      I must say, though, that I have the sense that Buddhism is one of the greatest paths, maybe even THE greatest, as regards taking one all the way to enlightenment. But since it doesn’t suit everybody, for one reason or another, it’s a good thing there are other paths to follow that are beneficial, to whatever degree they are.

                      In any case, it’s great to know that Buddhist meditation has done so much for you that you are reluctant to discard the “raft.”🙂

                      Much Metta,
                      marildi

                    • I don’t agree with your qualification of OT TR 0 as being occult.
                      It’s very misleading, it misses the whole point of the exercise.

                      OT-TR0 is related to the occult because it is not a mainstream idea. ” If this is your standard than what else fits into this category?
                      It doesn’t add up, George. Frankly, it’s like saying: fish are birds because they have no arms.

                    • Wow, George, I saw the Tony Ortega interview of you on his blog this morning. Very interesting! What did you think of the piece, and did he quote you accurately?

                  • Actually OT-TR0 led me to mindfulness. From mindfulness point of view I see ‘Being there’ as follows:

                    1. Find a place where you can sit comfortably and be there for a while without being disturbed or distracted. Make sure you have had enough to eat and rest. You do not want your body to be a distraction.
                    2. Sit in a comfortable position with your back straight and upright. If you are sitting in a chair, keep feet flat on the floor, and hands in the lap.
                    3. Become aware of breathing and stay aware of it without interfering with it throughout this exercise. Awareness of breathing helps you stay grounded in reality.
                    4. Become aware of the mind and stay aware of it without interfering with it throughout this exercise. Awareness of mind as a sense organ that is viewing mental objects helps you stay objective.
                    5. Do not move or do anything. Simply observe the physical objects, such as, chair, table, wall, etc., and the mental objects, such as, ideas, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. Let your eyes be open, half-closed, or closed naturally and not be controlled.
                    6. Do not add anything to this exercise. If you just see blackness, then observe that blackness. If you see a play of light and darkness, then observe that play of light and darkness. And so on.
                    7. Let your attention roam freely. Observe what your senses present to you. Let various perceptions of sound, smells, taste, touch, temperature, gravity, etc. come to you. Do not strain to perceive them. Do not look for anything in particular.
                    8. Do not resist anything. Let reactions, such as, twitches in muscles, minor pains and aches, sleepiness, etc., come and go. Experience the body as a whole without interfering with it. If some discomfort lasts, readjust the body to a more comfortable position, while experiencing the effort.
                    9. The mind may present “pictures” of the current and past events, some flattering and some not so flattering. Simply experience them without resisting. The scene may shift around continually.
                    10. The mind may present emotions, such as, embarrassment, guilt, anxiety, anger, fear, grief, and even apathy. Simply experience them thoroughly without trying to judge or justify them.
                    11. If you find yourself getting involved in thoughts, or mentally doing something else, then simply recognize this fact, and continue. Do not suppress anything. Do not add anything.
                    12. Let these feelings, emotions and sensations play themselves out. Do not speculate on reasons and possibilities. As you persevere, the uncomfortable feelings and sensations will clear out.
                    13. Try ending this exercise at a point when some persistent thought, emotion or effort has just left, though this may not always be possible.

                    The explanation for the above can be found here:

                    http://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/khtk-exercise-1-looking-comfortably/

                    .

                    • Thanks, Vin. I can see where this method could be quite workable. There are several people that I know of who have posted comments on yours and others’ blogs stating that it has done a lot for them.

                      Good for you in devising a path based on your own personal experience.😉

                    • Thank you, Marildi.

  7. Awesome Marty!

    Yeah, synchronicity is taking place.

    “Those paths have been effective to the degree that they have assisted in increasing understanding of and ability to apply the mechanics outlined above. Those paths have served as betrayal to the degree that they have utilized knowledge of these mechanics in order to obtain conformity, loyalty and labor.”

    That above summarizes the entirety of my issue with Hubbard and Scientology, as I never denied Hubbard’s right to explore consciousness and to develop methodologies to remedy our maladies.

    The fact that objects of mind continuously arise and vanish, and that we as the Static are forever enthralled in grabbing onto and pushing away those projections, does not give anyone the rights to own, corner or copyright, the Static or it’s projections, let alone have exclusive rights to the Mind Streams of others.

    Thanks

  8. Good one Marty!
    I still find the AXIOMS very helpful in that regard.
    Greta

  9. Tony DePhillips

    Excellent summation.

  10. Mark
    Since your stated reality on this subject agrees with my own perceived reality on it, you must be right.

    • martyrathbun09

      Reminds me of my dad’s standard for determining whether an individual had a sense of humor: if the person laughed at my dad’s jokes he had a great sense of humor.

  11. Yes Marty, that seems to be the simplicity of it. Having come to a similar conclusion, I have recently adopted a new “Q”.

    I have abandoned the “Q” of “self determinism trumps all” (the “Q” of Scientology, stated in simple terms) and am now working from “willingness to experience anything trumps all”. (as regards one’s ease of association with this universe and its denizens.)

    I do not expect that it is the “final answer”, but it appears to be a good working approach.

    Eric

    • martyrathbun09

      Good move Eric. If you ever think you’ve found the ‘final answer’ give me a holler so that I may have a chance to talk you back off that cliff ledge.

  12. Thanks Marty, I might need to take you up on that some day.

    Eric

  13. This is actually a good datum as far as simply viewing objects for what they are so they would pass through and depart.
    I found also helpful to read the action of clinging to them or resist them.

    What I like best of your postings is that they make you look and then do with the information whatever one may deem best. Thank you indeed,

  14. Thank you for this. It is useful.

  15. dude you are nailing it, you are getting to the core

    also check out the layer below this I’d like to hear you blog on that layer

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

    and one other aspect, attention, another thing we pine or reject, don’t know if that falls under the scope of an object or not

  16. Still Awakening

    I agree with this simplicity. I was reminded of the “The Wise Woman’s Stone” – author unknown. The value of no pining. The true state of awareness and beingness. I am still moving on upwards.

    A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream. The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his good fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime. But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the wise woman.

    “I’ve been thinking,” he said, “I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone.”

  17. Tom Gallagher

    Marty,

    I’ve found the following to comprise and contain a truism that seems to relate to this post:

    “You never change anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a new model and make the existing obsolete.”
    Buckminster Fuller

    Thanks again for helping me move up a whole lot higher.

  18. Thanks, Marty. Simple and true. Best wishes to you and your family.

  19. Simple facts and all completely true, I’d agree. But is there something even more basic than the arising of objects in consciousness?

    Probably you’ve read Dennis Stephens’ ‘The Resolution of Mind’ long ago, but I recommend this little book to anyone who does not yet know it. In particular, the datum that what basically exists is Life and its postulates. What he calls ‘effects’ are the same as ‘objects’ in that broadest sense, but calling them effects is a reminder that they are caused by life via postulates. For example, a knife is a physical object, but it only exists as a consequence of the postulate ‘to cut’.

    Saying ‘life’ instead of ‘me’ or ‘a thetan’ allows us to temporarily put to one side the questions of individual existence or individual consciousness. I’m inclined to think that any boundaries between self and not-self are just the consequences of postulates, and will resolve when those postulates are fully viewed. One line of experimental evidence for this comes from the technique of timebreaking (viewing a past scene simultaneously with present time). In my experience, this can lead to an objective view of the past – not anyone’s viewpoint, flow 1,2 or 3 but just what actually happened.

    • “I´m inclined to think that any boundaries between self and not-self are just the consequences of postulates”
      Great book and good points, fixed selves seem to vanish nicely in level five, as far as I was able to go. What happens next, still way out of my reach……

  20. Marty wrote:

    Those paths have served as betrayal to the degree that they have utilized knowledge of these mechanics in order to obtain conformity, loyalty and labor.

    This is why I believe that human beings corrupt spiritual truths – because they need to obtain all those things to keep living.

    I believe that once you join in with other human beings who all belong to a “religion”, all those things you listed become part of the mix. This would be great if they had something to do with spiritual truths, but they don’t.

    And I’m not even talking about cults where the leader considers his cult as a business to make him rich and intentionally places brainwashing techniques into it to extract as much money and free labor out of his followers as he can get.

    “Objects arise in consciousness. ‘Objects’ is used in the broadest sense to include thoughts, feelings, emotions, pictures, impulses, anxieties, fears, ideas, and all of physical matter reality.

    For a couple of kick-ass sources of knowledge and skills to develop awareness of the things you are talking about here, Marty, check these out:

    http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

    And this:

    http://sourceoflightmonastery.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/1466196.pdf

    It’s astounding how many sincere seekers were attracted to Scientology, and what their sincerity and their diligence was turned into for the “survival of the group”.

    Been there, done that.

    Got the certs.

    Alanzo

  21. “There seems to be two fundamental acts on the part of awareness (or consciousness) that make objects within it persist, become solid and have a lasting, negative effect upon awareness.

    “Those two acts are pining for (desiring and clinging to) and resisting that which arises in awareness.”

    Pining and resisting…two expressions of the same belief i.e., the belief that a past moment or the next moment holds a more desirable and pleasurable reality (a freedom from what is perceived and interpreted to be). All suffering stems from this belief. The belief is held by an object that Awareness/Consciousness has attached itself to and thoroughly identifies with. The object is the illusory composite commonly referred to as ‘me’…’self’…’the individual,’ which is the product of a mind absent of any awareness.

    • Monte wrote:

      All suffering stems from this belief. The belief is held by an object that Awareness/Consciousness has attached itself to and thoroughly identifies with. The object is the illusory composite commonly referred to as ‘me’…’self’…’the individual,’ which is the product of a mind absent of any awareness.

      This is interesting that you say this, Monte.

      Because it is my understanding that all suffering stems from the mistaken belief that self and all phenomena cause themselves to exist (are inherently existing), and the relief of all suffering comes from the profound understanding and everyday seeing that the self and all phenomena are empty of inherent existence.

      Don’t ask me what that means, because I have no idea.

      And don’t ask me if I believe it, because I do not know that, either.

      It’s just my present understanding based on what I’m studying.

      So that.

      And this:

      Minds emerge from process and interaction.

      Good one, huh?

      By the way, these are all payback to you from your gift to me of The Karpman Drama Triangle. Learning about that destroyed my life!

      So thanks a lot!

      Alanzo

      • Alanzo, I love this that you wrote…

        “Don’t ask me what that means, because I have no idea.

        “And don’t ask me if I believe it, because I do not know that, either.

        “It’s just my present understanding based on what I’m studying.”

        Your disclaimer is the perfect preface for me to use for any comm that seems to originate out of the self labelled Monte. Thank you.

        In my Course in Miracles lesson today there was a point mentioned that (for me) dovetails nicely with your disclaimer. Here’s that excerpt:

        “Yet are the words but aids, and to be used…but to recall the mind, as needed, to its purpose. We place faith in the experience that comes from practice, not the means we use. We wait for the experience, and recognize that it is only here conviction lies. We use the words, and try and try again to go beyond them to their meaning, which is far beyond their sound. The sound grows dim and disappears, as we approach the Source of meaning. It is Here that we find rest.”

        On another note…

        I have never, until just a few days ago, have had any inclination whatsoever to read a book by, or watch a video by Eckhart Tolle. However, because of the type of videos I watch Youtube is always recommending Eckhart Tolle videos to me. Well, in a moment, I went from absolutely no inclination to a compelling inclination. The manner in which Eckhart presents his understanding has been a useful aid in recalling the mind to its purpose.

        Alanzo, I am grateful to you.

        Monte

      • Alanzo,

        “By the way, these are all payback to you from your gift to me of The Karpman Drama Triangle. Learning about that destroyed my life!
        So thanks a lot!”

        That was funny!

        You can apply the tetralemma logic system to the triangle, and it will allow you to still do what you like, which is to help people out of the cult.

        The tetralemma just approximates reality more closely, so the triangle is still valid but not quite in the absolute way it represents the participants to be. There is more room to maneuver .

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

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

        • Conan –

          I have studied tetralemma for many years, and done my best to arrange my mind around it, but I did not have that Catuskoti reference you gave me.

          So thank you very much for that.

          Looks like I must destroy your life in return!

          Alanzo

          Alanzo

    • This meditation by Eckhart Tolle (not my typical idea of meditation) explains much more thoroughly than I could, this statement I made in my comment…” The belief is held by an object that Awareness/Consciousness has attached itself to and thoroughly identifies with. The object is the illusory composite commonly referred to as ‘me’…’self’…’the individual,’ which is the product of a mind absent of any awareness.”

      Eckhart’s wording is considerably more ‘user friendly’ than what I chose to use. Also, this meditation is the most viable explanation of NOW that I have yet to encounter.

  22. And Marildi!

    Glad I found you here!

    I was reading “The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths” by Michael Shermer” last night and I thought of you.

    (Actually I thought of me, but I like to project on to you, so….)

    From page 35:

    A common myth most of us intuitively accept is that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and belief: as intelligence goes up belief in superstition and magic goes down. This, in fact, turns out not to be the case, especially as you move up the IQ spectrum.

    … when people encounter claims that they know little about (which is most claims for most of us), intelligence is usually not a factor in belief, with one exception: once people commit to a belief, the smarter they are the better they are at rationalizing those beliefs. Thus smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

    As a mission staff member, there was never a greater defender of Scientology beliefs than Alanzo.

    But I have borne it alone for far too long.

    You share it with me now….

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies—How-Construct/dp/1250008808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403185763&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+shermer

    Alanzo

    • Alanzo: “As a mission staff member, there was never a greater defender of Scientology beliefs than Alanzo. But I have borne it alone for far too long. You share it with me now…”

      Very funny, Al, as usual. However, I see you are still suffering from BELIEF – except that yours is now in the form of DISbelief. Yes, that is just another form of belief – you still haven’t arrived at the far more intelligent approach of being skeptical but open-minded. At which time you will have caught up with me.😀

      Watch this short video and you may just cognite about BELIEF – yours in particular.😛 Also note the part about the need for organizations, which I think aptly explains the basic rationale for LRH’s efforts in that respect.

      • Marildi –

        I wanted you to know that I have thoroughly duplicated and understood exactly what you believe my problem is.

        You wrote:

        I see you are still suffering from BELIEF – except that yours is now in the form of DISbelief. Yes, that is just another form of belief – you still haven’t arrived at the far more intelligent approach of being skeptical but open-minded.

        This is your statement, so let me process it myself so you know that I get what you are saying, organically and deeply within me.

        You are saying that:

        Because I once had a BELIEF in Scientology, I have not done the necessary cognitive digestions of it to really understand it.

        All I did was flip from BELIEF to DISBELIEF in Scientology without really understanding what Scientology was itself, or what I personally went through in it.

        This is why so much that I write about Scientology is wrong.

        What I need to do, and which I have never done, is to be like you and to do what you did, which is being skeptical but open minded about Scientology and all my experiences within it.

        Is that what you are saying to me?

        Alanzo

        • Al, I can tell you haven’t bothered to watch the video. Come on, it’s only 15 minutes. Watch it and then tell me again what you think I’m saying to you.

          • OK Marildi.

            I will admit that the first time you presented this video to me that I could only get about 5 minutes into it because the guy seemed to be just blathering horseshit.

            So this time I hiked up my shorts, clenched my jaws and my fists, and watched the whole thing. While I was watching I was thinking, “There is something in what this guy is saying that Marildi thinks is my problem.” So I kept watching and I kept watching and then finally the video cut him off right in midsentence.

            I sat back. I looked around at my ceiling and my walls, wondering what the fuck Marildi wanted me to see in this.

            I got nothin.

            Help me out here, Marildi. I really want to fully duplicate and understand what you are trying to say to me. If what you are saying to me was not contained in what you wrote to me, but instead in what this guy was blathering on about, then you are going to have to write down for me what he said that you want me to know about myself.

            OK?

            Alanzo

            • “While I was watching I was thinking, ‘There is something in what this guy is saying that Marildi thinks is my problem.’”

              Well, I wish you would have just watched the vid without the filter of “trying to figure out what marildi thinks your problem is.” In any case, if the message in the video didn’t get across to you, I doubt my trying to explain it would do anything for you either.

              On a more positive note, I noticed that you heartily agreed with what Grasshopper wrote to you, so if you and I both just apply that viewpoint I think we can avoid some unproductive discussions. Peace.😉

              • Nice dodge.

                All I was trying to do was to really duplicate and to understand what you think my problem is and you can’t even step up and say that because you know, deep down, it doesn’t make any sense when you write it out.

                That’s progress!

                When you can’t say publicly what’s wrong with Alanzo that must mean that you are waking up from Scientology!

                Good morning, Marildi!!!

                Did you have a good sleepy time?

                Alanzo

                • Nice try, Al. But I’m not taking the bait. I’ve already stepped up publicly many times and stated where I think you are off the rails as regards some specific comment you’ve made. However, I’m not interested in spending the time and energy in a general discussion of your “problem.”

                  Take heart though. I’ll probably take issue with the next specific DISbelief you come up with.🙂

                  • You’re so dodgy lately.

                    I would be too if I was in your position of having so much track of defending the indefensible in Scientology.

                    Hey! Does that mean you’re not a Scientologist any more?

                    Alanzo

                    • Defending the “indefensible” in Scientology? Actually, I think I’ve had a pretty good record of debunking your glibidity (a word coined especially for you😛 ).

                      “Does that mean you’re not a Scientologist any more?”

                      What’s your definition of Scientologist? And don’t give me any Q & A.🙂

                    • Wow. A Scientologist who doesn’t even know the definition of “Scientologist”.

                      Now I’ve seen everything.

                      Alanzo

                    • “A Scientologist who doesn’t even know the definition of ‘Scientologist.’

                      I believe that’s what is called Begging the Question – just one of the Logical Fallacies you are prone to speciously put forth, Al honey.😀

                      It’s also a classic Q&A. I asked for YOUR definition.😛

    • Joe Pendleton

      Very interesting passage Alanzo.

      I would say that in Scientology you are dealing with a combination of myth and truth (maybe you could say that about most belief sets) and that makes it a bit more complex in how one accepts or rationalizes anything in it.

      Just a very few examples. I think a certain portion of LRH’s work was smoke out of his ass, or to put it in a better light, just stuff he FELT was truth. There is an amount of this from DMSMH straight through to the OT levels to HCO B Pain and Sex (and I can be extremely specific on exactly what points I mean if anyone would like me to write a very long treatise on this). A recent example of this was the 1952 tape Tony posted. Gee! Did you listen to it? Ron holding the cans and assuming what was true on the whole track re: theta beings, entheta beings, and bodies strictly on what scenarios that he proposes gets falls on the old meter. How much of Scientology was “figured out” on this basis? My suspicion is a substantial amount.

      BUT … on the other hand, the service fac brackets in process R3SCA …. well, I read a LOT of history and personally observe life in many parts of the world and I can tell you that SO many negative human interactions from families to world wars rest on the dramatizations of right/wrong, survive/succumb, dominate/be dominated (I no longer have any LRH references, so can’t be sure I remember all the brackets exactly, but you get the idea). To me there is gold not only in understanding this, but IN the understanding, to freaking STOP DOING IT! (which I have been more or less successful at, I am happy to say – still remember my core service fac found in 1973 and still very, very true for me). So much of life can also be explained in “Any game is better than no game.” (witness the recent goings on in Iraq from that perspective)

      So … yeah, one can use one’s high degree of intelligence to “rationally” explain any belief that is not much more than something someone said, but that one had to accept because of one’s religion … and you can find many beliefs like that in Scientology (is one’s aptitude REALLY dependent JUST on definitions? Yeah, I came up with a few ways that could be true …..SHEESH!!!!!).

      And it’s not just a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think a truly intelligent look at any system of beliefs also looks at its component parts and separates the wheat from the chaff. A few years ago I regularly attended a fundamentalist Assemblies of God church and even ran Bible Study for about a year. I’d be lying if I said I either believed in Jesus or God, and some of the New Testament I found to be highly contradictory within itself and some of it simply wrong from my point of view. But I also found some good stuff that was true for me (“love is patient, kind ……….”). But of course, I can’t be “a Christian” with that point of view and despite my admiration for much of LRH’s work, I am no longer a Scientologist. (because despite the fact that so much of my spiritual awareness comes from my 35 active years of tech work in Scientology, I am not a “believer” and can no longer defend ALL of LRH’s work or support most of his view on the 3rd and 4th dynamics).

      • Great reply, Joe.

        Yes, recognizing this “mix of true and false” in any system of belief is so uncomfortable!

        It is so much more comfortable to just swallow the whole thing. The book goes into why it is more comfortable to accept something as true than it is to continually sift through a belief system’s ideas, rejecting the bad, and keeping the good.

        That’s fricking exhausting!

        As I continue to read the book, as it lays out the actual neurology behind belief, my rising awareness of how I defend beliefs against contrary data is really disturbing.

        I seem to have endless energy to defend my beliefs once I have accepted them.

        But are they worth defending just because I once accepted them? Because “I once accepted them” seems to be the only reason I defend some of my beliefs.

        I can now hear a victorious roar from the legions of people who I have defended my beliefs against, going back to Mrs Zeiter, my fourth grade teacher in 1970, who I fought a major battle against over the length of my hair.

        Yes. I had beliefs connected to the length of my hair at that time.

        Alanzo

    • The only alternative to “belief” is believing ONLY what you see and can prove and no more. No one can really do that, and in any event, doing that leaves a lot of imagination and conjecture behind.

      For example, belief in a non-physical soul. All you can really prove about human life is that a person is gestated, born, alive for a while, and dead – the component parts eventually getting disbursed. And that could very well be reality. So, we have materialist types who believe that consciousness is the product of physical processes and laws, located completely within the skull.

      But there are indications that that is not true – that consciousness is external to the physical form. There is no real proof, but there are indications.

      So – what are we to do? Ignore the indications? Ignore the logic that supports a human soul as opposed to a mechanical meat automaton? Choose to only believe was can be proved? Even Scientists do not do that.

      Everyone believes in something, and not all beliefs or opinions are supported by undeniable evidence. They are, however, usually supported by core assumptions. Assumptions that may or may not be true, but if they are true, lead to a string of deductions that can lead anywhere.

      My personal core assumption is that we are, each of us, spiritual in nature, and not composed of matter sprung from the Big Bang. I could very well be wrong. But if I am wrong, then we humans are nothing more than rocks floating in space that happened to combine a certain way, and which have no meaning at all, with no “free will” (since rocks have no will), and no “creativity” (since all that is or was was predetermined by the Big Bang).

      This may be right, but it is way, way too bleak for me to accept as truth. And in any event, I have experiences and indications that tell me that it is not the truth.

      Call me a “believer”, but be assured that I have come to my beliefs with a lot of thought and reasoning, knowing that I could very well be wrong.

      Mark

  23. can’t have – must have
    resist – clinge

    And wu wei, a state of being of true harmony and effortlessness.

    ” In the Tao te Ching, Laozi explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely natural, uncontrived way. The goal of spiritual practice for the human being is, according to Laozi, the attainment of this purely natural way of behaving, as when the planets revolve around the sun. The planets effortlessly do this revolving without any sort of control, force, or attempt to revolve themselves, instead engaging in effortless and spontaneous movement.”
    ~ Wikipedia

  24. Ahh the old “attachment to outcome”… that’ll get ya every time.

  25. Joe Pendleton

    Extremely well put Marty.

    I think the viewpoint you express (which is covered I think also throughout LRH’s work) is very valuable in grappling with life’s challenges. But I think it is much easier said than done in any practical sense (as far as just doing this in any immediate time frame and in an absolute sense).

    My own opinion now is that what you wrote can be extremely helpful in the stages of:

    1) Just realizing this phenomena, which is halfway to reaching greater states of awaress. But to also realize that just by clinging to one’s body, one is ALREADY committed to a certain degree, greater or lesser, to a general clinging and resisting things in this life. (Does anyone resist hunger? rain? the third rail in a subway? ……)

    2) But WITH the realization that so much unhappiness is caused by the clinging and resisting, one can begin to DO THESE IN LESSER DEGREES and to the degree one is successful, one can be happier and less worried and less upset in life. Even being a little bit better at this is a movement towards a more spiritual and happier life. And something to work on throughout one’s life to get better at this on a continuing basis.

    Of course, there will be absolutists who talk about “trying” and
    “working at these things” as already a sort of violation of being totally separate, yadda yadda yadda. Well, whatever. I’m talking about a continuing gradient and learning process as part of life. I live in a Buddhist country in Asia and early in the mornings many monks walk throughout the city asking for alms. Yes, they cling to their robes and their temples are quite beautiful as mest goes. So, nobody’s perfect (the last line in Billy Wilder’s Some Like it Hot).

  26. Marty,
    “There seem to be two fundamental acts on the part of awareness (or consciousness) that make objects within it persist, become solid and have a lasting, negative effect upon awareness.
    Those two acts are pining for (desiring and clinging to) and resisting that which arises in awareness.”

    The words “pinning for” are a wonderful way you stated these basic truths.

    If Scientologists can wrap their minds around the fact that reality is fundamentally impermanent (in a state of flux), then the above simplicity will be self-explanatory, and then could follow Gautama’s and others observations that Life is basically characterized by Dukkha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha.

    The reason for that statement is simply that solidity and permanence are not possible, but the action of becomingness is. That is the act of attempting, approximating but never actually achieving something, which in itself cannot exist.

    Hubbard’s works are a significant contributions into the art of looking into our “pinning for” and resisting objects of mind, and into the reasons for our ignorance of Fundamental Reality.

    His work was an attempt at remedying those universal maladies, but Hubbard did not created Fundamental Reality as many Scientologists seem to believe. Nor was he the only one to observe and articulate remedies for these basic characteristics of existence, let alone his system being “the only way out”.

    To understand that clearly, is the difference between using Scientology rationally and becoming a slave to his system.

    It is Hubbard’s intentional attempt at cornering Fundamental Reality and his obsessive and deceptive control of everyone around him for “conformity, loyalty and labor”, which I found despicable and ultimately self-cancelling of any “freedom from suffering” his methods could produce.

    • Buddha was reality-centric. He saw self as a subset of reality. Because all reality was relative, conditioned and impermanent to Buddha, he saw “self” also as relative, conditioned and impermanent. Nirvana, to him, was the extinguishing of self… the last bastion of attachment.

      Hubbard reversed the sequence and claimed reality to be a subset of self (self created the reality). Hubbard was self-centric. He saw self to be there always. Of course, self would never be there to see itself not there. So, Hubbard, unlike Buddha, saw self to be permanent at its core (thetan) and built the whole philosophy of Scientology around it.

      But this vector makes Scientology fundamentally different from Buddhism. Scientology doesn’t see nirvana. It seeks a powerful self called operating thetan.

      >

  27. Dear Marty,

    Couldn’t agree more.
    Have you ever experienced a moment where you waited, let the events evolve and then everything falls into place?
    In my opinion, this is the exact physical manifestation of how to apply what you wrote and not be the adverse effect of it.
    The excessive pining (I believe also known as a “must-have”) for things to move faster than they need to be often leads to catastrophe.
    It has happened often in my life.
    It’s true that when one finds himself in a bad situation the first effort is to try to get out of it as fast as one can. Obviously, all events differ in the required timely response. However, quite often, if one were to just be there and confront the situation and then do the needed thing at the right moment — everything falls into place.
    Some call it destiny. I don’t believe anything as such actually exists, even if it may appear to be.
    It all boils down to having one’s TR’s in, in life, and using the communication formula.

  28. Amen to that last paragraph🙂

  29. Death comes about when the continuity and coherence of awareness throughout the body is broken.

    All atoms and molecules of the body go back to their individual, disconnected awareness. The life of the body, which existed due to connected awareness, disappears. This connectedness had earlier brought about processes, which now disappear.

    Thus, there is no soul that leaves the body. It is simply the fact that the condition of life ceases to exist.

    The condition of life does not come from a “soul controlling the body.”

    The condition of life comes from the connected awareness of all atoms and molecules, which then allows awareness to flow throughout the body, making it act as a single organism.

    A higher harmonic would be that of a community in which all members are connected by awareness, which then flows in a consistent and coherent manner throughout the community. We may peg the death of the community to the point in time when the individuals in the community go back to their individual, disconnected awareness.

  30. George,
    You are making a big splash at Tony’s blog.
    http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/24/up-the-bridge-we-finally-reach-ot-8-but-was-its-first-version-really-a-hoax/#more-15484

    Thanks for your contribution in deconstructing Scientology.

    • Conan,
      Thanks for the kind words. I have been working on a balanced way to
      get this OT 8 material into public view for years. Miscavige created a “cult within a cult.” At least the average person can now see a unified version of what the religion called Scientology is all about in its correct context.

      Kind regards,
      George M. White

  31. SKM,
    I will reply in this spot because there are no more room in the thread.
    So what is the point of the exercise? Maybe I missed something.

    GMW

  32. Hi Marildi,
    “Wow, George, I saw the Tony Ortega interview of you on his blog this morning. Very interesting! What did you think of the piece, and did he quote you accurately?”

    Tony did quote accurately. He did a great job considering what he had to work with. This OT 8 narrative has been subject to such controversy. It is difficult to find the real truth. There are so many in opposition to its validity.
    Also, one needs to look at the difficulty of covering such ideas as implants, Xenu, Hubbard the anti-Christ, space invasions, Jesus the lover of young boys etc. etc. in one short piece. For a non-Scientologist it was a massive task. Tony is familiar with the lingo and he has his own unique style. He said a lot in one short piece and related it to the general public.
    This impact is his gift in my opinion.

    Kind Regards,
    George M. White

    • Hi G,
      Hi George,

      I thought Tony O. did a very good job too – and essentially validated what you had tried to make known right here on Marty’s many months ago.

      I really admire your attitude about the “controversial” OT VIII document and about your OT VIII experience. Here’s one part of Ortega’s blog post I thought was especially fair of him to include (even though most of the time he focuses on the negative and sensational since that’s what his readers want):

      “The auditing portion of OT 8, which followed that briefing, went really well, he [George] says. ‘You look at your past and you make comparisons and make conclusions. It’s just a formalized method of self-examination. I did that, I had some personal things that I wanted to do,’ he says. Yes, it’s true that during such auditing, you’re being asked to hunt down “implants” that you received millions or billions of years ago during past lives, he admits. ‘But that’s all symbols. What mattered was that you find your problem and do something about it. I thought it was great.'”

      Well done, George – you added a whole new dimension to the understanding and interpretation of Scientology!

      Much Metta,
      marildi

      • George is simply being mindful. Looks like many people like him brought mindfulness with them to Scientology and benefitted from its combination with Scientology.

      • Hi Mariildi,
        The interview went several hours. You rightly focus here on one of the key points which materialized towards the end. It is interesting that Tony duplicated the value of the level so well.
        When I received the call to return to Flag and the Freewinds, I could not believe the negativity that Miscavige had injected into the environment.

        GMW

        • Thank you, George, for your contribution to validating that version of OT8.

          When I first saw that version on the Internet after I got out in 2000, I recognized the gnostic Crowleyism in it and found it totally consistent with what LRH probably believed when you look at the underlying philosophy, cosmology, and worldview of Scientology.

          Jesse Prince’s story revealed the cover-up which happened later as a result of LRH’s revealing the truth of what he actually believed to Scientologists on OT 8.

          I think Miscavige and everyone at Int had a lot of work to do to keep LRH’s Out-PR mental problems from reaching Scientologists so they could make more informed decisions about their involvement in Scientology.

          http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/jesse.htm

          It is to Jesse’s credit that he did whatever he could to tell the world what he knew as an Int level RTC Officer. He paid a heavy price for that in terms of fair game actions against him.

          My mission holder, George Seidler, was on that maiden voyage at that time, and when we all gathered around him on his return – after having completed the highest level in Scientology – all he did was distribute pictures of parking lots and palm trees, hiding his VBI’s under a kind of silent stare that was very much unlike him.

          It sure would have been nice if George Seidler would have simply said to us, “I’m sorry everyone. It was total bullshit and I think Ron was crazy at the end of his life.” Then we would have had more information to make up our own minds about how we would proceed in Scientology, how much debt we would take on, and how many no-pay slave labor contracts we would sign in Scientology, etc etc.

          But no. Scientologists are taught to lie to each other to keep everyone ignorant and paying.

          You broke that teaching.

          Thank you.

          Alanzo

          • Alanzo,
            Dude, thanks for that link.
            Holy moly, reverse, reverse, reverse….

            • Conan –

              Yeah. These are some of the web pages that I spent months reading when I first got out of the Church of Scientology in 2000. OSA was in high gear then, targeting anyone they could and fair gaming them for even discussing Scientology on the Internet.

              These were the people who first helped to get the truth out about Scientology on the Internet so that its lies were exposed and people could make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology.

              As I said about Jesse, many of these people paid a heavy price in terms of fair game and dirty tricks, and I think all of us today owe them a debt of gratitude.

              Here’s more from that site:

              http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/

              It’s great that this site is still up, and that the Church of Scientology has never been able to erase it from the Internet.

              Heh heh.

              Alanzo

          • Al, you left out the bottom line – the part where George said he thought “it was great,” and also that “Tony duplicated the value of the level so well.”

            Here’s a Buddhist quote for you:

            “People deal too much with the negative, with what is wrong. Why not try and see positive things, to just touch those things and make them bloom?” –Nhat Hanh

            • Marildi –

              Al, you left out the bottom line – the part where George said he thought “it was great,” and also that “Tony duplicated the value of the level so well.”

              The true context of OT 8 was withheld from Scientologists for many decades while they were told that this service would “handle amnesia on the whole track” and sold to them for 10s of thousands of dollars.

              Other staff were told that because the OT levels delivered immortality and the super-human abilities that LRH promised, that it was the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics to defend Scientology by fair gaming people, and committing all kinds of abuses in the name of “clearing the planet”.

              It is the delivery of the OT Levels and the super-human capabilities that were sold with them that justified all the overts that any OSA member or volunteer, or sea org member ever committed on anyone.

              To me, the idea that some person got a “win” on the OT 8 procedure is less important than the lies, and the harm those lies caused people, have been exposed.

              What’s far more important is that people have all the true information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology.

              That’s how I see it.

              For some reason, many scientologists believe that the harm that has come to so many Scientologists and others because of the lies in Scientology are less important than the wins they got from some of their Scientology services.

              Some Scientologists will completely ignore the harm that has been done to so many by Scientology and focus only their own personal “wins”.

              I fail to see how this is an example of taking responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world, which is part of your Code of a Scientologist, is it not Maridli?

              Alanzo

              • For super-human abilities, the scientologists seem to look at their leader David Miscavige as their representative if they don’t have those abilities themselves.

                But if you compare apples to apples, the president of United States have much greater “super-human abilities” than David Miscavige.  

                ________________________________

              • To put it simply, Al, where I think you are making a mistake is in over-focusing on the negative. I do understand the purpose of informing others of the outpoints and wrongnesses, but the amount of good this does can be outweighed by its bad effects if there is a degree of negativity that goes beyond what is needed.

                It happens to be a scientific fact that THOUGHTS change reality (outlined in the video below). Thus, continuously drumming into people how much harm Scientology does can have a detrimental effect on how they view their experience. For some, it could turn it into something negative where it hadn’t been before, or make it seem much worse than they would otherwise have viewed it. People can even lose whatever gains they got, if they start to believe those gains weren’t real. Or they can start believing they had actually been damaged – and feel damaging effects they hadn’t felt before. Again, thoughts change reality. Wayne Dyer said it well:

                “Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change.”

                Basically, it’s the person’s own view of their Scientology experience that determines whether it helped or harmed them – even for those who had undeniably horrid experiences. Victor Frankl is the best example of that principle – he turned a horrendous ordeal in a concentration camp into deep insight about what is of true value in life.

                The point is that promoting and having a positive attitude will do so much more good than a negative one, and that is what should be emphasized.

                • Viktor Frankl did not, as far as I know, claim that the extermination camps or the death of his wife made his newly found understanding worthwhile.

                  • Letting go, I think I understand what you’re saying, but that’s not what I meant. Here are a couple of quotes from Victor Frankl’s book *Man’s Search for Meaning*:

                    “Most men in concentration camps believed that the real opportunities of life had passed. Yet, in reality, there was an opportunity and a challenge. One could make a victory of those experiences turning life into an inner triumph, or one could ignore the challenge and simply vegetate, as did a majority of the prisoners.”

                    “A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by some many thinkers. The truth – that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.”

                • “There is a degree of negativity that goes beyond what is needed”

                  Who gets to determine what is needed?
                  Who gets to decide if people need to be protected?

                  Slippery slope…

                  • I think one simply needs to put the information out there, as unfiltered as possible, and let people do what they want to do with it.

                    I would supply information that makes people around me behave in a more intelligently because I feel more secure then.

                  • “Who gets to determine what is needed?”

                    I would say each individual would have to do so for himself, and that they need to look at various things, including the one I tried to express in my comment – the factor of putting out a lot of negativity vs. how much actual need there is for it, i.e. the need for it at this point in time and for the particular segment of the population they’re actually reaching with their comments. Otherwise, the continuous repetition is just putting out negativity into the universe without much, if any. redeeming benefit.

                    In addition to the above, each person needs to look honestly at their true motives. Some people are probably just jumping on the band wagon; others have some type of ego investment, or some other non-constructive reason. Vinaire makes a good point too – to supply information based simply on what makes people behave more intelligently. That involves a variety of things to take into consideration, IMHO.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Marildi;
                      It I were to run a research project, you would be my data manager. When someone comes up with a Ron quote that they have a problem with, you come up with 4 references that puts it in it’s proper perspective. Not everything Ron said was perfect, of course, but you are able to bring forth applicable data that properly aligns the data, good or bad, right, mostly right, some right, partly right, mostly wrong, all wrong.

                      You are valuable.
                      Mark

                    • Aw, thanks, Mark. I figure if we’re talking about what LRH thought or said, if at all possible we ought to see exactly what it was! So I’ve gotten some good practice at finding the references.😉

              • Alanzo,
                “It is the delivery of the OT Levels and the super-human capabilities that were sold with them that justified all the overts that any OSA member or volunteer, or sea org member ever committed on anyone.”

                I wish I had read that before my interview with Tony O. That is powerful.

                GMW

          • Alanzo,

            “You broke that teaching.”

            Thanks for the kind words.
            Thirty days ago I was advised to “not break” that teaching. That’s interesting because it has been almost 26 years since OT 8. It made me think about the strong bonds that we were subjected to. In the end, I ignored the advice but I still pondered it.

            George M. White

            • Geroge, IMO you were the one who gave the real blow, or at least the decisive one, to the whole cover-up by Miscavige, and for that you are to be highly commended. I also think what you did will help open the door to a better understanding of both LRH/Scientology and Miscavige. That will probably need to include a better understanding of Aleister Crowley too – another individual whose ideas have been interpreted and assessed in widely different ways. If I remember right, Marty hinted one time that he is going to take up the subject of Crowley and LRH in a coming book. It could be that your speaking out regarding this OT VIII bulletin will have its effect on that too – and who knows what else! 🙂

              • marildi,
                Thanks. I just had a long conversation with a non-scientologist, a very bright person who has been objectively following Scientology as an outside observer. In his opinion, there will be a re-interpretation starting in the press and working its way into academic circles. He feels that the public is entitled to the truth. Scientology has the image of a “nasty Dale Carnegie.” The occult aspects need to be carefully studied and discussed so that the religion is properly understood. There needs to be a unified understanding which transcends the image that Miscavige is projecting with his ideal orgs.”.

                Kind regards,
                GMW

                • Here is an attempt at a rational reinterpretation of Scientology.   http://vinaire.me/2013/07/24/scientology/

                  .

                  ________________________________

                  • vinaire,
                    I read parts of your blog and find the information to be very well organized. You have an impressive background having experience at a top school such as MIT in Massachusetts.
                    My idea now is to study the current survey research on religion and Scientology in America and in Europe. Scientology is small in numbers and so most of the professional research hardly mentions it. I have some distant background in mainstream survey research and I am thinking about what kind of value can be obtained from a sample of respondents.
                    Have you studied this type of data on Scientology. Is it on your blog?

                    Kind regards,
                    George M. White

                    • George,

                      Thanks, for checking out my blog. Just to clarify, I learnt a lot from Scientology, and I see a lot of positive and ground breaking aspects to Hubbard’s work. My effort is to preserve all that is positive and workable in Scientology. I am currently calling it KHTK (Knowing How to Know). The key document that Scientology has helped me prepare is the following.

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

                      No, I have not read any survey research data on Scientology that could be considered unbiased and scientific. But I am available to be surveyed by you.

                      Kind regards,
                      Vinaire

                • Wow, that is awesome, George.

                  “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
                  –Winston Churchill

                  “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”
                  –The Buddha

  33. Jamie,
    I saw your post on Tony O’s blog in regard to my number. The Certificate says #184 and that is correct. The other number came from an unpublished article I wrote which was later corrected.

    Kind regards,
    George M. White

  34. Marty

    Way off topic…. but…. If I may, I would like to direct your attention to a 1952 tape recording of LRH.

    I would like to enter in a link here, to an Underground Bunker post, that is probably one of the most significant pieces of information ever released on the nature of how Scientology was apparently created.

    http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/17/rare-tape-reveals-how-l-ron-hubbard-really-came-up-with-scientologys-space-cooties/

    This is a link to a tape which is presented as a video, but the video is just a written out version of what Ron and Mary Sue are saying.

    George White has given us some data on OT VIII, “Truth Revealed”, but for me, this tape is truly “truth revealed” as to where Scientology seems to have actually come from, and perhaps, the “truth” of any “truths” that Ron may have ever uttered.

    I have been stunned for days! This tape has totally altered my concept of “scientology”. It is not the actual “narratives” that Ron is presenting, but the method of “research” that he is using, that is so revealing.

    I am guessing that this tape reveals the “scientific research” that Ron did in order to come up with perhaps the major part of all of the data he has talked about in all his tapes and bulletins, policy, etc.

    As someone on Tony’s blog noted, it is more “seance” than “science”.

    What a lot of hot air, Q and A, and pure fantasy!

    Amazing!

    Eric

    • I always thought that Scientology processes basically came out of Hubbard trying to handle his own case.

      It was not too bad as long as processes were general and allowed the other person to come up with his/her own incidents. But all the sci-fi stuff in Scientology theory is entirely from Hubbard’s own case.

      ________________________________

      • Hi Vinaire

        At a guess I suppose that most of what Ron came up with was done the same way. It would be interesting to get some data from Dan Koon, or someone from “compilations”. to shed more light on that.

        I had pretty much left most of Scientology behind, though there were/are some things that I was “clinging” to. Seems that I will need to turn over EVERY rock and review all LRH data with this new information added into the mix.

        Serves me right for not having done the job right in the first place. However, it has presented a great learning opportunity.

        Eric

        • Hi Eric,

          I have been looking at Scientology with mindfulness for some time now. I have realized that Scientology works only when mindfulness is applied with it.

          Mindfulness has revealed to me many inconsistencies in Scientology. I am recoding them on my blog as I come acros them. The biggest inconsistency that I have found is that Scientology is heavily SELF-CENTRIC (reality is the subset of self), whereas, Buddhism is REALITY-CENTRIC (selves are subset of reality). See

          http://vinaire.me/2014/06/19/theism-atheism-and-non-theism/

          Vinaire

    • Hi Eric,

      When I listened to that tape, I didn’t get that this was the totality of Ron’s research techniques. I saw it as a way of coming up with some hypotheses to then research on pcs.

      I just did a google search and found a post of Dan Koon’s that gives an example of how an idea LRH got from a personal experience of his was then tested on others. Dan’s post then turns into an interesting discussion on the general subject of the benefits of the tech vs. the mistakes LRH made. Here’s the link:

      http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientologists-running-around-in-circles/#comment-27555

      • I did the running program when it was piloted around 1982 at Flag in Clearwater. The guinea pigs were the RPF, and I was one of them. It was life changing for me. I was then made the Running Program I/C. I got to read the LRH messages that Dan Koon is talking about.

        LRH basically drew from his subjective experiences to come up with processes, which he then experimented on other people. Sometimes they worked and other times they did not work.

        Hubbard’s approach was empirical. His hypotheses have not been proven scientifically. His processes have workability of a shot gun. But that is enough to provide hope to many who have run out of quick solutions.

        • Vin, good post up to the last part:

          “His processes have workability of a shot gun. But that is enough to provide hope to many who have run out of quick solutions.”

          You’ve already said you haven’t read any research and, as far as I know, you haven’t done any yourself either, so what is the above statement based on?

          I have no research data either, but the people I know, or know of through their comments, who were long-term auditors have stated that most of the time the tech worked very well, and that there was only a small minority who didn’t get good results. This is mainly in reference to the years before Miscavige took over.

          • My research is on my blog.🙂

            • You wrote that “His processes have workability of a shot gun.” I haven’t read your whole blog, but I’ve seen many of your comments over the last few years, and I haven’t seen anything that supports that statement other than your personal, philosophical viewpoints.

              An example is in a comment you just wrote on this thread: “I know one thing – Hubbard’s self-centric hypothesis of THETA – MEST Theory is incorrect.” There are other thinkers who share that viewpoint – and others who don’t. So again, this isn’t research – it’s just philosophical hypothesizing, as far as I can see.

              In the comment before, you wrote: “Hubbard’s approach was empirical. His hypotheses have not been proven scientifically.” If there is anything on your blog regarding even empirical findings that Hubbard’s processes have a shotgun workabillity, please give the link.

              • Marildi, I am doing my independent research of what works. I have done many, many hours of word clearing and debugging while in Scientology. I did lot of auditing in RPF. Outside of Scientology I have delivered many, many hours of Idenics to people around the world on phone, Skype and face-to-face. Total hours run in thousands. Basics of mind are the same. I find the mindfulness approach the most accurate.

                So it is from experience that I have made my statement. I won’t go into details right now as I have to go somewhere. But I will stand by what I wrote. Here is something that you may find interesting.

                http://vinaire.me/2013/04/06/running-scientology-grade-0-with-mindfulness-part-1/

                Vinay

                ________________________________ From: Moving On Up a Little Higher To: vinaire@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 4:06 PM Subject: [New comment] Basics

                WordPress.com marildi commented: “You wrote that “His processes have workability of a shot gun.” I haven’t read your whole blog, but I’ve seen many of your comments over the last few years, and I haven’t seen anything that supports that statement other than your personal, philosophical vi” Respond to this comment by replying above this line New comment on Moving On Up a Little Higher marildi commented on Basics. in response to vinaire: My research is on my blog.🙂 You wrote that “His processes have workability of a shot gun.” I haven’t read your whole blog, but I’ve seen many of your comments over the last few years, and I haven’t seen anything that supports that statement other than your personal, philosophical viewpoints. An example is in a comment you just wrote on this thread: “I know one thing – Hubbard’s self-centric hypothesis of THETA – MEST Theory is incorrect.” There are other thinkers who share that viewpoint – and others who don’t. So again, this isn’t research – it’s just philosophical hypothesizing, as far as I can see.

                • My question was “If there is anything on your blog regarding even empirical findings that Hubbard’s processes have only a shotgun workabillity, please give the link.”

                  It’s great that you are doing research of your own. I’m sincerely in favor of that. But I don’t see the connection between research and experience with other processes and your conclusion about Hubbard’s processes.

                  • Marildi, I find debating and trying to prove a point a waste of time. I have my opinion based on my experience. Your experience is different and so you have a different opinion. 

                    I express my opinion, and you express your opinion. Let’s leave it at that.   

                    ________________________________

                    • Vin, I wasn’t asking you to prove anything. I just wanted to know in a general way what your experience was that led you to the evaluations you made. That’s hardly a debate. If you’re going to make such flat-out statements, I don’t think you should be surprised to be asked what they’re based on. But sure, we can leave it at that.

                    • Marildi, why are you making it so confrontational? These are just opinions. You have your opinion, I have mine. You seem to be trying to defend something. If so, then go ahead and defend. One defends one’s viewpoint by making it more clear. I don’t believe that one defends by attacking.

                      My intention is to learn and not to defend anything. I am not attacking you. Why don’t you just relax and learn through discussion. Please see

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

                      .

                      ________________________________

                    • “One defends one’s viewpoint by making it more clear. I don’t believe that one defends by attacking.”

                      Vinnie, I don’t know how I could have been more clear. I gave you the basis of my opinion – which was just an opinion and wasn’t meant to try to prove anything; it only answered the question of how I came up with it. And that’s all I wanted you to do when I asked how you got the idea that auditing had only a shotgun workability. I really don’t know how you can categorize that as an attack

                      Actually, asking for the basis of an assertion IS part of discussion, per my understanding. Here are the definitions from Mirriam-Webster:

                      “Full Definition of DISCUSSION
                      1: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
                      2. a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing”
                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion

                    • I hope the following response clarifies my viewpoint.

                      https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/basics/#comment-307617 

                      ________________________________

          • Mark N Roberts

            Hi Marildi.

            I need your help.
            The last long post I wrote concerned scanning up through related incidents AFTER an apparent basic is reached and an understanding is gained. I went over this with my father and he said “Of course. When new data is received, old data must be re-aligned.”

            I do not know what reference lays out and explains this. This one fact is self explanatory to me, but I am sure there is additional data concerning it. It will also help in designing a system that is broadly workable for others as well as myself.

            This is important in that making auditing gains permanent has been a problem in some areas of Scn. auditing. In my work, this has been a solid direction but there are additional details that could help me devise a smooth and do-able system for others.
            Thanks, Mark.

            • Hi Mark,

              The only thing I know of goes back to a 1950 DAB titled “Standard Procedure.” Here’s an excerpt (bolding is mine):

              “2. When the auditor gets an erasure early he should keep asking the file clerk for the earliest moment of pain or discomfort which can now be reached and proceed up the case until he has all engrams erased. Sometimes when he gets later painful emotion off a case he can go back and find early engrams which were previously bypassed. If none of these things, go to step 3.

              3…“However, a case may bog down because painful emotion has come to view. Grief is then discharged and THE ERASURE CONTINUED THEREAFTER FROM THE BASIC AREA UPWARDS.
              […]
              “Start in basic area and PROCEED TO PRESENT TIME, ERASING ALL ENGRAMS ON THE WAY.” (The Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin, Volume 1, Nos. 1-2 July-August, 1950, “Standard Procedure”)
              .

              As you probably know, however, Standard Dianetics and NED came later and operate on a whole different principle:

              “When the basic on the chain is found and erased, that which composes the poles themselves is erased and later incidents eased, for no further generation is possible by that chain and it becomes incapable of producing further charge to be restimulated.” (HCOB 8 June 63R “The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains. Bulletin 2, Handling the Time Track” 8 June 63R)
              .

              Btw, I’ve read posts that raved about Robert Ducharme’s developments in Dianetics to what he called R3X, which is supposed to address things that have been problematic in Dianetics auditing. See pages 27, 33, and 37 at this link: http://www.ivymag.org/cyberivy/IVy_103.pdf

              • I said bolding is mine but I meant to say caps are mine. And I should also have put in caps this part from the first quote:

                “…AND PROCEED UP THE CASE until he has all engrams erased.”

                • Mark N Roberts

                  Thanks, Marildi.
                  My query was actually related more to Study Tech or the Data Series. I was searching for additional data related to “New data and how it re-aligns existing data”. This is key to auditing beyond the MEST bank.

                  There are many phrases to explain what the actual purpose of auditing really is. Erasing mass, releasing stuck postulates, gaining the ability to change ones mind, getting one into present time, etc.

                  One explanation is “Putting into proper alignment all your existing data”.

                  My father couldn’t recall the references since the knowledge he has amassed has become his own through use and observation and is no longer stored as memories of things he has studied. Most people tend to store their memories as mass in their brains, but knowledge is mass-less.

                  My dad’s computer (brain) is over 90 yrs old and soon in need of replacement.
                  Mark
                  PS; Last time around my dad was a longshoreman and general thug in the NY/NJ area. Before that, a farmer in SE France. He has better plans for the future.

                  • Mark: “There are many phrases to explain what the actual purpose of auditing really is. Erasing mass, releasing stuck postulates, gaining the ability to change ones mind, getting one into present time, etc.”

                    Yes, and even before trying to develop improvements on the tech, one should have a basic idea of what the ultimate PURPOSE is – which is what I had in mind in my other reply to you today, i.e. the question at the end of it.

                    “My query was actually related more to Study Tech or the Data Series. I was searching for additional data related to “New data and how it re-aligns existing data”. This is key to auditing beyond the MEST bank.”

                    The study tape “Evaluation of Information” comes to mind. Here’s a quote:

                    “But the evaluation of what you want it for – how are you studying it – which direction it’s going, and so forth, is all part and parcel to the whole subject of study.”

                    The above is again placing PURPOSE as central.

                    As for the Data Series, I haven’t studied it very much but I am quite sure you would love it – I consider it brilliant, just from having a basic familiarity with it. One thing in that series that aligns again with the idea of purpose is Data Series 10 “The Missing Scene”:

                    “The biggest ‘omitted data’ would be the whole scene.

                    “A person who does not know how the scene should be can thereafter miss most of the outpoints in it.” (HCO PL 23 June 70)

                    Btw, in light of all the above, it’s good that your dad has worked out his plans for the future.🙂

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Thanks for the references, Marildi.
                      I am going over those and others to pick additional information. My purpose for auditing has changed as I have changed. It started as an unburdening, progressed to search and discovery, and is heading toward cleanliness.
                      Mark

              • Mark N Roberts

                Hello there, Marildi.
                Thank you so much for your help.
                Here is the reference that got me started on this vital line of research:

                CLEARING COURSE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET
                MECHANICS OF THE BANK

                Anything in the bank that occurs several times will not erase unless it’s the earliest time it occurred. This is known as the basic on the “chain”. A number of similar things, early to late in different points of time make a chain.
                When you have the earliest erased, the rest erases easily. HOWEVER, WHEN THE EARLIEST ONE IS ERASED THE NEXT TO LAST IS THE NEW “BASIC” AND MUST BE ERASED IN IT’S TURN.” And so on. As this goes on, the items of the chain eventually begin to “blow” (erase) very easily……………..
                1967 L. Ron Hubbard.
                Emphasize “…the items of THE chain eventually begin to blow…”. That is, items on the same chain as you go back up the track.

                NED was designed to release as much MEST bank as quickly as possible by going to the apparent basic of a chain of similar events and then getting to another and then another. It does not produce a full understanding of all related occurrences and the gains can be reduced or lost with time and as crossing chains are restimulated. All chains relate and cross with many others. It is the opinions, considerations, forgotten decisions that hold them all together. This is NOT the MEST bank. THE THETAN CAN RE-CREATE ANY MASS IT HAS AS-ISed AT ANY TIME. Gaining a full understanding of incidents and how they relate removes any reason you may have for re-creating the bank.

                Don’t get me wrong here. PCs should do NED as written to release as much bank as possible and get through to Clear as currently defined. One should then handle the relationship with and obsessive and denied comm lines with other beings (BTs or other people, whether real or imagined). One can then do wholesale whole track work without overwhelm or caving in to everyone else’s past. Lower grades for OTs is the key to that. (Thanks to Ken Ogger for the idea, although he wasn’t able to complete it.)

                It seems that Ron assumed that anyone doing the clearing course would soon be through the OT levels, and that he would soon develop the means to go beyond the MEST bank and handle all reasons to bring it back. He, instead, got stuck on BTs and never got that far. I am fortunate to have the advantage of his work, 50 years of observation, and my own and others work.

                But it is not enough for me to get more from my auditing. I have to develop the means for others to employ this principle without OVERRUN and building up BY-PASS CHARGE. The psychotic breaks experienced by a few and the disappointments experienced by many on the OT levels must be overcome for large numbers.

                Even those who are happy with the gains they have made are so because 1. they have been in such bad shape for so, so long and any relief is wonderful, and 2. they are looking forward to much greater gains that are promised but not yet actually developed.

                This one principle is an important step in that direction.
                Thanks for your help. Any thoughts?
                Mark

                • Wow, that’s a juicy post! My first thought was “There’s more than one way to skin a catfish.”🙂 Seriously, though, I really appreciate the fact that you are doing research with the intention of finding the smoothest, most efficient “way.”

                  You wrote: “It [NED] does not produce a full understanding of all related occurrences and the gains can be reduced or lost with time and as crossing chains are restimulated.”

                  That seems right to me, from what I’ve studied as well as from the personal experiences described by a number of Independents.

                  Since you asked for my thoughts, I’ll tell you one viewpoint I think has some merit, with regard to the whole Bridge as it was finalized: Basically, everything up through Clear gives a pc just enough gain to be able to continue to the next level, and after Clear to be able to run the OT levels. Incidentally, something you may already know is that Ron wanted a pilot done to have pc’s go straight from OT II onto NOTs (OT IV-VII), skipping OT III – which Miscaviage never complied with.

                  In any case, regarding NOTs – its purpose/EP is “Cause over LIFE.” When I consider what is audited on those levels – basically, thetans (whether the pc himself or BT’s) – I have in mind what I think is the appropriate definition of LIFE:

                  LIFE, …3 . a static, which yet has the power of controlling, animating, mobilizing, organizing and destroying matter, energy and space, and possibly even time. (HFP, p. 24) 4 . a thought or mind or beingness that conceives there are forms, masses, spaces, and difficulties. (HPCA-64, 5608C–) 5 . that which is posing and solving problems. (UPC 11)

                  With the above concept of “life,” the EP of NOTs, “Cause over life,” would make sense in terms of a pc no longer being the effect of “BT’s.” As with the State of Clear, however, the EP of NOTs may only be a relative or temporary state. In any case, NOTs completion is the pre-req for the final OT level, OT VIII, and according to the Student Briefing, the pc was to be very sure his NOTs was complete.

                  It’s pretty clear that Ron didn’t achieve his postulates of producing “full OTs.” However, one other factor to take into consideration is that the original OT levels were never cancelled by Ron. It will be interesting to see what occurs with Independents who do continue with NOTs after OT III (or II) and then do the original OT levels, which drill OT abilities, before going on to OT VIII.

                  The question I would put back to you, Mark, is what your thoughts are on the purpose of auditing. In other words, what OT abilities and state do we want to achieve? And how does that relate to playing the MEST-universe game?

                  • Mark N Roberts

                    Hi again, Marildi.
                    The future of my auditing and playing the MEST universe game.

                    My plans right now is to begin going over implants related to being human. It is no small task. The number and frequency of these implants is immense. They were cleverly designed to be misleading and very durable. Looking at them alone does not release them, since they are based on early postulates and agreements which do not seem aberative. It is a very tangled mess. Many of the early implants were actually instruction manuals which were touted as ‘helpful’ in getting along and operating in universes. Add to that, implants related to death and rebirth are advertised as ‘making a clean start’, erasing the pains of the last life.

                    Death and rebirth, you were told, WAS EQUIVALENT TO AN INSTANT CLEARING COURSE. Dump all your accumulated mass and start off clean. And it actually works, only the cure is worse than the illness.

                    As for MEST universe games? There is actually nothing really wrong with MEST universes in general as long as you know everything about it. So, the next 3 or 400 yrs. will be spent getting totally hatted. Sounds like fun.
                    Mark

              • Mark N Roberts

                Hi Marildi.
                My Dad read Dia. in 1950 (first edition first printing) and did the Standard Dianetics course in 1969 (Mk 5 meter). I used to hold the cans when he drilled.

                I have been going over R3X as you suggested. It will become a valuable part of my technique. I have touted the value of being thorough in the past. Thank You.

                I have been recently reminded that it is time to expand my work to start helping others. I didn’t do my internships and never became completely comfortable with a PC under my watch. That is overdue. Many people have stated that they got as much from training and auditing as from being audited. No man is an island.

                Thanks, Dio. everyone needs a kick in the pants every now and then.
                Mark

                • Hi Mark,

                  Yes, I got that you like to be thorough.😉 Glad that you found R3X valuable for you.

                  “Many people have stated that they got as much from training and auditing as from being audited. No man is an island.”

                  I’m definitely one of those people! Good for you on your plan to do more training.🙂

                  ARCL,
                  marildi

      • Hi Marildi

        No, I am not saying that this was the method of ALL of Ron’s research, but it does give me pause for thought as to how much, and what.

        When I consider much of the content of LRH’s tapes, I can just see Ron rambling on while watching the e-meter for reads, and then announcing the “confirmed” pronunceamentos (cognitions?) as FACT in the lectures.

        Regarding “the Running Program”, it seems, from what Dan Koon says, that Ron originally got the idea from an incident HE ran. (or looked at) I am guessing that that incident’s “reality” was “confirmed” by meter phenomena. So.. now… because Ron looked at something “in the mind” (his mind) and decided that “running” was the “why” for the perceived (or imagined) change, it now becomes a “blanket CS” that “will work on EVERYBODY.”

        Yes, he seems to have experimented with it on some people first, but…. Hmmmm…

        I understand that I am challenging the very foundation of the “tech”, and even the philosophy of Scientology here, but I think it is a fair challenge, and encourages me to be more vigilant in my evaluation of the “data” of Scientology.

        It is opening doors.

        Eric

        • Hi Eric,

          I think Hubbard did believe in those E-meter responses to be the truth because they came from deep within him. I think he had similar experience through automatic writing. 

          This seems to be a phenomenon similar to Muhammad receiving the Quran, or Crowley receiving the Book of Law. It is looked upon as coming from some mysterious source that is beyond one’s identity. Of course, it appears quite coherent to the person and so he believes in it truth.

          I believe that there is no mysterious source. This material comes to the person from logical circuits deep withing him that somehow bypass his identity filters. 

          If there are inconsistencies in such “revealed materials,” they are not apparent to the person. However, such inconsistencies can be spotted with the scientific method. But I do not think that Hubbard followed the scientific method exactly because he was very critical of anything that was wog and differed from his system.

          Vinaire 

          ________________________________

          • Hi Vinaire

            Yes, he seems to be “channeling” himself. Curious “scientific method” for sure. I have wondered whether Ron actually used any real “scientific method” at all. Perhaps lip service, but the real deal… ?

            Eric

            • One of the main things LRH is criticized about is how he went about his research. Here is one explanation he gave, from 8-8008:

              “The work which lies before you is a discussion of beingness and is the track of agreement which became evidently the MEST universe. Therefore this work appears to be logical. But it appears also to be the central thread of logic.

              “Apparently, these conclusions were reached by logic; they were not, they were reached by observation and by induction. That, when tested, they proved themselves in terms of behavior, demonstrates not that they are logical – but that they are, at least to a large extent, a discussion of beingness.

              “Scientific logic and mathematical logic have the frailty of trying to find out what is there before one goes there. One cannot ever be, if he has to know a datum about the beingness first. If one is afraid to be, one will become, of course, logical.

              “This is no effort to be abusive upon the subject of logic or mathematics. It is only necessary at this point to indicate a certain difference between what lies before you and a logical arrangement of assumption.” (Scientology 8-8008)

              • On logic:

                “Logic is a gradient scale of association of facts, of greater or lesser similarity, made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future, but mainly to resolve and predict the future.

                “Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind, when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to BE these objects one is observing, thus one can KNOW their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects, it is necessary to ASSUME what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects, and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or ‘known law,’ bring about logic.”

        • Eric, you’re right – you didn’t say ALL Ron’s research but you did “guess…that MOST of what Ron came up with was done the same way.”

          You also wrote: “I can just see Ron rambling on while watching the e-meter for reads, and then announcing the ‘confirmed’ pronunciamentos (cognitions?) as FACT in the lectures..”

          I hope you’re not basing your views on one tape in which Ron is simply exploring ideas to see what gave meter reads, as far as we know, and we don’t actually know whether any tech came out of that exploration alone, or that there was no related research done after that.

          As for the Running Program, per Dan Koon, it wasn’t an incident of Ron’s that it was based on. It was his whole track recall of observing the benefits it gave to others – and he also did a pilot on it, according to Vinarie, who has first-hand knowledge about that and who also had great wins doing it. On the thread I linked, one of the posters also talked about her great gains on that program.

          I heartily agree with you and encourage you to “be more vigilant in your evaluation” but I hope you’re not doing a bit of a pendulum swing from too easily accepting what Ron said to doing something like the opposite.😉

          • I know one thing – Hubbard’s self-centric hypothesis of THETA – MEST Theory is incorrect.🙂

          • Hi Marildi

            You said: “As for the Running Program, per Dan Koon, it wasn’t an incident of Ron’s that it was based on. It was his whole track recall of observing the benefits it gave to others –”

            When I go to the link that you provided, it takes me directly to a post by Dan Koon that includes the following statement: —

            — “As for being the result of whole track research, LRH began telling messengers in Spring/Summer 1982 about way back on the track when some guy had done something to LRH and LRH got mad and started chasing the guy. He chased him for a long time and when he finally caught the guy, the guy had turned sane. He had keyed out of whatever had made him do what he had done to LRH. LRH then took that idea and began a rehabilitation project to help people who had been roughed up by that particular space opera society.” —

            As far as basing my views on one tape… well… yes, to a large extent. But I suspect that neither you nor I have any idea how many other such tapes were made, and how much similar “research” may have been done before Ron decided to start recording them. This one tape may be the only one that still exists,(or is buried, along with other similar ones, in one of Scientology’s vaults.) and I am guessing that it was never meant that it see the light of day. For me, it is a “string” worth giving a little tug. “Sherman tanks” may pale by comparison to what that might reveal.

            In that tape Ron talks about “capturing a BT” the night before. I have never heard such a tape, but I suspect it was made. Yes, just a guess, but it seems likely to me.

            Apparently Ron had stacks and stacks of “PC” folders. By my recall of some of the things said about how the “compilations unit” worked, these folders were apparently culled for “data” that was used in developing new processes. There were apparently also notations by Ron, that were used. This is why I am curious about more details on exactly how, and where the information came from.

            Yes, the pendulum is swinging, for sure, but to arrive at a correct “why” you need correct data, and to be able to evaluate that data accurately, so I tend to want to investigate possible new data sources.

            Thank you for your concern, but I feel I am in good hands…

            MY OWN!🙂

            Eric

            • Hi Eric,

              The sentence that follows the quote you gave of Dan Koon’s post was this one:

              “He had them running around a piece of space junk or an asteroid or something and they would eventually get control of themselves again and be okay once more.”

              That’s what I was referring to with regard to his whole track recall of having tested the idea. Furthermore, he didn’t leave it at that (just his recall) but did a pilot on it as well.

              And again, I see nothing wrong with his using the meter as a preliminary way of exploring ideas, since the meter has proven workability.

              All that said, I fully agree with your viewpoint of the importance of “investigating new data sources.”

              ARC,
              marildi

              • Please allow me to make the following comments regarding the E-meter.

                The E-meter reacts to both reactive and analytical thought. In the beginning it picks up the obvious reactive thoughts connected with an unwanted condition. But once the inconsistencies associated with these thoughts are resolved, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish reactive thoughts from analytical thoughts. This makes Scientology approach to case resolution uncertain. One effect of this uncertainty is endless ‘auditing of entities’ that occurs on OT levels. The other effect is conditioning where one believes that one is getting better and powerful while unwanted conditions persist.

                Thus, an E-meter may appear to be helpful in the beginning, but on a long term basis it creates dependency and leads to conditioning.  

                ________________________________

                • Here again, I see numerous statements being made without giving any basis or support for them.

                  • Marildi, my opinion is based on my experience. I have satisfied myself with the basis that supports it. That is enough for me. I have no intention to prove my opinions to you as I consider it a waste of time. You are within your rights to reject my opinions that don’t agree with yours. 

                    ________________________________

                    • “You are within your rights to reject my opinions that don’t agree with yours.”

                      Yes – and I said what my experience was that I based it on. That’s all I was asking you for. Your only answer was to say you had a lot of experience with another method. I don’t see the connection with that and the statements you made, but if that’s all there is to it then that tells me what I wanted to know.

                    • Marildi, Basically, you provide quotes from LRH and videos from internet. I do not consider such things to be personal experience. Personal experience comes from how one has been affected  by certain exposure, and that is expressed as opinion.   You form your opinion from what you have been exposed to. I form my opinion from what I have been exposed to. So, our opinions differ. I do not undersatnd what are you looking for. If you want to justify your opinion further then go had and do that. 

                      My purpose is to learn and not to defend some ideology. If you feel that I do not understand something then please explain your viewpoint. I shall explain my viewpoint when I feel you do not understand something. Right now I am not challenging your viewpoint.

                      ________________________________

                    • p.s. I guess I don’t think it’s fair to make such broad criticisms and not give any real basis for it. So to be honest, that’s what I wanted to make clear.

                    • Marildi, Broad criticism goes both ways – in favor or not in favor. Your “in favor” criticism is very broad too. 

                      If you feel my opinion is flawed, then please enlighten me, instead of asking me to prove it. I have no bone in your fight.  

                      ________________________________

                    • Vin, I’ll reply here to both of the above comments.

                      You wrote: “Basically, you provide quotes from LRH and videos from internet. I do not consider such things to be personal experience.”

                      Actually, that wasn’t what occurred in this exchange between the two of us. Here is exactly what I said with regard to my experience:

                      “I have no research data either, but the people I know, or know of through their comments, who were long-term auditors have stated that most of the time the tech worked very well, and that there was only a small minority who didn’t get good results. This is mainly in reference to the years before Miscavige took over.”

                      And again, that was not intended as any kind of proof, or to “defend some ideology” – it was only to show the reason I didn’t understand why you would state that auditing has only shotgun workability. I don’t see the problem with simply answering the question. Your idea of discussion must be different than the definitions I know.

                    • I am sorry that I was not clear. There are hundreds, or maybe thousands of processes in Scientology. There are millions and billions of different cases out there. Not all processes work the same way on every case. That is why you have so many processes on each grade. Sometimes these processes work in different sequences on different people. For this reason, at one time the battery of processes were to be run several times.

                      So, yes, it is a shot gun approach. How else would you describe it? Do you think that every Scientology processes provides gain to every preclear the same way?

                      Some processes may not work at all on some preclears. That is why there are correction lists and debug tech as part of standard tech.

                      .

                    • Vin, what you describe doesn’t the definition of “shotgun” as I understand it:

                      “covering a wide field with hit-or-miss effectiveness”

                      “covering a wide area in an irregularly effective manner without concern for details or particulars; tending to be all-inclusive, nonselective, and haphazard; indiscriminate in choice and indifferent to specific results: ‘He favored the shotgun approach in his political attacks.'”

                    • I like the definition “covering a wide field with hit-or-miss effectiveness.”
                      🙂

                    • Okay. here’s the definition of hit-or-miss: “as likely to be unsuccessful as successful.”

                      You still haven’t given any data, such as your own or what you know of others’ actual experience. that indicates the tech is “as likely to be unsuccessful as successful.”

                      Even if what you say is true – as regards there being many processes and the results being different from pc to pc, etc. – it’s a logical leap to then conclude that there is as much likelihood for lack of success as for success.

                      As I wrote back at the beginning of this exchange, besides my personal experience, the long-term auditors I’ve known or read about on many websites have indicated that (pre-Miscavige era) most pc’s, even the vast majority, get good results – regardless of the fact that there are many processes and many different cases and many different cognitions.

                      then I understood your statement – and that’s why I asked what you based it on. There isn’t anything you’ve written that indicates

                    • Marildi, have you read my story of getting introduced to America and Scientology?

                      http://vinaire.me/2012/02/26/my-intro/

                      ________________________________

                    • TLDR🙂

                      Actually, I read it a couple years ago. As I recall, you had a very good experience when you started out in Scientology. It makes my point very well.😉

                    • That explains your inconsistent statement “There isn’t anything you’ve written that indicates.”  

                      ________________________________

                    • Vin, that sentence had no period (although you added one) because it wasn’t completed – which was why I added the post following that one and stated that those last lines should have been deleted. The complete sentence would have been “There isn’t anything you’ve written that indicates what you stated regarding shotgun workability.”

                    • How does my story, according to your understanding, contradicts the “shot gun model” of Scientology auditing?

                    • That was said tongue in cheek, as was indicated by the wink:

                      “As I recall, you had a very good experience when you started out in Scientology. It makes my point very well.😉 “

                      I’ll add, however, that it’s kind of odd that you yourself apparently had good results with Scientology, according to many of your comments – plus the fact that you don’t even give anecdotal evidence that would indicate the results in general are hit and miss. And yet you make the unqualified statement that the tech has only gunshot workability.

                      Now, if you have any further question, please re-read the exchange. I don’t want to keep repeating myself.

                    • Marildi, your complaint that I don’t answer your questions fits perfectly under point #5 of discussion policy. You just filter out what you don’t like. 5. Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.

                      A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is this complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer adequate? Why is the other person’s stance being looked upon as “no-answer”?

                      If he then finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible. 

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

                      ________________________________

                    • “Marildi, your complaint that I don’t answer your questions…”

                      Let’s be accurate, Vinnie. You weren’t answering the question for most of this exchange, and when you finally did (in the post above where you started out “I am sorry that I was not clear…”), I accepted it as an ANSWER.and continued the discussion from there – where I wrote that “what you describe doesn’t fit the definition of ‘shotgun’ as I understand it”.

                      Just because a person disagrees with an answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t accepted AS an answer. The discussion continues from there. It isn’t like a session where the auditor accepts the answer no matter how illogical or what have you. In any case, if you haven’t duplicated by now my disagreement with your reasoning on this point, or aren’t willing to, I have no wish to continue beating this into the ground!

                    • Why do you consider that the “shot gun model” does not apply to Scientology auditing?

                    • I’ll quote my post above:

                      “As I wrote back at the beginning of this exchange, besides my personal experience, the long-term auditors I’ve known or read about on many websites have indicated that (pre-Miscavige era)MOST pc’s, even the vast majority, get good results – regardless of the fact that there are many processes and many different cases and many different cognitions.”

                      That does not fit with the definition of shotgun, which means “hit or miss” – i.e. “as likely to be unsuccessful as successful.”

                    • Oops, that last “paragraph” should have been deleted.

                    • Also see how many people were shunted to “ethics” as PTS/SPs. These are all failure of tech in my eyes.

                      .

              • Hi again Marildi

                OK, I get the part about the space junk. I missed the bit where Ron seems to be saying that “…he had them running around a piece of space junk or an asteroid or something and they would eventually get control of themselves again…” (not sure I can figure out how you get someone to “run around an asteroid” but perhaps that is getting a bit picky.) Again though, it suggests that Ron “ran” the incidents where he was doing this. It is subjective recall. Or, perhaps he just made a statement like”… Oh yes, I had guys running around a piece of space junk or an asteroid until they went sane…” and glances down at the meter and sees a fall… Data confirmed!

                One of the difficulties we seem to be having with this communication is that I do not consider that a read on the meter “proves” anything, nor is it a reliable method of confirming data. On the other hand you seem to grant such reads with a lot more credibility. Your experiences as an auditor have likely helped with your certainty on this. I doubt that I have done anywhere near as much auditing as you, but the data and experience that I do have has led me to different conclusions.

                I can see where you are coming from through your communication, but I simply can no longer go there myself.

                Regarding the data from “8-8008″… Thank you for hunting that down.

                Seems that I tend more toward logic or deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning.

                I “wiki ed” Inductive reasoning and got this:…. “Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given…”

                In either case it can be tough when you are dealing with subjective data, but I think I prefer deductive reasoning for now.

                • Hi again Eric,

                  You wrote: “One of the difficulties we seem to be having with this communication is that I do not consider that a read on the meter ‘proves’ anything, nor is it a reliable method of confirming data. On the other hand you seem to grant such reads with a lot more credibility.”

                  No, not really. I don’t think a read proves anything either. Neither did Ron, actually. I don’t have the reference handy, but I’m sure you’re familiar with it. He basically stated that when something reads, all you know is that it read – and now you have to determine what it read on. It might have read on “suppressed,” “invalidated,” or “misunderstood,” or maybe it was a protest read.

                  You also wrote: “I can see where you are coming from through your communication, but I simply can no longer go there myself.”

                  As I wrote in a comment earlier on this thread, I agree with the idea that we should be both skeptical and open-minded. And I got the idea that you may have become a little overly skeptical.. In this exchange with you, however, I realized that, on my part, I may need to be a little more skeptical than I am. So I’m glad we had this exchange.😉

                  • Here are some further thoughts on meter reads and LRH.

                    I believe that a meter read simply reflects a reaction in the physical body. This physical reaction is assumed to be a reflection of a mental reaction, which occurs when something “inconsistent” has been observed. Such reaction is considered “instant” when it reflects a mental reaction before reasoning circuits kick in. A resolution of this reaction is marked by a floating needle.

                    A mental reaction does not imply truth or falsity because it is relative to some mental context. The mental reaction simply signals that there is an “inconsistency.” The next action in auditing is to determine what that inconsisteny is. An inconsistency would be something that is bothering the person.

                    A meter reaction is simply an invitation to look at what is there. Now it would depend on the person’s confront on what he looks at. He may look at some metaphor instead of looking at the real thing. This is the case when a person is looking through a filter.

                    It is my opinion that Hubbard was looking through a self-centric filter embellished by sci-fi visualizations. He may not be doing so knowingly. That is how the filter works.

                    ________________________________ From: Moving On Up a Little Higher To: vinaire@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 7:37 AM Subject: [New comment] Basics

                    WordPress.com marildi commented: “Hi aga

                  • Hi Marildi

                    Yes, I am familiar with the data that you refer to. It is one of my favorites actually. It is from a tape series called “The Basics of Auditing”. Ron basically says… ” When you get a read on the e-meter, all you really know is that you got a read. Now it is the auditors job to find out what made the meter read.”

                    Thank you for clearing up that you work from that viewpoint. My comment was a tad evaluative. I apologize.

                    Yes, skeptical and open minded… I was just looking at that and started to see that the two are not really that different in some ways. “Open minded” suggests a willingness to experience different realities, and “skeptical” suggests a willingness to question other realities. Sanity seems to require a harmonious balance of both.

                    But I really do think that I got what you said. Yes…my “skepticism dial” is set quite high on this one. It will take some fine tuning to get it just right.

                    Perhaps it is like riding a horse… one would want to give the horse as much freedom as possible, but one would also want to rein it in enough to achieve one’s purposes.

                    Thank you for your gentle nudges to review my own data and operating principles. It is always good to get an external viewpoint.

                    Eric

                    • Hi Eric,

                      “Yes, skeptical and open minded… I was just looking at that and started to see that the two are not really that different in some ways. ‘Open minded’ suggests a willingness to experience different realities, and ‘skeptical’ suggests a willingness to question other realities. Sanity seems to require a harmonious balance of both.”

                      Hey, that’s pretty good. It seems to me we are right on the point of the blog post – in effect, avoiding both “clinging to” and “resisting.”

                      I liked your “riding a horse” analogy too!

                      “Thank you for your gentle nudges to review my own data and operating principles. It is always good to get an external viewpoint.”

                      Ditto and ditto!🙂

                      ARC,
                      marildi

  35. “Objects arise in consciousness”

    Very astute of you, Marty. Those things that ‘arise’ in conscious make us what we are. They make us human.

    What’s the difference between a computer and a human?

    The computer is quicker, more accurate and more consistent.

    A human is more flexible. The human will put the square peg in the round hole, or at least believe it’s possible. Because, no matter what the shape, it’s just a matter of fitting an object into a place. Like fitting a million dollars into a briefcase. You have to know how to do it.

    See what I did there?

    Humans find a way.

    A computer may be very accurate and consistent, but they tend to classify things in a fixed and rigid way. Face recognition is a good example. Why can a human recognize someone’s face easier than a computer? Is it because humans recognize the basic idea of a face, even if the person changed their hair, or got a little older?

    Human consciousness has a fluidity that allows it stay on top of things, even in a changing world, even in situations we’ve never been in before.

    “objects that arise in consciousness pass through and depart from consciousness just as inexorably and as surely as they arise.”

    Television is like that. One minute you’re watching a show, the next, you’re watching something else… an image fills your mind, and then it is quickly replaced with something else. Kinda like the way thoughts and images ‘arise’ in our minds, each with their own “fifteen minutes of fame.”

    Why makes a certain thought arise in our mind? Are we unconsciously reminded us of things from our past? Things from the past to help explain the present? Or plan the future?

    If that is the basic function of the mind, then auditing undercuts it.

    When you remember a specific thing in session, it’s not like your Mom asking you, “Remember when we had that argument last week?” The auditor’s question is much more vague. You have to come up with something that fits the idea of the auditing question. If the auditor asks you for an ‘arc-break’ (an upsetting disagreement), you have to come up with something. That’s a form of free association.

    When Freud abandoned hypnosis in favor of free association, he noticed ‘transference’ – the patient transfers their deepest feelings, (like their childhood love for their parents), to the therapist. Why? The therapist says a word; the patient, in a relaxed state, says what ever comes into their mind. The therapist respects whatever the patient says as meaningful. Sort of like making friends, but going beneath the surface?

    But, in auditing, you’re not saying the first ‘word’ that comes into your mind.. you’re looking for the first MEMORY that comes into your mind. This free association is not word-association, it’s memory association.

    Why does one memory come to mind as opposed to another? That’s how our minds work. That’s where the rubber meets the road. That’s the unconscious, always processing information, and then submitting it for conscious approval. Auditing gets right in there.. it can be very intense! It addresses your brain function in a very global way, and adherents have been known to say things like, “I feel more myself!” But when you attach a belief system to that, that’s manipulative.

    Hubbard stumbled onto a technique, and then he exploited it.

    I’ve been in therapy and it’s not like auditing. Not at all. It’s not about walking out of the therapist’s office floating on air, ‘blown out’ from the fantastic ‘session’. In my experience, it was more about the therapist directing my attention in such a way as to help me deal with my problems. That takes time.

    Once people take a serious look at their problems and inner conflicts, it can be a very sobering experience.

    Auditing is a way of manipulating the mind into a state of wish fulfillment. It’s fun to feel good, to feel rejuvenated, to be happy, but happy about what? Happy you’re a thetan? When combined with the re-definition of words, when combined with the indoctrination into a space opera worldview, feelings of wish fulfillment can be very powerful. Are you just happy that you’re happy? Or has your mind been co-opted? The feelings experienced in auditing are used to confirm the magical (and ultimately exploitive) beliefs of Scientology. That’s wrong. That’s long con. That’s ‘black magic’, but spread out over a lifetime.

    • “When you remember a specific thing in session, it’s not like your Mom asking you, “Remember when we had that argument last week?” The auditor’s question is much more vague. You have to come up with something that fits the idea of the auditing question. If the auditor asks you for an ‘arc-break’ (an upsetting disagreement), you have to come up with something. That’s a form of free association.”

      My understanding of free association is that you let the mind make all the associations. You do not interfere with it.

      ________________________________

  36. The process of observation involves perceiving the patterns and then knowing what is there by giving meaning to those patterns.

    Adding meaning to patterns is what occurs during observation..

    http://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/#comment-24275
    .

  37. The assumption that ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ are two separate phenomena is in error. Like “space-time”, we have “spiritual-physical” as a single or relative phenomenon. Neither spirituality nor physicality is absolute in itself.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/06/25/awareness-and-light/
    .

  38. So how do you view something exactly for what it is?

    • You view something exactly for what it is by being aware of filters as much as possible. You may not get it 100% in the beginning, but as you keep on contemplating and keep removing the inconsistencies one by one, you may finally get there.

      http://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/

      .

      • When you see no inconcistencies in what you are viewing then you can be relatively certain that you are viewing something exactly for what it is.

        I used the word “relatively” because it depends on the context in which you are viewing something.

    • Letting Go

      Hi. Well…. I’m not sure that that is even possible. It seems that when one perceives something there seem to be two possibilities… He puts out a flow, or something else does, and he goes into resonance with the reflected wave forms. Or he may perceive wave forms generated by something by, again, resonating with those wave forms. It would seem that, in any case, he is at least only looking at some aspects of the “object” and not the full “actuality” of the objects.

      The concept of “being the object” would seem to be a way of experiencing it totally, but when you are really “being the object” there does not appear to be “you” as an observer, in the mix, and as soon as you separate (exteriorize from the object) you are again only taking away “impressions.”

      I don’t know… but perhaps the fun of playing with objects, in order to experience different aspects of them, is a big part of the game.
      Eric

      • I have always had problem with Scientology abstractions when such constructions are used:

        (1) “He puts out a flow.”

        What does “he” stand for in this abstraction? If it is referring to a “self” then how is “self” abstracted? If it is referring to a “cause point” then what is a “cause point”? The basic idea of “cause” standing independent of “effect” is an inconsistency to me. Epistemologically, that is impossible.

        (2) “Be the object.”

        How does one “be” something else? Does one change one’s beingness? Does one assume a different identity? Isn’t beingness a kind of identity? To me such phrases used in Scientology are attractive but vague. They attract because they are mysterious. If they are mysterious then are inconsistent. They pretend to convey a meaning but they are unclear.

        I would certainly like to meet somebody who can view Scientology for what it is.🙂

        .

        • Hi Vinaire

          You stated… “I have always had problem with Scientology abstractions when such constructions are used:…”

          Yes, I have noticed this.

          Thing is, the way I see it, communication is an exercise in trying to convey ideas, and perhaps even “realities”, using symbols.and abstractions. Communication relies heavily upon symbols and abstractions.

          But I consider that the main purpose of communication is to attempt to understand what the other guy is saying, and to convey your own message in a manner that he/she finds understandable.

          To me, the value of the whole exercise is the communication itself, not necessarily the “absolute truth” (whatever that may be).

          I get from you that “the truth” is what you seek. I get that.

          Me, I just like the flow of ideas. I like looking at other realities. I like sharing my own. I like communications that make me think. I like communications that make me laugh.

          I have learned that pulling someone’s communications to shreds, by insisting it be totally accurate, or “absolute truth”, causes more upsets than understandings. I try to use it sparingly.

          I got what you said in your post. It is definitely food for thought. But I suspect that you got what I was saying to “Letting Go”, “Scientology abstractions” included. Well, hopefully, “Letting Go” did too.

          Personally I find that “the truth” is highly overrated. At best it is a personal thing, and it is always in flux.

          But communication….. now THAT is precious!

          Eric

          • Hi Eric,

            I am not so much critical of your communication as I am critical of the weirdness of Scientologese. Language can be altered to embed certain philosophy, and that has been done in Scientology. I simply do not agree with the self-centric philosophy of Scientology, which puts the subjectivity of self over and above the objectivity of reality. I like the objective approach of science, and of mindfulness, which tries to identify and eliminate unverified assumptions that come from the subjectivity of self. Those E-meter readings, which Hubbard used to determine the truth were subjective, but pretended to be objective, which has been typical in Scientology.

            Scientology blames auditors when there are lack lustre or no results. It never reviews what Hubbard has laid out for inconsistency. In this they are simply following Hubbard’s KSW, which I see as a false claim.

            I got what you meant and I was not critical of your communication. Sorry, if it came across differently.

            Regards,
            Vinay

            • Hi Vinaire

              Yes I agree that “scientologese” can be a poor conveyor of the “truth”. It is all wrapped up in itself, and often ambiguous. I was using it as a short-cut. Perhaps not my best choice.

              Thank you for your post… I got all that, and generally agree with what you say there.

              Eric

      • This is a question. Is there really an observer separate from and in dualism with the observed?

        On simply viewing something exactly for what it is I wonder, how is that possible? How would you observe it? On a sub-atomic level? An emotional significance? These are just aspects, the latter of which at least is entirely subjective.

        Does it perhaps mean to observe while simply allowing it to be as it is, with no intention to understand or change or control it?

        • Hi Letting go

          Sorry, I missed that this is a response to me.

          Your question: “Is there really an observer separate from and in dualism with the observed?”

          I consider that there is. I look at what I experience when I “observe” and it seems decidedly real that I am not what I am observing, at that time.

          On “…simply viewing something exactly for what it is…” I am not certain that that is actually even really possible. From my first answer to you, I am suggesting that “perception” seems to be achieved by the interpretation of emanations, or reflected emanations, from the object. Those emanations or reflected emanations are obviously not the object itself. They are, at best, some “aspect” of the object, but certainly not the entirety of it.

          So, Yes. we seem to be in accord on this.

          The kicker seems to be the concepts of “observe” or “perceive”. They introduce a dualism that will forever prevent “viewing something exactly for what it is.” I can only guess that until that dualism ceases to exist “viewing something exactly for what it is” seems impossible.

          Your question: “Does it perhaps mean to observe while simply allowing it to be as it is, with no intention to understand or change or control it?” is a good one. That would probably get you as close as you will get in a dualistic situation, and it may even bring you to a point where transcend to a non-dualistic “reality”.

          Curiously, your question, as a statement, is pretty much how I define “granting beingness”. Also, curiously enough, it is how I understand “duplication”, not “perfect duplication” but “duplication. As I said, it seems to be as close as one can get in a dualistic situation.

          I love your questions… they make me think and sort out my own realities in order to present a coherent answer.

          Yes, I learn from you.

          Eric

          • Thank you, Eric. I learn from your answers.

            I think that dualism is inherent in the concept of observation. An “over here” and “over there”. Perhaps perception would open the door to perceiving without location or focal point, but from where I am (very dualistic right now) that seems rather abstract and esoteric.

            I’m certainly enjoying this journey Marty is taking us on. That must mean someone is here😉

            • Dear Letting Go and Eric,

              This is a very basic subject that you two are talking about. It interests me very much. I hope you do not mind if I do some verbal meditation here on this subject.

              Obviously, observed and observer are separate from each other in most cases, but are they always separate? What happens in self-awareness.when one is aware of self? Is there a separation in that case? Is there a perfect duplication?

              Could it be that observer is always observing parts of itself from different viewpoints? Could it be that we are suffering from a divided viewpoint, the fragments of which are stuck in different heads? There are many possibilities. Dualism is just one of the hypotheses.

              Granting beingness would be simply to become aware of something without interfering with it. That, to me, would be observing something for what it is. One may have to go around and look at it from all angles, communicate with it, and get permission to experiement with it to understand it better. How else would one duplicate something? I don’t know what perfect duplication means. Hubbard defined perfect duplication as “cause and effect in the same point in space.” That sounds quite complex to me.

              I would change Factor #1 as follows:

              1. In the beginning there was self-awareness, and it was awareness aware of itself, possibly as light.

              Awareness starts at the beginning, so there would be no awareness prior to the beginning.

              Self-awareness is made up of perception and giving meaning to that perception. The meaning we give to the perception becomes our knowledge. We then use this knowledge to define subsequent perceptions.

              Thus, there is this interchange between perception and knowledge. Interchanges increasing in frequency will define increasing self-awareness. There is ptobably no difference between the observed and observer when the frequency of this interchange is just one. But as the frequency inceases, filters are generated separating the observed from the observer.

              To view something for what it is one would have to dissolve all the filters between the observed and observer. But, unfortunately that would dissolve the observed and the obssrver as well.

              http://vinaire.me/2014/06/11/a-model-of-reality/

              .

              • Vinaire, it would appear to me that the observer and the observed are separate, but perhaps that is more a reflection of my mind than reality? My question presupposes separation, therefore I apparently presuppose separation.

                Perhaps I should instead ask, is it possible to observe something without also being part of it?

                Perhaps cause and effect are two sides of the same domino in an endless interplay of causality?

                By suggesting awareness might be light, are you not defining and thus limiting it (to our understanding of light)?

                • I like your thoughts Letting Go. You are a sharp cookie.🙂

                  I don’t think that we understand light (by which I mean the whole spectrum of electromagnetic waves) too well.

                  .

    • From the book “When the Body Says NO”, Gabor Mate, M.D., Chapter 19: The Seven A’s of Healing:

      2. Awareness

      All those seeking to heal-or to remain healthy-need to reclaim the lost capacity for emotional truth-recognition.

      Animal and young humans are highly competent at picking up on real emotional cues. If we lose that capacity as we acquire language, it is only because we receive confusing messages from our immediate world.

      The words we hear tell us one thing, the emotional data say something different. If the two are in conflict, one will be repressed. In the same way, when a child eyes, diverge, the brain will suppress images from one eye in order to avoid double vision. The suppressed eye, unless corrected, will become blind.

      We repress our emotional intelligence in order to avoid an ongoing war with the crucial people in our lives, a war we cannot possibly win. And so we lose our emotional competence even as we gain verbal intelligence.

      Full awareness would mean that we would regain our lost capacity to perceive emotional reality and that we are ready to let go of the paralyzing belief that we are not strong enough to face the truth about our lives.

      Clearly, we do not need to lose language skills in order to relearn emotional perception. To develop awareness, though, we do have to practice, pay constant attention to our internal states and learn to trust these internal perceptions more than what words-our own or anyone else’s-convey.

      • Conan, your quoted passage seem to be saying is that a common mechanism to “resolve” a conflict (or inconsistency) is to suppress parts of awareness. This may avoid the conflict to some degree, but it certainly does not resolve it completely because the conflict is now converted into a lack of awareness. For example, one may refuse to accept what one really is and pretend to be somebody else.

        It seems that certain language has been developed in Scientology to help one pretend to be something else. A good example is the word “thetan”. Scientologists go around thinking that they are thetans with great abilities. This makes them unaware of what they really are.

        The reality is that “thetan” is just a subjective feeling. That’s all it is.

        .

      • Conan

        Hi

        Yes, there seems to be some truth in that. I have noticed similar things myself…. and once you have taken the emotion and other cues out of communication, you have lost the bulk of it.

        — “Full awareness would mean that we would regain our lost capacity to perceive emotional reality and that we are ready to let go of the paralyzing belief that we are not strong enough to face the truth about our lives.” —

        Yes, but getting back that “full awareness” is going to be problematic because true and honest communication, at all levels, is extremely rare in my experience. There are probably very few who are even capable of it. We have all been so well trained to “lie” emotionally and verbally. To not do so is generally considered dangerous.

        But in the second part of that… ” and that we are ready to let go of the paralyzing belief that we are not strong enough to face the truth about our lives.”, there is also the incoming communications that are “moderated” supposedly so that we “do not get hurt”, and so we get lied to.

        It really does seem to boil down to just acknowledging that what you think you did see, or experience, is likely what occurred. You will likely be wrong some of the time, but then again, you may find that you are right more often than before.

        Actually, auditing seems to be a good training ground… And TRs more from a coaches viewpoint than from the student auditor, because you have to hone your ability to pick up on those “tells”.

        Eric S

  39. Vinaire,

    You didn’t duplicate the passage. Read it again for what it actually says.

    And also my friend you are going to have the shock of your life, when you let go of that monkey doll your are holding onto so hard.

  40. vinaire,
    I like that you are trying to preserve what is valuable in Hubbard’s work.
    I will keep you in mind as a survey respondent. I am in the early stages of even working out the questions. Your blog will be helpful.

    GMW

    • Thank you, George.

      The key point that I have managed to come up with is as follows:

      Spirituality and physicality are two sides of the same coin. The assumption that ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ are two separate phenomena seems to be in error. Neither spirituality nor physicality seems to be absolute in itself. Like “space-time”, we have “spiritual-physical” as relative characteristics.

      This puts Hubbard’s THETA-MEST theory under a magnifying glass.

      The document that I am currently working on is the following:

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

      .

      • vinaire,
        Good start. It is very quantum in its basis.
        In the last three years, my most creative states have emerged from a quiet mind. Unike auditing which tends to disturd the mind, mindfulness creates calm. It seems a contradiction that creativity can start from a void, but in practice this has been of value to me personally. I think auditing is
        a useful tool at lower levels, but its value fades as one tries higher states.
        Last Friday I went to hear a monk who gave a talk about meditation. He even told us about his radical moral transformation. He said that he
        got his “mind into the here and now.” I liked his talk because he was what I call a “direct monk”, one with street experience. He left us by saying that mindfulness results is gain, no matter how long or short. This is in the
        Discourses, of course.

        George M. White

        • George,

          It is funny that I have been finding the same things.

          Life has been very interesting to me since I have been practicing mindfulness. I want to develop Buddha’s hypotheses into scientific theories.   Vinay 

          ________________________________

  41. To all: “Native State” is just as elusive as “Clear”

    Or rather the same Illusion.

    Try to be a good person without letting yourself be tricked

  42. Luis Agostini

    Hi

    Adding beingnesses to the list of “objects”, in my experience, is quite a healthy and a potentially immensely productive awareness.

    There are beingnesses which I needfully sought to avoid identifying with and also needfully sought to identify with and/or continue to identify with.

    Discovering the ones that, because of my empowerment of them, of the tremendous importance I was assigning to either not experiencing or not being identified with, and experiencing or being identified with, was produced by my brutal honesty with myself about their presence, by my disobedience to the conduct and viewpoints those beingnesses were dictating I do and not do and form to either avoid or achieve their presence, and by allowing the ridges that I formed with each to dissolve by allowing myself to experience the beingness I had been either preventing or seeking to flee from or the absence of the beingness I needed to attach to or continue to be attached to.

    The consequences of having done so and continue to be doing so are being quite spectacular to me.

    Being alert to and being brutally honest with myself about the needful impulses that can generate in my universe in the interaction with the physical universe and its inhabitants is being quite priceless to the soul I am.

    Regards,

    Luis

  43. I believe that there is awareness before any human beingness comes about.

    The rawest of all awareness has to be the awareness of pure disturbance. Prior to that there would be no awareness. Only a theoretical ground state may be postulated. But this ground state shall forever be unknowable and shall remain only theoretical because there is no awareness to go with it. Awareness arises only when this ground state is disturbed.

    This is a very raw level of awareness. Soul, self, energy, matter, etc., come later.

    While awareness is the essential property of this disturbance, the outward form of the disturbance appears as some primordial harmonic of light. We do seem to instinctively associate light with awareness. Both seem to be merely two different aspects of the same primordial disturbance.

    Thus there is “self-awareness” in the form of light. The wave-length of this disturbance is nearly infinite, and the frequency nearly zero. The period and velocity are infinite for all practical purposes.

    Light may fall in the category called ‘physical’. Awareness may fall in the category called metaphysical (or, spiritual). But these are two sides of the same coin. The assumption that ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ are two separate phenomena seems to be in error. Neither spirituality nor physicality seems to be absolute in itself. Like “space-time”, we have “spiritual-physical” as relative characteristics.

    .

  44. If my memory serves me right, I think Ron said the word “science” comes from the greek word “scio” which means “to know”.

    I just did a search on that and this is what I found:

    Wikipedia: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

    Merriam Webster: Origin of the word SCIENCE
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know.
    First Known Use: 14th century

    Oxford Dictionary:

    Origin

    Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’

    Dio

  45. In my opinion, knowledge comes from self-awareness. The most basic form of knowledge is light.

    Awareness becomes aware of itself as light. This involves perception. Light seems to be the most fundamental of perceptions. Light seems to form the basis of all other perceptions.

    Knowledge comes from giving meaning to perception. The characteristics of light seem to express this primordial knowledge. To shed light on something is to bring out knowledge about the thing.

  46. Pingback: Identification and Membership | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  47. Here is what the Urantia book says on Budda:
    It is kind of interesting.
    It is only a short page.

    http://urantia-book.org/newbook/ub/ppr094_7.html#P094_7_4

    Dio

    • Dio, thanks for posting that link. Very interesting.

      • You are welcome, Miraldi.

        It continues to lay out the principles and philosophy of Buddism in some detail, as indicated at the bottom left.

        Dio

    • Urantia Book: “He denounced gods, priests, and their sacrifices, but he too failed to perceive the personality of the One Universal.”

      I would not call it a failure if there is no “personality of One Universal” to start with.

      Urantia Book: “… but he failed to show them the pathway to that real and supernal home of ascending mortals — Paradise — and to the expanding service of eternal existence..”

      I would not call this a failure either if there is no such thing as “Paradise”.

      Looks like Urantia has its own idea of Ultimate reality that does not agree with “Nirvana” as seen by Buddha.

  48. Pingback: Enemies | Moving On Up a Little Higher

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