Truth

The single most fundamental, sweeping and powerful truth in all spiritual study, contemplation and practice was probably best summed up in a single sentence.  It is an aphorism that has been popularly attributed to the Buddha:

You are what you think.

The Bible (Proverbs) succinctly echoes the same idea:

For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is.

This concept is the common denominator upon which virtually every workable religious and spiritual philosophy throughout the ages can be reduced to.  It is the truth that religion and spiritual practice of all denominations and creeds has capitalized on in one form or another.  When it is appreciated one becomes the master of his own destiny.  One is no longer the groveling effect of circumstances outside of his or her own control.  One is no longer the victim of external conditions.

Its realization can explain popular notions of attainment of nirvana, enlightenment, the kingdom of God, or as countless popular psychology/philosophy sects since the late nineteenth century have put it, self-realization.  One reaches nirvana when one recognizes it resides within. One attains enlightenment when one sees that it is all about how one thinks.  One enters into the Kingdom of God when one recognizes that realm is within one’s own heart. One is self-realized when one realizes that one is what one thinks.

Being creatures who use the via of language to conceptualize, communicate and understand, all of us require some degree or level of explanation to appreciate the power that comes with realizing the simplicity that ‘you are what you think.’ Or, some exercises that help us transcend language based associative, identification thought habits in order to perceive the truth of it.  Thus, paths and mythology and related attention-focusing practices fueled by glimpses of this truth have abounded.  Countless explications and related practices exist to bring us to the point of recognition of the seeming magic that comes with the simple truth that you are what you think.

So powerful is the recognition of this most fundamental truth that the attempted monopolization of it has made inestimable riches for priests, ecclesiastics and gurus of every stripe.  Close inspection of any one of these proprietary routes (irrespective of the ornateness of its projected piety) invariably exposes a common fault.

The fault is fatal to the accomplishment of the truth each of the routes purports to lead to.  It is incident to the attempted monopolization of the truth.

The fault invariably comes with attempted proprietorship of the truth.

The fault is that deference to the proprietor and his creations (priests, practitioners, institutions, practices, rituals, beliefs) – whether overtly required or not – ceases or prohibits attainment or realization of the truth the proprietor capitalizes on.

Once one is led to believe that the realization’s continued operation depends on some relationship external to self, the truth no longer obtains.

Virtually any practice or ism that overtly or covertly requires continued membership, obligation, participation, or belief becomes anathema to truth and all of the salutary effects that spring from it.

549 responses to “Truth

  1. Wow! I am enjoying your realizations wholeheartedly!

  2. Brilliant. Thank you for brushing the debris off the path.

  3. Quote from Urantia:

    Religion cannot be bestowed, received, loaned, learned, or lost. It is a personal experience which grows proportionally to the growing quest for final values. Cosmic growth thus attends on the accumulation of meanings and the ever-expanding elevation of values. But nobility itself is always an unconscious growth.

    (1095.2) 100:1.7

    Clicking on the numbers above, should open up access to the entire chapter on religion.

    The Urantia Book
    Paper 100
    Religion in Human Experience

    Or cuting and pasting this link in your browser should work better:
    http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-100-religion-in-human-experience#U100_1_7

    Dio

    • a direct quote from jesus – “what you bring forth from within will save you, what you fail to bring forth from within will destroy you” – almost sounds like auditing; and yes, jesus did study Buddhism during his missing years.

      bff – harol

      • Harol,

        You posted: a direct quote from jesus – “what you bring forth from within will save you, what you fail to bring forth from within will destroy you”

        Yes, it does sound like auditing.

        Where is that quote from?

        Dio

        • I’ll jump in to say this is from “the Gospel of Thomas”, one of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. The quote in question has been translated in 2 different ways that I know of. It was first translated as you say,
          “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

          It was later re-translated thus: “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have will destroy you.”
          Here is a translation from the Coptic:
          (70) Jesus said: When you bring forth that in yourselves, that which you have will save you. If you do not have that in yourselves, that which you do not have in you will kill you.
          I like the first version. The case for the second and other versions is that there is something one must either create or recognize or realize within oneself, or one is lost to the “kingdom of heaven”.

          However the first version ypu qioted makes sense to me because “The kingdom of heaven IS within you”, according to many sources. One must realize its presence, but it is there from, perhaps, before the beginning. When one undoes the “individuation” that has taken place away from it, that’s it. One is then aware of being whole again

          • Neither wholeness of the one, the all, nor individuation, the self, can be ignored or left unexpressed. That is key to getting beyond the confusion and overwhelm of the 3 thru 7 problem that halts all significant progress for many.
            Mark

          • Thanks for your contribution Al.

            You presented some good thoughts there.

            Dio

  4. Thanks, Marty. Hard to comment on your stuff because it’s so “itself” and says it so succinctly that you can’t really add anything. I think this is the way to enter a new year, practicing this. My own realizations have been going in this direction of understanding that the control of these concepts opposes the concepts. Thanks for aligning it this way. Lots of good things are in the future—Happy 2015 to you and the gang.

  5. Most excellent article, Marty. When disseminating what I believe is truth, I must first determine what is the actual purpose of my efforts. What, really, is my intended product. Respect, admiration, authority, money? I would like to think it is sharing my good fortune for having stumbled upon some truths, but I’m sure there are some other hidden reasons that I have yet to discover. I’ll keep looking,
    Thanks Marty,
    Mark.

  6. I just finished reading the last in the series of Harry Potter books (The Deathly Hallows). I was surprised to find deep philosophy about death in it. Death seems to appear to one the way one thinks about it.

    Apparently, that is how other things appear to one as well. And that is how one becomes too. I loved the thinking of Harry Potter. What a pure soul!

  7. Marty, that is a very powerful summation of the flaw in almost every organized religion, and definitely in every cult.

  8. You are what you think – I agree, that’s true and a valuable datum. The whole body of Buddhist theory is an expansion of this insight. On the same basis, the chaplain at my old school warned us about thinking ‘sinful’ thoughts lest our whole minds be stained with sin, like adding a drop of ink to a glass of water.

    I wonder if even the word ‘think’ is redundant, or whether it can actually be separated from being. Thinking is just what we do (for want of a better word) without thinking about it. Recently I was struggling to refine a definition of the word Postulate. One possibility was “a thought that creates an efect” – but at least in that definition, the word Thought is superfluous. If someone postulates an effect, they don’t have to stop and think about it. Words and images can be mistaken for thoughts.

    But if a thought is regarded as an actual thing, it opens the door to what you identify at a fatal fault: the commodification of thoughts, as if they were tangible objects that can be someone’s property.

  9. Dear Marty,

    I think I have a problem with your “truth”. You talk about “You are what your think”. If that goes for everyone then there is a beingness, reality or truth for everybody.

    Then my question is: “What is THE TRUTH” which you mention??

    Everlove,
    Per

    • Per,

      You have an MU.

      It is true that:
      “You are what you think.”

      Or: “As a man thinketh so is he.”

      It simply means what ever you think you become.

      You tend to create your reality by what you think.

      If you think positive thoughts, you feel better.

      If you think negative thoughts, you feel worse.
      (That is what positive thinking is based on.)

      But there is a lot more to it than that.

      As is learned in scn, what is not taken into account or known, is “implants”, programming by parents, educators and other people in the child’s environment.

      If your head is filled (implanted) full of garbage as a youngster, you have little or no control of it until you get auditing. And that garbage will “create you and your reality”.

      You have to take things in the right context.

      To not take things in the right context is a form of insanity,

      a type of “seeing something that is not there”.

      Dio

    • Yes Pingovino. I agree, big words means nothing! I like Marty when he is attacking Miscavige. But when he plays guru, no thanks. And all this guys there agree with nice words. They are really a bunch of gullible ex-churchists, who are “philosophing”.
      Let’s make war, no love!

    • Ping, as Marty mentioned we are beings using language to communicate ideas….although many of those ideas can not be completely encapsulated with words. But, to understand what he is saying it helps to look at the exact words he wrote. For instance, he did not capitalize “THE TRUTH” which might have invoked the idea of something absolute ….or limited the idea of truth to but but one iteration.
      He did write “the truth”. This, to me, expresses the possibility that each being creates his own truth. Possibly, as we do this, we may be contributing to the creation of (capitalized)TRUTH, but the way I read it, Marty is addressing primarily the individual aspect of and pathway to all THAT.
      At least that’s how I read his words.

      • TRUTH! It reminds me the scam called TRUTH REVEALED. Which was an invention in 1982 by Miscavige and co to make sure “all this suckers” don’t go to the “squirells”. “Truth” has now a bad name. A false level used to finance a ship!

        • Any “truth” that is persisting is an alter-is.

          • Vin,

            If the truth of 2+2 is 4,

            What is alter ised about it?

            Dio

            • It is a created “truth”. It is an alter-is from what was there before.

              All creation is an alter-is.

            • Then one might conclude that if it is persisting, it is not “truth”. And indeed, Buddhism recognizes two levels or meanings of “truth”, one of them being the level of ‘conventional truth’. This could be termed the level of ‘agreed upon’ truths. These include the idea of the apparent cycle of action of existence – Create, survive(or cause to persist) – destroy.
              If one introduces what has been termed the “actual cycle of existence”, ie, Create – create – create – cease – creating, one may come closer to real truth, which may be that whatever is persisting must be contnuously created, moment to moment, or it will ultimately cease to exist. This may be where “alter-is” comes in, as a way of setting up “automatic persistence” of something.

              So not all persistence involves alter-is; it may be that it is being created moment to moment, consciously or unconciously.

              • Vin and Al,

                The entire universe is built on arithmetic and math, geometry, physics, and chemistry. Which are all in effect the science of numbers.

                Dio

              • Any Truth when taken for granted becomes “truth”.

              • Val said;
                “If one introduces what has been termed the “actual cycle of existence”, ie, Create – create – create – cease – creating, one may come closer to real truth,…”
                This is a very valuable realization you have viewed. This is one step in bypassing the phys. univ. / spirit mechanics which have been set up, and getting straight to the heart of the matter.

                This a BASIC realization. A few more of these and the mechanics will lay out in front of you and become simple and unimportant.
                Mark

    • Yes, Ping, there IS a beingness, reality and there is a TRUTH for every single being. Now this whole area becomes oppressive when any individual decides that HIS truth involves oppressing or destroying other beings or other beings’ right to have a reality of their own. But this area also becomes oppressive when a group decides that its members do not have the right to individual truths and realities but must always bow to command or suffer harsh penalties of one type or another. Marty is talking about that innate freedom for our own truth that we possess as beings. A truly elevated group would respect that quality that within us all has its potential. Well said Marty.

    • There seems the truth of “beingness”, such as, the natural frequencies of light. There are different frequencies that produce different colors of light. Thus, there are different beingnesses. All of them are natural. All of them resist change from what they are.

      One may say that these beingnesses are due to what one thinks. Perpheral thinking is the outcome of inherent frequencies of beingness, much like the tone level.

      This is the truth that is being pointed out.

      But the “natural” beingness is not the absolute beingness which has no frequency, and which is the higher TRUTH.
      .

  10. The perfect mantra for the New Year!

    This statement and “Have an Attitude of Gratitude” are two phrases I have posted on my frig, and the main epiphanies I got from The Secret.

    Then, when I decided I deserved to be audited by the best-YOU-again, I was flabbergasted when I realized it was my thoughts that either kept things going or not!

    So simple but so profound! All I can say is Wow!

    It makes me happy to re-create that session/time with you (& Mosey). I don’t know if you remember, but I awoke in the middle of the night so blow away, I had to write it down….and thank you everyday, for assisting me with this ‘truth”

    I am blessed to know you.

    Continue to create great things Marty! I wish all the best for you, Mosey & Billy in 2015.

    Hugs, your friend, Midge

  11. Once crushed by Scn or another practice, removal of the external influence with one’s own perceptics, one then moves toward truth.

  12. The Church of Scientology upon reading this will say “It’s a lie”. Sad but true. Marty on the bright side NOTHING in the universe yet compares to your captured images of “John Allender at the front door with friends”. Happy New Year Marty to you and yours!🙂

  13. Lovely Marty. Happy New Year to you and your family.

  14. gretchen dewire

    Marty, good to hear from you. I think there is a step above thinking. The only word I can use for it is “knowing” . Words are difficult, being themselves a via that gets in the way of direct perception. Thinking being words usually that can present a problem. Just my way of thinking from a number of years of meditation. I am surprised to see no comments on this post yet

  15. You know what they say about truth and as-isness. This post was so near truth, it even as-ised to the possibility for comments😛

    I too recently saw some of the ‘power’ of simply being –actually thinking this simply being into existence. It kicks out all the rest, that one would want to handle, as a being, spirit, thetan. Or at least, that’s what I noticed in myself.

    Is there also a type of Buddhist meditation that goes like that (just being)?

    Have a nice year you and all with much of this (optional, for the ‘spiritual’ ones): “When it is appreciated one becomes the master of his own destiny. One is no longer the groveling effect of circumstances outside of his or her own control. One is no longer the victim of external conditions.”

    • Here is TR0 modified to include Buddhist meditation.

      TR0 and Mindfulness
      .

      • Thanx, I read it. You know, TR0 and OT TR0 were the first thing I talked about in blogs. I personally I had good wins and losses doing them. I used to be indeed very uncomfortable communicating live with people and TRs helped greatly. BUT I also pressed myself and created ridges so I wouldn’t think. I made a sort of a wall –something like a spiritual psychotropic drug. That’s probably because of the strictness that can go along with TRs, depending on your twin, supervisor and of course yourself.

        Also, I didn’t refer to anything like TRs before. To be there and confront and communicate, to me, meant to do it as a body. What I said before was to simply be a spiritual being, which is nothing but the that you are that. It is wonderful. I also realized along with that, unless I thought myself to be that, I wasn’t that. The truth for me is not the being, it is that which makes beings to be, as well as everything else. Rephrazed: the potential for things to be.

        • “TR0 and Mindfulness” is how I did TR0 when I first came across Scientology in 1969. This practice is now part of who I am.

          But this practice is not Scientology. It is Buddhism.

          • I like the points you have made in your article about TRs. But logically, there wouldn’t be flanking in those TRs, or else one wouldn’t let all those reactions (mental or physical) occur and ust go through them till not having them. Did you in specific made TRs that way back in ’69, or was it how it was done by others too, in the orgs?

            • I got those ideas from HCOB of 2 JUNE 1971, Issue I, CONFRONTING, as well as my background from the East.

              As I remember, those ideas were also shared at the little Cambridge Mission where I started. In fact, just before my first auditing session I was asked to do TR0 with my auditor across the e-meter, with the instructions that I need to maintain that TR0 mode throughout my auditing session.

              That was very successful.

              • I see. Well, for me TRs can be like this or like that, like everything in SCN. It can be good, bad, so so, depending on intentions of those who do it and those who deliver it. I don’t think techniques are not senior to intentions. But I mostly wanted to point out that about TRs, as I found that to simply be a being, means to have nothing really to handle, unless you be something to handle, too –more or less what Marty said before. And no, to me it doesn’t mean you cannot use that in life too. There’s that line about ‘theta the solver and theta the problem’ somewhere. I don’t remember where. And that the more theta consider itself to be MESTy the more of a problem it is. Those apply in life, very nicely.

                • The truth is that all thetans are wound up like springs. TR0 done with mindfulness helps unwind them.

                  TR0 done without mindfulness simply brings about an artificial beingness.

                  All other TRs have no redeeming features. They simply impose artificial beingness. Those TRs are not needed after “TR0 with mindfulness” is done.

                  • You think so lowly of thetans, like most into SCN. No wonder the panic attacks etc. So much BS has circulated. Thetans are always fine. It’s the things they identify with, you could ever do something for.

                    • I try to see things as they are. It is not thinking. It is looking.

                      I have no opinion about thetans as being lowly or highly. I just look at a thetan with mindfulness.

                      In fact, you have quite an opinion about the thetan, Spyros, and it is all subjective. Just look at yourself. If you were not wound up like a spring you wouldn’t be here.

                    • The topic is about creating what you are, or being what you think. If you so think, you could have it be that way. But others think other things and have it be their way too. For as long as I thought to have certain phenomena as part of me, I had the. And I think thetans can do that, because basically they are not things. How opiniated is that? The room is open for beings to be what they think. Is this opiniated, or to be something like a physical object, at effect of various physical phenomena, unable to be anything else, is? I don’t think I can look at myself as a being, but I could think of something and then indeed look at it too, and have it be real and true too.

                    • Spyros;
                      You have touched on a very important point. One can create and change things all they want for themselves, but to create and alter on a 3rd dyn. level is a different story. One guy wants his trees to be blue, but did he go to the trouble to ask anyone’s opinion or permission? Make a mock-up and most people will just ignore it. Hence, it doesn’t exist in this group univ. of ours. There is a little more to magic than hinted in the Phoenix Lectures.
                      Mark

                    • Yes, that’s a good point too. It is different to say ‘I take responsibility’ for a dynamic, and then be it’s dictator, and try to overpower the will, self determinism of it’s people, by force or trickery, or other means. The resulting apparent order, is actually suppression.

                      I know in SCN thetans are talked about as individuals, but I also think that LRH knew that was a creation –to create an individual and play as such (then over that, maybe add valences etc). There are some materials where a thetan was asked to be another thetan, or person or object, and no, not only in his own universe. In my opinion that is because the thetan is basically nothing, but can be anything. I think that was called the 8th Dynamic. The 8th Dynamic can be Thetans, chairs and ice creams. See ‘Route to Infinity’. Why was that not mentioned often? Because if people identify with bodies much, or other ‘we are all one’ case, they would only confused more considering all that. First a thetan should be able to be an individual. The Dynamics should be cleared one after the other. I would assume a cleared 2D would mean to be the whole 2D –the awareness of being the whole 2D. And if that happened to 3D as well, well, we wouldn’t have reasons to complain about the COS.

                    • Anyway, that was the route taken in SCN for reasons considered back then. Still I think it is a route, not the only possible route. And I don’t mean to imply that to address 8D directly would be wrong. Emphasis was put on dealing with case –minus gains. Others put emphasis on directly increasing awareness of 8D. I think LRH thought the second would be tricky because case is obsessive separation as well as obsessive connection –so called bank agreement, and 8D could trigger that. Thus, it was left to the each to realize it. Whether it happened or not, I don’t know. I would ask all those who have ever done SCN.

                    • An unwinded thetan doesn’t exist in this universe.

                  • You know what Vinaire, of course you can have your ideas. And the rest too. But as far as I am concerned, I cannot pretend to agree with something so terrifying and so untrue. A thetan has this, and a thetan has that. Where does he have it? What is it to have anything, a fairy? If a thetan had something, ‘he’ would handle it, immediately. That which is observed by the static gets as-ised, that which is not perceived, persists. Say the Axioms. But thoe dont matter. Let’s identify thetans with bodies to have case forever. Oh that would also mean we could also be handling case forever hint hint…😉

                    • It is not my idea but LRH’s that thetans mock themselves up and acquire mass. Underlying mass is the property of inertia that supports “You are what you think.”

                      When mass unwinds it turns into frequency. When frequency unwinds, maybe that state of nirvana is achieved. Without mass, inertia and wavelength there is no identity. The word “thetan”, more correctly, is a place holder of nirvana. As long as you associate a “you” with thetan there is a frequency. It gives ego boost.

                      Please see A New Explanation of Inertia
                      .

                    • Well you said it. ” As long as you associate a “you” with thetan there is a frequency.” I too used to think of thetans as something like a tiny light source, and it can be that too. It was depicted in a Div 6 picture book about SCN. And it is futile to argue whether it is that or not, as it CAN be that. It is an ability, potential. But it would be a limitation to think that is all a being could be or that ‘it has to be that peranently, unless…’ or something. Being a preclear is alike a creation and it can then be observed, as well as being impatient, being bipolar, PTS/SP and other things. The reason why I don’t join the idea that LRH made people preclears is because I think they get convinced that they are that long before SCN.

                    • Some people are hasty to put tags on you. I could get angry here so then you could tell me “If you didn’t have a bank, you wouldn’t get angry at me.” or maybe “if you didn’t have psychological issues…” or “You are downtone”. Really? How do you know I didn’t choose to get angry, and I that I didn’t get calm right after I talked to you? No, people read a message in a forum, or see a person down the street briefly, and they know everything about the person. Then they keeping prooving themselves right.

                      That’s why auditors were not supposed to evaluate/invalidate.

                    • When you invite somebody to play your game, as somebody, and he does, it doesn’t mean that somebody is all he can be. There is no human condition that cannot be labeled, and thus limit potential to freely be. You can label somebody for practically anything. How many times have I joined hostile conversations just to have it pointed out at me that I am hostile or upset or something. It makes me wonder, am I a mirror or something? Or maybe I owe it to others to calm them down (?). I don’t think so. Maybe I have something to proove so I will get more customers? Nope, I have none of those. And nobody will congratulate nor reprimand me for thinking and saying the right or wrong thing. I don’t care to project a good image. Some times I try to create some understanding. Most often I fail, for we don’t share that intention. Why would a biased dude, who has good reasons to be biased, wish to understand me, anyway? Nope, they know all about it, and all they care for, is to proove it. I know I walk in to such exhibitions, when I do. But I mostly don’t address THEM people, in specific. Just saying…I’m not always as much of an unknowing being as I might appear😉 But I consider it an advantage to have my perceptions understimated.

                      Those eager to tag, are the most tagged of all –by themselves. But them too can be all that they want too. I never cease to grant that oportunity.

                    • “I” x “I” x “I” x …. (n times) = Egon = figure-figure.

                    • I am using “ego” here in the sense of “introversion”.

                      Scientology does that.

                      The cure is Buddhism.

                    • I think a good moral of this topic is that beings do things to themselves, not SCN, not Buddhism, not implanters etc. Actually, that’s part of what was called responsibility. The more you insist something has done something to you, the more you can also observe it. It’s because you put it there.

                    • And anyway, something that is PAST, should no longer exist, should it?

                    • It wasnt meant to make you wrong. I too have said TRs do this and that and the other. But I actually think, after something occurs, a person might keep on creating it (the past) or not, for himself. It’s not nice to grant such power to seemingly exterior factors. If I thought I was the effect of all past things that have happened to me, I would be invalidating myself 24/7 and not be that well at all.

                    • Spyros;
                      You are your own person, a lofty goal for any of us to achieve.
                      Mark

                    • Individuality has a frequency, and, therefore, it has fine inertia. It has a fine identity. Any source has identity that distinguishes it from another source.

                • A rare validation!

                  • Yeah, I stil have the bad habit of failing to acknowledge a communication before launching into my own shtick. Perhaps that is really the point of doing some of the TRs beyond TR0 – to inculcate better communication habits? I think I need to retread the Comm Course!

                    • Haha! You have a sense of humor too.🙂

                    • I wasn’t kidding at all! I have long been aware that I was lacking in the Acknowledgement department. I tend to just go ahead and blurt out what I want to say without any kind of Ack to the person/post to which I am responding. I do it in everyday conversations too. I imagine a retread of the basic TRs would correct it, but I haven’t done it.

                    • Valkov, you are fine. I like you as you are. You may need more TR0 and Mindfulness but you do not need any TRs higher than that. Those higher TRs simply end up creating a mocked up personality.

                      So, give up the idea of retreading the Comm Course.🙂

                    • I think they can result in a mocked up personality only if and when a person’s TR0 is allowed to go out. As long as one keeps his TR0 while doing other actions, no such thing results. In my case, I think my OT-TR0 is OK, but my TR0 is incomplete and therefore the lack.

                      So I do agree, it all begins with,(and actually ends with) TR0, which has 2 components or stages. There is nothing wrong with additional drills, as long as the baic presence is ther. It’s no different than any other kind of training, like Tae Kwon Do or gymnastics or sports – a person does as well as s/he’s presence is present.

                    • Valkov, I believe that mindfulness takes care of the naturalness of communication including acknolwledgements. Once you become aware of the weak points that’s it. Mindfulness takes care of it. You just know what to do. You may create your own custom exercises. No further Scientology style drilling is needed.

                      There are wonderful natural communicators outside Scientology. Mindfulness is much more common out there than the TRs of Scientology.

                      The only originality that I see is in the position used in TR0. Having two people doing it face to face is a brilliant idea in the beginning. Later one can do it alone.

        • I don’t much care for other TRs at all. They make communication very artificial.

        • TRs higher than 0 have nothing to do with Buddhism.

  16. Michael Fairman

    Magnificent! The understanding that this truth lies only within the self lays the universe at one’s feet. The possibilities are infinite, and it takes one’s breath away.

  17. Thanks so much for your post. Wishing you and yours a happy new year and all of the very best for 2015- continued success and happiness. You guys are very much appreciated and supported by many

  18. A-freaking-men! Happy 2015 to you and the family, Marty.

  19. This so resonates with me. Thank you!

  20. It is great to see you writing again Marty. I have been checking every day for a new post. Hope all is well and keep up the good work.

  21. So far I’ve understood the person to be an emergent property. People like Lisa Cairns or Tony Parsons say there is no one here, that thoughts and sensations are simply appearing and disappearing, and that the “person” is a contracted sort of energy that has become identified with those thoughts and feelings. Lisa Cairns points out that the experiencer is not separate from the experience.

    I probably don’t get the simplicity of I am what I think. My thoughts come and go, and yet there does appear to be a vibrant stillness that is consistently there in the background. Are we the space in which objects arise, or is the breaking down of separation merely a dissociative state?

    • “You are what you think,” is actually an identity.

      This identity is not consciously assumed. It is just what one becomes by the very nature of one’s thoughts.

      .

      • Yes, Vin, you are succinctly correct on that one.

        Quoting you: “You are what you think,” is actually an identity.
        This identity is not consciously assumed. It is just what one becomes by the very nature of one’s thoughts.

        But, like my reply to Per, what is not known outside of scn is the source of those thoughts. As we know from scn is that those thoughts are not always our own, more often not. And when those thoughts are not our own they are “what is wrong with the mind”.

        And the amount of aberration is determined by the degree of negativity of those thoughts. Garbage in= garbage out.

        And therefore why dianetics and scientology were developed.

        You touched on that in: “This identity is not consciously assumed.”

        Dio

      • It is not consciously assumed, except when it is consciousy assumed.

        • When one becomes conscious of it one finds it to be already there.

        • When you become aware of things you have a choiche; that is freedom.

          • Nope. You have no choice about that awareness. You have that awareness and that’s it.

            If there is a choice it would be to give up awareness. And that would be giving up yourself.

            • You choose your attitude

              You do about 95 % or more on autopilot by the way.

              • It is easy to say that. How many people can really chose their attitude?

                Take the characters of any novel. There is a certain persistency of personality. There is a certain inertia. Some have more than others.

                • That is why people have moments of greatness and sometimes choose behavioral changes because a current patern of living has proven disastrous time after time.

                  And indeed that persistance reminds me of this:

                  The Scorpion and the Tortoise
                  Bidpai

                  A scorpion and a tortoise became such fast friends that they took a vow that they would never separate. So when it happened that one of them was obliged to leave his native land, the other promised to go with him. They had traveled only a short distance when they came to a wide river. The scorpion was now greatly troubled.

                  “Alas,” he said, “you, my friend, can easily swim, but how can a poor scorpion like me ever get across this stream?”

                  “Never fear,” replied the tortoise; “only place yourself squarely on my broad back and I will carry you safely over.”

                  No sooner was the scorpion settled on the tortoise’s broad back, than the tortoise crawled into the water and began to swim. Halfway across he was startled by a strange rapping on his back, which made him ask the scorpion what he was doing.

                  “Doing?” answered the scorpion. “I am whetting my sting to see if it is possible to pierce your hard shell.”

                  “Ungrateful friend,” responded the tortoise, “it is well that I have it in my power both to save myself and to punish you as you deserve.” And straightway he sank his back below the surface and shook off the scorpion into the water.

  22. The only purpose of organized religion is to control people’s thoughts and in the end their lives.
    All my best wishes for you and your family.

  23. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Wow …
    Amen !🙂

  24. I’ll just leave this here . . .

  25. I’ve been on my own journey since leaving Co$ employment, and I must say I agree with your conclusion 100%. Not that I came up with that too, but now that you said it I see what you mean. Many thanks for sharing.

  26. Thanks for writing Marty, and happy New Year. This is a very good essay you have written.

    “You are what you think.” Reminds how nice OT TR0 and TR0 was for me in 1971 as during those drills I got to take a vacation from thinking.

    “You are what you think.” Now I’m going to omit thinking about such mythologies as OTIII, which I have audited, and see if I lose interest or troubles related to such. Opps, I think I just lost interest and troubles.

  27. Marty. Thanks again for doing some heavy lifting. Anything which contains thought stops will hold back an individuals progress. Here is a paragraph of what Harold Percival says about the importance of thought in his book Thinking and Destiny;
    “Every thing existing on the physical plane is the exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, and in accordance with that one’s responsibility, at the conjunction of time, condition and place. This Law of Thought is destiny. It has aspects which have been expressed by such terms as kismet, nemesis, karma, fate, fortune, foreordination, predestination, Providence, the Will of God, the law of cause and effect, the law of causation, retribution, punishment and reward, hell and heaven. The law of thought includes all that is in these terms, but it means more than all of them; it means, essentially, that thinking is the basic factor in shaping human destiny.

  28. Yes Marty, but if you think ill about yourself and you can’t get off dark ideas, what do you do? That is what auditing is for. Or you negate any type of psychothérapy? I don’t talk about scientology, I talk about helping, counseling. Not the field of religion or mysticism. Only helping to feel better, less anxious, happier.
    Your “cog” is really PDC type. Very scientolgic. I’m not “OT” or wise enough to apply it.
    This is “positive thinking”. Work mostly for scientologists in fact. Look at your answers on the blog : a bunch of mystics looking for a new guru!
    To hell with the “religion” of scientology and even more with Bouddhism!

  29. Simple and powerful, or should it be , “simple therefore powerful”.
    Glad to see you posting again, Happy New Year.

  30. Re: Truth—One attains enlightenment when one sees that it is all about how one thinks.

    “I have confidence that the artistic gifts of mankind will prove to be due not to something added to the make-up of an ordinary man, but to the absence of factors which in the normal person inhibit the development of these gifts. They are almost beyond doubt to be looked upon as releases of powers normally suppressed. The instrument is there, but it is ‘stopped down.'”

    —Dr. William Bateson in the “Address of the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,” delivered August 14, 1914, in Melbourne, Australia; from Science magazine, Vol. 40, No. 1026, August 28, 1914, page 287.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/1640988

  31. Marty, what interested me with you was that you exposed Miscavige. That was liberating. You see your 31 points.
    It seems now that it is fashion to be sort of wise buddhist. Of course anyone is free to like it. I don’t, or maybe i’m too stupid to understand.
    I’m not OT, could never afford it in the church. The interesting thing with scientology was auditing. After all it was a working psychotherapy. I know some people who are using dianetics to treat patients, and it works quite well. They just look like normal psychologists. Nothing to do with the church or even “independant scientology”.
    But thinking the right thought to feel better, for me it’s new age babble. I don’t know why but i hate this idea.

    • Auditing works because one blows mental mass by seeing it for what it is. This is the principle of mindfulness that comes from Buddhism.

      “You are what you think” has the effect of applying mindfulness to your thoughts. You then become aware of your mental filters that may be altering your perception. You can then get rid of them. This is very beneficial.

      The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

      1. Observe without getting influenced by your expectations and desire for answers.
      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.

    • Perhaps you hate it because that is what you are doing. You speak about making war and hating. War and hating is what you get. this statement, by Marty, is not grand philosophy, it’s bedrock stuff, FG.
      Without this datum auditing or any other psychotherapy would have no efficacy.

    • A respected and proven approach to therapy is cognitive behavioral therapy. One part focuses on how positive thinking leads to more positive feeling. Not new age or spiritual at all. Just old fashioned common sense.

  32. Yes, there’s workable power in that practice — you become what you believe.

    But just because belief is powerful doesn’t mean that belief leads us to any ultimate truth.

    If there is such a thing.
    😉

    • Right now I think truth is a construct. It is, perhaps, a desire for a reference point?

      • There is no truth in this world…there is only the concept of truth which is actually just a means to point to an abstract that is ineffable. The where that seems like we are located in is a world of perception, which is another way of syaing that it’s a BYOM (bring your own meaning) world.

        • But who or what is the “you” in this equation?

        • I agree that it’s a “bring your own meaning world” (great description, by the way), but believing you are superman does not make it so in reality.

          Which brings me back to my real question: Who is “you” in you are what you think, and why are we what we think? We are every-thing and no-thing, including our thoughts?

          • Hello Letting go. My feeling is that the “you” is initially and basically your consciousness. And then it gets more involved into physical matter, personality characteristics, etc, as we create and give birth to thoughts. I have read and agree that the conception, launch, and struggle with ones thoughts are tied in with our consciousness, heart, brain, nerves, morals. Taken together, these vital centers have major roles in our growth and actions. So as we think and act on, or not, our thoughts, they play the lead role in developing our being and who or what we become. I tried to give you as direct an answer to your questions as I could. There is a lot more to this subject. Always a pleasure.

            • All consciousness is a manifestation of motion. All physical matter is a manifestation of motion as well. Without motion there is neither consciousness nor matter. “You” is a certain configuration of consciousness that has solidified into a pattern. To dissolve that pattern takes some doing.

              • Definition of consciousness from the glossary of the Book, Thinking and Destiny(1946) by Harold Percival ;
                “Consciousness: is the Presence in all things-by which each thing is conscious in the degree in which it is conscious as what or of what it is and does. As a word it is the adjective “conscious” developed into a noun by the suffix “ness”. It is a word unique in language; it has no synonyms, and its meaning extends beyond human comprehension. Consciousness is beginningless, and endless; it is indivisible, without parts, qualities, states, attributes or limitations. Yet, everything, from the least to the greatest, in and beyond time and space is dependent on it, to be and to do. Its presence in every unit of nature and beyond nature enables all things, and beings to be conscious as what or of what they are, and are to do, to be aware and conscious of all other things and beings, and to progress in continuing higher degrees of being conscious towards the only ultimate Reality-Conciousness.”

                • Thank you for that definition of consciousness. But I think we are coming to better grips with this concept.

                  Consciousness is awareness of self; and awareness is tied to motion. What is said about consciousness that “it is beginningless, and endless; it is indivisible, without parts, qualities, states, attributes or limitations, etc.” can also be said about motion. Consciousness is as varied as motion. As motion gets complex, the consciousness tied to it also gets complex. Further details are available in the following article.

                  What is Awareness, Scientifically?
                  .

              • What solidifies this pattern?

                • The pattern solidifies at first with increasing fixed attention. Then somewhere along the line fixed attention transforms into ego.

                  • What fixes this attention, and where does the attention come from? I appreciate your answers as well as others here, and hope they will help me understand this fixed sense of solidity better, as well as everything that appears to be faling away at present.

                    • It seems that underlying it all is a fascination with the unknown. This fascination leads to assumptions. Such assumptions, when out of view, tend to fix one’s attention.

                      The best understanding I have of attention is by relating it to the frequency of a wave and associated inertia. Check out the comment section of the following post.

                      Interiorization & Exteriorization

                      Maybe you can participate there. It is up to you.

                      .

                    • Thanks for the invitation, Vinaire. I read the article and am off to percveive some heavy objects, first.

                    • LOL! I wanted to discuss and not send you anywhere.

            • Do you mean that thoughts and feelings are both interdependent and emergent properties of the body and environment?

              • I think that’s a true enough statement. There are some additional elements. Feelings and desire are most associated with the body, rightness and reason are a step higher and Knowingness higher still. I think any of these can be involved with thought generation. But we cannot escape the strong influence of the body and environment, as much as we would wish we could. And there is no need to spot the source of every thought. That would be introverting to the point of madness. But the problem ones need to have some light shone on them and balanced.

          • Letting go, I am unable to answer your question, however, I am able to respond to it as a response has risen up. There seems to be two things here yet there is really only one. There is you and there is YOU. YOU is beyond definition, description, explanation and description. YOU is an abstract and the best we can do is point to is with our words, language and symbols just as I am doing now. YOU is Real you is not. YOU is my SELF you is myself. YOU is KNOWLEDGE. TRUTH, LOVE. YOU IS EVERYTHING, which is impossible for you to conceive.

            The myself, the you, the identity, the person,the personality,the beingness, etc. are attached to and fixated in belief systems that continually confirm and validate that what is not real is real. There are myriad belief systems that incorporate a synthetic YOU as an integral part of the system. While YOU is beyond definition, the synthetic YOU can easily be defined, described, and explained through symbols, words and language.

            Letting go, it is no coincidence that your moniker reveals the process for you to become YOU. The bridge from you to YOU is the process of letting go of attachments and beliefs that impose and validate concepts of incompleteness, lack, more than, less than, goals, ambitions, acquisitions, restrictions, penalties, guilt, remorse and on and on the list goes. As one lets go of restrictive attachments and beliefs, the recognition of YOU begins to take place.

            The “you” doesn’t really know or understand anything and never will. The “you” will never get you to YOU but it most definitely will keep you searching. When you turns over control of the process known as living to YOU (not some synthetic YOU construct) YOU can then bring you to YOU.

            Because there is only YOU, all paths inevitably and eventually lead to YOU. The “you,” of course, will tell you different but that’s what a lie does.

            • Here is another look at the subject of “you”.

              The lowercase “you” is a mocked up uppercase “YOU” as Hubbard states. According to Hubbard all these mock ups that are generating the “you” needs to be dissolved so that the pure state of “YOU” is achieved. Hubbard referes to “YOU” as “Thetan”. Only problem is that with a sleight of hand, Hubbard makes one believe that “you” is “YOU” when that is not the case.

              The thetan is actually a mocked up “YOU” because YOU does not exist in this universe, and it cannot be defined. So, thetan, when used in context of this universe, is actually a mocked up “YOU.”

              Hubbard was a fantastic hypnotist… so fantastic that he hypnotized himself. In that hypnotized state he ended up hypnotizing a lot of other people.

            • Monte, thank you for your answer. May I ask then, does the idea of ‘me’ and ‘ME’ not form a duality in itself? How does the idea that there is a real and a false self result in a non-dual state or help to approach a recognition of oneness or nothingness? To me it appears that one splits and rejects parts of one’s essence in that way. Is it so?

            • Monte, I think I understand what you said better now. Today, as I was walking back from the bakery, a line from the Dao De Jing came to mind and it struck me that yes, indeed, when I see some things as beautiful, other things appear ugly. Deciding a car is beautiful makes the pavement ugly. Selecting out the beautiful makes most of the world ugly. It was more a felt realisation than an intellectual process. I have been experiencing a few of these lately. Perhaps it is letting go of division.

  33. Sometimes I feel as if I’m caught in the”Ground Hog Day” movie …

    Marty posts — the same people respond with “I like”. The same other group respond with “I don’t like” . The same others respond with “I like more or less but here’s where you are wrong”.

    Which is one reason I rarely post anymore on Marty’s blog. Just too tiring.

    Marty has never seemed TO ME as if he thinks of himself AS A GURU. He has always seemed TO ME to be a human being working at figuring out HIS life.

    AND if he can illuminate parts of his experience which MIGHT help others, great.

    If not. OK.

    He offers books to read and shares his insight.

    Along the way … he’s been hounded without let up by an incredibly vicious group intent on keeping him silent and discrediting him.

    AND along the way … he has maintained, almost miraculously I must say, a wonderful marriage to a beautiful woman AND has welcomed into his loving home, a gorgeous child.

    Through the years I’ve posted and commented. Sometimes adding a book I’ve gained from or agreeing with something Marty has posted about a book.

    My latest is:

    Henri Nouwen: The Inner Voice of Love: The Journey from Anguish to Freedom

    May 2015 bring each of you the peace and happiness you wish for.

    Love,
    Windhorse

    • Perfectly put Windhorse. I welcome Marty’s posts as encouraging either new looks or “re-looks” at fundamentally important aspects of life.

  34. A true teacher teaches the student to be free. That freedom is based on observable truths: honesty, service, devotion, meditation, self inquiry, original thinking etc.

    The result of this practice is self realization not teacher realization. And the result is happiness.

    Why are we attracted to teachings and teachers that are not liberated and in some senses dysfunctional? That can only be answered by the student. It is we that chose Scientology. It is we that once agreed with Fair Game.

    Something was being worked out. Some aspect of our psychology created the situation. And only liberation from dogmatic thinking can free us. And that first step is the resurrection of constructive critical thinking and discovering truth directly and not being a mindless parroting victrola trumpeting other’s words.

  35. A post from Adyashanti. Any of this sound familiar?

    Pointing Beyond Consciousness

    Q. “My understanding is that Nisargadatta was pointing to something beyond consciousness – saying that even consciousness itself is temporary, and consciousness itself arises upon That which is prior to consciousness. This differs slightly from what I understood you to be saying in Session 1— even with the final quote of his that pointed to consciousness.

    What is the significance of this distinction? Does it shift the focus of the practice while dwelling in the “I” or “I am”?”

    Adya. “Yes, Nisargadatta does say that the Absolute is beyond consciousness. But he advises that dwelling in the I AM (which is dwelling in consciousness itself ) is the most direct way to the Absolute. To put it very simply, consciousness is all there is; it is the something and the nothing of existence. The Absolute is the source of consciousness, the source of everything, and it is not knowable in the same way that consciousness is knowable.

    The Absolute is what knows, but is itself not knowable as an object of knowledge. As strange as this may sound, the Absolute cannot be known by knowing; it can only be known by not knowing. I often describe the Absolute as Pure Infinite Potential, prior to being or becoming anything. It is forever unborn, yet gives birth to all of existence. About our ultimate nature nothing can be said; it must be revealed.”

    ~ Adyashanti

    Nisargadatta Study Course Q & A

    • A concept parallel to the concept of “I AM” is that of INERTIA.

      INERTIA is the natural state. Any change from this state is resisted.

      But this natural state may not be the absolute state, For example, the natural state of light has a certain frequency. An absolute state may be a state of zero frequency.

    • christianscientology

      Hi Valkov

      I like what you wrote which I am assuming is a quote from Adyashanti. “I often describe the Absolute as Pure Infinite Potential, prior to being or becoming anything”. It reminds me of a statement that a Russian Orthodox bishop said (I paraphrase) “Many people think that personhood precedes from being, when in truth being precedes from personhood”.

      This makes sense of the affirmation I AM THAT!

      Love
      Pip

      • Yes Pip, it is a quote of him. It magically appeared on my Facebook feed just the other day.🙂

        Your quote could have come from Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existential Christian philosopher who objected to the “objectivization” of the human spirit. He said it could not be objectivized, it was always the experiencing subject and trying to view it objectively or treat it as an “object” was futile. Essentially the same as what Adya is saying.
        I think you might like his thinking:

        http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/qf.htm

        I think you might like some of these quotes

        • christianscientology

          Thanks for that Valkov, the person I was referring to was Bishop John Zizioulas which I read at http://www.leithart.com/archives/003435.php However it seems Nikolai Berdyaev is basically saying the same thing – PERSONHOOD PRECEEDS BEING.

          It has always made sense to me that “God is love” but at the same time I cannot conceive of a source of love other than PERSONHOOD which I am very definitely differentiating from PERSONALITY.

  36. I do not understand: You are what you think .. and also not: For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is .. it sounds confusing to me .. I read all the given comments here, but my insight is still not up ..

    Maybe I make it to complicated. But in my youth before Scn I did not think. Thinking is something which Scn did learn me .. but became never happy with it really. Thinking looked always complicated for me. What is it else than repeating what others have said or done? Something like that was not in my interest before Scn. Too complicated this thinking.

    Assuming that it was more right how I managed that before Scn, then the words: thinketh in his heart .. comes closer to my truth .. but it was then not thinking .. it was knowing what I will think .. means what I will communicate or do or not do .. it is a fast process – needs basically no time .. it is as like as I am .. it is my own meaning .. something about which I have not to think at any time .. I have not to think about .. but as said above, in Scn I learned to think about ..

    If: You are what you think – is right, then I am nothing .. but this is not true ..

    • Friend,

      You bring up a very interesting point, and a very valid one too.

      I know what you mean.

      That means, you were clear and in a very high state of consciousness and awareness before you got into scn.

      Scn brought you down the tone scale and theta scale. They screwed you up.

      When I had my couple of releases, I do not think, either. It was exactly like you said.

      Thinking is a very low and actually stupid form of mental function.

      Dio

      • Thanks for acknowledge my comment .. it is exactly what you said: They screwed me up .. but badly .. point is that I should always remember this and that .. but my point was, that all of it was already gone, and tried now to do it better .. I learned nothing out of this repeatings .. only one thing, it looked better to me not to do it in the first place .. but they catched me with lot of ideas and indications about overt and withhold .. with this they screwed me up ..

        You know the rule in the church is that you should not speak with others about your case .. have never grasped what it means, because if it was my case, then it was also my life .. so they gave me then ideas that I would have some hidden purpose about which I would not know anything for myself now .. with this they catched me .. although it was the greatest bullshit which somebody has ever offered to me .. but truth is, that I did not stand against such blaming confortably .. it made me so deeply wrong so that I tried to clear that .. in the final stage I became declared as a SP because I made continuous overts against Scn .. hey man, how stupid can somebody be .. you cannot blame in a generality others for overts, only why LRH said somerthing like that .. if he has no progress with his tech .. his tech is maybe stupid and I understood maybe more about the mind as he ever has ,, so anyway, I have always said I have no mind and I do not need one .. have never need one .. it is all me .. not a mind of mine ..

        • Friend,

          You need to set up a center, or group, or system or something whatever to teach us how to get back to that state of “not thinking”. The state of knowing. I crave to return to that state, like you cannot imagine.

          There is a lot of good in scn, but there is equally a lot of bad in scn.
          Some parts of scn can solve a lot of problems in life, and other parts can cause a lot of problems.

          And many people even screw up what is good in scn.

          The proverb: “Don’t throw your pearls in front of swine, for they shall trample them under their feet into their manure.”

          are the words of wisdom that apply here.

          You can email me at diogeneseii at yahoo.ca

          I would love to hear from you.

          Dio

          • dio: You need to set up a center, or group, or system or something whatever to teach us how to get back to that state of “not thinking” ..

            What it means now? I love that I got positiv ressonance to my commet. In first place I had some fear to write it, because it is a concept which was very often heavily under critic .. especially from scientologists .. it would be never possible to become clear or OT with such ideas and so on ..

            I tried to led it go as adviced, but was unable to do so .. it would be the same as giving my heart away for selling me out for stupid income ..

            With my own ideas about thinking and the practice of my own meanings, it was surely impossible to get me handled in the used style of Scn ..

            Let me give an example: Scn ist standard tech. Right. It became in this way tradition to know how it will go. It means, it was usual to know for me what the auditor thinks. He did thinking .. but not I .. and so it is easy to read a mind of another or others. If you really know that youself do not think anything .. you know that anything around is not yours .. you see what I mean?

            So when the auditor or terminal gave his question out .. I said always yes, sure, because I acknowledged him for his thinking .. but then he tried to audit that with me .. a lot of tech instructions here from LRH ..

            In my progress I learned that it is impossible to audit a thetan like me (I did never like that I was called a thetan) .. because I would be always much faster than any auditor could ever be .. in consequence I said that I cannot be a preclear .. it is impossible to audit me as long I am not put my awareness and conciousness down .. but if I would do that, then there were no longer a preclear there .. I would be simply in sleep ..

            I think nobody has ever grasped my statement .. I got a lot of indications about .. most prefered was always PTS and degraded being status .. was called a robot .. running on evil intentions .. psychotic, physically illness .. and this all about the point that an auditor did think .. something which I did not do .. so I was always much much faster .. I mean when the auditor gave his question I was about 5 seconds or some minutes through the point from him .. and (this is the tragic) I had already 1.000 or 10,000 possible answers in friendship to his question .. and that is what it is and always was .. I had to ask the auditor which answer he wants now .. have never met an auditor who has grasped that .. it is not in his drill .. he was not able to think about .. too much for him .. so I thought very often that it would be better to audit my auditor ..

            So finally, Scn pushed and forced me for thinking .. but I did not think for myself and it was always a wrong answer for my own conflicts in life .. I have never accepted the idea from LRH that my mind would influence me this simply because I have none .. do not need one ..

            It doesn’t say in any way that I cannot remember things of the past. I say only it is not a mind as defined from LRH .. and if and whatever, it is not my mind .. it is my heart, my wishes, my way .. it is me ..

            Lets say at the end of this possible stupid comment .. I can run in charge as every person can do .. that is life .. but this is not stored in a mind, it is simply existend out of ARC circumstances .. it is a statement about me that I am wrong and others are right .. which is surely for me an idiotic statemnt .. because it is in itself wrong .. never true .. will never be true because it is a lie ..

            My admiration for LRH that he tried to get this ARCXes in order, but it seems to me that he got not this target really solved .. in todays Scn it is completely neglected .. so some writing here may help me to sort this stuff out .. very helpful ..

            • Friend,

              You are the first and only truly sane and intelligent person I have ever met, in scn and the fz.

              The way you describe your native ability to think is exactly the way I was when I was in my few peak states as a result of some good auditing. But good auditing is very hard to find.

              And generally speaking, an auditor, at best, can not audit a pc to a level more than half a tone level above his true tone level, his chronic tone level.

              He may have a high tone valence, but that will not work very long. A conscious PC will soon sense it and will not progress.

              Please email me at diogeneseii at yahoo.ca

              Dio

              • Lets say, my most of time auditor was a good guy .. I liked him .. it was in any case easy to speak with him about everything .. but sometimes I thought to myself that he may be a bit stupid .. why? Oh, he used a standard which was probably only for his protection .. but with this he could not audit me really .. so what? I did not know about pressure about stats and standard tech .. and as you said, he could not audit me above his own chronic tone level .. something which I did respect with my own ARC .. so it was he who gave me stops for more understanding .. could not progress above his stops .. but I liked him, so I did accept that as a reality ..

                Anyway, I had a lot of auditors in my 43 years .. most of them were never able to get my reality .. as described above, but best of all is when going with Out Int handling .. LRH described the phenomena about Out Int and gave some rules about. Nothing of ths stuff did ever come close to my own reality. It means, I am always exterior and I am always interior too .. sometimes I am more exterior than interior .. and sometimes I am more interior than exterior .. and it says that there is no rundown necessary for handling that .. it goes with daily life .. not a problem at all .. but the church run it as a tragic with me .. they claimed that I went exterior with the auditing .. you know it is a win for them .. but the truth is that I went always interior in all auditing .. never at any time exterior ..

                So on, I had a problem with this game .. I did not like to go interior in every session, because it reduced my space sometimes very badly .. but I went exterior again after the session .. it means, I went again exterior when the auditor said “end of session” .. but I did not went out of my body because I was never in my body .. so for what was this handling?

                I came never clear with the church about this. Nobody has ever grasped and understood what I have said. They thought always that one is in his head and if he goes slightly out he realise that he is a thetan .. I dd not like to be called as a thetan .. but if we call me a thetan, then I knew at all time that I am one .. but for me it makes nothing to be in or out, it is only space which I am willing to take under current circumstances .. so I asked often: why do you think that I am in my head? I am now in my big toe .. is it not good for you? Anyway, I was an idiot to discuss that with persons who have only learned from LRH that they are thetans .. in LRH teaching is exteriosation a big win .. but he describes it very wrongly ..

                Mock up the picture that you are constand exterior per LRH description, it would be a total desaster for you .. why? you would be always out of ARC with the environment. That is a point which LRH has never solved ..

                • Friend,

                  Your words are very sobering to me.

                  I have full reality on what you say and totally agree.

                  email me: diogeneseii at yahoo.ca

                  Dio

    • “If: You are what you think – is right, then I am nothing .. but this is not true ..”

      Actually, it is.

      But in a good way.

      • christianscientology

        Hi Grasshopper

        It is imperative to differentiate between NOTHING and NO THING, in the same way that A THETAN and THETA are not the same. A Thetan is A THING for it holds a position in space and time and has MASS. Theta is a NO THING which is SPIRIT as opposed to A SOUL – a thetan. That is why I love this Buddhist tale http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

    • Friend: “If: You are what you think – is right, then I am nothing .. but this is not true ..”

      It is not true because you think it is not true…🙂

      Recently, I have been contemplating over the concept of inertia. It tries to maintain the natural state of motion, and it resists any change in motion.

      One is what one naturally is. That state is altered when one thinks.

    • christianscientology

      Dear Friend

      I enjoyed your post. I loved your closing remark “If you are what you think – is right, then I am nothing …. But this is not true”.

      It is thinking that produces the ego, which is our defence against acknowledging our “broken heart”. The fact is that each of us has a “God shaped hole” at the core of our being. No amount of understanding can fill this “void” only the “Love of God” can fill it because the ARC break is infinite, so only Divine Love, God’s truth, humility can repair it.

      Love with ARC
      Pip

  37. christianscientology

    Hi Marty

    Thank you for a most interesting post. However although these two statements may well be complimentary they certainly are not the same. The statement “you are what you think” is addressing the mind, the statement “for as he thinketh in his heart, so he is” is addressing the heart. It is as serious as the difference between LIFE and DEATH, not to confuse these two.

    Scientology having grown out of Dianetics, and as you so rightly said along with “virtually every workable religious and spiritual philosophy” has attributed the human mind as mans’ fundamental problem, when in fact, the human mind is “the second postulate”, the first being the problem of the human heart.

    Each of us has a “moral compass” and it is here that the correction has to take place. Just as both Variation and Deviation can cause a compass to point other than true north, so it is with the human heart.

    The world has just celebrated Christmas – EMMANUAL – God with us. A time when wise men followed a celestial star not, as you rightly say “(priests, practitioners, institutions, practices, rituals, beliefs)”.

    Thanks again for the food for thought, and Happy New Year to you and yours.

    Love with ARC

    • This may be a matter of semantics. “Nous” is not “the mind” in modern psychology’s sense of the word. Dianetics deals with “mind” in an older sense of the word, as I understand it. The “Heart” is included in its activity:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

      • Good point. “Heart” is closer to the type of thinking that is consistent with one’s natural frequency of beingness.

        A “heart” of a criminal could be quite interesting.

        “Heart” could change as beingness changes, but that is not a common, day-to-day, occurrence.
        .

  38. “The single most fundamental, sweeping and powerful truth in all spiritual study, contemplation and practice was probably best summed up in a single sentence.” “You are what you think.” This is true. This single sentence aligns so much information on the scene of a spiritual being’s relationship with the physical universe. It solves many different things for me everywhere I look.

  39. This is truth, Mark, but the concept is so simple that the onion needs to be peeled back to get at the kernel.

    But to Friend’s point above, the whole point of mindfulness is to NOT think – to get to the point where you are fully there, experiencing all, without any thought at all. To be, fully and with nothing added and no separateness.

    Then, if you want, think to change what is happening now, and to change who/what you are.

    Mark

  40. “Once one is led to believe that the realization’s continued operation depends on some relationship external to self, the truth no longer obtains.”

    Write that one in stone.

  41. The path I was on prior to getting involved in Scientology was centered around the concept of “Be Here Now.”

    The progress I’d made toward that goal in two years was eclipsed by one week of drilling TR 0. That success hooked me on the subject. As Vinaire pointed out in one of his posts above, I also used the drill from that Buddhist perspective. Not being particularly literate or well-read, I unfortunately fell into the thought that I had found “the” answer. The thought that I need look no further defined my beingness for about 20 years. I missed out on a lot of wisdom and gain by being so narrowly focused.

    Any exercise which coaxes or coaches another into letting go and allowing onself to simply exist prior to existing as something or someone, is a useful thing. If that same drill or exercise is used to regiment one’s behavior rather than liberate one into self-determination, then it traps. Most processes and procedures in Scn can be used to liberate or to trap. Some are only traps.

    You are what you think. What I’m thinking right now is how much I’ve appreciated the perspective of our host. His sharing of his own story, his references to various materials which might help one grow. The posters who frequent this joint and their viewpoints have all helped me to expand my own cognizance of this funny universe and my own role here.

    Happy New Year to all of you.

  42. “Virtually any practice or ism that overtly or covertly requires continued membership, obligation, participation, or belief becomes anathema to truth and all of the salutary effects that spring from it.”

    Good point, Marty. There is no absolute thing , at least, on this planet.
    Personally I keep it in my mind, thank you.

    Good luck on your journey. I wish you well and happy with your family.

  43. The only way you are what you think is if you BELIEVE the thoughts.
    One is not required to believe any thought, one has the option of just letting them pass like watching a train go by….Identifying with a thought is the root cause of suffering. You are not your thoughts.

    • The “thoughts” you are referring to there, are perceived as, and indeed may well be, “other-determinisms”; as though one is a passive observer or even victim of them. This is the range of obsessive, compulsive, reactive, “thinking”. What Marty is rferring to are intentionally generated thoughts purposefully engaged in by the person. It is a different type of “thinking”, thoughts that are intentionally manifested by the person.
      Buddhism, or schools derived from Gurdjieff, highlight/focus on making folks aware of of the automaticity of much common “thinking”, which is indeed stimulus-response. In becoming aware of this kind of thinking and beginning to struggle against it, sometimes one becomes aware of one’s own helplessness and lack of control in the face of the kind of thoughts that appear out of nowhere whether one wants them or not. The point is to break through the “egoism” that holds some in thrall to the belief they always control what they think and feel.
      But Dianetics also focused on this aspect of human nature.

      Marty validates and empowers the other view, that a person can be what he fundamentally is in his Heart.

  44. Hi Marty,
    Great to have you posting again. This rings true.

    ” It is an aphorism that has been popularly attributed to the Buddha:
    You are what you think.”

    When I studied at Holy Cross College with the Jesuits,
    I became interested in Thomas Aquinas who was the greatest theologian of
    the 13th Century. They called him the “dumb ox”, yet he wrote the Summa Theologica.
    The Buddha said:
    “The experience of life is created by mind.
    Thought precedes experience.
    If one speaks and acts with a clouded mind,
    mental pain and stress follow as the wheel
    of the ox-cart follows the ox.”

    Thomas overcame this negative image of the ox and in the end was
    in deep prayer and meditation.

    Much Metta,
    GMW

  45. Marty it is good that you posted this about TRUTH .. it helped me finally to grasp much better what I did really wrong with and in Scn ..

    When Buddha said: You are what you think .. you have to add the people to whom he spoke .. and it is the same with the Bible: For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is. Both is meaning to whom there did speak .. both said that they did not act on her own thoughts .. which was an observation of buddha and jesus .. and both of them told to the public that they should do it much better yet as a way of living ..

    It is more truth anyway .. but it is not truth .. it is only a sign of that people at this ages did believe on thoughts of others .. certainly it is a way which most people go still today .. but it is always truth of others, and not yours .. truth goes down to agreement .. because truth is always true .. and thinking will give you never truth ..

  46. This is a response to
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-327940

    .

    Any creation is based on an earlier creation. Nothing and something are relative to each other. There is no creation that comes out of absolute nothing.

    Just thinking something doesn’t change the “core” of YOU. Ordinary thinking is like ruffling the hair of YOU. The core of YOU is made up of thought patterns that have acquired a rigid configuration.

    A thetan is a very rigidly configured core of a “SCIENTOLOGIST YOU”. It was put there by L. Ron Hubbard.

    It is an implant if I may say so.

    • vinaire: Any creation is based on an earlier creation. Nothing and something are relative to each other. There is no creation that comes out of absolute nothing ,, it seems that you are sure about .. but you miss the point that creating something out of nothing was and will always be told the way you speak .. but it is not really true .. it is not .. really not ..

      If you follow the creation of planet Earth really deeply down to the beginning .. you would find out that there was never a planet in this universe like Earth .. never .. you can only say that it was created as like an earlier creation .. but you would lie like mad than .. it is completely untrue ..

      Do you get me? Creation is build with meanings and ideas from seperate beings in his wishes for a good and better game .. and that my dear is not done really .. never done .. it will never be an earlier creation .. because it is never done .. so it was never created .. following it can not be created at earlier times .. creation is the wish of some guys for having a better game ..

      You can fool me down about my words, than do it, but be assure that I have my answer .. but I will bring you then down to the cognition what creation is .. not what you said ..

      • My certainties are only relative no matter how it comes across. They are relative to reality through logical associations.

        If an output is unique and different from the input, it does not necessarily mean a “creation out of nothing” as you imply with your example of Earth.

        You claim creation by separate beings? And who creates the beings? You are going down another rabbit hole here.

        Sorry, I see assertions coming from you based on subjective feelings only, and not on any logical relationship with reality.

  47. This is a response to
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328003

    .

    Responsibility simply means “that response which resolves a situation.”

    “Being” means “a certain configuration of consciousness.”

    When a being is involved in a situation, he or she is not independent of that situation. He is also a part of that situation. Responsibility of the “being” involves reconfiguring of what is there so that the situation resolves. This reconfiguring may involve reconfiguring of “being” also to some degree.

    It is an error to think of “being” as a constant. The concept of thetan makes one think that “being” is a contant. That is an error. This error was pointed out by Buddha.
    .

  48. This is a response to
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328005
    .

    Past, present and future are just tags assigned to certain data, Considerations are always there, regardless of time tags, as part of the mock up. Those considerations needs to be resolved one way or other.

    A “being” is a configuration of consciousness, which is a part of the configuration being looked upon as a situation.

    .

  49. This is a response to
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328002
    .

    In my view the Eighth Dynamic has been defined incorrectly by Hubbard in Scientology. Here is my analysis of the eight dynamics.

    The Eighth Dynamic

    .

  50. The simple truth lies in freeing of fixed attention.

    Interiorization & Exteriorization

    .

  51. To be what you think you are, could be a point where religions of various sorts and also sciences could actually meet and shake hands too. For it would validate the souls of various sorts, the brain and it’s functions or whatever each group thinks to be true. I think the game becomes ‘wrong’ only when one group disrespects the other group by something like ‘What you think is BS, what I think is right.’. Over that, rationalization could be added too or even observable indications as well. That is because thought can create things that can be observable too. One CAN be depressed, schizophrenic, bipolar, dramatize engrams, have chakra energy fields and auras and this and that –assuming that he knows what those things are. And the more solid the belief that he is those things, the more solid the phenomena that can be observed. I think such beliefs could be of course discussed but in a respectful manner, unless you want war. Nobody likes to be called wrong, bad, crazy for what he thinks. Thus, I don’t engage into any further validation or invalidation of beliefs –even if they can be observed, and have applicable value. And of course, I don’t mean to respect disrespectful people or groups. I don’t feel like doing that. Although I usually let them be too.

    Even if the source of your headache is not you stomach, you could (COULD) treat it by treating the stomach, if you so thoroughly believe so. Doctors know well of the placebo effect. I think it can go even further than what they think (can have broader and more intense application).

    And which that incident in France in mind, somebody posted this in my facebook, and I think it’s great. It could be applied in religion or anything else:

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

    • Just to make something clear, because I mentioned respect. I don’t mean anything like to protect harmful things so as to ‘respect’ them. It’s just that ‘harmful’ to me is very closely related to disrespect. Respect must come and go, to be fair. Just saying…because it’s happened to me to have people disrespect and then demand respect. No, that would be suppression. I don’t mean anything like that. If I wanted to dominate others, profit or have some sort of a monopoly over thought, I would go with that. I just think that since to be something is potential (from my perspective) then to argue over what is truth is silly, and doesn’t lead to any knowing of truth. It might lead to conviction about how things are, which is different thing.

    • Science will look at “soul” not as something that is separate from the body, but as a “center of thought” similar to “center of mass.”

      The brief experiences that people have of being outside the body is just a feeling. The person’s attention may then get fixed on separating “self” from the body, Scientology then takes advantage of this situation by convincing a person that he is an immortal “thetan” (self) that can operate outside the body all the time. He is then offered Scientology processing at very expensive rates. He is put on a long “bridge” that he must cross.

      • I don’t really know what each person experiences in exteriorization.

        I think basically the spirit is nowhere, but can think that it is somewhere. And basically it is nothing, but can think it is something. And then those things can also be observed or not.

        I think when it comes to spirit, there is too much flexibility to be narrowed down into a certain scientific theory. Still, due to that flexibility, any scientific theory that could be conceived, could be true. The ‘no soul at all’ could be true. The ‘thetan interior or exterior’ could be true. The ‘spirit as energy’ could be true. Yet, it is never the only possible truth.

        I know you disagree, I just wonder whether you grasp what I say or not. Also have you ever met people that were exterior not briefly and that it wasn’t ‘just a feeling’? Is your science based on yourself? 2 people? 5? Are all the same?

        • What do you think is my disagreement?🙂

          • If you don’t think it is a thing, then no disagreement.

            I thought that you thought it is a thing subjected to some other physical thingies😛

            • Spirit is not a thing, and that is why it cannot be separated from the body as it is assumed in exteriorization. Exteriorization is merely a feeling.

              • Hello Vin. You have certainly been busy lately. As you know, one thing I really respect is Doing. So much to learn. These are exciting times.

                You said “Exteriorization is merely a feeling.”
                In my travels, it appears to me that ext. is a gradient. Looking around at the room or a tree or something is a low gradient. Feeling good and being interested in the things around you is a little higher. Knowing what is going around you with a calm confidence and affinity is a little higher. Having that ‘sixth sense’ about the things and people about you is a little higher. Remote viewing is a bit higher. Spreading out over a large area, seeing and feeling the entire area, gathering factual data is a little higher.

                I have experienced remote viewing at times and verified the data gathered afterwards. I have ‘become’ devices for a short period, then later took the device apart and verified the parts inside. I have met a few people who could ‘see’ at a distance, and I verified the info.

                You and many others have experienced the lower gradients. That is far greater than most. But to invalidate others abilities, even when short lived or occasional, serves no useful purpose. Just be happy that these things are *possibly* available and *perhaps* are worth working for.

                That couple of times when I was driving at night and “saw” a dog or a deer crossing the road a couple of miles ahead and a couple of minutes away was not seeing the future. It was sensing what was going on around me and calculating the future. It was an unconscious machine I had built for myself long ago, to prevent unwanted surprises. It was a game I and others were playing in which surprise was a big part of the game. For awhile I was winning all the time and that became boring and it was pointed out that it ‘wasn’t fair’, that I wasn’t actually playing the game. So I set that machine aside and forgot about it. It resurfaces from time to time.
                Mark

                • Mark, My effort is to apply mindfulness and not to validate or invalidate. If somebody looks at my observations as validation or invalidation then that interpretation is not coming from me.

                  I have made a detailed study of Remore Viewing and I have documented it here. You may look at the reference at the top to the study that preceded this essay.

                  Remote Viewing

                  Remote viewing in not scientifically repeatable and that puts it in the category of subjectivity and feelings. It is at best a computation that happened to match reality accidently. This in no ways proves the simplistic idea of a thetan that can exist exterior to the body.

                  • Vin said “This in no ways proves the simplistic idea of a thetan that can exist exterior to the body.”

                    There is little proof, but there is widespread evidence. My experiences were proof for me. My additional experiences align with the separate theta and MEST idea and the view that theta is senior to and the source of MEST. At least glance at the article I wrote and posted on E. Hamre’s site.
                    Mark

              • Vinaire, with the things you tell me you give me the opportunity to say much more than just answer to you. I detour quite often. It is usually because I also answer to other things that I read or that are told to me. But above all I like to chit chat about those matters. What I don’t like is to fight about those matters. When people get charged like that, I think it harms more than it benefits.

                Vinaire, that a spirit is not exterior is as logical as that it is not interior too. I can take both as true, but I think there is a capacity to consider oneself interior or exterior. It is not the basic truth, but it can be experienced. Imagine how it would be like to see and feel through the perceptions of a cat. In a way it would seem true that you are the cat, but basically that would be based on your own idea of being that. So, before every taken identity, there is that basic nothing, I think.

                Also take into account, if you want, that Hubbbard mentioned a thing called the GE which is the life force that keeps animals and humans alike, alive. He said that thetans are completely foreign to bodies (that was after Dianetics. He also said that Dianetics audited the GEs ridges. For the moment that theory works well for me.

                I’m not the kind of a person who will just swap one theory for another because. I have some purposes being involved with spirituality an I take what theory serves my purposes the most. I also have feelings too which tell me that when a situation is very grim, it just doesn’t have to be that way, and there is something to learn better. This is something basic that drives me. I don’t like to compromise nor fight against grim conditions. I like the idea of having them vanish, or rephrased, no longer having them. And I do practice that, often, or else, if I was engaged in all the fighting I have ever being involved in, I’d probably be in a very bad condition by now.

                I don’t know all and I don’t know better I just don’t follow the beliefs of others. I do agree with what Hubbard said that a theory is as good as it is workable. Still, workable is not an absolute, it is relative. If one found Grade 0 workable, it wouldn’t mean everything else would be workable too –just saying, without hinting invalidations.

                I think a spirit I doesnt have the case that I used to assign to myself as a man. I just wasn’t too awake as a spirit, so to speak. When a spirit thinks it is a man, it inherits the man’s problems. And that detour from it’s own being, is what it’s own case is, I think.

                I wish tomorrow I will make myself wrong so I will know better, so I will do better too. For the moment, I go with what seems more true to me, and what serves me the most. I have discarded much Dianetics and SCN as relatively workable stuff, but only relatively, that apply where they should apply. You don’t run engrams on a Clear, because he doesn’t have any. He also knows he never had any, but what he created while it thought itself to be a body. Isn’t that the Clear’s cog? It seems to invalidate Dianetics, but that is the purpose, no? What would be the purpose of insisting that Clears have engrams but to put them but into trouble again? I so much disagree with that.

                • Spyros, as I said to Mark, my effort is to apply mindfulness and not to validate, invalidate, or fight. If somebody looks at my observations as validation, invalidation, or fighting, then that interpretation is not coming from me.

                  Spirit is basically consciousness or self-awareness, that can be centered or spread all over the place. It is a reflection of motion. Motion gets centered and acquires inertia by spinning. Similarly, spirit may get centered and acquire fixedness by attention that is spinning. That is as close to the idea of thetan that I can come. A thetan has to go hand-in-hand with fixidity and spinning attention. Please see

                  What is Awareness, Scientifically?

                  Just because something is experienced it doesn’t become factual in the physical universe. An experience can be filtered and subjective. A body is physical object. Being exterior to the body can be objective or subjective. A chair on which the body is sitting is physically exterior to the body. When there is visualization of environment from a point exterior to the body, then that point is subjectively exterior to the body. There is no physical remote viewing camera there. There is no mythical thetan there either. It is simply a subjective experience.

                  .

                  • Vinaire, I didn’t mean that you fight. I was talking about myself and some of my experiences with philosophical talks. Supposedly we talk to learn from each other. No reason for upsets. That’s what I meant.

                • Spyros: “Vinaire, that a spirit is not exterior is as logical as that it is not interior too.”

                  There seems to be confusion coming from the definition of “exterior”. One can be exterior physically, or one can be exterior spiritually. It seems like spiritual exteriorization is being confused with physical exteriorization. The feeling of being outside the body comes from “spiritual exteriorization.” Here one’s attention is freed up from fixation on the body.

                  From Interiorization & Exteriorization:

                  In Scientology, INTERIORIZATION refers to a condition that has to do with “going into and becoming part of the body too fixedly.” EXTERIORIZATION is defined as a state where the individual experiences being outside his body.

                  The above definition assumes that individual and the body can be separated “physically” from each other. But the awareness of individuality is not something physical that can be pulled out of the body.

                  The truth is that a person, whose attention is fixed on the body, and who has been operating as a body all his life, feels very liberated when that attention suddenly becomes unstuck. This comes to him as a big surprise. He literally feels being outside the body. He thinks that something very special has happened. He feels a deep “spiritual awakening,”

                  INTERIORIZATION is the condition of attention being too fixed on the body with the person unaware of it. When that attention suddenly becomes unstuck the person feels very liberated.

                  .

                • Spyros: “Imagine how it would be like to see and feel through the perceptions of a cat.”

                  One would require a “cat filter” to see and feel through the perceptions of a cat. A FILTER is a metaphysical equivalent of the physical INERTIA. Just as inertia is resistence to change in motion, similarly, filter is the resistence to change in awareness. Please see

                  A New Explanation of Inertia:

                  Just as inertia is the inherent state of motion of a wave or a particle, similarly, filter is the state of awareness of a flowing attention or a fixed ego. Human ego is the most common filter. Nirvana is liberation from this and any other filter.

                  .

                • Spyros: “Also take into account, if you want, that Hubbbard mentioned a thing called the GE which is the life force that keeps animals and humans alike, alive. “

                  GE is a certain gradient of filter (state of awareness). Similarly, THETAN is another gradient of filter. Filter in metaphysical realm acts like inertia in the physical realm. GE and Thetan are reflections of the complex state of motion that a body is.

                  A New Explanation of Inertia:

                  I don’t think Hubbard knew what he was talking about when he said that thetans are completely foreign to bodies. He was talking from drug-induced intuitions that were not worked out with enough precision. There are a lot of holes in his intuitions that plugged in with speculations and assumptions. His assertions consist of self-contradictions and inconsistencies that are documented at many places in Vinaire’s Blog.

                  Hubbard talked about absolutes being unattainable, yet he assumed an absolute Static as the basis of his philosophy of Scientology. The Theta-MEST theory has more holes than one can shake a stick at..

                  .

                  • I think the filter you talk about is what is called a mind by Hubbard –the point of connection between the spirit and the body, the via through which it perceives and operates it, or as he said in that interview the communications center.

                    He said that absolutes are unattainable in the physical universe. The static is not contained within the physical universe. It is obvious in it’s definition.

                    With your scientific approach of finding inconsistencies you can easily find logic holes in physical universe matters. But that which is not subjected to the physical world, is not subjected to logic either. That’s why absolute brainwashing (which is a physical universe term) is impossible. The capacity to think (which is a function of the static) freely is never lost. It is only thought to be lost when thoughts are closely associated or identified with the physical universe. If you think you are your brains you can more easily get brainwashed. If you think you are a point in space, you can also get the idea of being trapped. I think you can be brains and points in space as well as other things. But basically you are but capacity to be things. To be inside a body, outside, to be the body itself, the mind, this and that, are abilities. One could observe you are brains, or a point in space and figure out that’s all you can be. It just needs more research. But if one discards everything that is not in accordance to a body’s perceptions or machines or logical analysis, he is not heading to that direction. If you can know your opponent has full house and you pass, who cares whether it is explained logically or not? One could assume it was luck, another might assume your feeling of him having full house is a hallucination (it could be hallucination too, why not. To hallucinate is an ability too). But if you know it, and don’t evaluate/invalidate it, you just know it.

                  • I think aside from what Hubbard or others said, we could focus more on what happens –ask people instead of analysing theories, if we want to know what happens. It shouldn’t matter what logical or illogical theories lie behind things like ‘suffering from depression’ or being ‘sad effect’. I have noticed in myself, the more I believed in such mental conditions, the more I could experience them.

                    Does that make them true or untrue?

                    If you can create a sad effect and resolve it, you have something workable. If you can create depression and resolve it, you have something workable. If you can create yourself interiorised and then exteriorise, you have something workable. If you can’t resolve a condition, you don’t have something workable. But you need to create the condition first. So, logic when it comes to such matters, is not absolute. It is relative –relative to what you create. It is limited, because it is not always true. It is not false, because it can be true (in the case of workable theories). Clear is not absolute either, because the ABILITY to create again the handled phenomena never ceases to exist. What changes is the awareness that you made it happen. It’s simple. But if one thinks beings are subjected to laws, he can obey the, and those believe him, can obey them too.

                    • In my view it is not a matter of analyzing theories or asking people.

                      It is simply a matter of observing and resolving inconsistencies.

                      >

                    • “I think aside from what Hubbard or others said, we could focus more on what happens –ask people instead of analysing theories, if we want to know what happens.”

                      Hi, Spyros! What you wrote above makes the most sense to me too – to pay attention to the direct experiences people have and compare them to one another. That approach would have the greatest chance of discovering truths, IMO, even relative truths. Doing otherwise has the liability of looking from a bias – including the bias of science or of logic – and what you then see will likely be the things that fit the bias.

                      Btw, I haven’t read all the posts on this thread but your two posts above are really good. Gotta say it again – your English keeps improving all the time. I guess it’s catching up to your brains (joke!😛😀 ).

                    • Thanks. Long time no see.

                      Yes, any bias is a bias. And without authorities and biases there is no religion and no science, there are people who use that and probably even disagree with each other within science or within religion. The ‘science vs religion’ means a sect vs another sect, to me.

                      If science knows the objective reality and the truth, it ought to stop researching, write a bible and start preaching. I love much science for I am also a bit of a computer wiz. I am also into some spiritual stuff. So what does that make me, doubtful? No. I don’t choose sides.

                      Spiritual people and scientists without bosses can create good stuff. Bosses create sects and they are ‘right’.

                    • I would not trust even direct experiences on their face value. Their interpretation is subject to the filters of the person experiencing them. Look at the experiences of “exteriorization.”

                      I would examine them in a wider context for inconsistencies.

                    • You give me the opportunity to say something I’ve been wanting to say for long. I think the ‘what is true, is what is true for you’ philosophical viewpoint, has not been given a bad name because it is bad, but because it does not occur whenever it is asserted that it occurs. For as long as people, for whatever reasons, believe in other people’s words, it does not occur.

                      The final stage of brainwashing, or implanting in Scientologese, is when the person adopts the ideas that are given to him so much, that he considers them his own ideas. Actually, it rarely occurs -if ever- that people fight against each other for their own truth. They fight for things they have been told (or read) by others. In other words, they fight for beliefs, convictions. If such a person asserts those ideas to be his truth and then adds that ‘what is truth, is what it true for me, and if you say otherwise, you are bad’, that is a service facsimile, in Scientologese.

                      I have never fought for my truth, because in truth, I don’t have any fixed ideas. What I can debate and fight about is theories, observations (I differentiate between ‘observations’ and ‘my truth’) and generally, not really what I have inside me.

                      I really disagree with bashing at the ‘own truth’ viewpoint because it is misunderstood and misused.

                      I think it is fundamental respect to allow a person to have his own viewpoint, even if you discuss about it. It is a fundamental element in our sort of a democracy, and sort of a freedom of speech. What I mean is that to put labels on people, or punish them, mock them, try to silence them just because you disagree with them (and you think you know better about them, than themselves) is disrespectful and antidemocratic.

                      Politically speaking, when somebody knows better than others what is true for others, it is called monarchy or fascism (if that viewpoint is imposed on others). When few know that, it is called oligarchy or fascism. When the majority knows better, it is democracy. When the average, the collective knows better it is communism (at least theoretical communism). And when each person knows and decides for himself it’s closer to anarchy. Anarchy has been given a bad name because if you don’t restrain brainwashed people, some might be free to wreck havoc. But it has never occurred to have free and brainwash-free people, without bosses over their heads (or maybe it occurred in the past or now in few small tribes), so as to conclude that truly free people are dangerous to each other.

                      In ancient Athens we had many and diverse philosophical schools. Now we only have one, that includes only what it wants to include (it is run by the state). That is oligarchy/fascism in the field of philosophy. Not only it does not allow people to think their own thoughts, but also limits what other people’s thoughts to believe in. If Scientology is believed, it can become something of the sort too. It is the same with ANY set of theories.

                      I don’t believe anyone can have an objectively true viewpoint about me, because nobody knows anything about me and my life. Same for others.

                      Vinaire, the inconsistencies theory of your assumes an objectively true viewpoint, with which I strongly disagree. You cannot know whether I am exterior or not by analysing theories, or by judging based on your own experiences or based on everybody else’s experiences. It could be that I am the only one on earth who can be exterior (I don’t mean that, just saying…). It is not up to you nor anybody else to deem my perception ‘false’, for you don’t have any objectively ‘true’ perceptions.

                    • We can have more creative and beneficial discussions by exchanging ideas, instead of bashing at each other’s ideas or each other as persons. That doesn’t go to you, Vinaire, nor to the SCN topics and blogs and forums, just saying. I personally don’t feel like talking under such terms, because I usually respect them and allow them to talk, and I don’t get the same back, when I deal with people who are ‘right’ and ‘know better’. And of course, if I -in turn- disrespect those people, oh, I’m the devil incarnated, according to them. Unfair rules. I am not ‘whining’. I don’t feel victimized by it. And I am not ‘soft’ because I don’t go around hurting others. If I wanted, I very well could.

                      I just don’t agree with authority, in life. I let people have authority over themselves, and me too. That is my idea of self and pan determinism. It is not to forcefully control others (by invalidating their own viewpoint) so as to be self and pan determined. That is why I didn’t fit in SCN groups. And that is why I am ‘bad’ according to some who had that idea of pan determinism. Pan determinism for me is an 8th dynamic thing. And nobody is more right, more important from that viewpoint. And imposing oneself on another is not pan determinism. And co-operation is possible -and actually fun- with different viewpoints too. It would be so dull if we all perfectly agreed, wouldn’t it? Yet brainwashing, implanting aim to that place –one says, the others repeat. Another says another thing, his subjects repeat, they fight the other faction. That’s as fun as it can get with such ideas of ‘pan determinism’.

                    • I mentioned that I didn’t fit in SCN groups. I meant the ones I was in. Jut clearing it up, to avoid misunderstanding.

                    • Spyros.
                      This is an astoundingly accurate view of what life can be. You surprise me once again. If this type of thinking were more broadly shared, more would find it worthwhile to reach for these lofty goals. A very worthy reach indeed.
                      Mark

                    • Mark, I thoroughly appreciate Spyros’ posts too. In fact, I’ve complimented him so many times that I have had to cut it back, or else he’ll be telling me again – there you go with the compliments.😀

                      I guess it’s the ancient Greek philosopher genes – huh. Spyros?😛

                    • Nothing like a good set of genes to reach a clear outlook on life. Preferably Levi’s or Carhart.
                      I know, that was pretty weak, I’ll try to do better.
                      Mark

                    • Spyros got the Greek designer genes.

                      (I actually like your corny sense of humor!😀 )

                    • Stone washed genes, tumbled with marble taken from the Parthenon.
                      Mark

                    • Ah, yes. The Parthenon. Spyros’ old stomping grounds.😉

                    • Thank you🙂 You were speaking so god about me that I was wondering whether you meant it or not. It’s kinda like you put me ‘above’ others. I’m no teacher. I share democratically, often confidently. I try to learn.🙂

                    • Spyros.
                      The magic of exchange, interchange amongst friends, is that when one has a bit of clarity and communicates it to others, it sparks additional epiphanies in them, which they then communicate to yourself and others, which sparks………etc.
                      I only hope I have rendered a piece or two of worthwhile info to some.
                      Mark

                    • Yes, really understood, and I’m glad when I know that it happens.

                      It’s just that sometimes I feel I might be telling a bit too much people what to think. I’m not sure what the golden line is.

                      For the moment I play the guy who has no place on an hierarchy so my opinions should only be seen as opinions, so as to feel free too to speak, and also be wrong, in the sense of incorrect.

                      I have allegiance to ideals and people and not certain groups. People I share similar ideals with is a group indeed, but it’s a different kind of a group than to say ‘I am a democrat’. God knows what that means. It is too general. It might as well mean he is a , but votes for the democratic party, for whatever reasons.

                      ‘Deep down’ I’m with everybody. But I’m not going to join any mafia.

                    • Spyros.
                      I believe I get the direction of thought you were going for. To be an agreed member of any structured group means to ascribe to at least some of their thoughts and opinions that you may not necessarily agree to. Policies and manners which are not actually yours.

                      Loyalty to any group can force one to compromise his own integrity. That puts one at odds with himself. You and I seem to have an innate aversion to this kind of blind loyalty.
                      Mark

                    • Yes, exactly.

                      And another thing I have noticed in myself and others, is that they often agree over words but not over concepts. No groups stands for evil, destruction etc, in words. It’s all about good words –love, freedom etc.

                      We are in an elections period in Greece, and it’s emetic how some use nice words, to get people’s agreement. Or use other general words to black-PR the opposing party.

                      It’s like mind agreement but not spirit agreement. Where mind would represent information and spirit understanding.

                      Really, I can’t connect with any of that.

                      I say all that not including all groups or all possible groups. I think friends are a kind of group too, by the way.

                  • christianscientology

                    If the definition of “an Absolute Static” is a NO-THING , that is THE CREATOR OF THINGS

                  • christianscientology

                    If the definition of “an Absolute Static” is a NO-THING, that is THE CREATOR OF THINGS, then it would be true to say that absolutes are unattainable since one cannot “attain” a NO-THING because it is an AS-ISNESS.

                    • As-isness and no-things are relative, of course.

                    • christianscientology

                      No! Every-THING is relative except AS-ISNESS and NO-THING since everything is relative to them.

                    • Ah! So you believe in absolutes!

                    • This is an interesting Black Box argument. One assumes then presents that assumption as an answer.

                      Sent from my iPad

                      >

                    • christianscientology

                      Sorry Vinaire, I don’t know what you are talking about.

                      In my little daily reading book “DAILY REFLECTIONS” it says “We had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is or He isn’t. What was our choice to be? ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS page 53.

                      I see you can read it on line at http://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/daily-reflection?y=2015&m=02&d=10 Just move the calendar to February 10th.

                      Honestly Vinaire if the best idea of God you can come up with is “a Black Box” I think we have a fundamental problem with duplication and as long as that is so, there really is no communication.

                      Love
                      Pip

                    • Pip,

                      Quoting you:

                      Honestly Vinaire if the best idea of God you can come up with is “a Black Box” I think we have a fundamental problem with duplication and as long as that is so, there really is no communication.

                      Me: LOL.

                      Dio

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Dio
                      Thanks for the ack. I am still processing the ROSWELL/LRH connection, will be in touch soon.

                      Love
                      Pip

                • Spyros: “I’m not the kind of a person who will just swap one theory for another because. I have some purposes being involved with spirituality an I take what theory serves my purposes the most. I also have feelings too which tell me that when a situation is very grim, it just doesn’t have to be that way, and there is something to learn better. This is something basic that drives me. I don’t like to compromise nor fight against grim conditions. I like the idea of having them vanish, or rephrased, no longer having them. And I do practice that, often, or else, if I was engaged in all the fighting I have ever being involved in, I’d probably be in a very bad condition by now. “

                  This is simply “I = I = I …” Nothing wrong with it. But this is what it is.

                  .

                • Spyros: “I don’t know all and I don’t know better I just don’t follow the beliefs of others. I do agree with what Hubbard said that a theory is as good as it is workable. Still, workable is not an absolute, it is relative. If one found Grade 0 workable, it wouldn’t mean everything else would be workable too –just saying, without hinting invalidations.”

                  One learns from spotting INCONSISTENCIES, and then resolving them FOR ONESELF. Accepting another person’s data because it works somewhat, or rejecting it simply because one thing in it is disagreeable, and not examining it thoroughly leads to stagnation in learning. One then just goes round and round in thinking getting nowhere.

                  .

                • Spyros: “I think a spirit I doesnt have the case that I used to assign to myself as a man. I just wasn’t too awake as a spirit, so to speak. When a spirit thinks it is a man, it inherits the man’s problems. And that detour from it’s own being, is what it’s own case is, I think.”

                  THETA + FILTER = THETAN (spirit)

                  Just like

                  MOTION + INERTIA = PARTICLE

                  .

                  • christianscientology

                    Vinaire you wrote THETA+FILTER = THETAN (spirit). Should it not be THETA (spirit)+FILTER = THETAN (soul)?

                    Love
                    Pip

                • Spyros: “I wish tomorrow I will make myself wrong so I will know better, so I will do better too. For the moment, I go with what seems more true to me, and what serves me the most.”

                  Degree of truth is proportional to absence of inconsistencies.

                  One is in trouble if one can’t spot inconsistencies. But mindfulness can help.

                  .

              • *Sorry for hinting what a beings case might be. It could be it never has any case at all, but pretends so. I think its most possible. Or it could be something else. I only referred to what I had understood from SCN. Generally, I think spirits are much better and in much better shape than thought to be –my opinion. I believe for a spirit, there are no chains but imagined chains.

      • I think ‘spirit is nowhere’ and ‘spirit is nothing’ are not such nice expressions. I can imagine that ‘I am nothing’ can be seen as something horrible, and unchangeable, and I don’t mean that. People imagine ‘nothing’ as something too –usually as black space. Because until recently it was considered that black space was nothing (now it’s dark matter). Maybe I should rephrase it as ‘you’re free to be what you create yourself to be’. I hope that helps. Also, the truth is not horrible at all. If it’s horrible, it isn’t true.

      • There was a line in the end of that Orientation film about making the choice between eternally shaking in the dark or being triumphant in the light. That could give a few nightmares to people, the way I see it. Thinking of it, gave me a few.

        I don’t believe in eternal spirits, nor eternally being in some space –black or light. That a spirit is ‘immortal’ means it is not subjected to death, not that it has to be forever. To be is a free choice. To be somewhere is a choice too. To be something is another choice as well. Identities can be created. And that one is free to have them or not, doesn’t make them more fragile. There is no loss of identity, death associated with ‘freedom to be’.

        And those are my opinions, of course. I don’t want to state the same over and over, just make something clear, if I can. I say this having gone through some horrible concepts about spirits myself.

  52. Does anyone know where to do a ‘Standard’ Purification R/D with someone who is up to date on their Standard delivery of it – per LRH? Please respond here. I have just finished reading Clear Body Clear Mind.
    Thanks.

    • Hello Mitch, good to hear from you. The following is an excerpt from a letter to a friend on this site. It is not an answer to your question, but it is some info that you may find valuable. I would recommend an experienced independent Scientologist to supervise. your Purif. Hope this helps.

      I have not retreaded the purif-in-charge course since GAT-2 so I am not in the loop on what is new. But I do have a little info that might help. The purif does not remove all or near 100% of the chemicals that it targets. According to biopsy tissue tests by gas chromatography, the average of chemicals removed after the process was complete was 25-50% and up to about 75% after 6 months in a best case.
      Ron meant what he said from the beginning in that the purif removes the restimulative effects of drugs and chemicals that lodge in the body. Especially oil based…..etc. A metaphor would be wearing a 20 lb. backpack for a few years and taking 10-15 lbs. out of it. You feel great, lighter, more nimble, keyed out, de-stimulated. What is left is no longer bothersome. Genetic entities residing within your body, sort of, are also keyed out to varying degrees. The actual nature of genetic entities and body thetans, Dianetic style demons etc. is a whole nother subject. (Entities are completely separate individuals. Entities are connected to you and are a part of you. Entities are you and are simply different viewpoints you have manufactured. All three statements are true, simultaneously. A habit or learned routine is an entity, just as actual as any other, just on a lower gradient.)
      There is also a tremendous amount of unconsciousness from whole track drugging and poisons that is keyed out. These are the actual goals of the purif. I don’t mind fast tracking the process but it must be done on an individual basis. Each day, the purif is an auditing session, and one must be able to look and listen to what is going on with the PC. You must give a PC his wins and assist him in overcoming his barriers. Pushing a PC into the next barrier before he has fully absorbed his win, invalidates the win. Hanging on to a process after a win invalidates the win. You have to pay attention, rather than following a rote routine.
      Different people have different tolerance and different needs for niacin. Body weight and fat percentage are a factor. Setting a limit for all, is nothing more than giving in to medical recommendations and insurance companies or lawyers. Also, it is giving in to auditors who do not understand the process and cannot read a PC and don’t really know what to look for. How high a person raises his eyebrows “may” be an indicator. How nimble is he with his hands and how quickly he moves them. How high does he lift his feet when he walks. What changes does HE notice in his body and of course, cognitions, changes on the tone scale.
      Oh, and other reasons that the purif is a key out, is that the mega vit. doses are driven deep into the tissues via exercise (heart pumping hard) and by the fact that niacin expands the capillaries. This effects a lot of cell repair and renewal. I always recommend taking large doses of a whole food supplement which supplies many more trace substances than straight vitamins.
      Mark

      • Here is a pretty good alternative detox:

        I went through a 100 grams of sodium thiosulphate before Christmas but I reduced the rate to half a tsp and I did not do it everyday, as he says.

        I did it every few days, whenever I worked up the nerve to do it.

        But I can verify it is very powerful detoxifier and I ordered 200 grams, which is supposed to come in this afternoon.

        I ordered the sodium thiosulphate from my local independent pharmacy apothecary. It cost me $10 for 100 grams.

        Do a search on what sodium thiosulphate is, so you know what you are using.

        Watch the video and make your own informed decisions.

        Dio

      • Hello MarkNR:
        Good to hear from you too. Thanks for the data. Can be useful.
        We are still looking where to go. you said: “I would recommend an experienced independent Scientologist to supervise.” We totally agree. This is what we are seeking. There are Out Tech Off Policy groups out there in the F/Z. Strong comm is vital with anyone offering it before packing for the flight / trip. Thanks again and we will continue checking. P/S: We thought there was a group in Georgia not far from Florida. I spoke to the person running that center (called the Course-Room???) sometime ago about a study program. That center now seems to be non-exsistent. Does anyone know for sure?
        Thanks,
        Mitch

      • Hello MarkNR:
        Good to hear from you too. Thanks for the data. Can be useful.
        We are still looking where to go. you said: “I would recommend an experienced independent Scientologist to supervise.” We totally agree. This is what we are seeking. There are Out Tech Off Policy groups out there in the F/Z. Strong comm is vital with anyone offering it before packing for the flight / trip. Thanks again and we will continue checking. P/S: We thought there was a group in Georgia not far from Florida. I spoke to the person running that center (called the Course-Room???) sometime ago about a study program. That center now seems to be non-exsistent. Does anyone know for sure?
        Thanks,
        Mitch

    • Mitch, Thr sidebar of the POssibly Helpful Advice blog has a section headlined “Actual Working Technology Delivered Here”
      http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?s=helpful+advice+blog

      You can find links to Tech delivery organizations there. You can also try contacting David St. Lawrence through the blog, maybe he can give you a tip on where you could do it in or near your local area. There are many possibilities all across the country.

  53. Scientology has, to an unusual extent compared to other shapeshifter cults, developed to an art form the black magic of getting good people to do evil, in the belief they are doing good.
    http://www.loohan.com/Scn.htm

  54. Good afternoon.
    I trust you all had an enjoyable New Years.
    I urge my friends to go to E. Hamre’s site and go over the article I wrote. It is just a couple of pages, but is the most important I have written. It’s data was long sought and hard won, but well worth the effort.
    https://elizabethhamre.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/mark-roberts-cognition-throwing-rocks-mark-solo-audits/#comments
    Thanks, Mark.

  55. In Scientology, INTERIORIZATION refers to a condition that has to do with “going into and becoming part of the body too fixedly.” EXTERIORIZATION is defined as a state where the individual experiences being outside his body.

    The above definition assumes that individual and the body can be separated “physically” from each other. But the awareness of individuality is not something physical that can be pulled out of the body.

    The truth is that a person, whose attention is fixed on the body, and who has been operating as a body all his life, feels very liberated when that attention suddenly becomes unstuck. This comes to him as a big surprise. He literally feels being outside the body. He thinks that something very special has happened. He feels a deep “spiritual awakening,”

    INTERIORIZATION is the condition of attention being too fixed on the body with the person unaware of it. When that attention is freed up the person feels very liberated.

    But the experience of being outside the body is just a feeling. The person does not know that he has been operating as a body all this time. The experience goes away just as suddenly as it had come because he does not have awareness of what really happened. But he remembers the brief experience and longs for it.

    Such “out-of-body” experiences are actually quite common, but they are random and uncontrolled. But after such experience the person’s attention may get fixed on getting exterior to the body.

    When a person’s attention is too fixed on separating “self” from the body, then it is just another form of INTERIORIZATION.

    Scientology convinces a person that he is basically an immortal “thetan” (self), that can operate exterior to the body naturally. The person is then offered expensive Scientology processing to attain the state of “operating thetan.” He is put on a long “bridge” that he must cross to achieve the goal of “operating thetan.”

    This may sound crazy. But a person, who already believes that there is a God who exists outside the universe, can easily be convinced to believe in a thetan that can exist outside the body.

    In truth, “self” is not something physical that can be separated from the body. What needs to be freed is the attention fixed on the body, which the person is not aware of,

    But Scientology directs the person toward the goal of “operating thetan,” and makes loads of money of him. The person ends up either hypnotized or feeling betrayed. No operating thetan has actually been observed throughout the existence of Scientology.

    The simple truth lies in freeing the attention that is fixed on the body unbeknownst to the person.

    But the attention can be fixed on the body, or on the liberation of self from the body, or on salvation, or on attaining nirvana. The actual problem is the state of the attention, which happens to be fixed.

    When the fixed attention actually becomes free, there is a feeling of liberation that continues to be there. With this, one attains the certainty that one is much more than some boxed in ideas and thinking patterns. This feeling is real and not the artificial feeling “as an operating thetan.”

    When there is no fixed attention either on body or on self, one can then be as large as the reality one is witnessing at any time.

    The simple method for freeing fixed attention is mindfulness. One can then view the whole universe for what it is.

    .

  56. And even in relationships does this occur, which is factual. A parent, a good friend, a partner, a teacher that demands of someone “you have to…” is, even if well intentioned, somehow directing how you should think and act.

    The aspect of evaluating another – as expressed by Carl Rogers where evaluating is automatic in humans- invites to a constant automatic, possibly even unconscious impulse to makes one’s views/ideas to be the prevailing ones, which is another facade of telling others how to think or act.

    This point you have expressed is subtly pervasive and open to more insight. Thank you.

  57. Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

    -Buddha

    “All disturbance and chaos folds up in the teeth of truth.
    Don’t ever try to stop truth. It’s the only thing that can go through 16-inch armor plate.”

    L. Ron Hubbard

    And than Marty’s bestest bro:

  58. “You are what you think.” I still think this is very cool.

  59. Does anyone know where we can go to do a Standard Purification R/D? No one seems to be offering it on any of their sites. Could this be because they are not standard?

    Thanks,
    Mitch

  60. Independent Spirit

    For me, truth is what I can experience.
    http://www.whitefeather.org.uk/page36.htm
    Maybe, maybe not –

  61. Here are a couple of “heavyweights” discussing “truth” – Krishnamurti and Chogyam Trungpa:

    http://www.mindpodnetwork.com/jiddu-krishnamurti-talks-chogyam-trungpa-rinpoche/

  62. The commonly experienced “I” is in fact the “center of ego”, similar to the idea in physics of a “center of mass.”

    An ego is a pattern created by fixed attention, just like mass seems to come about with the “centeredness” of inertia.

    So, a viewpoint is a certain stance taken by the “I”. It is like the “center of mass” having a certain motion..

    .

  63. The commonly experienced “I” is in fact the “center of ego”, similar to the idea in physics of a “center of mass.”

    An ego is a pattern created by fixed attention, just like mass seems to come about with the “centeredness” of inertia.

    So, a viewpoint is a certain stance taken by the “I”. It is like the “center of mass” having a certain motion.

  64. Don’t post if you don’t believe in it:

  65. Marty German Anons are still making a difference:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/NEO2012anonymous

  66. There’s a growing school of thought that says what we think not only affects who we are as “individuals” but, as well, every other individual and every part of the universe. Basically, everything is a CO-creation.

    The video below consists of sound bites from a number of modern thinkers and teachers who talk about how your mind creates reality holographically, and how this relates to quantum physics. It’s a short video, only 10 minutes, and here are a few quotes from it:

    “It’s as if reality is so connected that when you look at one small part, you can see things about other parts – the entire whole is contained in the part. And in a sense, you can’t divide reality up, because we’re cutting up a hologram. We can’t find where one particle is, because it’s always a reflection of all particles.”
    […]
    “Anywhere in this pattern, if we were to change one little aspect on any one of these little holograms, that change would be reflected throughout the entire system.”
    […]
    “We should be very careful about what we believe about the future. The more you attach to a belief system the more…you’re helping create it by believing it.”

    • Marildi: “It’s as if reality is so connected that when you look at one small part, you can see things about other parts – the entire whole is contained in the part. And in a sense, you can’t divide reality up, because we’re cutting up a hologram. We can’t find where one particle is, because it’s always a reflection of all particles.”

      What we have here is a matrix whose elements are connected with each other. In some ways it is like Snakes and Ladders. I would not say that the entire whole is contained in the part. We don’t really know how this matrix is constructed.

      >

      • I was mostly interested in the principle that we “co-create the universe”. That is a significant concept!

        Below is a definition of “Co-Create” I found. It even applies to internet discussions, specifically the last line of it [my caps]:

        “Definition: Co-Create”

        “Co-creation is the fashioning of a new reality for ourselves that arises from flowing with the energy of the Universe rather than trying to control it.

        “Co-creating with the Universe, involves skills that allow you to energetically flow with whatever is showing up in your life, rather than trying to control what is going on. This is not the same as ‘just letting things happen to you.’ Instead, it is using skill-sets that allow you to create win-win situations, no matter what else is going on.

        “Co-creating with Others is different from co-operation, in which the goal or vision brings people together. In a cooperative group, individuals come together to work on a common goal (i.e. building a church, developing an educational program, cancer research). The goal, then, is the glue that holds the individuals together. When the goal is accomplished, the group may or may not disband.

        “Co-creation with Others is the conscious act of 2 or more people coming together because they like being together, they want to be in each other’s company and they know, consciously, that the act of coming together will create goals and visions (co-creation).

        “You are unconsciously searching for co-creation when you decide to marry and start a family. You may be unconsciously seeking co-creation each time you get together with friends, change jobs or move to a new community . THIS IS WHAT YOU ‘SEEK’ AT A GUT LEVEL WHEN YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO GATHER AND SHARE YOUR STORIES.”

        http://www.quantumspirit.net/help.cfm?artID=1256&happ=quantum&..

        • A THETAN is something discrete. THETA is something continuous. The more discrete something is, the less continuous it is. A lot of “discretes” put together can never be the same as “continuous,” because the two are of totally opposite character.

          I am currently investigating the mathematics of space and location. A location is something pointedly discrete. It may be visualized as a focused point of light. On the other hand, space may be visualized as an unfocused light that is spread out. Space is opposite of a point. It is continuous instead of discrete. It is spread out instead of being pointed.

          Now think of somebody using lots of these focused points of light to approximate totally unfocused spread of light. It can never be equivalent but mathematics uses this trick in Calculus. It makes a point more and more pointed (discrete) as an infinitesimal, and then collects more and more of these points together to create a continuous space. There is a built in contradiction here that generates an appearance of space, which is not space.

          This is also the case with the “principle of co-creation.” There is an appearance of universe, which is not the universe.

          Universe is generated from a single point of awareness by making it less and less fixated, and more and more relaxed.
          .

          • The “principle of co-creation” is the same thing as “creation” by agreement. It leads to a hypnotic state.

          • Vinnie, the way I understand ‘co-creation’ is that it is like Aristotle’s principle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” I googled that quote and found a simple explanation as regards animate/living/theta “wholes”. Here’s a summary given by the writer:

            ————————–
            “…the living tissue ‘parts’ of which living organisms are composed…these ‘parts’ change continuously in both structure and function as they are brought together, and do so depending upon the circumstances under which they have been brought together…

            “So, no wonder when I work on a given muscle or part of my body, I realize that as it changes, it changes all other parts of my body. And as those other ‘parts’ change, they in turn likewise change all other parts of the body…and on and on and on…the changing of all parts by [other] parts, endlessly!”
            —————————
            http://dralterwein.com/WholeSumParts.html

            The above description of how living things co-create would be the same process by which the universe is co-created by Life/theta. Each “part” – i.e. the thoughts of each individual – create changes in all other “parts”, and they in turn reflect the changes and affect all the other parts – on and on.

            This is the ongoing creative process of evolution – biological and all other kinds of evolution. It’s a fractal sequence from cells to organs to systems to organisms to groups of organisms…and to the whole universe. In other words, it starts from the smallest whole, which is a part of a bigger whole, which in turn is a part of the next bigger whole, and so forth – all of these evolutionary processes making the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Call it “magical”, but it’s just as magical on the lowest levels as it is on the highest.

            • The way I see it each one of us is this universe.

              The attention of the universe gets fragmented and fixed on smaller parts. So, one thinks that one is just a body. One looks at other bodies and their attention, and thinks that all of them are separate entities. Thus, we, by identifying only with a part of this universe, feel alienated from all other parts.

              Scientology denies the fixed attention on the body, and fixes the attention on an abstract concept of a thetan. It tries to make one feel that one is not the body and that one can be outside the body. It exploits the feeling that comes with “out-of-the-body” experiences.

              The truth is that one is the awareness of this universe. The physical universe is the outward expression of that awareness. One is truly the universal THETA-MEST in complete harmony. THETA is subjective aspect of the universe. MEST is the objective aspect of the universe.

              But Hubbard injects his human-centric bias into THETA-MEST theory. He divides them into two absolutes, puts them in a senior-junior relationship, Introduces a conflict between them, and then presents Scientology as a solution to resolve that conflict.

              People have conflicts because of their fixed attentions on many many levels. The situation is not as simplistic as Hubbard makes it. You don’t get enlightened by ignoring all your fixed attentions and simply focusing on operating outside the body on a permanent basis.

              MEST is not the enemy. The body has not trapped you as a thetan. There is simply the attention that has become centered on the body, but it can be broadened to not only to include other bodies in the vicinity but also to include the whole society, mankind, all life, and the whole universe. All along the way you are both THETA and MEST in harmony. You are the complete universe made of both physical and spiritual aspects. You are not just the physical universe. You are all the eight dynamics.

              Please see The Eighth Dynamic
              .

              • Correction:
                “You are the complete universe made of both physical and spiritual aspects. You are not just the spirit or spiritual universe. You are all the eight dynamics.”

              • In a post above, you wrote “The prefix ‘co-‘ tells me that the attention is fixed on self and other selves.”

                Use of the words “self” and “selves” isn’t really any different from what you yourself wrote in a previous post, as follows:

                “All along the way you are both THETA and MEST in harmony. You are the complete universe made of both physical and spiritual aspects. You are not just the physical universe. You are all the eight dynamics.
                We can’t communicate at all – using language – without expressing separation.”

                Every sentence in the above differentiates things from each another. This is the nature of language. Anytime we use it to communicate, we make divisions/separations – it’s unavoidable.

                The use of the word “theta” (or “consciousness”) is a way to express the ability to create. Thus, stating that theta is senior to MEST is simply a way of comparing the ability to create to that which is created, i.e. the creation. Seemingly different viewpoints are often just a matter different ways of expressing the same thing.

                • In quoting you above, I put the quotation marks in the wrong place. It should have been:

                  “All along the way you are both THETA and MEST in harmony. You are the complete universe made of both physical and spiritual aspects. You are not just the physical universe. You are all the eight dynamics.”

                  The sentence after that was part of my own comment:

                  We can’t communicate at all – using language – without expressing separation.

                • Marildi, I do not see THETA as the ability to create. I see it as the property of ‘awareness’ just as there is the property of ‘form’. Motion or change has the properties of form and awareness.

                  Create is the appearance of a new form and a new awareness to go along with that form. Creation is the output because of some input. Input is converted to an output by some system. That system can be a system of natural laws, but the ignorance of those laws can be short circuited and hidden behind the idea of a thetan. So, one sees “a thetan creating.”

                  The ideas such as senior-junior, good-bad are matter of opinions. They change with the viewpoint.

                  The absolutist concepts, such as, Supreme Being and self are result of short circuiting of understanding and a compression of confusion Please see the following response to Valkov.

                  https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328354
                  .

                  • “Creation is the output because of some input.”

                    Your concept of “creation” shows it to be an effect, rather than a cause. That doesn’t fit the meaning of the word. Here’s the definition of “create”, from Merriam Webster online:

                    : to make or produce (something) : to cause (something new) to exist
                    : to cause (a particular situation) to exist
                    : to produce (something new, such as a work of art) by using your talents and imagination

                    If you believe anything and everything is the effect of some prior cause, you have already limited yourself to the physical universe. But recognize that it’s a BELIEF to assume that the only thing that exists is the physical universe phenomena of cause and effect. And if you start out with that belief, you’ll end up figuring out a way to explain everything in those terms. You probably wouldn’t even be willing to LOOK at the evidence of non-physical actualities. Your theories may even be speciously “consistent”, but you would be blind to other actualities.

                • Yes. It’s inherent in the definition of defintion.

                  def·i·ni·tion
                  ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/
                  noun
                  1.
                  a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
                  an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
                  “our definition of what constitutes poetry”
                  synonyms: meaning, denotation, sense; More
                  the action or process of defining something.
                  2.
                  the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

                  • Right, Val. And all words have definitions.

                    It’s true too that one’s thinking and perception can be limited by adhering strictly to the words in a communication. But words do give us a start. It’s a version of the ol’ finger pointing to the moon.

            • The solution for the conflicts in this world is not “co-creation” The solution is unfixing of attention through mindfulness.

              The prefix “co-” tells me that the attention is fixed on self and other selves.

              • Vin,

                If I see the word “mindfulness” too many more times, I am going to lose my mind.

                Or I will get an painful emotion engram.

                And if that happens, I will have to sue you for damages.

                Dio

  67. Reference: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328228

    Spyros: “He said that absolutes are unattainable in the physical universe. The static is not contained within the physical universe. It is obvious in it’s definition.”

    Hubbard assumes that the spiritual universe is exterior to the physical universe. This assumption seems to be inconsistent because in using the word “exterior” Hubbard is using physical universe thinking. “Physical” and “spiritual” are two aspects of the same universe, just as “health” and “beauty” are two aspects of a person. It would be silly to say that “beauty” is exterior to “health”.

    Mathematically, we are talking about two cordinates of a status that are independent of each other. It is like x- and y- coordinates of a position. “spiritual” and “physical” are two coordinates of this universe.

    The THETA-MEST theory of Hubbard suffers from the assumption that THETA is exterior to MEST. The truth is that THETA and MEST are two aspects of existence. THETA and MEST are knitted together at all levels of existence. Therefore, it is silly to say, “static is not contained within the physical universe.” It is an assumption of Hubbard that many have taken for granted.

    The reason that such gullibility exists lies in the common belief that God is “exterior” to the universe. This belief comes from the assumption that God created the universe. People take that assumption for granted because it is written in a holy book called “The Bible”.

    An agreement is in play. The reasoning is, “So many people agree with it, so it must be right.”

    Such agreement is the basis of hypnotism.
    .

    • Beauty is apples, health is oranges. At best. The two are not commensurable. They are concepts which belong to two separate realms of thought.

    • If spiritual and physical are two aspects of the same universe, which they may be, you need a third aspect in order for it to all work. This is the aspect from which you are observing/viewing or commenting on the other two.

      • One of the fundamental illusion is that observer is separate from observation or what is being observed.

        The fundmental aspect of the physical universe that is being observed is MOTION.

        The fundmental aspect of the individual that is observing is AWARENESS.

        Motion and awareness are different aspects of the same reality, as explained here.

        What is Awareness, Scientifically?

        .

        • christianscientology

          Hi Vinaire

          AWARENESS and MOTION may well be aspects of the same reality, but they are not aspects of the same TRUTH. Truth stands outside of reality and in essence is senior to reality. Hence to know the truth can set one free (from reality).

          Love
          Pip

        • Vin, you seem to be coming down on the Western, Germanic, side of Einstein, rather than the Hindu side of Tagore, in your views of Reality…
          http://www.mindpodnetwork.com/albert-einstein-rabindranath-tagore-nature-reality/

          • Valkov, please see my comments on this article here:

            For Tagore; Human awareness = universal awareness (the ultimate that a human being can achieve)

            For Einstein, Human awareness = the awareness of the average human being that is quite limited.

            This represents the key difference between East and West.

            “Beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony, which is in the universal being; truth is the perfect comprehension of the universal mind. We individuals approach it through our own mistakes and blunders, through our accumulated experience, through our illumined consciousness. How otherwise can we know truth?”
            ~Tagore

            “The problem is whether truth is independent of our consciousness.”
            ~ Einstein

            The confusion seems to be on the definition of consciousness. Consciousness is self-awareness; and awareness is a reflection of motion. If motion is there then awareness is there too, even in a stone. That awareness is part of the universal awareness, which to Tagore is the universal being or the “supreme man.”

            According to Tagore’s definition, truth cannot be independent of consciousness.

            The following is perfect. According to Tagore “motion” as objective; and “awareness” as subjective.

            “What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the superpersonal man.”
            ~ Tagore

            The following is Hilarious:

            EINSTEIN: Then I am more religious than you are!
            TAGORE: My religion is in the reconciliation of the superpersonal man, the universal spirit, in my own individual being.
            .

      • christianscientology

        Good point Valkov. The problem arises when one fails to differentiate between SPIRIT and SOUL. Soul is AWARENESS and may well be an integral part of the physical universe, but Spirit (AWARENESS OF AWARENESS) is something quite different and is not located in Space and Time except by postulate when THETA(spirit) becomes A THETAN (soul).

        Love
        Pip

    • Vinaire, Hubbard said that Static is not located in space and time, not that it is exterior. And that thing you say Hubbard called a thetan, is called a valence in SCN.

      And what you said about “An agreement is in play. The reasoning is, “So many people agree with it, so it must be right.”

      Such agreement is the basis of hypnotism.”

      …it happens. But it doesn’t only happen in Christianity, nor religions in general. It happens in authority. Some authorities say, “If you don’t agree with the many people (that we have taught), you are crazy.”

      I am a heretic and a crazy and a proud of it.

      • Spyros: “Hubbard said that Static is not located in space and time, not that it is exterior. And that thing you say Hubbard called a thetan, is called a valence in SCN.”

        .

        Hubbard is basically contraditing himself in his THETA-MEST theory, which is the basis of your argument. Hubbard states:

        “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

        This is consistent because the same fundamental characteristic of motion is considered at all points of a spectrum. Motion is the outward form of awareness. THETA (individuality) is as much an aspect of motion as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) is. Both THETA and MEST are manifestations of motion or life.

        But then he also states:

        “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

        This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end. The fact is that all points of this spectrum represent motion (MEST) as the outward from of awareness (THETA). From one end of this spectrum to the other end only the complexity of awareness and motion (THETA-MEST) increases.

        MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST exist together as aspects of existence from one end of the spectrum to the other.

        Please see An Analysis of Scientology Axiom # 1
        .

        • OK, let’s try putting the shoe on the other foot, then. Here’s a twist on Axiom 3: “Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by MEST and are perceived solely because MEST considers that it can perceive them.”
          Does this make some kind of sense to you? It doesn’t, to me.
          Yet if you consider Theta and MEST to be of the same order of things, it seems staements about them could be reversed in just this way.
          As far as “motion” goes, in my view there need to be at least two (static) terminals; then motion can occur between them.
          What you are describing seems to me to be only part of the system in question, two poles you are calling Theta and MEST. There actually needs to be a “third” element involved for an accurate description of “the universe”.

          I ‘m not very familiar with the specific materials myself, but I believe that in his “8-80” period LRH did talk about this kind of thing. As when he stated that it was not simply a “two terminal universe” but that a third element needed to be present to hold the terminals apart and keep them from collapsing. His example was the “base” of an electric motor, without which, what would be keeping the terminals apart?

          • @iamvalkov… Lately I have been mentioning “interiorization into ‘I’.”. Another version of that interiorization is “interiorization into ‘source’.”

            To you denial of THETA as a source means accepting MEST as a source. You think that there MUST be a source. This is human-centric bias and absolutism.

            I think that the following observation about “motion” by LRH is simply brilliant:

            “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

            It is brilliant because it reflects part of what Buddha said 2600 years ago:

            “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

            Buddha was talking about CHANGE, which in modern terms may be represented as motion. Both Buddha and LRH are talking about change / motion to be underllying reality. LRH was brilliant in employing the idea of spectrum or scale with gradients to reality.

            But then Hubbard became stupid and succumbed to human-centric bias as follows:

            “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

            First he calls the two ends of his “spectrum of motion” as theoretical, and then he turns them into absolute terminals, without any explanation.

            THETA and MEST are neither absolute nor are they terminals. They simply represent gradients of “change” or “motion” pure and simple.

            THETA is the awareness of motion. It may be called the subjective aspect of motion. (Please see What is Awareness, Scientifically?)

            MEST provides the appearance to motion. It may be called the objective aspect of motion.

            THETA-MEST go hand-in-hand throughout the spectrum of motion, simply becoming more complex by the gradient.

            This provides a clearer view of what Buddha saw. I credit Hubbard for supplying the modern vocabulary.
            .

            • You are mistaken. I don’t believe in anything. However it appears you consistently dodge the question of “who or what is doing the viewing?” or “who or what is being mindfull”, etc. as well as the parameters of perception itself, by which I mean the necessity of there to be a “figure/ground” for there to be meaningful perception (Allowing for linguistic limitations, that is a valid question.) You can probably get at what I mean if you think in terms of the idea of the “stable datum”.
              I get what you mean by the absolute vs. the relative, vis-a-vis Hubbard and Buddha quotes, but that is exactly an example of what I am talking about! If you didn’t have “the absolute” to kick around as being non-existent, you wouldn’t be able to say much that is meaningful about “the relative”! It is “the absolute” tthat frames “the relative”, in your discourse.

              • OK. Let’s look at the subject of “who” or “what.”

                Just like the ignorance of natural laws can be hidden behind the absolutist idea of a Supreme being, similarly, “who” or “what” can be used to hide the knowledge of what is really happening. So, I see insistence on “who” or “what” as an attempt to bypass what is really there.

                Let’s take the question “Who or what is doing the viewing?” I don’t feel obsessed about that question. I simply view and try to understand what is there. That is the only way to increase my understanding. If I try to obsess about who or what is doing the viewing, then I am only going to get into an infinite regression and end up with some kind of speculation like that of the Supreme Being. The question “Who or what is being mindful” would simply put one in a similar situation.

                So, the only way one can increase understanding is simply recognizing what is there as much as possible without filters. This process occurs on a gradient and one cannot shortcut the process. A shortcut always leads to speculations of absolutes like the Supreme Being or a thetan.
                .

              • “It is “the absolute” tthat frames “the relative”, in your discourse.”

                In science, one observes what is there, and tries to explain it by means of a conjecture. If the conjecture checks out as correct, that is not the end of it. The conjecture, now as a theory, may act as a stable datum, but it becomes a launching pad for a deeper conjecture. And so it goes.

                From The Scientific Method & Humanities

                From Wikipedia we get the general steps of the Scientific Method as follows:

                (1) Use your experience
                … Consider the problem.
                … Try to make sense of it.
                … Look for previous explanations.

                (2) Form a conjecture
                … State an explanation.

                (3) Deduce a prediction from that explanation
                … Predict consequences that may follow from that explanation.

                (4) Test (Experiment)
                … Check for the opposite of each consequence to disprove the conjecture.

                Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) the conjecture. It can only falsify the conjecture. If the conjecture cannot be disproven then one continues with step (1). If the conjecture is disproven then one goes back to step (2).

                .

            • OK, let’s take that quote and look at it: “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute IN THE WORLD, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute SUBSTANCE like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” (Within or without WHAT or WHERE?)

              To me, this clearly defines the parameters of the discourse – IN THE WORLD, and SUBSTANCE.

              Yet, the quote has “Absolute Truth” capitalized! So there is an Absolute Truth. Clearly, motion can only be perceived (or thought of) against a ground of some kind that does not move. Viewpoint is inevitable. Something that is moving directly away from the viewpoint may not appear to be moving at all; it may appear to be simply getting smaller. BUt a small shift in the point from which one is viewing, and one can start to perceive it is moving on a vector.
              I think we are back to the usual semantics. Don’t forget also, those are a translation of buddha’s words, which, if he did speak them, it was in an entirelt different language and may have had a different sense in that language.

              • You are correct, we cannot take that quote from Buddha as an authority, even if we knew what he said exactly. But we can examine that quote against our own experience with total honesty, and modify it for our personal use.

                Our conclusions shall be relative to our own experience. The validity of those conclusions shall depend on the consistency of our experience within the widest context possible.

                We can say that there is no location in this physical universe that is totally still, and which could be used as a point of reference. However, the center of mass of the whole universe may come close to being that reference location. That shall be valid only in the context of this universe.

                When there is no mass there is no location either, as in a universe that has radiative energy only. But if there is mass, then we can use the center of mass as a reference location but only within the context of that mass.

                So, there can be stable data, but it would be so only in relation to its context.
                .

        • christianscientology

          Hi Vinaire

          THETA is not “individuality”. The difference between THETA and A THETAN is quite subtle. The words INDIVIDUAL and INDIVISIBLE come from the same root. Individual (A THETAN), indivisible (THETA), so it is A THETAN that would be considered as an aspect of MEST not THETA.

          Pip

          • THETA is a synonym for SPIRIT. THETAN is a synonym for SOUL.

            THETA (spirit) is not “individuality”, just like MATTER is not an “individuality”.

            THETA has its elements (spiritual atoms and molecules), just like MATTER has material atoms and molecules.

            THETAN is a configuration of spiritual atoms and molecules, just like BODY is a configuration of material atoms and molecules.

            Both THETAN and BODY have individualities (unique configurations).
            .

  68. Independent Spirit

    I wonder if you know anything about these CO$ trademarks:
    1. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4805:wr72k5.3.2
    A down-pointing star or pentagram. And what is the Star of Trust organization?
    2. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4805:wr72k5.3.4
    and
    http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4805:wr72k5.3.5
    A globe with continents inside an iron hand or iron fist?

  69. @vinaire .. you go really complicated in this thread about truth. You wrote a lot in discussion with @Spyros. Above in this thread you said to me something about creation .. because I said that a new creation is possible, and you said no .. did not discuss it further, because I did not read for some time in this blogs about scientology .. basically it became to complicated for me to follow .. maybe i became tired, or I am tired .. or I have a sight which do not compare adequately ..

    When I put together Theta and Mest it will be a creation at the end of the line in every case .. it must not necessarily a complete new one .. it can be, but it must not. Where is the beginning of all? If you look down the line as good as you can, you will probably always find an earlier beginning. in my case it is this way. But whenever I look down this line of creation I found myself in a condition of be and not be. What I mean, is, there is a zero point in my heart somewhere .. which you can translate as a point of a new start

    So on, I wrote a note about exteriorization above here .. there was no reply to it, so it was not discussed .. I mean, I did not agree with LRH definitions about exteriorization .. and so I did also not agree with Theta Mest theory because he figured it out of something with whitch I do not agree .. and this is his findings about exteriorization. Not good to do an Int RD in the church when you have no agreement about .. you see? Go in and go out is a cycle of action .. and if incomplete, it is an incomplete cycle of action .. and as long you have such things in mind, you will not go with real creation ..

    This universe (milky way) is interestingly to me, because it has a stopped cycle of action which became then incomplete .. and was overwhelmed with a new cycle of action which cannot really completed. Why, you cannot run two cycles of action at the same time (surely you can do .. but not with a whole univese with zillions of beings in it) .. so, LRH tried to come through this stuff .. really, he tried .. was good about sometimes .. but with his new OT levels he went out of order .. so believe me, creation is possible as long as you do not hang up with incomplete cycles of action .. but as I have in the past understood .. this universe runs only on incomplete cycles of action .. and scientology will only add a new one .. because LRH did leave us without saying that he delivered an incomplete cycle .. he had no plan how he could complete what he started .. he gave only place for speculatie about something which was already there .. so also creation is possible, if you believe it not .. the key to it is old rules about cycles of action .. which is in everyone on this planet or allabout everywhere .. but it is a game ..

    Creation comes up when you have stopped old cycles of action. It works in small and also in great .. LRH tried to get that done .. and this is maybe all about why we became his friend .. so we are now probably real desperate, because in the Miscavige era the goal looks like impossible .. and in old time it did seem possible .. which is surely true for me ..

    Thanks for reading my meaning .. Friend

    • Friend: “@vinaire .. you go really complicated in this thread about truth. You wrote a lot in discussion with @Spyros. Above in this thread you said to me something about creation .. because I said that a new creation is possible, and you said no .. did not discuss it further, because I did not read for some time in this blogs about scientology .. basically it became to complicated for me to follow .. maybe i became tired, or I am tired .. or I have a sight which do not compare adequately ..”

      .
      I apologize for my complexity. I happen to be struggling with abstraction. Hopefully, my mind will straighten itself out sooner or later per the axioms of mindfulness.🙂

      By the way, I said “no” in the context “creation is not possible from nothing.” I see creation as a “change”. A creation is an output that requires input. There is no creation without input. All input and output is part of the universe.
      .

      • I think Friend is right. Hasn’t quantum physics proven that creation IS possible from nothing? I’ve read that in a vacuum, particles do appear out of nothing. And particles also disappear from the vacuum.

        I can see this as a fractal of the ability to create mental energy out of “nothing”, and to as-is it.

        • Marildi,
          I have read the same but I have no references to support it – “particles do appear out of nothing” in quantum theory. I’ll leave the science to the experts.
          However, one of the goals of deep meditation is to achieve that state. It is a level of knowledge.
          May all beings be well and happy!
          GMW

          • “…one of the goals of deep meditation is to achieve that state. It is a level of knowledge.”

            Path of Buddha, can you say more about how “one of the goals of deep meditation is to achieve that state” (in reference to the finding of scientists that particles appear out of nothing), and how it is “a level of knowledge”?
            Do you mean that direct knowledge that particles appear out of nothing is attained through meditation?

            • marildi,
              The use of the word particles is not really applicable. A mystic could use the term form. This would be form arising out of nothing which would be acceptable.
              GMW

              • marildi,
                Direct knowledge is not what is meant. Direct knowledge would imply some sort of contact. In contrast, a level of knowledge would be a viewpoint.
                Contact would be dependent. A level of knowledge would be related to truth.
                GMW

                • Yes, it’s hard to put into words. But I get the idea that there is an “experience” of this truth –the truth that form arises out of nothing. If I have that right, and particles appear out of nothing, what comes to mind is – “as above, so below.” Awesome. Thanks, George.

                • Path of Buddha
                  Sounds like an additional description of the difference in data and knowing.
                  Mark

                  • MarkNR and Path of Buddha – have a look at this LRH quote I came across in Wikipedia, on a Google search:

                    “The truth of the matter is an individual can activate a vacuum tube. By the way, he can activate a vacuum tube because he isn’t trying to go through the terrific insulative quality of air. I’ve forgotten what an inch of air insulates, but it is something fabulous. An inch of air represents maybe a hundred thousand volts or something on that order. He would have to be almost as big as a lightning storm to get across any space of air. But he can do it in a vacuum tube, and he could do it in a bell jar from which the air could be exhausted, while he himself was outside the bell jar. He simply puts a beam inside the bell jar connecting two electrodes and you would get a registry on a meter inside the bell jar.” —L. Ron Hubbard, 3rd ACC Lecture 35
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_abilities_in_Scientology_doctrine

                    • marildi,
                      What comes to mind is the difference between a vacuum and
                      the idea of a void. This vacuum idea actually springs from substance
                      because it follows physics especially electricity as stated in the
                      quotation. I think that a scientist would at this point want to set
                      up an experiment and then draw a conclusion.
                      On the other had, the void is more of a mental concept which is
                      used in eastern religion. In fact, I think it is Hindu in origin.
                      The idea of the void is also used extensively in meditation.
                      These concepts are expressed variously as voids or emptiness.
                      In the end, they are not states to achieve. They are simply working
                      constructs to guide mental activity.
                      Hubbard liked to look at the power of thetan so I am
                      not surprised to see him using volts.
                      May all beings be well and happy!
                      GMW

                    • George, good point about a vacuum being different from a void. It’s even different from the quantum physics idea of it, in that there is never a “vacuum” – rather, even with no air present, “space” is filled with “probability functions”, or potential particles, as I understand it.

                      Thanks for the other interesting info.

                    • P. of Buddha.
                      There were a couple of times when I put the calibration resistor on the meter, turned the sensitivity up, and caused reactions of the needle from across the room. This was when I was doing some positive processing and feeling especially cocky and able. It seems to me that Theta and MEST to cross paths from time to time.

                      If anyone else has had experiences like this, drop me a comment.
                      Mark

                  • MarkNR,
                    Interesting response looking at the difference in data and knowing.
                    The aims of Scientology and Buddhism are somewhat different
                    and this may account for the divergence.
                    It appears to me that Scientology has the goal of survival.
                    In Theravada Buddhism, the aim is to cessation. One can make
                    a fine point of analysis looking at various states of theta. In
                    the end, the paths are different. The problem in the west is
                    that technology has taken over. Scientology may very well
                    be more suited to the transhumanist movement, for example.
                    The Buddha never wanted to teach anyway because he saw
                    only a small percentage would follow him in the finer aspects
                    of his teaching. I spent twelve years meeting public who were
                    interested in Buddhism. 99% simply slot the religion into their
                    comfort zone. Knowing in Buddhism is based on the principle
                    of the clouded or unclouded mind. You would call it clear.

                    May all beings be well and happy!
                    GMW

                    • Path of Buddha.
                      Very interesting outlook. Thank you for your reply. I do subscribe to the general Hubbard philosophy that Eastern thought sought more to endure in serenity, whereas Western thought turned more toward Do, Produce, accomplish something. My personal efforts are to produce demonstrable improvements in myself and others, thereby raising the general tome level of those around me. This will improve the reach of additional individuals to achieve some amount of personal improvement. This will in turn produce a higher level of awareness in the general population and produce additional reach, and so on. That only a small percentage of people will ever reach for or reach a better level of living is and will be unacceptable to me. That will require effort and doing. Endless work by most standards, but a drop in the bucket to me. Worthwhile and satisfying work, in my estimation.

                      A few thousand hours with myself and a few more thousand with my friends and family has been time well spent and will be even more productive in the foreseeable future.
                      ARCL,Mark,

        • Creation that is possible from nothing would be creation without any intention to create with nobody behind it.

          It would be spontaneous, without any ‘who’ or ‘what’.

          • That is one hypothesis. I go along with what Geir had to say near the end of his article “On Will”:

            “Perhaps the quantum randomness we observe is really the result of subjects possessing free will creating a consensus reality through their considerations. With an enormous number of ”players” in the game, and with every particle up for debate, whether a certain particle goes left or right may seem completely random, while in fact it could be the result of consensus considerations.”

            Here’s the link to the full article: http://isene.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/onwill.pdfhttp://isene.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/onwill.pdf

            • Quantum “randomness” is an interpretation from a matter-centric view. A matter-centric view is the idea that all inertia is in mass particle form. But inertia also occurs in an energy wave form.

              The quantum (subatomic) region is where inertial phase shifts from mass particle to energy wave. With this the very nature of physical location shifts from being “centered” to being “spread out”. Randomness appears as one views “spread out” location of energy wave from a matter or mass-centric viewpoint of “centered” location.

              In spiritual space, the matter or mass-centric view is substituted by an identity or individuality-centric view.

              .

              • So…does this mean you agree with Geir?🙂

                • What makes you say that? Geir’s view is absolutist.

                • What makes you say that? Geir’s view is absolutist. That is what I was trying to point out.

                  • I was kidding because I didn’t really get that you had replied to my comment.

                    But okay, I can see why you call Geir’s view absolutist, and I would agree that there is nothing absolute in the physical universe. However, that doesn’t prove there isn’t anything absolute in existence – unless you only believe in the physical.

                    • Getting back to your first comment above: “Creation that is possible from nothing would be creation without any intention to create with nobody behind it.”

                      What is that based on?

                      Here are some definitions of “create”:
                      1.
                      to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
                      2.
                      to evolve from one’s own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
                      […]
                      5.
                      to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to:
                      The announcement created confusion.
                      6.
                      to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:
                      to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

                      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create

    • Friend: “When I put together Theta and Mest it will be a creation at the end of the line in every case .. it must not necessarily a complete new one .. it can be, but it must not. Where is the beginning of all? If you look down the line as good as you can, you will probably always find an earlier beginning. in my case it is this way. But whenever I look down this line of creation I found myself in a condition of be and not be. What I mean, is, there is a zero point in my heart somewhere .. which you can translate as a point of a new start”

      .
      “Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?’
      ‘Hmm . . . What do you think, Harry?’ said Luna, looking thoughtful.
      ‘What? Isn’t there just a password?’
      ‘Oh no, you’ve got to answer a question,’ said Luna.
      ‘What if you get it wrong?’
      ‘Well, you have to wait for somebody who gets it right,’ said Luna. ‘That way you learn, you see?’
      ‘Yeah . . . Trouble is, we can’t really afford to wait for anyone else, Luna.’
      ‘No, I see what you mean,’ said Luna seriously. ‘Well then, I think the answer is that a circle has no beginning.’
      ‘Well reasoned,’ said the voice, and the door swung open.”

      ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

      .
      Where is the beginning of “I”… of the being?
      .

      • christianscientology

        Vinaire, the “I” is not the being. The being is the “ME” (‘me a name I call myself’ – The Sound of Music). The ME is what experiences AWARENESS because it is BEING. The “I” is aware of the experience of awareness. Hence the Buddhist says “THIS IS SUFFERING” rather than “I AM SUFFERING” which is impossible.

    • Friend: “So on, I wrote a note about exteriorization above here .. there was no reply to it, so it was not discussed .. I mean, I did not agree with LRH definitions about exteriorization .. and so I did also not agree with Theta Mest theory because he figured it out of something with whitch I do not agree .. and this is his findings about exteriorization. Not good to do an Int RD in the church when you have no agreement about .. you see? Go in and go out is a cycle of action .. and if incomplete, it is an incomplete cycle of action .. and as long you have such things in mind, you will not go with real creation ..”

      .
      Interiorization is a fixation of attention. Exteriorization is the unfixing of that attention. That is the cycle of action.

      Most people are interiorized in “I”.
      .

      • And, I don’t agree with your definitions of ineriorization and exteriorization. Let’s call them what they are – your personal redefinitions of those words. Your particular understanding of them is not necessarily what Hubbard meant by them when he used them. He used them in the context of increasing or decreasing ability to be “in” or “out” at will. It was about choice of location in space.

        • I think choice and will are just apparencies. There is a lot going on behind the stage.

          • If there is no choice or will, how do you define spiritual? What is it?

            • He has said it many time, an aspect or property of light/existence. What does the idea of choice have to do with spirituality?

              • Light is a physical manifestation. Thus, if “spiritual” refers to an “aspect or property of light”, then anything “spiritual” would still be referring to something physical.

                I see where Vinaire wrote: “It is motion that manifests as spiritual and physical phenomena of consciousness and matter.”

                There again, “spiritual” is actually a reference to some aspect of a physical phenomenon – in this case, to motion. In other words, there is no separation of the physical from what Vinaire is calling “spiritual”.

                That view would seem to be materialism, where everything is ultimately physical – even thoughts, perceptions, intuition, etc. Simply naming certain aspects of the physical as “spiritual” aspects doesn’t take them out of the category of being physical. Rather, it seems like a way to get around stating outright that “all is physical” and that we only NAME certain parts of the physical as “spiritual”.

                Letting go, you asked, “What does the idea of choice have to do with spirituality?”

                The concept I have is that although one’s choices/decisions/options in life may be greatly limited by physical universe phenomena, there is still a “range” of possible choices that one can and does freely choose from

                • Sorry, didn’t quite complete the thought.

                  …there is a “range” of possible choices that one can and does freely choose from, and this would be “outside” the limits of the physical universe. Being “outside”, or not a part of, is given the name “spiritual”. That would be my understanding.

                • I do not subscribe to materialism.

                  • Got it, Vinnie. I probably should have said “determinism”. Do you subscribe to that? As I understand it, determinism would be in contrast to the existence of free will.

                    • I would say that there is a gradient of determinism, just like there is gradient of free will. It all depends of the laws of nature. A lot of these laws remain to be discovered.

                    • That is how I see it too – there’s a good bit of restriction of free will by the laws of physics, but it does exist.

                • During this entire discussion on the relationship between life and the phys. univ., with the exception of some of the comments by Marildi and Spyros, are concerning the imposed rules that are currently extant.

                  In my view, from my experience, from my observations, all these rules were invented, thought up, imposed, agreed or sometimes not. They do not have to be. Vin is on one necessary path, to learn all the rules of the universe, but perhaps not for the right reason. Eventually everyone will have to learn/remember/understand the origin of all the technicalities of the physical worlds in order to work freely within them or be completely free of them, according to choice.

                  But it is important to keep in mind the actual purpose, to become at cause over these rules, or be free from them, or to work effectively within them, or to create new ones. That mass or energy behaves a certain way, or mental mass has a certain effect on you, or that beings do certain things under certain conditions, is an invention that can be changed. A new world could be created in which the speed of light is no barrier and electrons are pink and collect to form chocolate fudge. (An actual occurrence.)

                  Learn all the existing physics, but with the purpose of regaining control of them. New adventures will then be exposed, or not, your choice.
                  ARCL, Mark.

                  • Well said, Mark. Tom Campbell, the physicist/consciousness researcher, says the same kind of thing – based on out-of-body experiences he had where he “visited” other physical realities. He says that most of them have physics laws very similar to ours, but others’ are quite different.

                    LRH had the same idea about the physical universe – that we would have to fully know it to be free of it. I forget now how he expressed it. “The way out is the way through” would apply in a general way.

                  • In the above post Mark is subscribing to the following postulates or assumptions:

                    (1) Presence of rules = MEST
                    (2) MEST comes from Theta

                    He is then wishing for Theta being cause over rules and MEST. In other words he is subscribing to Hubbard’s self-contradictory THETA-MEST theory.

                    • My comments would be just wild ramblings without your contrasting opinions,Vin. I look forward to it every day. Our discussions remind me of similar discussions in ages past.
                      One common belief was of a group of Gods who created and look over this universe. The belief was usually that the group was completely benevolent and wise, which is not usually the case.
                      Mark

                    • The truth is not in the past. The truth is the present moment.

                • Your explanation seems to hinge upon a separation of the “spiritual” and the “physical”, two man-made distinctions or concepts. Have you found this division to be true in real life, and also necessary?

                  • Yes, I have found it to be true in life, for both myself and others. There are spiritual experiences that science doesn’t recognize or acknowledge because of its BELIEF that the only things that actually exist are things that that can be objectively measured and predicted. That fixed belief is why many people have called science a religion, just like any other religion.

                    So-called “soft-science”, which does research on things like medicine, for example, has to do double- and triple-blind experiments, for the simple reason that human beings are not entirely predictable, like MEST is – they can have influence in ways that defy “hard science.”

                    Not that science doesn’t have its place – it absolutely does. But I would say that the “man-made” naming and making a distinction between “spiritual” and “physical” has come about because of our cultural beliefs – where science is the whole belief system for most people and subjective experience has been largely invalidated.

                    • Western science has a matter-centric bias, but not all science is like that. Eastern science is based on mindfulness.

                      The real Scientific Method may be described as follows:.

                      Solving Real-Life Problems

                    • Vinnie, the things you list out as mindfulness, which you say differentiate “Eastern science”, are what any good “Western scientist” would do! Here’s the first few you listed out under mindfulness:

                      : Observe without getting influenced by your expectations and desire for answers.
                      : Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
                      : If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
                      (etc.)

                      To my understanding, the crux of the matter is that if it’s “science”, whether it’s called Western or Eastern, everything has to be proven empirically – and the only thing considered to be valid is objective evidence, where the experiment can be repeated by anybody, anywhere, any time, and it will always get the same results. Subjective experience is not given any validity whatsoever – not if it’s “hard science”.

                    • I never mentioned science, and prefer it when discussions do not veer off into unsubstantiated claims that discuss science as though it were a thinking entity.

                      What if you are that in which everything arises? Why then the need to say I am separate from myself?

                    • Letting go: “What if you are that in which everything arises? Why then the need to say I am separate from myself?”

                      Okay, sure. If what you suggest is the actuality, there wouldn’t be any separation – of anything from anything else.

                      Even so, when it comes to the physical universe, that isn’t the way it works. The separation of things is what the physical universe most essentially is – a universe of separations. And you couldn’t even function in it if you weren’t differentiating one thing from another and recognizing the separations.

                      However, I think I understand what you’re getting at, if you mean to say that the “real world” isn’t the most fundamental truth. As I’m sure you know, many spiritual teachers are trying to teach their students that the key to it all is to stop identifying with some separate part of existence – whether it’s their ego, or what they consider to be their “self”, or some part of their mind, or their whole mind, anything else.

                    • Oops – I left out a word. The last line should say “…or their whole mind, OR anything else.”

                    • Letting go, you might like this short video.

              • I see spirituality (Theta) to be fundamentally awareness, and physicality (MEST) to be fundamentally motion.

                From What is Awareness, Scientifically?

                “Motion and awareness seem to be aspects of each other.”

                In THETA-MEST theory LRH presents both THETA and MEST to be part of the spectrum of motion.

                Motion may be used as something purely physical. But motion may also be used in the general sense of change.

                In my view as one goes back toward the origin of the universe, the spiritual and physical seems to merge into each other. It becomes harder to differentiate between them.
                .

                • “In THETA-MEST theory LRH presents both THETA and MEST to be part of the spectrum of motion.”

                  In 8-80, LRH had a Scale of Wavelengths, which gave the approximate wavelength of emotion, analytical thought, aesthetics and theta at the top with a zero/infinity wavelength. In the same book, he said there is “a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.”

                  In other words, theta is part of what could be called a “spectrum of motion”, as you worded it – but theta itself, at one extreme end of the spectrum, is motionless.

                  • LRH mentioned the extreme ends of the spectrum to be theoretical.

                    “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.” ~ LRH, Scn 8-8008

                    .

                    • Vin, you might be thinking of the first definition below of “theoretical”, but I believe the second one was what was meant in the context:

                      : relating to what is possible or imagined rather than to what is known to be true or real
                      : relating to the general principles or ideas of a subject rather than the practical uses of those ideas

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

                    • Marildi, Per the law of spectrum, or scales, which LRH supported at the beginning of THETA-MEST theory, Motion as THETA gradually transitions into motion as MEST, as one moves down the scale of motion. That was a brilliant insight.

                      But then, LRH contradicted himself big time by saying that, instead of transitioning into MEST, THETA produces MEST.

                      It doesn’t matter what definition of “theoretical” you want to use, the above contradiction is pretty plain to see by anyone who is not brainwashed.

                    • Vin: “…pretty plain to see by anyone who is not brainwashed.”

                      Are you implying…? Well, I never…!😀

                      All kidding aside, I don’t see why you call this a contradiction:

                      “LRH contradicted himself big time by saying that, instead of transitioning into MEST, THETA produces MEST.”

                      Why can’t both datums be true? It would be on a par with the Buddha quote in Marty’s blog post: “You are what you think.”

                      In other words, you transition into the thoughts (the mental MEST) that you yourself have created.

        • You are right! My interpretation of the phenomenon observed is very different from Hubbard’s interpretation. There is no right or wrong here. It is simply a matter of what makes sense. There are certain things about Hubbard’s interpretation of the phenomenon that do not make sense to me.

          An abstract viewpoint does not exist in physical space and views physical phenomenon the way eye does. An abstract viewpoint exists only in a mental space. So, in Hubbard’s interpretation there is a confusion between physical and mental space.

          Things like “will” and “ability to choose” exist in mental space only. They are mental objects.

    • Friend: “This universe (milky way) is interestingly to me, because it has a stopped cycle of action which became then incomplete .. and was overwhelmed with a new cycle of action which cannot really completed. Why, you cannot run two cycles of action at the same time (surely you can do .. but not with a whole univese with zillions of beings in it) .. so, LRH tried to come through this stuff .. really, he tried .. was good about sometimes .. but with his new OT levels he went out of order .. so believe me, creation is possible as long as you do not hang up with incomplete cycles of action .. but as I have in the past understood .. this universe runs only on incomplete cycles of action .. and scientology will only add a new one .. because LRH did leave us without saying that he delivered an incomplete cycle .. he had no plan how he could complete what he started .. he gave only place for speculatie about something which was already there .. so also creation is possible, if you believe it not .. the key to it is old rules about cycles of action .. which is in everyone on this planet or allabout everywhere .. but it is a game ..”

      .
      You are correct in saying that “this universe runs only on incomplete cycles of action…” That is karma to me. Please see,

      What is Karma?
      .

    • Friend: “Creation comes up when you have stopped old cycles of action. It works in small and also in great .. LRH tried to get that done .. and this is maybe all about why we became his friend .. so we are now probably real desperate, because in the Miscavige era the goal looks like impossible .. and in old time it did seem possible .. which is surely true for me ..

      Thanks for reading my meaning .. Friend”

      .
      “Who” stops old cycles of action? Interiorization into “who” is interiorization into “I”.

      You are a friend…🙂
      .

      • Isn’t the cycle of action an artificial way to delineate and think about what is happening? In a universe of interdependent arising, I cannot see how there could be a linear cycle of action in actuality.

        • You are right. In this universe of independent arising, things are just happening. It is better to think in terms of is-ness then in terms of somebody creating things.

          I see “create – create – create – …” as one change following another. Deep down there are laws of nature that are making this wheel turning, But those laws do not add up to the simplistic idea of a supreme being making it all happen.

          Creation = a new phenomenon arising independently
          Survive = A progression of associated changes to what arose
          Destroy = no further changes taking place. The phenomenon has exhauted itself.

          So, it just requires a better understanding of the cycle of action.

    • Nice, I really get what you said about those incomplete cycles of action –in SCN too. And yeah a complete one, would be erasure too, so then no MEST. And the zero point…for me it’s where it all starts as where as ends.

      About SCN, what is have learned in SCN is from the years-long remains of what remained of SCN. When I read from really old timers, I get a different picture of how it was, and what ideas were more ‘mainstream’, in SCN, back then. I had issues with interpersonal relationships in the COS too, but the point which made me decide to leave was that I read one thing and I saw another thing –often the opposite. Kinda like when you read about democracy but you get fascism. Or you read about open minded science and you get unchangeable theories–in the non SCN world.

      I think what Hubbard achieved or others too, is not necessarily what me or others I had known achieved. I leave that open. But indications indicate that, to me.

      About the case of exteriorization, I think it might not be the absolute truth, but it was a relatively much better condition than to identify with the body.

  70. Scientology is making an “interiorization into ‘I'” more of an “interiorization into ‘I’.”

  71. Spiros: “You give me the opportunity to say something I’ve been wanting to say for long. I think the ‘what is true, is what is true for you’ philosophical viewpoint, has not been given a bad name because it is bad, but because it does not occur whenever it is asserted that it occurs. For as long as people, for whatever reasons, believe in other people’s words, it does not occur.”

    … Hahaha! ‘What is true, is what is true for you,’ has always been subject to a person’s filters. That statement makes the ego feel good just like the idea of thetan makes the ego feel good. To a brainwashed person, his brainwashed reality is true to him.

    ‘I’ and ‘you’ are best used as reference points. Using them as absolute terminals is a form of interiorization. Bodies may provide an appearance of “absolute terminals” but even that gets to be questionable at quantum levels.
    .

  72. Spiros: “The final stage of brainwashing, or implanting in Scientologese, is when the person adopts the ideas that are given to him so much, that he considers them his own ideas. Actually, it rarely occurs -if ever- that people fight against each other for their own truth. They fight for things they have been told (or read) by others. In other words, they fight for beliefs, convictions. If such a person asserts those ideas to be his truth and then adds that ‘what is truth, is what it true for me, and if you say otherwise, you are bad’, that is a service facsimile, in Scientologese.”

    Again, I would warn you against getting interiorized in the concepts of “own ideas” and “other’s ideas.” Ideas are ideas. The use of “own” and other’s” is unnecessarily divisive. There are simply ideas that are either consistent or inconsistent in a wider context.

    Trouble comes from not being able to spot inconsistencies and resolve them.
    .

  73. Spiros: “I think it is fundamental respect to allow a person to have his own viewpoint, even if you discuss about it. It is a fundamental element in our sort of a democracy, and sort of a freedom of speech. What I mean is that to put labels on people, or punish them, mock them, try to silence them just because you disagree with them (and you think you know better about them, than themselves) is disrespectful and antidemocratic.”

    Here is my view:

    The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

    The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

    Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.

    However, there are distractions that can keep one from discussing a subject. Such distractions may be introduced in the following ways:

    .
    Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency (contrariness) generated by it. 
    Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.

    When a person is vehemently defending a viewpoint instead of discussing it rationally, he could be using that viewpoint as a “solution” to some confusion. He is afraid that if his viewpoint gets shaken, the confusion would overwhelm him.

    But when there is no confusion, no “solution” needs to be defended. One can look at any datum calmly.

    So the person could be asked gently, “Does this viewpoint seem to solve some confusion?” And if so, the discussion could be used to help resolve that confusion.

    Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion. 
    This is what happens in the situation described in (1) above. But otherwise too, any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. Such an action may involve commenting on the perceived behavior and characteristics of another participant; and/or becoming accusative, emotional and combative.

    Not providing clarification of one’s viewpoint in a disagreement, instead calling the other person wrong. 
    In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.

    Not caring in a disagreement if the other person clarifies his/her viewpoint or not. 
    A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification in a disagreement. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.

    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 his continual 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.
    .

    Thus, distractions to discussion come from a person who does not want to engage in the discussion in the first place. He could be treating the discussion as a debate, or he may simply want to be right. He has got his mind made up and closed. The above behaviors are indicative of that.
    .

    • christianscientology

      My dear Vinair

      I take your points about what makes for a good discussion, and since I am one of those people who “literally view God as a person who has created this universe”, I am very willing to discuss this view with you, and to meet any inconsistencies in my position head on.

      Firstly the dictionary definition of “a person” is very limiting since it only takes into account one particular type of person, namely “a human being”. Even in the space opera of Scientology where it is believed that there are THETANS (PERSONS) in “doll bodies” and all kinds of “meat bodies” it is never suggested that these are not persons just because they are not in human bodies.

      In view of the above we can safely say that A THETAN IS A PERSON and equally a PERSON IS A THETAN. I would maintain that a thetan is INDIVIDUALISED THETA where THETA is PERSONHOOD and A THETAN is a PERSON.

      My best understanding of God would be INFINITE THETA or INFINITE PERSONHOOD, or as in Christian Science INFINITE PERSON.

      I see no inconsistency in this line of reasoning but I do see an inconsistency in defining A PERSON in the limiting sense of A HUMAN BEING.

      I await your view.

      Love with ARC
      Pip

      • Dear Pip,

        My view is that Theta is to Thetan what space is to a point.

        Regards,
        Vinaire

        • christianscientology

          Hi Vinaire

          Theta is not located in Space and Time, a Thetan is. Thetans create both space and points. For space is created when a thetan (a point of view) views a point, the distance between the two is SPACE.

          Love
          Pip

          • Pip, it was an analogy.

            The Theta-MEST theory talks about a scale of Motion, and Theta to be at one end of that scale.

            I look at the scale of Motion also as a scale of Theta. Theta is an aspect of motion.

            • christianscientology

              THETA is not on the scale. Theta is the observer of A THETAN that is at the top of the scale.

              If Theta is not located how could it be on a scale?

              • Really! Have you studied the Theta-MEST theory of L. Ron Hubbard from Scientology 8-8008?

                I do admit that Hubbard was self-contradicting in many places.
                .

          • SPACE = A STATE DEVOID OF INERTIA
            MENTAL SPACE = NATIVE STATE DEVOID OF MENTAL INERTIA

            The physical inertia is made up of FREQUENCY & MASS. The mental inertia is made up of FIXED ATTENTION & EGO.

            LOCATION = A STATE OF CENTERED INERTIA
            MENTAL LOCATION = A STATE OF CENTERED MENTAL INERTIA

            The physical location is made up of the CENTER OF MASS. The mental location is made up of the CENTER OF EGO (“I”).

            POINT = ENVISIONING A PHYSICAL LOCATION MENTALLY THROUGH GEOMETRY

            The main confusion seems to be between physical space and mental space; or between a physical location and a geometrical (mentally envisioned) point.

            THETA is simply the mental aspect of motion, just like MATTER is the physical aspect of motion. It is there at every point of the spectrum of motion. When we are talking about THETA we are talking about mental aspect and not the physical aspect.

            So, THETA has to do with mental space and time, wheras, MATTER has to do with physical space and time. LRH talks about THETA in terms of physical space and time. That was his confusion.
            .

          • Here is a better rendition of what I wrote above.

            Inertia, Space and Location
            .

            • christianscientology

              Vinaire, I love your pictures, this one is particularly interesting. Comparing SPIRE and MATTER is like your diagram. At the left hand side we have a universe and on the right hand side “A BIG BANG” where the universe starts with the smallest particle imaginable, but beyond that physics cannot go, so there is no point in asking “what precedes the big bang”. In fact that smallest particle is A THETAN and what precedes the BIG BANG THETA or GOD KNOWS!

              Pip

    • “The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints.”

      Yes, unless it is not.

      “One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.”

      Yes, unless he does otherwise –like repeat what he’s been told, or even add some more over that to make it ‘his own’.😛

      “Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion.”

      I would peacefully censor myself from harshly disreputing, ridiculing people in public, specially if my claims were not true or were half true. Privacy is a right too. I might reveal present intentions to harm so that the harm wouldn’t occur. What Hubbard did with his wife, his this and that is gossip, and it’s useless to know. If Hubbards tech is brainwashing, in present time, it could save one from getting brainwashed, if revealed. That’s an imaginary example, not an implication.

      “When a person is vehemently defending a viewpoint instead of discussing it rationally, he could be using that viewpoint as a “solution” to some confusion.”

      Yes, or even worse attack you, and not just defend it. And it can get worse, like if a person doesn’t even believe what he defends or attacks, but he pretends to do so, in order to win something, or in order to not lose something…like $

    • christianscientology

      Dear Vinaire

      I have had further thoughts on the subject of God. Whether God is a person or not is a secondary consideration. The first consideration is GOD IS or GOD IS NOT. Can we first establish what our first consideration is. Are you saying GOD IS or GOD IS NOT?

      This is the most fundamental consideration any of us can have and our world view is predicated on this one consideration, baring in mind that CONSIDERATIONS ARE SENIOR TO MECHANICS.

      Pip

      • Pip, my answer is YES.

        GOD is a placeholder of what we don’t know.

        .

        • christianscientology

          Thanks Vinaire, I am glad we agree GOD IS, and I am happy that God is a MYSTERY. When I remember that it keeps me humble.

          Love
          Pip

      • christianscientology

        Further to my thoughts about God, the reason I maintain that “God is” an essential consideration in every game, is that all games need someone who is PAN-DETERMINED, and God fits the bill. Scripture tells us that God allows the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust and also the sun to shine on the unjust and just (Matthew 5:45). What is more we are told that “……… God is not one to show partiality (Acts 10:34) NASV

        Having been involved in Scientology for some 40 years I have an ongoing interest in isolating the basic out-ness in the subject.

        My latest thinking involves GAMES CONDITION and PAN-DETERMINISM. Nowhere that I can find in the description of the parts of a game is included the need for someone to be Pan-determined. In almost every game I can think of it is necessary to have a referee – umpire – adjudicator, someone that can hold a position outside the game to see “fair play”.

        Scientology has been described as the “greatest game of all” – “the game where everyone wins” but what is missing is an UMPIRE. (even a ‘blog’ needs a moderator)

        Originally it was LRH and rightly or wrongly I used to think if I felt aggrieved about anything I could “write to Ron”, but that line no longer exists. Some might say it never did exist. Without that line all we have left is our “internal moral compass”, and depending on how sensitive that is depends on how soon it points to the EXIST.

        Love with ARC
        Pip

        • Pip,

          Quoting you:
          I used to think if I felt aggrieved about anything I could “write to Ron”, but that line no longer exists.

          You can always write to me.

          What ever you do, don’t write to Vin, because it would surely contain inconsistency, or mindlessness.
          🙂

          Dio

          • christianscientology

            Well that is nice to know Dio, but can I rely on you being PAN-DETERMINED – what like the angels said when Joshua asked him on whose side was he on and he replied THE LORDS! (paraphrase of Joshua 5:13/14.

            Love with ARC
            Pip

            P.S. Vin is SELF-DETERMINED which I would never knock. It is better than being OTHER DETERMINED. I admire sincerity even if the person is sincerely wrong!

            P.P.S. Lets speak soon on Skype

            • Hi Pip,

              Yes, you can bet your boat on that.🙂

              My plate is over flowing at the present, but as soon as I get to come up for some air, I will call you. Maybe even as soon as this weekend.

              Love,

              Dio

            • You are feeling superior, aren’t you, Pip?

              That is part of the addiction to God, similar to the superiority complex in Scientology.
              .

        • Pip, you assuming that God is a terminal. Is that assumption correct?

          Or, is God is just a placeholder of what you don’t understand?
          .

          • christianscientology

            If it helps to see GOD as a terminal that is O.K. Certainly followers of “THE TWELVE STEP PROGRAMME” find that every helpful, but also having him/her/it as a place-holder is helpful.

            Christian Science defines God as PRINCIPLE but equally he could be seen as PRINCIPAL and as a TERMINAL. The main thing is his attribute of PAN-DETERMINISM (unconditional love).

            • GOD to me is just another addiction, as it is used by many. It may replace alcoholism and make one behave in a desirable fashion, but It doesn’t bring enlightenment.

        • Pip, I think that God is a Black Box. Everyone has this Black Box, which they then fill with their ideas. No two Black Boxes are filled in exactly the same way.

          Thank you for showing me your Black Box.

          Sent from my iPad

          >

          • christianscientology

            Thanks Vinaire

            So you do believe in God, Praise the Lord! I am assuming that “everyone” also includes you. So are you saying that God for you is the sum of all your ideas? That sounds like an anthropomorphic god to me. Surely the one true God must be more than the sum of all our ideas about God, then we would have the ONE UNIVERSAL LIVING GOD that Jesus introduces us to.

            If my black box contains all my ideas about God then I reserve the right to believe that all those ideas are pointing beyond themselves in the same way as “The finger pointing at the moon” is not the moon as the followers of Zen would say.

            Love
            Pip

      • God exists as a shortcut in our mind for what we do not understand. This is a more accurate statement than Hubbard’s “the why is God.”

  74. Spiros: “Vinaire, the inconsistencies theory of your assumes an objectively true viewpoint, with which I strongly disagree. You cannot know whether I am exterior or not by analysing theories, or by judging based on your own experiences or based on everybody else’s experiences. It could be that I am the only one on earth who can be exterior (I don’t mean that, just saying…). It is not up to you nor anybody else to deem my perception ‘false’, for you don’t have any objectively ‘true’ perceptions.”

    The inconsistency theory is part of KHTK, and the premise of KHTK is as follows:

    “The premise underlying KHTK, is that the reality of this universe is consistent and coherent. Any inconsistency would come from one’s assumptions. As one tracks down the inconsistencies and removes one’s assumptions, the reality becomes more consistent, coherent and clear. It does not matter what viewpoint one approaches with, the personal viewpoint shall gradually disappear as inconsistencies and assumptions are removed. What will remain shall be the actual reality in all its glory.”

    Just like there are physical objects, there are also mental objects. Biases, prejudices, fixed ideas and filters are mental objects. They are not part of subjectivity. The only subjectivity is pure awareness.

    An is-ness is simply an is-ness. There are no true or false is-nesses. A homosexual lifestyle is simply an is-ness. Nobody makes a big deal out of it in India. But in America, and in Scientology, it is a big deal. A pastor like Larry Tomczak may declare that homosexuality is not the true lifestyle (see the link below), but that makes homosexuality neither true nor false. Larry is simply looking through his filter of experience. That filter is a mental object.

    http://www.upworthy.com/a-man-deeply-insults-ellens-show-and-her-marriage-now-watch-her-fire-back?g=2&c=upw1

    I am neither judging nor analyzing. I am simply looking at exteriorization as an is-ness and trying to describe it the best way I can. Hubbard also described it in his own way. Maybe I have a filter, and maybe Hubbard had a filter. You now have an opportunity to look at both descriptions and work it out for yourself.

    If you think that there is really a viewpoint outside the body in physical space in an “out-of-body” experience then fine. The is-ness is that it I recognize it as an inconsistency. But if it is not an inconsistency for you then that is all there is to it. Let’s leave it at that.
    .

    • Vinaire, all this time you has been answering what I had said, but I hadn’t received any notifications, as you didn’t answer directly.

      Well, only some general thing that I want to say for the moment is that in this WAR between ideologies and anti-ideologies, and the generalities involved, some people tend to think that they know too much about each other –much more than they know. In fact few people know few things about me and each other in general, the rest is assumed, logically or illogically figured out and generally thought about –not really known. You see, you can sit and find consistencies and inconsistencies as much as you like, but you can’t figure out people, because they are not solid stuff. One day they are this, the other they are that, and maybe another they are neither.

      One sees you saying something positive about SCN and then he thinks he knows all about you and how you unconditionally believe and supports all Hubbards said, or worse all that he thinks that Hubbard said, which is identical to what LRH fan-boys say and do. Like some others -specially in the USA- hear you talking against the present state of super-capitalism and figure out you’re definitely a communist. I’m neither, by the way.

      It would be cool if each moment started from 0 –from 0 knowldge. Then we could learn something.

      • By that example about SCN I don’t want to be figured out that it is a one way thing. I’m particularly freaked out at how some including myself evaluated people on against the tone scale and case phenomena. You say this, thus you have overts, you do that, thus you are downtone. So then how uptone is to criticise people like that?

        Because I don’t think spirits are some standard stuff, I don’t believe than any case phenomena are standard and unchangeable, thus I could never get into psychology, either. I think neurosis and dowtoness could be created and also not created as well, and there are no physical laws backing that up, unless so thought. But it just my view. My view is I don’t have a standard view.

        “This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing (anything). On the other hand, I — equally ignorant — do not believe (that I know anything)”

        – Socrates

      • Spyros: “some people tend to think that they know too much about each other –much more than they know. ”

        NOT KNOW + FILTER = ASSUMPTIONS

        Spyros: “You see, you can sit and find consistencies and inconsistencies as much as you like, but you can’t figure out people, because they are not solid stuff. One day they are this, the other they are that, and maybe another they are neither.”

        PEOPLE = EGO + FIXED ATTENTION

        EGO is a form of inertia like mass. FIXED ATTENTION is a lighter form of inertia like frequency.

        .

  75. “The single most fundamental, sweeping and powerful truth in all spiritual study, contemplation and practice was probably best summed up in a single sentence. It is an aphorism that has been popularly attributed to the Buddha:

    You are what you think.”

    Another absolute? So, L. Ron Hubbard was really the worlds savior? I think naught.

    “The single most fundamental, sweeping and powerful truth in all spiritual study, contemplation and practice……”

    Such an opening statement reeks of Scientology indocrination, where ‘absolutes that don’t exist’, exist in untold multitudes in Scientology doctrine.

    “You tend to become what you think” is, shall we say, much truer.

    • If: “You are what you think.” was true, or all true,

      then you should be able to think your self “clear” and soon be “clear”.

      Or if you had some disease, you should be able to think healthy and soon be healthy.

      Or if you were only 5′ and wanted to be 5’10”, then you should be able to think you were 5’10” and be so.

      And so forth.

      So far, after decades of trying, I have not been able to do so.

      So something is evidently wrong.

      Dio

    • Dear Jake,
      Marty did not say that this aphorism is attributed to L. Ron Hubbard or to Scientology. He stated that it is “popularly attributed to the Buddha”.

      Marty also gives reference to the idea being found in he Bible:
      ” For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is.” Again, Marty isn’t attributing any of this to L Ron Hubbard or Scientology.

      Probably no one has a problem with you criticizing Scientology. But I think you should read what Marty said rather than pretending he said something that he didn’t. It sounds like you didn’t read the rest of Marty’s essay either as it certainly isn’t a sales pitch for Scientology.

      • Spirit, I was not addressing the validity of the aphorism, but rather the sweeping absolutism of its introduction/opening ‘by Marty’:

        “The single most fundamental, sweeping and powerful truth in all spiritual study, contemplation and practice was probably best summed up in a single sentence….”

        Buddha was never credited with making such an L. Ron Hubbard/Scientology type opening statement, lol.

        Now let me be clear about my own post Spirit:

        “Never before in the history of all of humanity, throughout all time, has there ever been, or ever will be, such a powerful, thoughtful, insightful, transformative and in fact, transcendental post, as was written by Jake the Great 1”.

        See what I did there?

        Lol.

  76. In my opinion, Granting of Beingness would be letting something (or somebody) be what it is, and making no efforts to alter it by adding or subtracting to it.

    You are not giving it life. It is what it is.

    You are not creating energy. What is there is already there.

    You are simply becoming aware of it.

    By granting beingness you are not changing anything out there. You are simply becoming less judgmental.

    Self is merely a label for a combination of locations, movements, particles and considerations. Such label may be applied to other combinations of locations, movements, particles and considerations.

    Looking at something as ‘self’ is one step away from seeing what is really there. It is being judgmental to some degree.

    There is simply this process of looking and becoming aware of what is there. ‘Who is looking’ is an idea and ‘what is being looked at’ is also an idea. One may use the label ‘orientation point’ for who is looking. and ‘symbol’ for what is being looked at. These things may be considered points or locations in the “space” of awareness. As far as locations go, they are all relative to one another.

    Just like there are locations in space, ‘Orientation point’ and ‘symbol’ are points within awareness. There is no absolute point outside of awareness. Locations, or points, orient themselves to one another in a mutual fashion and become aware of each other.

    And therefore,

    1. Space is simply there. It is also awareness. So awareness is simply there.
    2. Awareness may focus, or concentrate, itself at any point within itself, and call that an ‘orientation point’.
    3. Awareness may also focus, or concentrate, itself on another point within itself, and call that a ‘symbol’.
    4. Awareness may then differentiate between these two points, and call that a measure or ‘dimension’.
    5. Awareness, or space, shall then consist of points (locations) and measurable properties (dimensions). This may be represented mathematically by scales.
    6. But the awareness, or space, is already there. It is not created. It simply focuses and concentrates upon itself in various ways.
    .
    Granting of Beingness & Space
    .

  77. Vinaire: “Who” stops old cycles of action? Interiorization into “who” is interiorization into “I” ..

    Good question. All cycles of action run into a stop. But add to it that stop is also a part of control. Both is Start, Change, Stop ..

    I wrote yesterday a comment about, but my browser went down or Marty did not accept my answer .. do not really know what happend .. I think that my answer came not through ..

    For you, I did not speak about Who or I .. the Stop is always you, also the I and not Who, What I said yesterday was, who did start the cycle of action. It looks true to me that someone, also a Who, did start a cycle of action .. and this can be a whole universe .. or simply a friendship, or a marriage, or get children, or starting a business .. or living a life as a whale or penguin .. you will always have a goal for it yourself .. if the goal is done, you come into the field of stop .. also end of cycle .. it may be that you started the cycle for yourself, or you went on a cycle of action of others .. but in each case it is you who gave your word for it .. so it is always you or I .. so you say right that interiorization in Who is always interiorization in I ..

    So I said yesterday, that Buddha and Jesus and Mohammed did gave advice how to handle it, especicially when you did run on cycles of action of others .. also not really your own .. what I mean is, that you can run on a cycle of action which has no real stop .. you see – you can run forever into change .. this is the way the mest universe is build on .. as I tried to mention here .. and I figured it out for me that such games are based on incomplete cycles of action .. which means that you may have cycles in your heart which are not stopped .. but play now another game .. it looks pretty well as like life goes on for everybody .. it means also that some game was stopped without your consent .. means you had no choice to give your own stop ..

    Lets say it easy, Buddha and Jesus and Mohammed figured others down to a point where they felt in heart that that is true (anyway is it true) .. so did also LRH .. he said that you can that handle for yourself .. but LRH did figure into it some stops .. did build up a long way of cognitions about ..

    Basically you are Clear at the point when you find your real own cycle of action .. and go on again to bring it to an end. .. so is said from LRH, you find your own purpose and then you go free on it and go Clear .. at this point you should have cut out all imcomplete cycles of action .. and should be back on your own incomlete cycle of action .. and which should be much easier to do then .. but, but, but .. Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed gave advice to the way .. LRH gave tech to handle it .. he went a good way to it, but lost his way ..

  78. OT: Excellent performance in that deposition, Marty. Very impressed.

  79. I loved the way you handled yourself in the deposition with Bert Dickler (on Tony Ortega’s blog this morning)!

  80. At some point you come to see that people are just how they are.

    You loose hate and anger for the ones that keep acting in their destructive ways.

    It does not matter how you feel about them, they will not change or listen to anybody but themself.

    You could almost see them as a constant or a mathematical function.

    The outcome will always be the same so why bother with hate or anger.

  81. Marty: Congratulations on your thoughtful deposition in the Garcia case. You refused to be brow beaten by the petulant (and probably very expensive) lawyer. It’s pretty clear that he had been instructed “stay right off the internal justice subject but pin him down as a straight out non-credible, person who hates me”. It achieved exactly the opposite. The lawyer fumbling around with how do we get a letter through to the Garcias’ lawyer was embarrassing, Happy New Year to you and your family.

    • tony-b, I wouldn’t call that lawyer petulant. He’s a very capable hatchet man whose goal I guess was to severely lower Marty’s “objectivity profile” as a witness for the Garcias. This is so that any claim that Miscavige controls all CoS acions (including CoS arbitration procedures on refunds/repayments) or that the Garcias wouldn’t get a fair shake can be dinged on account of Marty’s (and others) personal animus toward Miscavige. Yes, Marty’s questioning on what all this had to do with the Garcias’ case was totally on point.

    • Well said tony!
      Marty you did a great job. Still I can imagine these attacks are the last thing you need. In the end though as things have heated up on many legal fronts Miscavige and his perversion of his position are being exposed. I think it’s high time for another Anderson Cooper series of instalments on Scientology, this time discussing the hierarchy. It would be good to see the the legal manipulations and all the varied battles explored and exposed

      You and your family have a lot of support. You’ve all been through more than anyone should have to suffer. I hope you can draw strength from the support that’s out there !

      I’m actually not nor ever have been a scientologist, though was interested in varied articles and reports…and that’s how I came to your blog a few years ago. I really appreciate your posts and am in awe of what you guys have done for so many. I’m a bit shy about posting and participating but wanted to voice my support

      • Afterthought: and the lawyer in that deposition is a complete tool.
        I hope that the rest of the depo gets posted and lots of others in the legal cases. It just exposes how evil and sick their strategy is. It’s perverse to think that these activities occur supposedly in the name of a religion.

  82. Marty:
    When you get asked the same question multiple times during a deposition (sometimes with a few words changed) is there anything stopping you from saying only “I’ve already answered that question, my answer is in the transcript, please read it.”

  83. I root for you and your wife every day. That is the truth. In my own unperfect way I am there for you both.

  84. Thruth

    My mother went 65 and celebrated her Birrthday.

    My Mother works with doubly challenged Clïents

    Go google that and find out what it means.

  85. Hubbard was basically a hacker of the legal system. The Church of Scientology represents that hacking function.

    Hopefully, the legal system shall grow stronger as a result.

    .

  86. Western science has a matter-centric bias, but not all science is like that. Eastern science is based on mindfulness.

    The real Scientific Method may be described as follows:

    (1) Use your experience

    Consider the problem.
    Look for previous explanations.
    Try to eliminate all inconsistencies using the 12 aspects of mindfulness.

    (2) Form a conjecture

    State a simple hypothesis or conjecture no matter how unconventional it may appear.

    (3) Deduce a prediction from that explanation

    Predict consequences that may follow from that explanation.

    (4) Test (Experiment)

    Check for the opposite of each consequence to disprove the conjecture.

    Note that this can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) the conjecture. It can only falsify the conjecture.

    If the conjecture cannot be disproven then continue with step (1) until the complexity of the problem is adequately addressed.
    If the conjecture is disproven then go back to step (2).

    .

    Here are the 12 aspects of mindfulness.
    Reference: The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

    Observe without getting influenced by your expectations and desire for answers.

    Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.

    If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.

    If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.

    Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.

    Let the mind un-stack itself.

    Experience fully what is there.

    Do not suppress anything.

    Associate data freely.

    Do not get hung up on name and form.

    Contemplate thoughtfully.

    Let it all be effortless.

    .

  87. I heared someone was a fan of Thomas Paine:

  88. MarkNR,
    I can remember very strong, most informative e-meter reactions on OT VIII auditing.
    These reads were not from a distance, but they were vivid, wide and
    distinct. On the lower end of the bridge, the reads were nice and sort
    of “usual business”. I concluded that there needed to be a willingness
    to experience certain states in Scientology.
    A few years ago, I started looking at how the brain and the mind
    really operate. It became clear that this whole idea of electricity needed
    to be transcended. One of my friends introduced me to the transhumanist movement led by a Google engineer named Ray Kurtzweil. This
    opened up a whole new grand canyon of advanced scientific research.
    He wrote a book called “The Age of Spiritual Machines” which is
    now a little out of date, but very interesting.
    May all beings with artificial intelligence be well and happy!

  89. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328523

    Marildi, Western science tends to focus on physical objects only. Eastern science takes a much broader view of the universe. For it, science observes both physical and mental (spiritual) objects.

    Many things that western science treats as subjective, are treated as objectively by mindfulness, the key example being “self”. Mindfulness looks at “self” as a mental object, and conceives of the dissolution of “self” as nirvana. I believe that “dissolution of self” actually means the dissolution of fixed attention on “self”. When that happens, there is no longer any identification with the idea of self or individuality. Attention becomes totally free of the idea of self.

    Empirical proof of science comes when consistency is observed not only among physical objects but also among the mental objects.

    .

  90. “The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”

    – Jean De La Bruyère

  91. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328617

    Marildi, “You are what you think” means to me that ‘a state of motion is what it is.’

    Theta is a state of motion. MEST is also a state of motion. They are different aspects of looking at the same state of motion. At every point on the spectrum of motion, there is theta as well as MEST.

    Hubbard said that one end of the spectrum of motion (theoretical theta) produces the other end of the spectrum of motion (theoretical MEST). This doesn’t make any sense to any scientific mind. It is simply not consistent. It violates the very definition of a spectrum.

      • Marildi, here are my thoughts as I am reading the LRH reference given by you.

        It is not true that MEST universe is at one end of the scale of motion and the thetan is at the other. The universe is the whole scale of motion. As motion changes from simple to complex, both theta and Mest also get complex since they both describe the state of motion.

        LRH calls matter to be solid thought. Well it is a state of motion that has its aspect of both theta and Mest. It is not Mest produced by theta or thetan. That idea is just humbug. There are no spiritual and physical universes separate from each other. There is only one universe that has its spiritual and physical aspects.

        The ultimate in beingness is being the whole universe with both spiritual and physical aspects intact.

        LRH’s biggest crime was to individuate from the universe, calling it a Mest universe, and then blaming it as a trap for the individuated identity called thetan.

        In Buddhism, one handles that individuation by extinguishing the small human self so one can then be the whole universe with both spiritual and physical aspects completely intact

        Lots of individuated thetans do not create the MEST universe by agreement because that is just going farther south. They just become more solid thought by doing that.

        The correct direction is to get rid of the individuation as a thetan. The thetan is an outcome of individuation.

        LRH believed in his THETA-MEST theory. It was a flawed theory that turned him into a psychotic and finished his life for good. .

        Sent from my iPhone

        >

  92. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328614

    Marildi, there is no such thing as proof. There is only observation and a sense of consistency where both physical and mental objects are concerned. Mental filters can mess around with “proofs.”

    I have no reason to doubt the following:

    “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

    In other words, there is no absolute certainty. Any certainty may be improved upon. That includes Hubbard’s “certainties.”

    The Quest for Certainty
    .

    • How is that Buddha quote different to what I was telling you the other days, and you argued about?

      And what ‘Hubbard’s certainties’ when he agreed that absolutes are unbtainable and there’s no absolute certainty in MEST?

      From what I (yes, I) get out of SCN and certainties is that no theory is certain. The only certainty achieved is through processing, when something is actually erased. So the certainty is the nothing –not a thing.

      • If you embrace much Buddhism, get ready to embrace much SCN theory too, for there are some very basic similarities. The e-meter, processing, the PR, the orgs and policies are not similar. But in the basic theory of the spirit, as well as some ethics, there are similarities. For me, those are the important stuff, and what I have kept as most useful out of that SCN journey.

        What you say about ‘ego’ (that thetan=ego) might be an impression that is given through SCN theory, and certainly an impression most of us -if not all- have had. BUT that impression is inconsistent, like you say, with what Hubbard said about being all 8 dynamics. How many egos would those be? What would the meaning of “be your 3rd dynamic” be, if ‘you=’ego’?

        • The goal of Scientology is 100% opposite of the goal of Buddhism.

          Buddhism is handling the individuation from the universe as a being (thetan). Scientology is trying to solidify that individuation.

          The fundamental beingness is that of the universe that has both spiritual and physical aspects across the spectrum of motion. We are the whole spectrum of motion and not just one end of it.

          Sent from my iPhone

          >

          • I agree that we are the whole and not just pieces of it. I just dont see why the universe is the only whole. There could be more. I like Alan Watts, but I dont agree with him about that.

            I have tried to explain to you what my view of SCN theory is, and you keep ignoring some parts and focusing on the parts you have kept. That you are the whole is well inside SCN theory. You could have a look in what I have been indicating all this time.

            I dont think processing enhances egoism, In SCN both obsessive separation as well as connection are considered undesirable. The point is to have free beings so they can then be aware, bit by bit, of being the whole. If it happens or not is another story. I’m telling you what I know as a reader.

            • Well said, Spyros.

              Here’s a quote from the tape I posted a link to in my last reply to Vinaire:

              “But, from here on up (28 up [on the tone scale]) are impossible heights of beingness, which are higher and higher in their illusory or creative value. You get much above this, and you don’t have any interest in this universe that we are in, in any degree. You don’t have any interest in anyone else’s universe as you go up from that point, and up at the top you are making your own universe, and you aren’t even in that one, and that’s the end of that. So, for all intents and purposes the only band we can study is from 0 to 28. ABOVE 28 THERE IS NOTHING OF HIM TO STUDY; HE IS GONE.” (my caps on the last sentence)

              http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/5206c23%20Technique%2088%20Lectures/TXT/5206C23B%20TECHNIQUE%2088-1B%20THEORY%20OF%20THE%20ORIGIN%20OF%20MEST.txt

              • Yes, Marildi. Vainaire has a point, that in my years of being involved with SCN and talking with SCNsts I’ve found that all those things are rarely known to people. I don’t think it is part of any Bridge to learn about being all dynamics nor the theta line and other things. And of course such ‘being all dynamics’ would mean that one would acknowledge that the only opponent is himself, so there wouldn’t be conflicts or other ideas of punishment (coated as ‘ethics’) either. Actually, it would be nice.

                I only mention that stuff as encyclopedic knowledge, it is not meant to defend nor offend SCN and others. To me it is an indication that to be free, able etc are 1st dynamic goals, good ones but not enough. There are 7 more to go.

              • For me the point is to learn something, not make people right/wrong “You don’t know” and “You should know” etc. I think it could be of interest of people from all parties to know that such stuff exist in SCN theory. I think a person who thinks of reasons to offend himself (his broader ‘self, 8 dynamics) could in this manner see that he does it to himself and thus handle it. By trying to ‘handle’ ‘others’, you don’t make it. At least I don’t. We can get rid of antagonistic games and play co-operative games.

                • I understand what you’re saying.

                  Speaking of what scientologists are rarely aware of in scn, here’s a passage from the same lecture. Knowing you, I think you will like it:

                  “Anything from 0 to 28 [tone levels] in the line of reason is really a matter of greater or lesser magnitude. There is no absolute knowledge from 0 to 28. What man contacts as man is only relatively workable. Why? Because there is your band of truth, and it is just relative truth. When you go up above this you get your infinite truths, and when you go down below this you get your negative truths. So, anytime you work with active reason (by which I mean – thought impinging on a universe, or on bodies, or on energy) you are dealing with relative truths, and not absolutes.

                  “In past lectures I have talked about 3 bins: Bin One – of absolutes that has everything in it, Bin Two – which is all paths to knowledge or to the absolutes, and Bin Three – which is what you and I know.

                  “The stuff in Bin Three changes continuously, and there is nothing true in Bin Three at all, for everything in there is relative to everything else in one way or another. Some of it is just downright lies, but that is what man knows.

                  “But, he goes up through Bin Two, captures some knowledge from Bin One, and when he brings it down from Bin One it goes over the bridge of Bin Two, and it changes into a workability, and it becomes relatively untrue. We keep up that cycle from absolute truth, and we try to bring down through mysticism, scientology, physics, what have you, into Bin Three, knowledge as man knows it. That knowledge is from [tone] 0 to 28. There is knowledge and absence of knowledge below that band, and plus knowledge above it, until you strike up in the impossible category of ‘I KNOW’.

                  “You get a fellow up into the ‘I KNOW’ category all the way across the board, and his ‘I KNOW’ is so nebulous that all that he knows is what he knows for him. He does not translate it into Bin Three, so it does not become known to you. He knows for him – you’ve seen them, they go around spinning all the time.

                  “Last November [1951] I made a lecture on postulating the condition of beingness. Three quarters of the lecture is devoted to proving absolutely that there is no reason under the sun that you couldn’t say, ‘I’m going to be..’ and immediately be – no processing required. The last quarter of the lecture is why it isn’t practical, and can’t be done. Here and there people pick up the first three quarters of this lecture and they go, ‘Wow! Gee, what am I doing way up here?’ And they forget the last quarter entirely.

                  “He walks around rather dazedly, and in trying to talk to people he finds out he is out of communication with everybody, and has no language to tell people what he knows. He can’t translate anything he has got, so he takes a dive way down, bounces a couple of times, and settles out. You can depend on a person to go through that cycle if he postulates a state of being or knowing, and goes outside the tolerance band.

                  “So, here is the tolerance band we are studying – from this relative zero of not being up to 28… ”

                  From “Technique 88: Theory of the Origin of MEST”, 23 Jun 52.

                  • Yeah, I like it. have read about the 3 bins before. But I’m not sure exactly what you are answering by that, if it is an answer to something I said. But just in case you hint what I think: In those 50s lectures there was the concept of ‘going up the pole’. It meant to ‘connect’ to some very high tone on the tone scale, but not really make it. A person for example was trying to be tone 40.0 but not really making it, because he was holding on to the body too much as well as other things, and tones above 4.0 are not body tones.

                    Back then LRH developed or tried to develop uniformly workable techniques to actually reach those states, while today SCN is left with OT 8. Whether OT 8 is Tone 40.0 is not, I dont personally know, but according to OT 8s, it isn’t. Correct me if I’m wrong.

                    So, it made sense back then to explain the need of techniques in order to reach those states, but today it doesn’t make sense, unless you want to be in apathy about it, as those techniques are not part of any Bridge. Still, I don’t think that because LRH developed or tried to develop such techniques, it cannot be done otherwise. Actually I think that abberation from native state, is something that is being done, while native state doesn’t need to be done –it is truth and not something to be achieved.

                    How that can be implemented in life, well it’s up to anyone to know.

                    I find it suppressive to read that any uptone person is ‘going up the pole’ just because he does not agree with SCN case mechanics. For you see the only alternative offered is apathy –that it cannot be done.

                    I don’t think LRH meant that. He was trying to make something practical. Where fixation on endless case mechanics and invalidation of theta states are impractical, unless that’s what you want.

                    • Spyros: “But I’m not sure exactly what you are answering by that, if it is an answer to something I said.”

                      I had in mind what you wrote about “…in my years of being involved with SCN and talking with SCNsts, I’ve found that all those things are rarely known to people”, and I thought the tape was another good example of “things rarely known”. Plus, it was about some of the topics on this thread – theta-mest theory, etc.

                      And yes, LRH was talking about “going up the pole” in that lecture, though he didn’t use that term. This is the definition in the Tech Dictionary:

                      GOING UP THE POLE, Slang. that’s when somebody doesn’t even begin to handle energy, but he just suddenly somehow or other latches onto about 40.0 and goes out the top and still holds onto the mest body on the bottom and he’s done the incredible thing of making a circle out of all this. He’s joined 0.0 up against 40.0 and to listen to the guy and to talk to the guy you couldn’t really tell whether he’s ecstatically alive or fatally dead. (PDC 27)

                      And no, I don’t think you’re wrong about OT 8. For one thing, OT 8 was supposed to be just the first OT level (the levels before it are “pre-OT” levels). And as far as I know, there was never an EP of “tone 40.0” for OT 8.

                      You wrote: “Actually I think that aberration from native state, is something that is being done, while native state doesn’t need to be done –it is truth and not something to be achieved. How that can be implemented in life, well it’s up to anyone to know.”

                      What you are talking about is what interested me in the passage I quoted above. This part:
                      —————————-
                      “Bin One – of absolutes that has everything in it, Bin Two – which is all paths to knowledge or to the absolutes, and Bin Three – which is what you and I know.

                      “The stuff in Bin Three changes continuously, and there is nothing true in Bin Three at all, for everything in there is relative to everything else in one way or another. Some of it is just downright lies, but that is what man knows.

                      “But, he goes up through Bin Two, captures some knowledge from Bin One, and when he brings it down from Bin One it goes over the bridge of Bin Two, and it changes into a workability, and it becomes relatively untrue. We keep up that cycle from absolute truth, and we try to bring down through mysticism, scientology, physics, what have you, into Bin Three, knowledge as man knows it.”
                      ——————————

                      The above tells us that Bin Two includes all paths to Bin One, where you have “the absolutes”. That would include “native state”, wouldn’t it?

                    • Oh OK, I thought you answered to something specific that I said, and that there was something specific I was expected to grasp.

                      I guess native state is bin one or close. I more like think of ‘basic truth’ as not a thing. Truth could also be the lack of alteration and not-isness –the original creation.

                      I have stumbled upon a few references that I’m sure most know, that to focus on truth is a much faster way, than to as-is lies. And I too have noticed that in practice.

                      I wonder what most people think reading the strange language in our SCN talks. I hope they either understand it all, or nothing😛

                    • “I more like think of ‘basic truth’ as not a thing.”

                      In quantum physics terms, it’s only when you assign a word to an absolute “thing”, to its wave function, that you collapse and “locate” it – and now you can talk about it. This would go along with Ron’s 3 Bins.😛

                      “All or nothing at all,” you say? A wonderful, old song.😀

                    • You remind me of a passage in once read while browsing blogs that said “In the beginning there was the word, and the word was ‘God’.”

                      In plain American-English-by-a-Greek that means God came out of nothing, or God created himself. Cool?

                    • God came out of the imagination of a primitive man. The idea somehow caught fire.

                    • For some strange reason, God and gods appeared on many many places on earth that were not in communication with each other.

                      It seems that to condemn all gods and the supernatural, didn’t end absolutist authority, crooks, nor any opium of the people, as it was presumed by some.

                    • God does not mean the same thing in different cultures. It has been described differently in different places. You seem to be implying that God means one specific thing.

                      The idea of God has mainly been the attempt to understand the mystery of this universe. It has no concrete definition that is accepted at all those different place that you are referring to.

                    • No, I didn’t imply such a thing. You said it was invented by a primitive man, so I answered to that.

                      Through historical evidence, that are material remains, we know very vague and very little about what was going on back then. It would be foolish to make certain assumptions, based on just that.

                      The assumption that religion comforts the fear that one will cease to exist after death, seems rather unreal to me, as I got terrified with the idea of the eternal existence as a spirit, instead. Not to mention how terrifying ‘hell’ or ‘hades’ seem to me.

                    • Let’s put the defensive “I” aside and simply discuss the subject.

                      God is basically a placeholder for what is not understood.

                    • I think it’s nice to think that you don’t know something, as then you could learn.

                      We ‘know’ all those vague generalities –how countries are like, how women are like, how the Earth has been like the past thousands of years and how the whole black universe has been like the past billions of years, but we don’t know how our neighbor has been like the past couple of seconds.

                      There is huge difference between information, evidence, and personal knowledge. I get information too, but I refrain from creating the illusion that I really know the subject that the information is about. I think this goes along with what you said the other day that people think that if many or most think so, ten it is true. Based on that changes such as the renaissance could had never occurred. I read but I also keep some ‘distance’ from what I read, and always leave space for further knowledge.

                    • I was referring mostly to history, the past. In the year 5474 one couldn’t possibly figure out a religion or another thing by studying it’s symbols, a few other material objects and maybe a few words scattered here and there. Yet, it seems that’s how many things have been figured out, about the past.

                      I think the notion that ‘people’ have always been brutal and times have always been hard can also have as logical consequence the perpetuation of such things. And most history is about war. It gives a grim impression. I’ve been told that the media in East Germany used to propagate -during their occupation by the USSR- that the war had not been over, and that they were safe under the protection of the USSR –for obvious purposes…

                    • Hello Spyros.
                      From my observations, life has been generally harder over the last few thousand years due to the fact that much more labor was required to support a body. Food and shelter. I have spent an awful lot of time staring at the backside of a mule and gathering wood.
                      Also because of the lack of the free and prolific flow of information. Ignorance promotes control and manipulation.
                      But there were good times as well. Primarily discussions with friends over a few beers or a bottle of wine. Then there is romance and family.
                      But just surviving as a human has taken up the bulk of my time and effort.
                      Mark

                    • Hi Mark!

                      By first and second hand I know that people that actually produce those goods that are required to support a body’s needs, rarely get rewarded by more than 5-10% of their production’s value. If anybody thinks this is fair, the only way, and the only alternative to communism, I would like him to break it down for me. If one could work just for himself, it would take him 50 years to grow his food and build a hole of an apartment to live in.

                      Good times can exist through such circumstances too, for sure. And I could work for more than half a daytime and be happy with it, too. Actually, I don’t think about it, often. I just -viewing it from outside- don’t think it’s fair. And there is the all-important factor of ‘do you do it for the money or for the cause?’ I’d be much more happy to work for a fair cause.

                    • Hey howdy Spyros.
                      As usual, your comments are lucid and thought provoking.
                      I have mentioned walking behind a mule more than once, perhaps because there was a timelessness to it. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. There is a bliss in simple labor to produce a simple product for yourself and those close to you. But it is also a good time to relax (spiritually) and reflect on former times of high randomity.
                      I have tended to cycle from the areas of high stress such as dealing with large numbers of people, or playing the part of con man and politician. All requiring lying and playing different sides and groups against the other. To opposite persona, such as wise and helpful giver, or simple laborer.
                      There was value in all of those experiences. There were good and bad times in all of them.
                      There is a lot of truth in Ken Ogger’s description of people tending to cycle from one set of purposes to the next in a pre-set pattern. Eventually getting back to the beginning and starting over. These purposes were given, taught to us and most people follow them for the most part, occasionally deviating from time to time, for one reason or another.
                      There have been many lifetimes when, at the end, I felt I was just passing time, producing nothing of value to anyone. But it all led me here, and this life will lead me somewhere else. My goal is to assert a little more choice over the matter.
                      Mark

                    • You and a few others make too sweet acknowledgments, and I can’t in similar manner, as it isn’t my ‘style’. Still, it’s appreciated🙂

                      ‘Con’ is the reason I don’t want to be involved with business and their implications. A new party arose in GR claiming to intend to end this business model. I watch with interest.

                      Do you believe in the ‘awakening’ that some have been talking about? I think quicker or slower, it is being made more obvious.

                    • I am not religious, nor pro- nor anti-religious, I just think the assignment of fanaticism, war, manipulation and generally evil on religion and the supernatural alone, is naive. Even in the absence of a Pope, there could be numerous ways imagined to control and torture people during those dark ages. You would be surprised how creative people can be, and how they can twist and use about anything to make it serve their own ends, if they so wish. I don’t think ideologies are so powerful. I think people are. I wouldn’t give power to evil people, whether they were workers or class 99 or anything else. Nor would I be hasty to attack somebody for belonging to some group. I judge a person by his person, not what he represents.

                    • Religion does not necesarily mean “fanaticism, war, manipulation, evil, and the supernatural.”

                      Buddhism is relatively clean of these elements.

                      But these elements have deeply corrupted many religions.

                    • No, I didn’t imply that religion means that. I’ve just heard so.

                    • Is that from the Bible? I wouldn’t know, because I don’t think it’s included in Orthodox Christianity, that’s dominant where I am.

                    • There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about quantum mechanics. One has to do an online course at MIT or Yale to better understand it.

                    • Well, thank God. You’ll get your misconceptions cleared up.😀

                    • It is quite a process. One needs to first understand all that has been researched and verified, and then start sorting out the assumptions per their consistencies.
                      .

                    • IMO, the biggest inconsistency is the assumption that there is no super-set to the physical universe, in spite of the fact that this assumption leaves many phenomena unexplained.

                      For example, there are experiments that indicate a direct link between one’s INTENTION (or postulate) and the behavior of the world. Watch this 10 minute vid about the use of random-number generators to test this:

                    • The superset universe does not differentiate between physical and spiritual universes like the Theta-MEST theory does. It is just one universe that has both physical and spiritual aspects.
                      .

                    • Vin, how does your theory explain the experiments in the above video?

                    • It is as I said… Theta and MEST are complementary at every point on the scale of motion. They influence each other. It is not a one way street that “Theta produces MEST.” That is just laughable.

                    • Okay, but my specific question is how does theta – or intention, however you want to word it – influence such things as described in the video, according to your theory?

                    • To understand what you are asking one needs to first understand what space is, because all the action is taking place in space.

                      Identifying space simply as a “viewpoint of dimension” is very simplistic. Space does not depend of human viewpoint. That is a human-centric notion. There was space before humans appeared on this earth.

                      Currently, I am trying to explain space as a state of motion without inertia. Please see

                      Inertia, Space and Location
                      .

                    • I think that’s the first sentence in the Bible, and it has a number of different interpretations. One I’ve heard is that at the beginning of the universe, there was a sort of sound in space – i.e. an energy – when god “spoke”. And that’s what began it all. Pip could probably shed some light on the meaning.

                      But your interpretation seems cool to me. Apparently, even many physicists have no problem with the idea that “things” (for lack of a better “word”😛 ) can just appear out of The Void.

                    • This seems to be somebody’s notion derived from their meditation.

                    • The Greek Orthodox don’t use modern Greek in their texts, nor ancient Greek, but rather something in-between, and it’s really hard for the ordinary man to understand what the texts mean. I think they use the Byzantine era language, as Christianity was born during and inside the Byzantine Empire.

                      Anyway, the Greek version reads different than the English. I checked a few websites just now, and found that -for example- they translate ‘Word’ as ‘Jesus’.

                      Interesting what you say about physicists. I thought the idea that something can exist out of nothing was not accepted.

                    • Spyros, I guess it depends how you look at it. According to physicists, there is actually no such thing as an absolute “void”, or empty space. Even in a vacuum, with all air and other particles removed, there exist “virtual particles” – but actual particles can appear and disappear from that field. That’s my understanding so far. I’ll let you know when I figure out exactly how this field relates to theta.😉

                      As for the Bible quote – you’ve heard the Scientology version? “In the beginning was the Word…and it was Misunderstood.”😛

                    • As for the Bible quote – you’ve heard the Scientology version? “In the beginning was the Word…and it was Misunderstood.”

                      That is a good one. I shall slightly modify it as follows.

                      “In the beginning was the Word…and it was Misunderstood in Scientology.”😛

                    • Good snark humor – from a critics point of view.😛 I shall modify it as follows:

                      “From the beginning, many Words in Scientology were Misunderstood.”

                    • I was not being critical in a rude or sarcastic way. Scientology starts with THETA-MEST theory and it contains the misunderstanding that one end of a scale or spectrum produces the other end, and not transition into it gradiently through a process.

                    • Potential energy transitions into Kinetic energy through a process. Saying potential energy PRODUCES kinetic energy introduces mysticism of ignorance.

                    • MEST is a form of Theta, and not something entirely different from Theta.

                      Universe is a form of God, and not something entirely different from God.

                    • So if you think that “MEST is a form of theta”, you must not see any basic difference between the two – i.e. they amount to the same thing. That’s what I thought you believed.

                    • Marildi, think of them as Potential and Kinetic Energy. Both are energy but not of the same kind, and they can convert back and forth into each other.

                      Theta and MEST are both MOTION of different kinds, and they can convert back and forth into each other.
                      .

                    • What ability does theta or the spirit have, according to your theory? For example, how does the ability to originate/create fit in?

                      If it’s all just a matter of theta being the effect of prior causes, such as kinetic energy, that’s deterministic materialism – and is not the meaning of the word “theta”. If you just want to negate that meaning, you should be open about it and use a different word.

                    • Marildi, truth must be consistent with reality. When an idea or definition is not consistent with reality then it is an untruth. There are no two ways about it.

                      It is an untruth that there is such a thing as Theta that produces MEST. It is a yarn pulled out of thin air.

                      I have no intention to “negate” anything. I simply follow mindfulness, which amounts to calling spade a spade.

                      If you disagree with what I have written above, it is your right to do so. I am not here to convince you of anything. If you can’t see what I see, then you just can’t see what I see.

                      Let’s wrap this up.

                    • “When an idea or definition is not consistent with reality then it is an untruth.”

                      The term “flat-earth” is inconsistent with reality, but it’s a term that is used to express a particular idea. Just because it isn’t true, someone can’t just say they’re now going to give it a different meaning – or use it, but mean something different than what people understand it to mean. That just causes confusion.

                      Similarly, if your view of spirituality is different than the term “theta” denotes, you need to use a different term.

                      Actually, what is your definition of “spirituality” – or “spirit”? Do you use it according to the regular English definition?

                      spirit: “the characteristics of a person that are considered as being separate from the body” http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/spirit

                    • Marildi, words simply acquire different meanings. You just have to look at the dictionary to realise that. If you are looking for blaming this is-ness on somebody, you won’t be very successful.

                      So, one simply needs to get smart in recognizing which defintion is closest to reality, and discuss accordingly.

                    • It is sad that Hubbard insisted that his defintions of words were absolutely correct and they were above being questioned. He tried to cement that injunction through his brand of “Word Clearing.” But his idea of “word clearing” is now superceded by the more rational idea of Subject Clearing. Please see

                      Subject Clearing
                      .

                    • Vinnie, it isn’t just the word “theta” – you also don’t use the word “spirit” the way it is defined by others. People who don’t think there is truth to the idea of spirit don’t continue to use that same word but with a contrary meaning.

                      You seem to be unwilling to simply state that you don’t believe spirit exists in the sense the word is used and intended to mean, as you’ve avoided answering several direct questions I’ve asked.

                      IMO, the basic outpoint in your ideas about theta (or spirit) is that those ideas are all coming from an intellectual standpoint, rather than experiential. Watch this short video to understand why that would not be valid:

                    • p.s. I mean that an intellectual approach isn’t valid on a subject that isn’t personally known about through the intellect. The video is only about 3 minutes long and explains this better.

                    • Marildi, sorry for the confusion. I am using the word SPIRIT to mean INHERENT ESSENCE in the broadest sense possible. The Hindu word for it is DHARMA.

                      Unfortunately, there are myriads of opinions about “spirit”, but all of those opinions may fall under this idea of “inherent essence.”

                      Example: The spirit of man is consciousness. It is what makes man a man.

                      Example: The spirit of stone are its properties. It is what makes stone a stone.

                    • There is a difference between a stone and a man. A stone doesn’t have the ability to make free-will choices in any degree at all.

                      You seem to only consider the ways a man is like a stone – in other words, fully subject to physical laws and its determinism.

                      And, like I say, you keep evading any direct question to you along these lines.

                    • This is classic!🙂 I must admit that there is hypnotism.

                    • Vin, maybe I haven’t made my question clear. Here it is:

                      Do you consider that (1) there is some degree of free-will choice a person has (within the limits of living in a body in the physical universe)?

                      Or (2) that any and all choices a person makes are always the result of forces influencing him (whether those forces are “spiritual” or “physical”).

                    • Marildi, it seems that you choose to misunderstand. You question is answered by me before. Here is the answer again (through Buddhism):

                      THE STRUCTURE OF “I”
                      .

                    • Then I get that your answer is #2 – that any and all choices a person makes are always the result of forces influencing him (whether those forces are “spiritual” or “physical”).

                      I just wanted to confirm it.

                    • It depends on how much you are interirized into “I”.

                    • It depends? So are you saying that it’s possible for some “I’s” to make choices/decisions that are not wholly the effect of influences outside of itself.

                      It’s a straightforward question, so please don’t refer me to some article. We’re having the discussion right here – let’s keep it here and keep it simple.

                    • No, I am not saying that. I shall give you a straightforward answer.

                      What I am saying is that to degree “I” is thought to be cause or effect, there is interiorization into it. One then tries to handle it through auditing.

                      With mindfulness, one simply looks at “I” as a mental object, which is out there as a reference point, like any other physical or mental object. One is then free to make any associations among these objects. There are no fixed associations that one is tied down to. One is then not bragging about I am this or I am that; like what Spyros is doing right now, and you are egging him along on that.

                    • “One is then free to make any associations among these objects.”

                      Okay, Vinnie, I got it now that you do believe there exists freedom to choose or decide about things. Thanks!

                      However – what does “one” refer to in the sentence I quoted above? In fact, you used it several times:

                      “ONE is then free to make any associations among these objects. There are no fixed associations that ONE is tied down to. ONE is then not bragging about I am this or I am that; like what Spyros is doing right now, and you are egging him along on that.”

                      As for Spyros, you call it “bragging”, I call it expressing his personal views in an honest and open way. What you don’t seem to realize is that your evaluation of him is BASED on your own personal beliefs regarding thetan/soul – which you apparently consider to be universal truth, with no slightest doubt! And all you need to do is to keep “reminding” people over and over of that “obvious” (to you) truth and they will fall into agreement with you.

                      Realize that you sound like any other zealous “true believer” in any other religion, who assumes without the slightest doubt that anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs just doesn’t know “truth”. Actually, not all of them have that attitude – some are aware of the fact that they are operating on personal belief, based on their own experience and/or the teachings they’ve been exposed to, and that others have had different experiences and teachings.

                    • “One” is being used as a dynamic reference point. There is no fixed “I” or a thetan behind it. It is like a thought being aware of itself for what it is.

                      There is nobody causing anything. It is simply the inherent nature of phenomenon being displayed. It is IS-NESS in all its glory. The observer is not separate from what is observed. They are one and the same thing.

                      If there is “freedom of choice” that is also a part of IS-NESS. It is not separate from it.

                      We use the words like “bragging” or “expressing”. They are all relational. They are part of the woof and warp of IS-NESS. So are all evaluations and judgments. There is no absolute universal truth. All that there is is IS-NESS in its myriads of wonderful shades.
                      One tries to pinpoint an “I” to blame, or to isolate it as a cause. That pin pointing is interiorization. It is selecting something out of that IS-NESS to attach some special significance to. But it is the view of the whole IS-NESS all together that comes closest to the truth.

                      But nothing is absolute because there is no definite boundary to the IS-NESS.

                      I find that most people on this blog are NOT interiorized into “I”. There are only a few who are interiorized like Scientologists, having accepted THETAN as the universal truth.
                      .

                    • Vin, you seem to have a problem with the use of the word “I” by others – yet you use it yourself. Furthermore, it’s no less a reference point than “one”.

                      Also, I think you are conflating the concept of “ego” with “I” or thetan. They aren’t the same at all.

                    • “I” is correctly used as a reference point, as I have stated before.

                      Thetan solidifies “I” beyond it just being a reference point.
                      .

                    • Hi there Miss Marildi.
                      MEST vs. Theta/Thetan. A much discussed subject, thanks to Vin, you and sometimes myself.
                      Logical thinking and objective observation has carried us far and given us computers and psychology. The atom, the electron and immunization.

                      But strangely, when MEST is investigated to it’s basics, i.e., quantum mechanics, it becomes increasingly illogical and unreal. In fact it becomes consistently illogical, an oxymoron in itself.

                      Example: Electrons were once thought to be solid things, particles, since they seem to exhibit location and momentum, mass. Then it was observed that they seemed to jump from lower orbits to higher orbits and back again without traversing the distance, space, in between. Then it was postulated that they were not a thing, but rather a state of energy, existence instead of a ‘thing’ or particle. Then it was observed that they did not have an actual location, but merely an average location but no actual center or point.

                      Completely illogical. But wait, it all seems to work to make this universe viable and useful. Electrons and other ‘particles’ seem to have a workable PURPOSE. And that is where it all comes together. Their behavior and properties have REASON and WORKABILITY.

                      And there is the connection.

                      MEST consists of purpose and intent. But their intent never changes. It is locked in. That is because it was given to them, created by something else. Mest cannot change on it’s own determinism SINCE IT HAS NONE. It cannot lead, it can only follow intent from an outside source. And that is where we come in. We are the creator, inventor of intent, purpose. We can change our mind, something that MEST can never do. It does what it is told.

                      Logic follows that we are primary to and the animators of MEST. That MEST is a product of us. Evidence aligns with that theory.
                      Mark.

                    • Quantum Mechanics is perfectly logical when looked in terms of inertia. At atomic scales, inertia is found to exist both as particle-mass as well as wave-frequency. Mathematics cannot model it properly because it assumes space to be a set of points.

                      It is not MEST that becomes illogical and unreal, but the assumptions underlying it.

                      Scientologists try to imbue MEST with intention and purpose, but that is simply a part of Scientology filter through which they look. They are desperately trying to be CAUSE.
                      .

                    • Much of Quan. Mech is counter intuitive which is a part of or closely related to illogic.
                      Only when purpose and intent are added does it become perfectly logical.
                      By adding something which has no mass to something which has mass, and thereby increasing the mass of the whole, is counter intuitive, but becomes perfectly reasonable when the word ‘because’ is added. To think that these properties fell into place is unreasonable.
                      Mark

                    • There is lot of false data in circulation about QM. Have you done a College Coure in Quantum Mechanics, Mark?

                      Check out this Yale lecture.
                      The Quantum Phenomenon
                      .

                    • Hi there Mr. Mark, with the Southern charm🙂

                      Thanks for your thoughts about MEST and theta, some of which I’ve learned about too. I would add just one word to what you wrote in the following (which you would probably agree with):

                      “Then it was observed that they [particles] did not have an actual location, but merely an average POTENTIAL location…”

                      When theta – also POTENTIAL, interestingly – brings them into existence by “observation” (if only indirectly) it’s like magic – the magic of creation, the basic quality of theta. And as you say, there is evidence of this – i.e. the idea that theta/consciousness is the creator of MEST.

                    • Very good additional point, Sweetie. You’re quite quick, you know.
                      Mark

                    • Whew! I’m glad you didn’t give me that old Southern line of “Don’t bother your pretty little head about it.”😀

                      Thanks, sweetie yourself.

                    • Yeah, I know. Which would lead to the logical question ‘how come that void that is not void came to exist in the first place?’. And then if another thing was found, the same question could be posed and then the same over again if another thing was found. The point is, how did anything begin to exist?

                    • Exactly, Spyros. It seems that mainstream physicists ignore the irrationality of their view. The physicist Tom Campbell, who also did decades of research on consciousness (as I think you know), describes a much more logical view about the void, in about 4 minutes:

                    • *Correction: Christianity was first adopted as an official state religion in the Byzantine Empire. I don’t know where it started as a religion.

            • Anything that you can think to be beside the universe, is then part of a bigger universe.

              By UNIVERSE I refer to the ultimate superset.
              .

  93. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328615

    Marildi: Getting back to your first comment above: “Creation that is possible from nothing would be creation without any intention to create with nobody behind it.” What is that based on?

    It is based on the stipulation that an “intention” is something, and also that a “being” is something.

    .

  94. Marty – I watched you in the depositions and thought you did a really good job. Thank you for speaking up about the truth of what happened.
    I wish you and Mosey all the best and hope you don’t stop blogging here on your blog.

  95. Hello Marty.
    Loved your latest article.. It is very basic and applicable to many. As you know, some very basic actions and standards are so normal and common that they cannot be seen as an aberration by most individuals.

    Some, on the other hand, are so basic that they strike a chord with most everyone and individuals should be reminded of them from time to time.

    Separating and putting on a gradient, these various character imprints, has value. This was, of course, the basic idea of standard tech. Sad that it became too “standard”. But, it’s nothing that can’t be fixed and individualized.

    What I wanted to ask was if my recent post related to ‘playing catch’ was too long or too off topic for your site. I got a glimpse of this phenomenon a few years ago, but only researched it recently. I did my homework and spoke to several others on the subject. It may seem mundane and a bit simplistic, but it may contain the resolution to a great many things.
    Thanks for providing this forum.
    Mark

  96. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/truth/#comment-328818

    I think that the TONE SCALE is a scale of increasingly FIXED ATTENTION as one moves down from 40.0. Around 4.0 the fixed attention starts to transition into EGO.

    This is like increasing inertia as WAVE FREQUENCY. In the quantum region, the wave frequency starts to transition into inertia as PARTICLE MASS.

    This makes me think that the TONE parallels the concept of INERTIA.

    OT 8 = PERSON – TRAUMAS + SCIENTOLOGY IDEOLOGY

    OT 8’s are as variable as the original person. None of them are anywhere near Tone 40 (inertial less). They still have a lot of mental inertia.

    NATIVE STATE = FREEDOM FROM EGO AND FIXED ATTENTION

    In native state, a person has no mental inertia.
    .

    • Fine. I want to make something clear, that whenever I reffer to something included in SCN, I describe SCN, not my beliefs.

      Because I don’t think in absolutes, I also don’t think that because I don’t believe in something in SCN, it is wrong. And the same stands for others, than SCN.

      I think all that stuff from mental case to tones, PTSness etc can occur, but don’t have to. So, when I reffered to OT 8, I reffered to what the EP was SUPPOSED to be. I don’t think an OT8 or anybody else cannot be Tone 40, or anything else.

      I don’t categorise as much anymore. And I’m glad about it. It is some freedom to not categorise oneself and to not do it to others. Your ideas as well as many ideas in SCN are laid out in a scientific manner, and by that I mean that -like in physical sciences- there is interaction between things, and logical order. I think beings don’t have to be subjected to any of that. They could.

  97. Hey Marty! Belated Happy New Year. Your post made my day.

  98. The following reference is for those who take God literally as a terminal.

    This literal ineterpretation God has made both Christianity and Islam to be political. The same applies to Scientology where “Static” is taken literally as a terminal.

    QUR’AN: THE COW (21-22)
    .

  99. Social and anti-social personalities were first described in Qur’an as follows.

    QUR’AN: THE COW

  100. Hubbard says out of the blue, while laying out his Theta-MEST theory in Scn 8-8008,

    “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

    Where is this consideration coming from? What is the basis of this consideration?

    Per the Law of the spectrum of Motion, Theta would gradiently transition into MEST as one moves down the spectrum. There is a continuity. It is not discrete like BAM! BAM! There is no particular identity that is maintained. It is a continually changing identity. But Hubbard wants to eat his cake and have it too.

    Hubbard postulates THETA to be maintaining its identity as Static while it produces MEST. This violates the Law of Conservation of energy, momentum, logic and everything that is called science or scientific thinking..

    Hubbard was no scientist. He was a failure as a thinker.

    Hubbard simply exploited the ignorance of others.

  101. Pingback: The Active Ingredient in Scientology | 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