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,
-
Space is simply there. It is also awareness. So awareness is simply there.
-
Awareness may focus, or concentrate, itself at any point within itself, and call that an ‘orientation point’.
-
Awareness may also focus, or concentrate, itself on another point within itself, and call that a ‘symbol’.
-
Awareness may then differentiate between these two points, and call that a measure or ‘dimension’.
-
Awareness, or space, shall then consist of points (locations) and measurable properties (dimensions). This may be represented mathematically by scales.
-
But the awareness, or space, is already there. It is not created. It simply focuses and concentrates upon itself in various ways.
.
Comments
Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“The other-determinism to self-determinism course is marked by the fact that he is first nowhere, then where old orientation points and present locations tell him where he is, and then where his body tells him where he is, and then where he seems to be because he can see certain things, to the final realization that he is where he is by postulate and by that alone.”
.
Here we have repetitive questioning to force a realization. The effort here is also involved in defining for the person what he/she really is.
This is a bad approach, as it gets a person guessing and speculating all over the place. It can build up unhandled mass pretty quickly and the person is likely to go into apathy. An apathetic person will simply respond robotically and will accept whatever he is told. This is harmful. A simple approach would be to just explain the theory and discuss it.
.
Hubbard from COHA (R2- 21: GRANTING OF BEINGNESS):
“This will exteriorize a preclear if continued long enough. All other processes are only a covert level of this process. He can be made to spot spots which he has considered orientation points, such as the childhood home, and then remedy havingness. He can be asked why the environment is there, and for every answer simply ask again why what he is looking at is there. Or this can be run as the third step of Procedure 30, which is what it is. As the third step of Procedure 30, Granting of Beingness is run in this fashion, ‘Who would grant beingness to …?’ And in the blank may be placed psychosomatics, letters, cats, dogs, kings and coal heavers or anything the auditor might think of, each time until the preclear replies without communication lag.”
.
This seems to be a less evaluative process, since no specific answer is being looked for.
Hubbard from COHA (R2-26: REMEDY OF LAUGHTER):
“The earliest known psychotherapy consisted of getting a patient to laugh. Laughter is rejection. A preclear being continually inflowed upon by the physical universe at length may find it difficult to reject anything. Getting him to reject something could be made an auditing goal. The best manifestation of this is laughter.”
.
Laughter is looking at something already familiar from a new viewpoint that makes it both surprising and revealing. I am not sure if all laughter is rejection. One may reject what is revealed. But one may accept it too.
.
Hubbard from COHA (R2-26: REMEDY OF LAUGHTER):
“The ability to laugh is rehabilitated in general by Scientology as it advances the ability of the preclear to know — which is to say, predict.”
So, Scientology is all about restoring a person’s ability to predict. This is interesting.
Prediction is basically putting two and two together. It requires thinking rather than looking.
.
There is a perfectly good word, seeing. Seeing is a word describing a focus further than looking.
Seeing is a good word.
.
Prediction has many interesting connotations and is steeped in lore. I like to think of it as the thickness of one’s present time.
pre·dict [pri-dikt]
verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
To predict is usually to foretell with precision of calculation, knowledge, or shrewd inference from facts or experience: The astronomers can predict an eclipse; it may, however, be used without the implication of underlying knowledge or expertise: I predict she’ll be a success at the party.
Origin:
1540–50; < Latin praedictus, past participle of praedīcere to foretell, equivalent to prae- pre- + dic-, variant stem of dīcere to say + -tus past participle suffix;
Word Origin & History
1623, “to foretell, prophesy,” from L. prædicatus, pp. of prædicere “foretell, advise, give notice,” from præ- “before” + dicere “to say” (see diction). Scientific sense of “to have as a deducible consequence” is recorded from 1961. Prediction is recorded from 1561, from L. prædictio “a foretelling,” from prædictus. Predictably “as could have been predicted” is attested from 1914.
.
When a person’s present time becomes thicker, that person begins to look like an amazing fortune-teller to another person whose present time is not as thick.
Just day before yesterday, those engineers at JPL, NASA, etc., did what is for me the unimaginable by landing the “Curiosity” explorer on Mars. These men and women together predicted 100’s of thousands of events and solved each event to a satisfactory result years before the culmination of it happening, and that now continues into the future with the rover which is and for all purposes should remain operational for quite a while. None of these problems that they solved were even things I would have wondered about with hope of understanding let alone having as a problem to solve.
This type of prediction and competence should be applied to the politics of earth. This would really be granting beingness!
Prediction depends on knowing the structure of considerations that make up the playground. Science has done a pretty good job in knowing the structure of the physical playground.
The mental playground is another beast, which cannot be tamed by control as we know it..
.
Not sure why you would say that the mental cannot be tamed by control. There are myriad objective examples of the variations of control that people exhibit over their mental state and hence their physical state.
There IS that mechanical form of prediction but that is only one of many kinds.
Control uses effort. Mental control tries to manipulate considerations.
Only thing that truly works at mental level is as-isness… both as-is create and as-is dissolve.
And that is possible only in Nirvana.
.
We don’t use control the same way… your use connotates suppression of inclinations. My use connotates competence.
But actually my comment was about the dimension of future which you let drop in favor of speculating about nirvana. . . and really, I only like their music a little bit.
Present Time is an interesting concept and seems to have no equal in the physical universe. Also known as Real Time, it seems there is no way to experience it directly in the physical universe.
Real Time, Present Time, and Prediction are wound up in each other for me.
In a universe of dimensions, we seem to be able to move around from one dimension to another as in “here” and “there.” But in the dimension of time, we seem to be able to experience a certain thickness of it which we refer to as present but which is really all in the past. But then, beyond a certain thickness, we begin referring to events as no longer in the present but in the past. And we refer to predicted events not yet come to pass as prediction.
In this phenomena and in the other phenomena of dimensions are wondrous mysteries!
So we have to challenge every consideration that we hold relating to dimensions and continue to look for particular clues which may unravel the mystery of dimension and of mind to us.
It will be interesting to learn more specifically about our participation in the Higgs Field as that begins to unravel. Speaking of predictions, It is my hope that the future of Consciousness doesn’t follow the assured extinction of homo sapiens.
Mankind as it currently exists on Earth must evolve to a more cooperative state of enlightened participation with his environment or simply vanish as just one more of a hundred trillion trillions of species that have come into and out of existence.
Higg’s field is probably the fabric of space in some respects. I would like to know how it relates to the electric and magnetic fields of an electromagnetic wave.
According to my understanding, a dimension is degrees of something that may be perceived as a scale. The following physical dimensions can be described this way: (a) length (b) width (c) height (d) time.
Then there are many mental dimensions, which may also be described this way: (a) survive-succumb (b) good-evil (c) cause-effect (d) static-kinetic (e) always-never (f) future-past (g) right-wrong (h) beauty-ugliness (i) emotions (j) understanding (k) sane-insane, etc.
One should be able to “move” from one point on each of these dimensions to another point on that dimension.
.
Okey-dokey — When an event occurs, time must pass before the news as perception of that event can be perceived.
By my current calculations, and considering small measures of time to be important amounts of time, LOTS of time must pass before we know about events even within our own bodies or within the same immediate space as ourselves.
When we begin to consider astronomic distances then this lagging news of time becomes very apparent. However, at the microscopic level, even more enormous amounts of time are passing to such a degree that every action that we take in life is lagging very far behind the events that they respond to.
The best way to remedy havingness is to recognize things for what they actually are.
Comments on R2-26: REMEDY OF LAUGHTER:
The only benefit that I see here is from doing things without any reason whatsoever, and that includes laughter.
Laughter is looking from a totally new viewpoint which may reveal a surprising aspect of something already familiar. Laughter has nothing to do with rejection per se. It has more to do with ‘thinking outside the box’. When one has seen everything, one can amuse oneself only by discovering new viewpoints.
A person may not be able to laugh because his attention is stuck elsewhere and he is unable to look. Underlying all problems and mysteries is the inability to look.
.
muddy waters these. Attention. Your buddhist take is that there is not anything paying attention, the focused attention IS both the attent-or and attent-ee. Right? But the word attention doesn’t give it up to this concept so easy…
My Buddhist take is that ‘self’ is a resultant of forces and energies, and that there is no permanent element in it.
.
Desire for knowledge seems to me a type of gravity.
Affinity also sees the phenomena of space flowing and carrying two or more beingnesses (masses) closer together.
Any desire seems to have a vector of attaching to something and pulling it in.
Affinity is more like being the same thing and that would lead to seeing something as it is.
.