Mindfulness Discussions

Discussion1

Previous: The 3 Rules of Mindfulness
Next: Mindfulness Meditation

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.

.

PURPOSE: To Engage in Mindfulness Discussion

In mindfulness discussion one is guided by mindfulness, as learned throough the practice of mindfulness meditation. Here are some specific instructions.

  1. Do not defend a viewpoint, instead look at the inconsistency generated by it and other viewpoints.

    For example, a person may believe that God is a being who has created this world. He may reject those who think differently. This viewpoint generates an inconsistency. A being has a form, but all forms are created only when the world gets created. So either God must have been created along with the world, or God is not a being. The person may not be aware of this inconsistency caused by his belief, and he may be willing to engage in a mindful discussion.

    But when a person refuses to engage in a discussion despite inconsistency, and continues to defend his belief, then he may be using that belief to hide some confusion. He may be afraid that if his belief is shaken, some confusion will overwhelm him. But as he gets exposed to mindfulness he may be willing to examine his confusions. Mindfulful discussion could then help resolve that confusion. Everybody wins.

  2. Focus on the data being presented and the inconsistencies generated by it, and not on the person presenting it.

    Many people feel so invested in their beliefs that they feel attacked when they are unable to uphold their viewpoint in a discussion. They start commenting on the perceived characteristics of another participant holding a different viewpoint. They may even become accusative, emotional and combative.

    Any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. It must be avoided.

  3. In a disagreement never call the other person wrong, instead provide further clarification of your viewpoint.

    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.

  4. Ask for clarification when necessary, and when the other person clarifies his/her viewpoint, consider it with mindfulness.

    A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification. 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.

  5. Do not complain that the other person is not answering your question, instead discuss what you are expecting.

    When a person is committed to certain expectations, he may not even see an answer when it is given to him. 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 expectations he has committed himself to, and compare it to answers he is getting. If he then finds an inconsistency, he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying his expectations in his mind, no discussion is possible.

  6. Always focus on inconsistencies and isolate them as best as you can for all the participants to consider. Never be discouraged if it is taking time.

    Mindfulness discussion is very successful because it focuses on inconsistencies only. When an inconsistency is difficult to resolve simply look around for more data on that area of inconsistency, and meditate on it.

.

A disagreement doesn’t mean that what is being disagreed with is untrue. To show untruthfulness of something one needs to point out the inconsistency. Then that inconsistency needs to be resolved to find the actual element, which makes the observations consistent. That element shall qualify as the truth.

.

Minor revision on 7/30/16
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • lizabeth  On July 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    I understand, thank you.

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2012 at 6:51 AM

    A discussion is ruined to the degree one brings one’s ego to the table.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2012 at 6:54 AM

    There is nothing to be right about. There is only learning. Learning comes from observing inconsistencies and resolving them through looking and mindfulness.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2012 at 6:58 AM

    Data that is pooled together in a discussion helps one look at the subject from all different angles.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2012 at 5:38 AM

    Please see this and the next few comments here:

    In a discussion, …

    .

  • vinaire  On July 19, 2012 at 7:03 AM

    If ego is not a factor, one can go anywhere to discuss what one is interested in. Of course, one would have to tackle other egos present.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

    I did not know this but I have been talking about the Dialectic Method here. The only difference is that I stress “looking” over logic.

    Logic is very useful in working out where to look. But, in the final analysis, it is looking that prevails. Logic not backed up by looking is an extension of speculation.

    .

    • idealgoal  On January 16, 2015 at 8:46 AM

      Adding:

      Looks to us that must be A CONSTANT ONWARD/BACKWARD PROCESS.

      We may POSTULATE AXIOMS OR DIFFERENT KIND OF HYPOTHESES by “KNOWINGNESS” or “INDUCTION” FROM OBSERVATION and thanks to THE LOGIC(S) (there is not only one logic, e.g.: modal logic, boleen logic, non-classical logics, etc. ), DEDUCE THEOREMS AND NEW OBSERVATIONS TO CHECK.

      It should be, in our views, AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS.

  • IdealGoal  On October 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    Hi vinaire. Great that you set, what looks to me as an optimal path to have constructive and efficient exchanges of communications in your blog. 🙂 (The ideal one could be the one resulting in the most efficient flow of these exchanges.)

    See, I said “looks to me”, like I could say “from MY viewpoint”, to insist on the possibility that “others” could have different perceptions of the reality or point of view, and that they can be as pertinent as mine or even more. Don’t you think it’s just about your present discussion here ?

    For “logic” versus “direct observation”, my expérience is that one can use logic to trace the track of a problem, so for me: “intention(s)” and “conter-intention(s)”, “effort(s)” and “conter-effort(s)”, to spot the lie(s) and the truth, so to observe what was needed to be observed, and for me, this very about what The Data Series are about, especially as an application of the 13th LHR’s Logic of November 1951.

    Of course, for me, the second paragraph here is an application too of the LRH’s Logics 6, 7 (corollaires) and 12 😉

    If this can be of any use to anyone…

    What do think?

    ML.

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      IdealGoal, welcome to this blog.

      My goal is establish looking at the subject of discussion without filters as much as possible, so the participants may come to new realizations.

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 2:51 PM

      IdealGoal, I was in a rush before. Let me now respond to your post more fully.

      Yes, this policy is an attempt to keep the ego out of the discussion. So far it has worked well.

      A viewpoint is always limited because it involves the filter of ego or self. Ideal participation in a discussion would involve no filter of ego or self.

      To me logic is useful in finding out where to look by spotting inconsistencies. But it is the intimate first-hand observation, that resolves inconsistencies, which has the most value. By the way, I was one of the few who did the Data Series Course aboard Apollo under the supervision of Mary Sue in 1973 or thereabouts. I love this tech.

      Let’s see what your references are:

      LOGIC 6: Absolutes are unobtainable.

      LOGIC 7: Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.

      COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.

      COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.

      LOGIC 12: The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of the observer.

      I agree with these Logics fully. The effort here is to eliminate any modification by the viewpoint, as much as possible, by encouraging non-judgmental (without filters) observation.

      Hope you enjoy the discussions here.

      .

      • IdealGoal  On October 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

        Hi vinaire ! Nice to know your had the advantage to be on the supervision of Mary Sue; you surely have enjoy it, am I right?

        Well, for the rest, I think I get your point and I could express like an attempt to make beings here to practice rather “pandetermination” than “autodetermination” only; am I correct?

        Presently, having start to let few posts on the FZ lines, I’ve tried to practice this “pandetermination” by not taking an only viewpoint but trying to take any viewpoint on the scene. For me, but it’s both intuitive and logic: I could define “Freedom” mainly as the freedom to take any viewpoint at will, we would say too say: “to be” at will, to be responsible for any being.

        What do You think? or if you no more need to: what do you see yourself from the viewpoints you could assume? 😉

        ML, Didier.

      • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

        I no longer think in terms of viewpoints or self. My effort is to simply see what is really there without any presumptions, biases, speculations, etc. I let the intuition present what it may.

        Here is some discussion on viewpoints you might enjoy:

        comment-4919

        .

        • IdealGoal  On October 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM

          ok, vinaire, I will check this link and reply later 😉 ML.

        • vinaire  On October 8, 2012 at 4:56 AM

          OK.

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2013 at 5:37 AM

    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 the violation of the discussion policy. The solution is for the person to look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer not enough?

    Then if he honestly 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.

    This falls under point #1 of the discussion policy.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 6:28 AM

    People demand answers in order to make the other person wrong.

    The alternatives are as follows;
    (1) Look for the answer through mindful contemplation.
    (2) Put up your observations for others to comment on.
    (3) Actively participate in a discussion.

    But demanding an answer from the other person is just an excuse for making oneself right and the other person wrong.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 6:31 AM

    In a discussion there is no demand for answer because not all answers are there. In a discussion there is co-looking and co-contemplation.

    It is factor of making the other person wrong for not answering, which destroys co-looking and co-contemplation of discussion.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 7:54 AM

      In a successful discussion, there is granting of beingness in the form of acknowledgment of the other persons presence and communication.

      • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        I never chastised Marildi for not responding to my argument about Cause-effect and First cause, because I thought she needs time to think about it, and that she would respond when she can.

        I never hounded her for answers. There is nothing that I need to convince her about. I am letting her look for herself.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 7:37 PM

          Whoa — Stop. Reset. I’m not referring to Marildi nor to any comment made about hounding anyone for answers. My comment was made toward the discussion policy, not you.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM

          Marildi is not near to my thoughts at this time. Neither is Geir’s blog. Right now I am in an unloaded space free from tensions; an equilibrium; transmission kicked into neutral and neither pulling nor braking.

        • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM

          That’s wonderful.

          The next gradient would be “to be on Geir’s Blog in the presence of Marildi and not be bothered at all.” 🙂

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 11:18 PM

          There is only the next iteration.

      • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM

        Granting of beingness is seeing things as they are. It has to do with you and not with the other person.

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 7:51 AM

    When we find ourselves in an unproductive iteration, it can be wise to simply speak our opinion clearly (if that) then move on. There will be people honestly searching and they will take an interest in discussing the topic. There are always those who pretend to want to discuss but in fact only want to harden their pre-existing point of view for their personal and sometimes undisclosed reason.

    • vinaire  On January 23, 2013 at 12:42 PM

      I think that discussion policy speaks for itself. Either their is a spirit of discussion, or there is the tendency to make oneself right and the other person wrong.

      It is in the latter case that any communication becomes unproductive, and you are correct in saying that it is better to move on.

      However, I think that the discussion policy has had some positive affect on Geir’s Blog. For now I shall be giving them some rest.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 23, 2013 at 11:10 PM

    The iterations iterate. They converge and they depart. There is no “next gradient” at all. And Marildi doesn’t need to be confronted nor not confronted. One doesn’t have to consider nor not consider Marildi at all. This is Hubbard’s mumbo-jumbo to think so.

    • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 5:22 AM

      I find that most Scientologists are simply focused on themselves. Those who are focused on helping others may be counted on fingers. One learns more about life by helping others.

      Scientologists, who think they have all the solutions can get pretty nasty toward others who don’t agree with them. They live by agreement.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 6:29 AM

        . . . and pretend that inflated egos are the source of everything when their inflated egos are more accurately the result of everything.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:24 AM

          He he.. Looks like I am having a bad influence on you now…

          .

  • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 5:53 AM

    Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.

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

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

    .

    I wrote the above because I have been chastised many times on Geir’s Blog that I am not answering their questions. This has puzzled me every time, because I provide my observations as I make them. I do not hold anything back.

    In a discussion everybody has questions, and it is a combined effort to find answers. It seems that the complaint that another person is not answering questions can result only from the following:

    (a) Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable to one. One is looking for an answer that one is not getting from the other person.

    (b) One is in mystery about something, One’s confusion is held in check by some datum. But that datum is leading to another mystery.

    (c) One doesn’t want to reexamine the datum that is holding back one’s confusion for the fear that one’s confusion will come back.

    (d) Thus, one’s original confusion is not resolved but only held back by one’s beliefs.

    (e) People on Geir’s Blog are holding fast to certain Scientology data because that data is keeping their confusions in check. Thus, there is value in that data.

    (f) But that Scientology data has not really resolved their confusions. The datum, which is helping them hold back their confusions, has served only to create another mystery.

    (g) A person whose confusions are resolved does not have to hold on to any data.

    (h) A person whose confusions are resolved is free to examine any data including his/her own beliefs.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM

      Vin: “In a discussion everybody has questions,”

      Chris: This is an assumption. I see people assuming doing various things to improve their wisdom but these things can be roughly filed under two categories. One is the building up and of organizing data. The other is in the reduction of useless or inconsistent data. Both ways are useful but these don’t seem to mix very well. For example, learning KHTK exercises add data, but the practice of these exercises results in a streamlining of data through aligning and possible deletion of inapplicable data.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:28 AM

        It is like climbing the mountain to get to the other side.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:35 AM

          Now it is “I” who am having a bad influence on you! (Metaphorically speaking — hehe)

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM

          LOL!

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 6:58 AM

      Vin: In a discussion everybody has questions,

      Chris: We can also make this into a fallacy by insisting that in a true discussion everybody has questions.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM

        One may consider whatever one wants. But what I observe on Geir’s Blog that people are looking for answers for the mysteries they themselves are creating by holding on to data to restrain some original confusion..

        INCONSISTENCY: Holding on to data and not examining it.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:37 AM

          Vin: people are looking for answers for the mysteries they themselves are creating by holding on to data to restrain some original confusion.

          Chris: This is an excellent observation — clearly communicated.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 8:02 AM

          This is an extension of Exercise #1 in the following:

          KHTK EXERCISE SET 2

          A person’s assumed identity serves him/her to restrain some earlier confusion. It is valuable to him/her as the stable datum.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:09 AM

      Vin: (a) Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable to one. One is looking for an answer that one is not getting from the other person.

      Chris: We are educated this way. Depending on the purpose of the interaction such as building up of a technology, this can be appropriate such as in the teacher-student relationship. But seeing clearly the purpose of the interaction is the key to understanding why an interaction succeeds or fails. Seeing this purpose clearly is sometimes more difficult than resolving the topic of the discussion. Written another way, it seems that everybody lies! haha This may have been at the root of Hubbard’s frustration with and his invention of “illegal PC’s.” Of course, Hubbard lied so much “in order to get people to listen to him” that the entire purpose of Scientology becomes obfuscated by lofty PR, shore-stories, money hunger, and “stat pushes.”

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:38 AM

        Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable because it conflicts with the datum the person is holding madly to. At the same time the person is unwilling to look at the inconsistency and state it because it would lead to an examination of the datum one is holding on to.

        It is the unwillingness of the person to look at one’s own beliefs that traps him.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:56 AM

          If you want to build a structure of any kind, then a buildup of data is required.

          If you want to resolve an inconsistency, then data must be relinquished.

          We have to be clear about the purpose of the discussion. For example, some people use the ruse of a having a discussion to forge an argument with the purpose of pushing an agenda. This is dishonest. Debates are discussions where agendas are pushed rather than resolving inconsistencies.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 8:06 AM

          This is what I have been trying to point out for some time as the difference between a debate and a discussion.

          I am glad that you got it. Now Valkov and Marildi may be able to benefit from it.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:21 AM

          This is why I promote for them to do Scientology. Neither is “through with” Scientology and neither one does Scientology. They are pretending to be in while neither is — unless Marildi is OSA! The great red herring of Scientologists is to apply it to others while not applying it to themselves. This is the epitome of being Sea Org. Both Marildi and Valkov need to do more Scientology and less academics. I view their involvement in Scientology as dilettantism only. Until they apply it to themselves, their arguments consist only of platitudes. Debating by using “what is the correct reference” is glib and involves no discussion whatsoever.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 10:48 AM

          “The great red herring of Scientologists is to apply it to others while not applying it to themselves.”

          I think it goes deeper than that. The ultimate stable datum in Scientology is “individuality” or thetan. This is the same thing as “self.” One has to safeguard this stable datum at all cost, else one would be deluged by the confusion, which Scientology handled for one.

          So, a Scientologist never looks at self outside of session. For a Scientologists, self is a permanent thing outside of the session. It is used as a reference point from which the Scientologist looks at everything. This reference point is untouchable. He cannot afford to criticize it or have it criticized. That stable datum has to be right.

          So, Scientology “educates” one to always be right “outside of session”, and that means “in life.” The natural consequence of this is that a Scientologist ends up making everything wrong that disagrees with his/her viewpoint.

          Thus, a Scientologist very much likes the concept of agreement, but only with his/her viewpoint. His/her understanding of ARC does not extend beyond the narrow viewpoint he/she holds.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:28 AM

          My “education by blogging” has resulted in my changing ever so much. I began discussing in order to resolve the inconsistencies that I felt as a result of being excommunicated by COS and then through auditing, KHTK and discussion I became the person I was hoping to become since before I discovered Scientology. I changed, but I meant to change. This may be a major difference between the results that people obtain from any spiritual path.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

          In my opinion any spiritual progress comes from looking and resolving inconsistencies, no matter what means are used.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:21 AM

      Vin: (d) Thus, one’s original confusion is not resolved but only held back by one’s beliefs.

      Chris: And this is a key to understanding why auditing works and doesn’t work. An example of this is that “training” is the adding and organizing of data about the mind, while personal auditing should be and seems to result in the reduction of inconsistent data. These two sides of “the bridge” are at odds with each other. It is hard to resolve Hubbard’s intentions — possibly because his own ego was so inflated and by inflated I mean increasingly at odds with itself. This may be why Hubbard sickened through the years: Auditing requires scrupulous honesty with oneself to be effective.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:50 AM

        A win from auditing could be of the form that it provides a “stable datum” to restrain one’s confusion. It does not resolve the confusion. It simply restrains it. This gives pc a tremendous win. The pc now gets stuck with a datum as truth simply because it is restraining that person’s confusion.

        Hubbard creates an atmosphere where such data should never be questioned or invalidated because it would then make the pc’s original confusion resurface.

        So, Hubbard’s solution has been a nip and a tuck. Maybe that is how he applied it to himself. He was afraid of looking deeply.

        A person whose original confusion is gone cannot be invalidated when his beliefs are questioned. He is willing to question his own beliefs for deeper discoveries..

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:04 AM

          Vin: He was afraid of looking deeply.

          Chris: Hubbard was himself riddled with false data such as “If you don’t have a college degree, then no one will listen to you.” Hubbard’s inability to make a case gain was rooted in his dishonesty with himself. Were he to have been honest with himself, he would have not needed to look deeply. The important lies that blocked his case gain were low hanging fruit. Such lies as saying he was a war hero; that he fought the Japanese off the California coast; calling himself “doctor” Hubbard; and maneuvering others to take the fall for his crimes.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 8:22 AM

          Well, Hubbard had his case. I would leave it at that.

          Despite his case, Hubbard did accomplish something positive in picking the subject of psychology out of apathy.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:37 AM

          My point was in how deeply one needs to look to improve their case. It’s not deep per se, it more mindful than deep.

          I’m not sure what you mean by picking psychology out of apathy. I don’t see Scientology as more than one of a multitude of “z” inputs. Scientology came and it went just as we Scientologists came and went. Things appear and then they disappear. We could leave it at that, but we won’t, will we? 🙂

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM

          Whether Hubbard intended that way or not, but Scientology helped me organize my background data from eastern sources into a systematic form that I could think with. I am still doing that to this day.

          Maybe I had it in me already, but for me Scientology acted as a strong catalyst..

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:25 AM

      Vin: (c) One doesn’t want to reexamine the datum that is holding back one’s confusion for the fear that one’s confusion will come back.

      Chris: Sometimes we feel that our stable data has been “hard won” or is “permanent.” We have to get over that.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:29 AM

      Vin: (e) People on Geir’s Blog are holding fast to certain Scientology data because that data is keeping their confusions in check. Thus, there is value in that data.

      Chris: So they might think, and so it does within the framework and within the reference of Scientology. I cannot stress enough how vital knowing what is one’s frame of reference when attempting to discuss truth.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 7:56 AM

        The frame of reference is just another datum one is holding on to as something permanent.

        But it is the person making it permanent. The frame of reference is not permanent in itself.

        Anything “permanent” seems to be a trap.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM

          Yes, well I am only saying that consistency depends utterly on relevance within a frame of reference. Not making a case for <em<permanence.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 8:19 AM

          Of course. That is why inconsistencies may be difficult to spot for some.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    Honesty with oneself and with others is integral for a discussion to be productive.

  • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM

    Chris, It is interesting to observe that you are the only person who came over from Geir’s Blog and survived the initiation on Vinaire’s Blog. Now, you come and go as you please, and you are quite comfortable on this blog.

    How come nobody else came over from Geir’s Blog?

    Maybe you were the only black sheep. 🙂

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 4:17 PM

      It’s not complicated. You are still talking about what’s on my heart. I don’t care about being right.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

        I was just kidding. So you care about spotting and resolving inconsistencies non judgmentally!

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

          I’ve wondered at the seeming lack of interest by other writers but don’t really have an insight into other’s motives on this point. Go figure that Marty’s blog has 10 times more participation that Geir’s. None of that adds up to looking for me. On this blog, your words are probably being read more than commented upon — my guess.

          I may have written my comment above soberly but it’s because the answer was simple and my motive is not hooked into any nonsensical confusions on my part. I did know you were kidding :). Also, your sincerity shines through any peccadilloes I ever have about any language used. I am not looking for excuses to misunderstand what you write. The subject matter you choose is pertinent and I think your insights are profound. I participate because your inquiries harmonize with my own. Geir’s earlier thread about lack of real discussion on his blog seems to hold true all over the small piece of the internet that I read.

        • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

          Most people seem to be concerned with the preservation of their current identity. They follow its purpose and try to make it right all the time. They entertain it; and that’s about it.

          They are limited by their current identity, or “individuality”.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 12:06 AM

          Then we have to get over that.

        • vinaire  On January 25, 2013 at 6:12 AM

          The following exercise (exercise 1/set 2) is designed to accomplish that.

          KHTK EXERCISE SET 2

          By using identity shifts one may gradually handle the original confusion that brought about the identity in the first place. Birth could be treated as an identity shift, and so could be death. I am still working on more exercises in this area.

          .

      • marildi  On January 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

        Chris: “Both Marildi and Valkov need to do more Scientology and less academics. I view their involvement in Scientology as dilettantism only. Until they apply it to themselves, their arguments consist only of platitudes.”

        marildi: The above, for me, shows that you have a narrow view of the scope of Scientology since you limit it to auditing. Even if you don’t agree with that, please try to get the concept of it, if for no other reason than it is my concept and I believe Valkov’s too.

        Chris: “Debating by using ‘what is the correct reference’ is glib and involves no discussion whatsoever.”

        marildi: My asking Rafael for his LRH reference was in response to his having stated that his definition of exteriorization was “the very same that LRH used, to occupy the same space of an object” – which is essentially the opposite of those in the Tech Dict and my own understanding. In other words, he claimed to be quoting LRH and I simply asked for the LRH reference. But it seems that he, Vinaire and now you don’t get the simple logic of that. Btw, this is just one of many times I feel my mention of references or my quoting of them to communicate an idea is met with ridges that, to me, speak of the filters of those doing the ridging.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 7:34 PM

          ah, so you are listening. Good.

        • marildi  On January 24, 2013 at 7:49 PM

          I clicked on the link that Vinaire put in his comment where he missed my point about Rafael, and then decided that I would try again to get it across. But you still may have missed it as you don’t actually respond to anything I said.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM

          I wrote something and now you have written something. It was for me a very good discussion, thank you.

        • marildi  On January 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM

          I seem to remember some posts of yours, going way back, where you decried the fact that you couldn’t get an answer or an ack out of some people. You must have had a different definition of “discussion” at the time. Different from this one: “I write something, then you write something unrelated, and that’s the discussion”. 😉

        • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 9:01 PM

          You may be right. I have been changing.

        • marildi  On January 24, 2013 at 11:38 PM

          Okay. How so, as it relates to blog discussion?

        • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 12:41 AM

          Subjectively more stable and more mentally tolerant within my own mental instability. Loosing anchor points in order to more closely approach other’s location.

        • marildi  On January 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM

          Thanks. That is a bit abstract for me. Can you put it in concrete terms as it relates to discussion?

        • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 1:55 AM

          Give me an example of how you could understand it.

        • marildi  On January 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM

          Chris, I am simply asking you to help me understand what you have said. I’m not looking for you to be my teacher and get me to figure out for myself something that I found to be unclear. I don’t recall you ever responding to anyone else but me in this way. Can you just treat me as an equal and answer a simple request to describe your comment in more concrete terms. I would like to actually have a true discussion with you if that is possible.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM

          Ok, Marildi, then tell me what interests you about what I wrote. You’ve got to help me understand what you want to know about what I wrote.

        • marildi  On January 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM

          With your last comment I got your sincerity and that was appreciated.

          Okay, could you give an example of “losing anchor points” and how it enabled you to “more closely approach another’s location”.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 5:12 PM

          Yes, that I can do. Take a perfectly good sweater that you enjoy or have enjoyed and which is still serviceable. Take it to the Salvation Army and give it to them. Feel the personal attachment *snap* and that is my metaphor for loosing, losing, or releasing anchor points.

          This little process can be reproduced on any scale including the attachment to one’s body or even the whole world.

          Now moving on: MEST is structure. Loosing and finally losing or detaching the anchor points much as in my example decreases distance. Increases affinity which seems to be inversely proportional to the distance.

          When structure is gone; when space is gone; affinity approaches unity; viewpoint becomes similar or approaching same.

          Unity = sameness underlying considerations.

          Is that better?

        • marildi  On January 25, 2013 at 11:59 PM

          Yes, much better! Well, since I have renewed faith that we can actually be in comm, here is how, as I see it, you and I come to fisticuffs (metaphorically speaking :)):

          (1) Sometimes I get from you that you think I only have one “sweater”. That’s a filtered assumption on your part and it increases the distance a bit as it is a break in Reality. (2) Other times I get that you are insisting that I give away my favorite sweater because you yourself don’t happen to think much of it, due again to your own filters. I, on the other hand, like it because it is not only highly appealing to my native sense of things but is very practical in that it keeps me warm. So your efforts here cause a further break in Reality. (3) Still other times I get that you are pushing at me to have no sweaters at all; or, at best, that I not care about sweaters because you have decided that sweaters are useless and pointless and should all be discarded. (4) Last but not least, and as non-incongruent as it sounds, you sometimes insist that I wear my favorite sweater (since I’m too pigheaded to be talked out of it) and that I wear it in the way that you think I should.

          Please correct any misconceptions but that’s how your approach to me seems, at least at times.And how do I view you at times? I see you as attempting to discard ALL your sweaters because you’ve decided that the bold and brave stance to take is ti gave no stance, no ideology, i.e. no sweater(s) – which in fact is itself an ideological stance. Ironically. And this makes me worry about you when it gets cold. 😦

        • vinaire  On January 26, 2013 at 6:40 AM

          The mantra is, “See things as they are and do not try to figure them out.”

          .

  • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 8:30 PM

    No blaming or pointing fingers is allowed on this blog. If there are any personal conflicts please sort them out elsewhere.

    Thank you.

    .

    • marildi  On January 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM

      You don’t seem to recognize when the subject is actually about discussion procedure.

      • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM

        I shall be deleting all posts from this discussion that just point fingers and are not productive at all.

        Sent from my iPhone

  • Chris Thompson  On January 24, 2013 at 9:41 PM

    Vinaire: In my opinion any spiritual progress comes from looking and resolving inconsistencies, no matter what means are used.

    Chris: I see that, but my jury is out just now on what it means to “make spiritual progress.” I look and I see the manifestation of fractal iterations, if that is an appropriate metaphor for what is actually happening. Anyways, that is what it looks like to me. To me it seems that I have the power to “influence the input of the ‘z,’ however, the resultant iteration may or may not go in an expected direction. This is the mechanical metaphor for randomity as I see it around me. I may not be speaking precisely to your post. I have this thought forming and I want to begin getting it out and possibly discussing it with you.

    • vinaire  On January 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM

      My take on spiritual progress is dissolving confusion, and thus, dissolving the need for any “stable datum.”

      The most deep “stable datum” is the SELF.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 25, 2013 at 12:03 AM

        Yes, I know that. Huge efforts have been made toward that speculation. The word dissolving is used and I prefer this to vanishing since the space time is not vanished. Yet I am looking for a better mechanic. The SELF could be more consistently described as the deepest stable datum so far. The metaphor of fractal mathematics describes mechanics which might account for many unexplained phenomena.

        • vinaire  On January 25, 2013 at 5:59 AM

          What I am wondering is

          “What confusion could the stable datum of ‘self’ be restraining?”

          .

        • vinaire  On January 25, 2013 at 6:02 AM

          A person who is very much hung up on self, or on certain ideology, such as, Scientology, and who is desperately trying to understand, seems to be very much in confusion.

          .

  • Sam  On December 28, 2013 at 1:32 AM

    Vinaire – I just found your blog. Have you done any Identics from Mike or any other practioner? I am interested in healing some trauma and unwanted conditions and would like to get your thoughts? I want lasting results – not another via to “escape” reality, which is what auditing in Scientology was for me…the beginning was good and it got worse as I went up the Bridge to No Where! Does it handle the “unwanted conditions” for good? How many hours average does it take? Thanks – great blog!

    • vinaire  On December 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM

      Hello Sam. Welcome to my blog.

      I am a trained Idenics practitioner. I have done many hundreds of hours Idenics processing. Idenics has helped me greatly in the development of KHTK, which is free and intended for self-application.

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 1:16 PM

    This blog expects a love for knowledge, and a display of decent behavior when pursuing that love.

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 1:24 PM

    Persons with rude, unbecoming, and disruptive behavior will not be permitted to post on this blog until they apologize and correct that behavior.

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    No excuses for rude, unbecoming, and disruptive behavior are acceptable.

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 6:09 PM

    What is happening with a person who is insisting “I am on expert on this field” and gets offended when that claim is questioned?

    This person is announcing that his/her beliefs are those of an expert and beyond questioning. This is an inconsistency. Obviously, not much discussion can happen with such a person.

    This is an example of case #1 from Discussion Policy:

    1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it.

    This person is defending his/her viewpoint even before the discussion has started. The inconsistency generated here is that this person simply wants to argue against the viewpoints and beliefs of others because he/she is convinced of his/her own rightness. This kind of an attitude is a discussion killer.

    • vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 6:11 PM

      This person is unable to see this inconsistency in himself or herself.

    • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 9:56 AM

      It would be interesting to get response from non-scientologists.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:34 PM

        Yes. The OP question was asked about how to civilize blogging between Christians and atheists. It is a good drill.

  • christianscientology  On May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM

    Hi Vinaire,

    Happy to post on your blog. Below is a reply I sent to Valkov, I await your comments.

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

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

    Regards
    Pip

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM

      Hi PIP! Welcome to Vinaire’s Blog. As I remember ypu have posted here before some time back.

      Let me post here your original question first.
      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/myth-mysticism-and-insight/#comment-304379

      Hi Vinaire

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

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

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

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

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

      Regards
      Pip

      I plan to give you a thoughtful response. 🙂

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM

      Let me put here the definitions of the word you are referring to.
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypostasis?s=t

      hy·pos·ta·sis noun
      1. Metaphysics
      a. something that stands under and supports; foundation.
      b. the underlying or essential part of anything as distinguished from attributes; substance, essence, or essential principle.

      2. Theology
      a. one of the three real and distinct substances in the one undivided substance or essence of God.
      b. a person of the Trinity.
      c. the one personality of Christ in which His two natures, human and divine, are united.

      3. Medicine/Medical
      a. the accumulation of blood or its solid components in parts of an organ or body due to poor circulation.
      b. such sedimentation, as in a test tube.

      Origin:
      1580–90; < Late Latin < Greek hypóstasis that which settles at the bottom; substance, nature, essence, equivalent to hypo- hypo- + stásis standing, stasis

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    PIP, you said, “Baring this in mind I find it reasonable to suggest there may well be an “essence” behind creation that causes that creation to come into being.”

    From what I understand, essence of something is part of that thing. That means that the essence of creation would be part of that creation.

    My question to you would be: Per your concept of God, is God part of the creation, or, is God separate and independent of creation?

    Regards,
    Vinay

    • christianscientology  On May 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM

      Dear Vinay

      I would understand God to be separate and independent of creation. In the same way that in Scientology terms THETA being a pure static must be separate and independent from creation which by definition is always in motion. A crude example would be the relationship between the gearbox and the engine of a vehicle. When the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary the engine and the gearbox could be said to be separate and independent. The clutch changes the relationship between the two and through its application the two become one. In the same way I see a thetan as the connection between THETA and M.E.S.T.

      I wanted to know more about what essence means and came across this site http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/divessence.html

      Interestingly it mentions Pantheism and points out

      1. This is the belief that God and the universe are one.
      2. It denies the transcendence of God, as well as His personality.
      3. This system claims that God is just the sum total of all that exists.
      4. The Hindu religion is predicated upon this belief.

      Regards
      Pip

      • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM

        “I would understand God to be separate and independent of creation..”

        PIP, I think I asked the wrong question. Sorry. The question I intended to ask was,

        Is God separate and independent of existence?

        Hope you can clarify that. Thanks.

        Regards,
        Vinaire

        • christianscientology  On May 24, 2014 at 5:12 AM

          Hi Vinaire

          God does not exist, he IS EXISTENCE. I first read this in a book by a Jesuit priest and thought it was rather neat. He also said “God does not forgive, He is forgiveness”. I see it a bit like an artist painting a picture. In one sense he is independent of his picture but in another he is completely involved. He is both the creator and the creation.

          Love
          Pip

        • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 6:25 AM

          Hi Pip,

          “God does not exist, he IS EXISTENCE.” is an inconsistency to me for the following reason:

          The statement “God is EXISTENCE” basically says that God is an abstraction of existence. Linguistically, it is an abstract noun. Abstraction not only exists but also has form which makes one abstraction different from another. Actually, I look at abstraction as the fifth dimension of existence. Please see

          https://vinaire.me/2014/03/11/the-4th-and-5th-dimensions/

          So, God may not exist as something concrete, but it does exist as an abstraction. Therefore, saying that God does not exist is an inconsistency.

          Regards,
          Vinay

        • christianscientology  On May 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM

          Hi Vinay

          Thanks for your replies. I believe you have a presupposition that is at variants to what I am proposing. Just because God is UNKNOWABLE does not mean he cannot be known.

          I could think a thought and that thought would be unknowable to you, and if I chose not to let you know that thought it remains unknowable, but if I choose to reveal it to you that thought is then known by you.

          That is the amazing thing about personhood, IT CAN KNOW THE UNKNOWABLE.

          I was reminded of a story from THE Bible where Daniel not only interprets the king’s dream but also tells the king what the thoughts were that brought about the dream without the king telling him what those thoughts were. It is an amazing story; you can read it in full here
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+2&version=MSG

          Lots of love
          Pip

        • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 11:34 AM

          Hi Pip,

          I am using the following definititions.

          UNKNOWN: not known; not within the range of one’s knowledge, experience, or understanding; strange; unfamiliar.

          UNKNOWABLE: incapable of being known or understood

          One may think that God has been revealed to one, but that would still be a view through a filter. There is revelation due to a sudden reduction of filters. As long as there is a separation between self and God, there is a filter.

          A filtered view of God is not the God i am talking about. Hope you understand.

          Regards,
          Vinay

        • Chris Thompson  On May 24, 2014 at 5:01 PM

          Hi Pip, I don’t have a problem with what people want to believe. I like your post and if I was hungry to find God, then your post would suffice nicely. ~Chris

        • christianscientology  On May 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

          Thanks for that Chris. You say you are not “hungry to find God”.

          In Christian Science there are many synonyms for God. LIFE, TRUTH, LOVE, MIND, SPIRIT, SOUL, PRINCIPLE. Can I not tempt you with any of these?

          Love
          Pip

        • Chris Thompson  On May 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

          haha Thank you sir, but no. I am trying to see things as they are without making things fit my presumptions.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 5:03 PM

    PIP, you said, “I would go further to suggest that that which has being is preceded by PERSONHOOD. “

    I am confused about the way you are using the word “being”. Anything that one can think of is being even if as just a thought. So, beingness would be an isness rather than havingness.

    Please explain your use of the term “being”.

    Regards,
    Vinay

  • christianscientology  On May 23, 2014 at 2:24 PM

    Hi Vinay

    Everything that exists has beingness, as you say even if it is a thought, but what I am talking about is that which precedes beingness. That which thinks the thought; the awareness of awareness; that which is not located in space and time, which has the ability to enter space and time, at which time it becomes being; when SPIRIT BECOMES SOUL or PERSONHOOD becomes a person.

    Love
    Pip

    • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      Hi Pip,

      I am not sure if I am getting you clearly. To me being is the same concept as existing. If something is being then it is also existing. There are sequences that exist, meaning all steps of a sequence exist.

      Are you saying that THAT which precedes beingness does not exist? If it does not exist then it cannot be known, right?

      So, it would be unknowable. Am I right?

      Regards,
      Vinay

      • christianscientology  On May 24, 2014 at 5:13 AM

        Hi again

        The Factors say BEFORE THE BEGINNING WAS A CAUSE AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE CAUSE WAS THE CREATION OF EFFECT. IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE DECISION AND THE DECISION WAS TO BE.

        From this I get that before the beginning there was no BEING. Being did not exist, all that existed was existence. This I am suggesting is what PERSONHOOD IS. And yes you are right PERSONHOOD IS UNKNOWABLE, unless personhood wishes to reveal itself.

        We as human beings can only know Beingness in all its myriad forms and we do this through AFFINITY, REALITY and COMMUNICATION. However to know personhood we need REVELATION and that happens through SURRENDER, which results in the experience of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

        The reason “Absolutes are unobtainable” is because they cannot be grasped, they can only be surrendered to. The bible says “be still and know that I am God”.

        Love
        Pip

        • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 6:35 AM

          Hi Pip,

          You are saying that God is PERSONHOOD, which is unknowable. To me this is inconsistent for the following reason.

          If something is unknowable then it cannot be labeled as anything else but unknowable. Labeling it as anything else is indicative of a bias, which is an addititive.

          And bias has a form. It is a filter actually.

          Regards,
          Vinay

        • Chris Thompson  On May 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM

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

          Did God write that?

        • christianscientology  On May 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM

          Hi Chris

          If the bible is the word of God and the bible says “be still and know that I am God” then the answer must be in the affirmative. Question: What would it mean to be still? We know that all M.E.S.T. is in motion so it would be something other than M.E.S.T. Even a thetan must be in motion since it is located in space and time and has MASS (21 grams I am told) the only thing (that is actually a NO-THING) that can be truly still is THETA which is the only true NO-THING. I like this Buddhist tale http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

          Regards Pip

        • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM

          Of course, when the filter of separation, or the filter of self, has disappeared , then I shall be one with God… and then I shall know who or what God is.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

          As in, “Now we see through a glass darkly, but when that which is Perfect is come then that which in part shall be done away.” That filter Vin?

        • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

          Is that the Christian wording for it? I wouldn’t know. I have never been a Christian.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 25, 2014 at 9:02 PM

          Yes, it is beautiful prose, even if a thought-stopper.

        • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 9:14 PM

          It stopped my thought for sure. I don’t know which way to parse it to make sense out of it.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM

          I was only writing it for its reference to filters as “dark glass.” No other significance. The idea of filters seems to have been with us for a while. I like what you are doing with it.

        • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 9:17 PM

          I would call it inconsistent because it does not make sense to me. A filter is not far away from inconsistencies.

        • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM

          An inspired person wrote that. It was assumed that God wrote through him.

  • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 7:20 AM

    Here is how I see God!

    https://vinaire.me/2010/12/05/essay-7-the-nature-of-god/
    .

    • christianscientology  On May 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM

      Hi Vinaire

      Thoughts on your thoughts on “the nature of God”.

      You write “God is a personal being” is a speculative thought. I agree if God is not a personal being then until someone can prove otherwise the unknowable remains unknowable. However to speculate that God is not a personal being is equally speculative.

      Before I had my conversion experience I was very much involved with Scientology although I had been both declared an S.P. and expelled from the CofS. Just prior to my conversion I was reading a book written by a Quaker called Friends Face Reality. Part of his argument for the reality of God was the fact that anecdotally millions of people over the past 2000 years have said that they have come to know God through Jesus, and that to discount that amount of evidence albeit anecdotal is less than scientific and should be taken seriously.

      Shortly after that I had my personal encounter with God through The Lord Jesus Christ.

      There is an interesting account in the Acts of the Apostles where Paul is debating with the Athenians and after observing that they are “very religious” he mentioned the fact that they even have an alter to the UNKNOWN GOD (presumably just in case they have left one out) and it is this unknown God that Paul starts to reveal to them. So all I am saying to you Vinaire is don’t close your mind to the possibility that THE UNKNOWN GOD may well be KNOWABLE.

      Lots of love
      Pip

      • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM

        Hi Pip,

        First of all I want to acknowledge that your revelations are real. I have my revelations too. The revelations of all those millions of people over the past 2000 years are real too. I have no quarrel with that.

        A revelation occurs when there is a sudden drop in filters. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all filters are gone.

        Space or separation is a filter. As long as one is viewing “God” through separation the complete experience of God is not there.

        When one is viewing God as a person, it is being viewed through the filter of separation. Hope you understand where I am coming from.

        Regards,
        Vinay

  • vinaire  On May 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM

    God is the reality beyond the filters,

  • vinaire  On August 22, 2014 at 7:47 AM

    I have expanded upon Point #1 of the OP to provide a better explanation.

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

%d bloggers like this: