Mindfulness Discussions


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.


Integrity of Reality

The integrity of reality underlies the very concept of universe. The word UNIVERSE is derived from a Latin root, which means “entire, all, literally, turned into one.” The integrity of reality leads to the universe being continuous, harmonious and consistent.

The scientific method follows this law as best as it can when investigating a phenomenon. 

A violation of the integrity of reality would be an anomaly. This may manifest as discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data). An anomaly flags the presence of a hidden impression on the mind in the form of an assumption. When the assumption, and the underlying impression is discovered it produces a realization that resolves the anomaly.

A discussion seeks to restore the integrity of reality by discovering the anomalies present and resolving them.


Rules of Discussion

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


(1) Do not defend a viewpoint, instead look for some anomaly generated by it.

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. Mindful discussion could then help resolve that confusion. Everybody wins.


(2) Focus on the data being presented 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 regarding 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) Furthermore, in a disagreement, ask for clarification and, when it is provided, 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 anomaly, 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 anomalies and isolate them as best as you can. Never be discouraged if others are taking time to recognize it.

An anomaly is a discontinuity (missing information), an inconsistency (contradicting information),  or disharmony (arbitrariness of altered importance). It is something that does not make sense. Mindfulness discussion is very successful because it focuses on anomalies only. When an anomaly is difficult to resolve simply look around for more data on that area of discontinuity, inconsistency, or disharmony, and consider it carefully.



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


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • 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.”


    • 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.

      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.


      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.

      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.

      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?


    • 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.


      • 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.


        • 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.


        • 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


          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.


        • 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

          Lots of love

        • 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.


        • 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?


        • 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”.


  • 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.


    • 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?


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

        Hi again


        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”.


        • 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.


        • 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!


    • 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

      • 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.


  • 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.

  • vinaire  On January 29, 2020 at 3:13 PM

    One should not be afraid of discussions. LRH (L. Ron Hubbard) did not allow discussions in the Church of Scientology because the focus in the Church was on application and not on research. The purpose there was to promote Scientology worldwide, and the best promotion was through producing good products. Hence, LRH wrote KSW (Keeping Scientology Working) as a key policy of the course room. The following of KSW is paramount in the Church.

    LRH accomplished his purpose of putting Scientology on the map. Scientology is known worldwide and it is there to stay. Post-LRH Scientologists are operating in a new environment. They need to rethink the strategy now.

    The Church of Scientology is the orthodoxy of Scientology. It is serving the important function of keeping Scientology there. Its purpose does not allow the function of further research within the Church. And that is okay.

    Further research in Scientology is necessary to continue on the trail that LRH blazed. The way things are progressing, such research is now possible in the independent field. Some people are already doing that. That is perfectly natural. It is a role that some people are better equipped to perform than others. This is just like in the field of Science. Not everybody is going to be a Newton or an Einstein. But there are many other scientists, who carried forward the work of Newton or Einstein to prepare the ground for many more discoveries.

    There is always a discussion going on in the scientific community. Exchange of ideas through publication of papers has been the modus operandi from the beginning of Science. The same is now becoming increasingly necessary in the Scientology community. But many are afraid that such discussions may not go out of control, and disrupt the whole independent activity. That is a valid concern. But Scientologists are intelligent and mature people. If they cannot control themselves, then they are not worth being called Scientologists.

    The first point is to clarify the difference between a discussion and a debate. We are not interested in debate because that gets into “I am right and you are wrong.” No debate must be allowed where the business is knowledge and learning. But discussion–yes.

%d bloggers like this: