Response to Communications on other Blogs


Recently I got put on moderation on Geir’s Blog because of the following exchange:


Vinaire: It is interesting to see that people are attracted toward what an “OT 8″ has to say. Here the expectations from an “OT 8″ become a filter.


Isene: Relevance? Or are you just being a jerk?


Vinaire: It is just a consideration from where I sit. Don’t let it upset you.


Isene: Being a jerk it is. I’m somewhat worried about your one-sidedness in life. Enjoy, chill. Get a life, Vin.


Vinaire: Thank you for your considerations. 

[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]


Here a comment on the “expectations from an OT 8 becoming a filter” was taken personally when it was not so intended. This shows a presence of a personal attachment to the status of OT 8. This may have also become a coveted identity.



Here is an example of a modern Scientology OT:

A Scientology OT seems to be fixated on the salvation of the self. He treats self as something that needs to be boosted up, made powerful and glorified. But self is relative, conditioned and impermanent.

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

This fixation on self is one of the problems with Scientology. This is also pertinent to the manipulation of self, as in brainwashing.



I am, therefore, starting this post to overcome that barrier of being put under moderation because of some personal sensitivity. I shall be responding to communications on others blogs using this thread as necessary to avoid distractions.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 2:34 PM

    This is a response to Maria

    “This is a meaningless statement Vinaire.

    You seek wins with KHTK, wins in terms of identifying inconsistencies. Restated, for you to be free from your own addiction to your wins, you will need to adopt a point of view that any consideration is a win, (whether consistent or inconsistent) and that there is absolutely no need for any kind of progress towards anything or nothing and no need to identify and or evaluate a consideration at all. AT ALL.

    Under the terms of your own blanket statement, I observe that you are wholly addicted to wins and to the process you are employing. Can you stop yourself from observing and examining considerations and inconsistencies? Even if you wanted to? I doubt it.

    To my way of thinking, only death and total dissolution will relieve this addiction, and then and only then if there is such a state of total dissolution. And if there is, then you would no longer exist to evaluate it.”


    I have found that with KHTK a person simply evolves towards a greater clarity of mind. It is very similar to going to a school or university. The confusions simply start to evaporate one by one. Fixations and attachments start to reduce. And one starts to see things as they really are.

    There are no bombastic, earth shattering wins, no clapping, nothing.

    There is only increasing clarity. There is no attention on wins. There is no attention on KHTK.

    Maybe you are operating on a definition of win different from mine.


  • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    How does one get to be “on moderation”, or even more correct, what does it imply of punishment?

    • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 4:25 PM

      It means that one is being considered a “loose cannon” and his comments must be reviewed before they are published on the blog, otherwise his comments may harm somebody.


      • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        Hmm. Interesting…
        Now I’m finally live and irl with you, guys!
        This is the closest I’ve been a shock – Crazy and wild!!!!!
        Excuse me, Vin. WOOOOOW!
        – –
        from the Studio of Dreams Come True
        – –
        Back to your question: If you do not like the punishment, which it for sure seems like, then ban his page – completely.
        (Ref. My First policy)
        The ones that do not fit my reality will join your site and that will probably be more than I get to my universal viewpoint.
        – –
        now more RockmyStar
        than Slack

        • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 6:02 PM

          I am not offended at all. This is just an Internet game.


        • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

          To me and some others it’s all about getting a life one can be proud of because it has integrity in it’s bottom. However, I am not claiming that you Vinaire has integrity as your most important deed.
          All said, I would like us to split the responsibility regarding the 4th dynamic. You deal with all that doesn’t know they are more than their immediate body and I take the rest – Deal? .)

          – –
          RockmyStar in my very own space called Dreams Come True

        • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 6:59 PM

          Slack, let me first understand you a bit better.

          What is your topmost concern?

          Please meditate over this question per the 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS before you answer it because I expect total integrity from you.


        • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

          Are you aware of your standard here, man?
          Total Integrity, nothing less, eh?
          I know there is not one single life unit in any universe with stronger integrity than me. .) That is clear.
          The answer is:
          To get the truth out within around 488 years. It is not even exciting if I make it. It’s practically already done. 🙂
          The journey, however, will be most fascinating, exciting and fun.
          – –
          Slack, the philosopher and painter

          RockmyStar, the guitar playing and singing songwriter

          Hint: I have disconnected from the worst entheta source in the universe and all of a sudden I’m a good artist

        • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 8:50 PM

          That is wonderful.

          To me, the greatest thing is a life without attachment to any consideration.. Then one has total integrity because no consideration is pulling one in any direction.


        • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 9:25 PM

          “Truth told” is my answer, Vin.
          I will like to meet the one life unit with stronger integrity than me. .)
          – –
          RockmyStar in Dreams Come True

        • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 9:37 PM

          I am glad that you are proud of your integrity. But if you announce this as your “attachment” or obsession, you can be manipulated by unscrupulous people.

          They’ll hold you to your integrity and would then proceed to clean you out.


        • Slack  On January 28, 2013 at 9:47 PM

          I have been manipulated by unscrupulous people for as long as I don’t even want to mention. .)
          However, I have learned a lot. 🙂
          In basic fact I have been cleaned out a lot, you could say.
          – –
          RockmyStar having a Tuborg – Cheers, mate! .)

        • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 9:57 PM

          LOL! Me too.


  • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 6:32 PM

    This is in response to Marildi

    Vin, the definition of thetan includes “no location in space EXCEPT by consideration or postulate”. There’s also the data about a thetan putting out anchor points that demark his own “space”.

    What I conceptualize about pervading/being an object is that being in its space you perceive/experience all the energies that exist there, which would probably include your (beloved ) considerations since those are energies too.

    I recall Geir commenting one time on the lecture series The Route to Infinity, where LRH talks about pervading as the direct means of knowing, so that is probably a good, if not the best, reference.


    Looks like the definition of “thetan” you quoted fits in with my definition that a thetan is the center (weighted average) of considerations. Thetan is “nothing” in itself according to my definition and there you might differ. To me, ability, potential and all resides in considerations.

    Of course, the object is nothing but considerations also. These considerations are different from those of the thetan. I can see these two sets of considerations merging into each other. As long as the thetan is not attached to any considerations, it would be able to appreciate the considerations, which make up the bottle, in their purity. This is what I said earlier: “When one is ‘pervading a bottle’ then, to me. one is looking at the bottle for what it is without any filters.”


  • vinaire  On January 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM

    This is in response to Rafael:

    I do not have the benefit of having done the OT levels, but freedom from past could be the exit point from all mind traps. And the answer to who I Am maybe should best be left open, as it could then be created newly at each new moment in time, free from past and future. It aligns with my best possible (theoretical) definition of OT: Pure creativity.


    Past seems to be made up of considerations that exist in present time but have a label of “past.” Therefore, freedom from past would simply mean dropping one’s attachment to such considerations.

    So all the present considerations after a unit of time will become past and would be dropped.


  • Slack  On January 29, 2013 at 12:50 AM

    Hey, I am back again – slept 2 hours on the couch all of a sudden.
    Did you notice what has happened at Geir’s site?
    A total change has taken place there.
    He never relates to any challenge or question I have for him. Have you noticed?
    – –

    • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      I am more interested in KHTK, and in improving its effectiveness.


    • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

      Slack, yes, I just noticed the change that you were talking about. Well, each one of us have to go through the considerations that we are holding on to before we free ourselves,

      I can see that your topmost concern is integrity. That is my concern too.


      • Slack  On January 29, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        So you’re suggesting we have reality at all?
        – –

        • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM

          Reality is that, which is perceived when there are no filters.

          It is seeing things as they are.

          This is also integrity.


        • Slack  On January 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

          To really appreciate integrity one has to have had experiences on the contrary. Can you outline yours or express your feelings along that line so I have any reason at all to believe that you really have integrity?
          – –

        • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

          I don’t intend to prove anything about myself to anybody. You just have to learn to look and see things as they are.


        • Slack  On January 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM

          What a good viewpoint. 🙂
          I do not either.
          Learn to look and see me as I am.
          Your project is not my right way – I am sorry to say.
          – –

        • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

          You have your own project. That is how it should be.


  • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 6:13 AM

    This is in response to Rafael:

    Vinay, but certainly a scientific on the human mind, not only an enabler of philosophy systems.


    Yes, my scientific background helped me too. Science is not just materialism. Science is systematic looking.

    Hubbard brought a new dimension of systematic looking to the subject of the mind. Of course, it was in the making for last few generations, but Hubbard popularized it in a way that it reached many people like me.


  • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 6:26 AM

    This is in response to Marildi:

    Geir, I wasn’t sure what Vinaire meant or what you understood him to mean. The first line seemed clear enough – and I would agree with him that people are attracted to what an OT 8 has to say. I know I am.

    The second line was “Here the expectations from an OT 8 become a filter”. Does he mean to say that what we expect, i.e. what our expectations of an OT 8 are, act as a filter for us? Or does he mean that an OT 8′s expectations are his own filters (as regards music maybe?) Or what?

    I’m asking you because he doesn’t seem to be posting since this exchange occurred, as he hasn’t replied to a comment I posted to him on another thread or anywhere else on your blog. Otherwise I would ask him. And besides, I wondered what your understanding was if you wouldn’t mind clearing up the mystery.


    Marildi, your first interpretation is correct. “…what we expect, i.e. what our expectations of an OT 8 are, act as a filter for us?”


  • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    Some interesting quotes, we can learn from:

    Charles Darwin – “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”

    Bertrand Russell – “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”

    Shakespeare – “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

    Proverbs 12:15 – “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.”


  • vinaire  On January 29, 2013 at 8:56 PM

    This is in response to Valkov:

    I think Hubbard ADDED the e-meter to mindfullness. It was never intended to substitute for mindfullness, which was intended to be developed by doing TRs. The e-meter’s role was to provided information about what and where to focus the mindfullness(attention).


    Valkov, you may be right, but I don’t see mindfulness being stressed in Scientology. So, generally, it didn’t work out the way you are suggesting. In my view, one can do without e-meter, but not without mindfulness.

    By the way, mindfulness is more than attention. It involves the following:


    No correction lists are necessary if the pc is trained to apply mindfulness in session.


  • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    This is in response to Elizabeth Hamre.

    The key concept in Scientology is that of a “bank” or “reactive mind.” Let’s take a closer look at it. I shall be using definitions from Technical Dictionary

    BANK: (definition #2) A colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scn are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it.

    REACTIVE MIND: (definition #1) a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills.

    So, the problem boils down to rigid association among thoughts, where no flexibility is allowed. There is a rigid structure of thought that cannot be taken apart and analyzed. What brings about such rigidity and inflexibility?

    It makes me think of a lot of stuff suddenly being crammed into a small space. This happens when there is a lot of perceptual input in a very short amount of time and it cannot be processed by the mind, such as, in an accident. So it stays there as a jumble of perception waiting to be processed. Hubbard called this jumble of perception an “engram.” Hubbard could get to some of the engrams, but then he ran into the problem of accessibility. This lead to the creation of all of the “bridge” beyond Dianetics.

    But the basic problem has been that of accessibility of unprocessed data. It has been amply demonstrated that as soon as such data is accessed it is easily processed by the mind. Hubbard brought e-meter to his aid. He also created hundreds and thousands of processes to overcome that lack of accessibility. His approach has still been one of hit and miss.

    The subsequent posts shall look at how MINDFULNESS helps overcome the difficulty in accessing unprocessed data in the mind.


    • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM

      Data gets processed in the mind in the form of the following layers (see PERCEPTION & KNOWLEDGE).

      1. Perception
      2. Experience
      3. Information
      4. Hypothesis
      5. Theory
      6. Principles
      7. Axioms
      8. Self

      Inconsistencies on these layers may be labeled as follows (see KNOWLEDGE & INCONSISTENCY).

      Such inconsistencies may be categorized as follows:

      1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
      2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
      3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
      4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
      5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
      6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
      7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
      8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)

      So, Dianetics deals with “Engrams” only. Scientology tries to deal with inconsistencies on other layers but in an inverse fashion.

      Scientology still thinks that “Engram” is at the bottom of it all, except that it now refers to it as “implants.” But at the bottom of it all is actually the “self used as a fixed stable datum” as recognized by Buddha.


    • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 7:01 AM

      Until one realizes the inconsistency of looking at “self as something fixed” there is no spiritual freedom.

      This fixation on self shows up in the following ways:

      (1) Thinking that one has the only way to salvation.
      (2) Thinking that one’s universe is the only right universe..
      (3) Fiercely protecting or defending one’s universe.
      (4) Getting angry and upset with those who disagree.
      (5) Not thinking much of anybody else, instead looking down on them.
      (6) No compassion towards others (unconditionally).
      (7) No tolerance towards others (unconditionally).
      (8) Flying off the handle and being very the drop of a hat.
      (9) Having too much pride in oneself.
      (10) Ridiculing luminaries like Buddha, Christ, Krishna, etc.


  • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM

    This is in response to Marianne Toth:

    Read again, Vin….she starts….before the begining there was just awareness…the particle(s) appeared later….”my experience” too…pure potential..then “looking back” as being awareness…then the particle(s)….one needs to get it as experience as words fail to describe it. Also, that light-collision part is that explains sex, body structure, Kundalini, creativity…..also that “light” “lightening” can be seen at a theta level in the eyes of people…also in nature with a “proper view” of it…..the second dynamics, that is….then the “softer”
    theta lines that happen/come into being on the third dynamics on which these “light” particles can “travel”. I didn’t go up the Bridge and don’t kow how OT-s see it..would like to know that but they don’t communicate about it…though in “other practices” they do…not because it’s “important” but why hide anything which can be experienced?

    The inconsistency here is that one can be aware of awareness. The truth is that whatever one is aware of contains the aspects of matter, energy, space and time.

    If one is aware of awareness then that awareness has elements of matter, energy, space and time..

    (1) There is physical matter, enegy, space and time.
    (2) There is also, mental matter, energy, space and time.
    (3) Spirit is the same thing as mental energy,
    (4) All considerations are made up of mental matter, energy, space and time.
    [To be continued…]

  • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM

    This is in response to Marianne Toth.

    My experience is there is awareness outside mest…

    This is an inconsistency. Apparently, the term MEST (matter, energy, space, time) is not understood fully. There are physical objects. Similarly, there are mental objects.

    If one is aware and there is no physical object, then what one is aware of a mental object. Ideas, feelings, emotions, efforts are all mental objects. It doesn’t matter if one is able to describe it or not. It is still a mental object.

    Looks like MEST is being quite narrowly interpreted in the above comment.


  • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 6:10 PM

    This is in response to Elizabeth Hamre.

    Marianne thank you for sharing your experience… Key-out state is beautiful and can happen any time to any one also it can disappear the same way… close up.. With keyed out state: the why’s what is happening how it have happened one gains very little explanation.. and eraser, as-ising one gains knowledge.. total understanding..

    A keyed-out state is a Scientology term, which refers to relief from some unwanted condition, which was achieved, but then the person reverted back to that condition later. Thus, the relief was temporary..

    This would happen when the person has not looked at the cause of his unwanted condition fully. The reason for that unwanted condition is still there. He probably had a partial realization about the immediate problem, and so it moved away. But the person lacked a deeper realization. Therefore, he was thrown back into it again.


  • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    This is in response to Marildi.

    Vin, “awareness” itself is not contained in the physical universe. A camera “perceives” visual images and even records them, but it isn’t “aware” of those perceptions or recordings.

    Where a camera is concerned one is looking at interactions between chemicals, but not the interactions among considerations. Awareness has to do with interactions among considerations.

    In case of camera the interactions among considerations are occuring in the mind of “photographer + camera”.


  • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    This is in response to Marildi.

    I can’t conceive of any “steps” to awareness. But a camera doesn’t “know” anything or “understand” anything. It’s all a matter of physical universe energies impinged on other physical universe energies. And only when a being looks at the photos is there any AWARENESS or KNOWINGNES or MEANING attached to them.


    One must look at the whole system, which is the thoughts of the inventor of the camera (incorporated in the design of the camera), the camera, and the person using the camera.

    The error is in not looking at the complete system, but only at a part of it.


  • vinaire  On February 5, 2013 at 6:42 AM

    This is in response to Elizabeth Hamre.

    MARILDI I HAVE MY BOXING GLOVES AN AND I JUST SHARPENED MY WITS AND MY TEET and you want me to write about tiny lights and as-ising when I am building a pit to roast Vinay..???




  • vinaire  On February 7, 2013 at 5:14 AM

    This is a response I would like to record here:

    The MEST universe is thought to be comprised of matter, energy, space and time by Hubbard. He did not make considerations as part of the MEST universe. He put considerations in the THETA universe, and created a games condition between THETA and MEST with his THETA-MEST Theory.

    I see a universe comprised of matter, energy, space, time and considerations. I see considerations condensing into space, energy and matter. I see time as a measure of this condensation. I do not see a games condition between THETA (considerations) on one hand and MEST (matter, energy, space and time) on the other.

    This spells as the death knell for THETA-MEST theory, and of the idea of THETAN (self).

    Meaning is part of the considerations. It is part of the THETA. It is part of the viewpoint, and I see viewpoint as a consideration as well. Words like CAUSE, INTENTION, WILL, SELF-DETERMINATION, etc., have been created to express some meaning. These are considerations as well. There is NOTHING outside of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME and CONSIDERATIONS.

    If you confine all manifestations to the universe of MESTC (matter, energy, space, time, consideration) then that is consistent. Anything that you can consider or think of will be part of this universe of MESTC. What could be unmanifested would be unthinkable or unconsiderable. I use the word “unknowable” for that.

    Now go ahead and apply Godel’s Theorem to the above. I am excitedly looking forward to your conclusions.

    Gödel and Determinism


  • vinaire  On February 8, 2013 at 1:39 PM


    Self, or ego, is the resultant of a set of interconnected and evolving considerations. An example of this would be Vinaire. Self or ego is not permanent. It is always changing. It is possible to extinguish this self or ego

    The interconnectedness of these considerations determine the logic that the self or ego operates on

    Thus, Interconnected considerations, Logic and Ego form a triangle. They go hand in hand.


  • dave95694  On February 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    Of course its a filter!!! Geir is a jerk. And still lives in a world clouded by his ego.

    But I really came here to find your math website which seems to have disappeared and I need some algebra resources for a family member.

  • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM

    This is in response to Isene

    Marildi: “But even if all the things LRH has been accused of were true with no justification for them whatsoever, it doesn’t change the truths he derived. Any other viewpoint would come down to Ad Hominen.”

    Nicely put.


    Knowledge is ‘what-is’. Knowledge stands by itself.

    Any association of knowledge with a “source” or “cause” is introducing the additive of ego.

    Any association is secondary to ‘what-is’.


    ‘LRH’ was a set of interrelated considerations. If it seems that these interrelated considerations catalyzed the materialization of an intuition, then it does not imply a permanent relationship between those interrelated considerations and the intuition.


  • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM

    Any association among ‘what-is’ generates ‘logic’ and ‘ego’.


  • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    It is the argument that “I know and you don’t”: which causes much friction.

    This is what Tom Cruise did on Matt Laurer’s show which caused an uproar.


    The argument “I know and you don’t” brings one’s ego into the discussion.

    The thought, “I know and this person doesn’t” brings one’s ego into play.

    The thought, I am a scientologist therefore I know; and that person is a wog and he doesn’t know,” brings a “scientologist ego” into play.

    The thought, “I know because I am going by LRH, and this person doesn’t because he is not going by LRH,” also brings the “scientologist ego” into play.

    The thought, “I am right and this other person is wrong,” not only have one’s ego in play, but it also contains egotism


    • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM

      Blaming a person is a generality because the person is simply the resultant of a interrelated cluster of considerations. So blaming a cluster is a generality. One must look closer and find specific considerations involved in a situation.


  • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 6:28 AM

    This is my response to general criticism of KHTK at


    With KHTK, the primary intention is to provide a set of exercises, which people can use and benefit from. The primary tool that is being used is “mindfulness.” There is a single document that summarizes the concept of mindfulness. It is not very complicated. A lot of time and study went into preparing that one document. It is still open to review and improvement.

    The other part of KHTK is simplifying the inconsistencies in the fundamentals of knowledge as I see them. The simplified form is being expressed through the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. I am using “perception” as the guiding criterion and the reason for this is taken up in that project. Right now I am looking at the area of CONSIDERATIONS and SELF, and clarification is taking place in this area. As concepts get firmed up they get documented in the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. Hopefully, with clearer concepts, better KHTK exercises shall come about.

    So, if anybody has any questions about KHTK, one should carefully study the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT and question it. The dust is still settling in the current discussions on CONSIDERATIONS and SELF. I keep reviewing my own materials again and again. This is a huge area and I do not want to rush through it.

    Credit goes to all the extant knowledge of Mankind. As far as I am concerned, “source” of knowledge is there for reference purposes only so that one can go and look at additional material associated with that source. Beyond that, KNOWLEDGE should be looked at for what it is regardless of its association with any source. That purity is essential to the examination of Knowledge.

    To summarize, the communication of KHTK is occurring through the documents listed at the top (KHTK 00 to KHTK 04) at KHTK Looking. If you need to examine KHTK, please examine these documents.


  • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    This is my response to the question

    “Why wouldn’t ex-COS true-believing Scientologists get on and continue on up the Bridge?”


    Dee, I can answer that question with certainty only on a personal level, which I have tried to do. On a general level, my answer would mostly be a conjecture.

    To me, auditing is LOOKING. I have continued with that and have never stopped. I am not restricting myself to the “Scientology way”. I am even documenting what I have found successful as KHTK.

    The question from Chris Thompson refers to those Scientologists who do not want to deviate from from the path laid down in Scientology. The inconsistency he is looking at is. “If that path is very workable, then why not those scientologists, who swear by that path, moving forward on it, now that they are out of the control exerted by COS?”

    So, the points to look at are:

    (1) Is the Scientology path really workable as it is made out to be?
    (2) Can it be done on ones own; or does it require a big organization to be workable?
    (3) What are the problems facing ex-COS true believers if they are not moving up the Bridge?

    My conjectures are:

    Scientology path is not workable without an e-meter, a lot of training and an organization. Those seem to be the hurdles.

    I am trying to overcome these hurdles through KHTK, which replaces e-meter by “mindfulness”, does not require any other training beside “mindfulness”, and it can be done by oneself without depending on any organization.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM

      My current opinion, which is no criticism but rather an explanation, is that “Scientologists” won’t audit because for a dozen reasons, they have in fact moved on. Those who still claim to be Scientologists and are not auditing simply are clinging to their fixed ideas about their personal identity and are not aware that they have in fact moved on.

      I find this to be true of members of other religions as well when we see them to not practice what they preach.

      • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM

        Idenics would say that they are stuck in their wins in Scientology. The KHTK Exercise 2.6, which is derived from Idenics, may be helpful in that case.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 5:49 AM

    “Okay then, I would start by removing this information at the start of the materials:

    “The organization of basic knowledge in the subject of Scientology (a word, which means “knowing how to know”) is definitely impressive, so that might have something to do with it.

    The organization of knowledge in Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard was followed by a simplification of that knowledge in Idenics by John Galusha. Both Scientology and Idenics are inspired by Buddhism. So, after an exposure to Scientology and Idenics, an examination of Buddhism led to the development of KHTK.”

    I suggest you do this, otherwise you immediately open up a can of worms that does not need to be opened.


    For me the above is what happened. Why should I suppress it? To me the movement that started with Buddhism culminated in Scientology through whatever route that was taken in the West. A simplification of that consolidation took place in Idenics. And a circle back to Buddhism is being attempted now with KHTK.

    If it opens a can of worms them let it do so. To me, all knowledge from whatever source must be consistent, and all inconsistencies need to be examined.

    KHTK is no small project.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 6:17 AM

    – there are those who do not consider that Scientology has any value or that it has negative value.

    – Taking my own understanding of Scientology, I disagree that it was inspired by Buddhism. I think it came up the line of Korzybski and what is called the “New Thought” movement. This was then examined by using Volney Mathison’s galvanometer methods, and influenced by early Western translations of the Vedas. The meter was the research tool that was used to refine and develop the various efforts


    (1) I believe that Scientology has a lot of value. It is a wonderful consolidation of knowledge, and a great summarization that brings very basic inconsistencies to the forefront. It is quite a challenge to look at those inconsistencies.

    (2) Hubbard stated Scientology to be an extension of Buddhism. He even positioned himself as Maitreya to promote Scientology. I was there on Flagship Apollo when Hubbard ordered this promotion. You may be looking only at a partial route that knowledge took in the West.

    (3) The basic tool has been LOOKING. E-meter provides a limited advantage at a very shallow level. Deeper look requires mindfulness as Buddha outlined in: “Observe things as they are, not just as they seem to be.”


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 6:27 AM

    Argments aside, do you see that by including this unnecessary information, which is your opinion only, you introduce argument at the outset.

    What you think of prior subjects is your opinion, and the route by which you arrived at these drills is YOUR route, refined by examination and discussion over a very long period of time, and as modified by your and others studies of many different subjects. But that should be the subject of a separate post, clearly identified as your route to get to the current set of information. Bibliography. Acknowledgments.


    (1) I do not think that summarization of background to be unnecessary information. Proper discussion of this background per the discussion policy can be very fruitful.

    (2) There is no MINE or YOURS. There is only knowledge in whatever form that needs to be sorted out. “Vinaire” is just a set of considerations that needs to be examined along with all other considerations.

    (3) Knowledge should stand for itself without any reference to “source.” The great experiment in KHTK is to examine inconsistencies starting from the most basic ones.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 6:40 AM

    You may wish to have a separate section for ex Scientologists, because they probably will not be able to bridge from Scientology to KHTK without some kind of aligning / differentiating process.

    For this new set of processes to be easily offered to anyone else, it needs to stand on its own. Get it out of the road of all the controversy and nonsense that goes along with associating with past practices!

    Don’t repeat LRH’s mistakes. I believe that it was a serious mistake for him to continually mix in his opinions with the valid processes he discovered and the result is one hell of a mess. Carefully label what is your opinion as your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion BUT it can act as a barrier to looking for someone else.


    (1) This is totally new effort that derives inspiration from all past knowledge regardless of its source. Nothing needs to be separated, such as, a section for ex-Scientologists. Anybody who has any difficulty in facing inconsistencies is encouraged to apply mindfulness.

    (2) These processes are going to be evolving based on the various inputs. There is nothing in KHTK that is set in concrete. KHTK would be what remains after inconsistencies are removed.

    (3) Thanks for your advice. I know it is well meant and I take it in that spirit. The route in KHTK is through the resolution of inconsistencies. So, please, do not hesitate to keep bringing such inconsistencies up, and we shall look at them with the help of mindful discussions.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM

    Vin: you ask why ex Scientologists don’t continue doing their bridge outside of Scientology. These are the factors I have observed in myself and others:

    – Many have ongoing relationships with individuals who are still connected with the Church of Scientology. They don’t want the trouble of dealing with the inevitable turmoil that would follow their accepting service from what is labeled as a suppressive squirrel group. The alternative is disconnection and they don’t want that either.


    I can see what you are saying here. This is like being blackmailed. This is suppression itself. Any suppression must be fought.

    KHTK provides a possible route here to do Scientology processes in one’s own privacy with the use of mindfulness. Most Scientology processes can be done this way without any liability… even the OT processes.

    CAUTION: If nothing is there then realize that nothing is there. Do not put something there for the sake of putting something there.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    – Fear of doing the wrong process, and caving in or having something bad happen to them. This can be as mild as being keyed in and enturbulated to as dreadful as ending up so unaware that one becomes a completely degraded being serving as a body part or a rock for eternity.


    The scientology processes become very safe with KHTK approach of MINDFULNESS. That approach can be seen in KHTK Exercise 2.1. Simply reword the Scientology process so it can fit in KHTK Exercise 2.1 in place of the existing question.

    A wrong process would not bring up a response in the mind and it can be safely skipped over.

    Any restimulation can be handled simply with KHTK Exercise 2.2 or with KHTK Exercise 1.1.


  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM

    – Fear of the unknown and untested. Most people who did continue in Scientology had confidence that others before them had success, however limited, based on personal testimonials.

    – Fear of having one’s pc folders in the hands of someone who may or may not respect confidentiality.

    – Fear of becoming brainwashed, self-deluded, or unstable at the hands of someone who has been declared suppressive by the Church.

    – Refusal to be associated with Scientology, inside or outside of the Church because of its negative press and media.

    – Broken trust.
    – Broken trust.
    – Broken trust


    I can understand the above point. KHTK provides a solution to all the above.

    KHTK provides the best of Scientology in a very safe manner. Mindfulness takes care of the protection of the mind against untested procedures. There are no pc folders required in KHTK. You don’t need another person to audit you; you may run the procedures yourself. You don’t have to worry about associating with any organization of Scientology. You need to trust only yourself.


  • vinaire  On February 12, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    The concept of responsibility seems to be very much messed up in Scientology. It is basically used to drive people hard by making them wrong.

    Responsibility, to me, is simply a ‘focus of attention’. By appointing a person to a certain post, you are saying that this is the focus of your attention. Now respond to what is happening there.

    This is where LOOKING comes in. One looks in that area and perceives what is really there. He spots the inconsistencies and looks at them more closely. This is where Data Series comes in. The moment one finds the right why there is cooperation all around and the situation simply resolves.


  • vinaire  On February 12, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    SELF is like the HOLE of a donut. If the donot goes away, then the hole goes away too.

    Our donut is made of our considerations.of ‘what-is’.


  • vinaire  On February 12, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    Why do people feel attacked?
    Why do people attack?

    Does Scientology have answers to these questions?


    • Anonymous  On February 12, 2013 at 2:32 PM

      I think it does indeed in the Grades Processes.

    • vinaire  On February 12, 2013 at 5:04 PM

      Then there are lot of clears and OTs out there who have not found that answer.


  • vinaire  On February 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM

    By reference point I mean something like a stable datum in a confusion, or what you call a ‘frame of reference’. The last reference point is the self. When that reference point is not there one feels totally naked, helpless, and swirling around in a confusion if the considerations are still there. In this case, the reference point is very likely being not-ised.

    The as-is of reference point would also as-is all the associated considerations. It would be a scenario akin to zero divided by zero. The status of entropy (Q/T) in this case would be hard to determine.

    Self is like the donut hole where the donot is made up of tightly interrelated considerations. As-isness of self can only occur along with the as-isness of the “donut” of considerations.

    A not-isness of the “donut hole” will get one feeling totally lost.


  • vinaire  On February 13, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    The feeling of certainty that “I know it” is the most insidious trap of all. Taken to extreme it becomes “I know it all.”

    The idea, which then comes to rescue is the idea of “UNKNOWABLE.”


    • Marianne Toth  On March 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM

      Unknowable BY THE MIND! One can still “experience” when there is no filter and no mind. Even more. Feel!

    • Marianne Toth  On March 1, 2013 at 3:35 PM

      ‘…the idea of UNKNOWABLE’…..not the ‘idea’, the FEEL of it. As long as the concept of survival (connected of course to the filter) is there, there is the fear of experiencing the unknowable.

    • vinaire  On March 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

      Hi Marianne, good to see you here.

      To me, the feel of the unknowable is something like. “Rats! There is more to know here.” It keeps me away from assuming that I know it all.


  • vinaire  On February 14, 2013 at 6:26 AM


    In my view, any fixation is an aberration because it is a “held down seven”. A fixation is used in every computation even when it is not relevant. It screws up the mind.

    An ideology is a fixation.

    This makes me wonder about the concept of STABLE DATUM which is restraining a confusion. It seems that keeping the stable datum fixedly there to restrain the confusion, will also keep the confusion there even when that confusion is restrained.

    Do we want to keep the confusion in a restrained condition? If we don’t have the confusion then we won’t need the stable datum either.

    So, a STABLE DATUM is not really the solution for a confusion. The solution is resolving the confusion. A stable datum is simply a stop-gap measure.

    SELF is such a stable datum. 🙂


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 7:39 AM

    I always felt that there is something inconsistent about the concept of ARC in Scientology. I see Scientologists beating the drum of ARC, and yet looking down on others they consider to be less able.

    The concept of ARC seems to be closer to “ass-kissing” than to “as-ising” as in the concept of compassion.

    When I think of compassion, it seems to come from the heart. It doesn’t seem to require agreement from the other party. It is something that simply radiates out of oneself. It is unconditional.

    On the other hand, the concept of ARC appears to be conditional on the other party. It is more “businesslike” and requires give and the concept of “exchange.”

    To me, the concept of ARC pales in front of the concept of compassion.

    ARC came from Hubbard. Compassion came from Buddha. There is a world of difference between the two.


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 7:59 AM

    From MadHatter:

    “In conclusion – Sci works if applied properly to each individual’s needs or wants without preconceived expectations and it also works when each individual learns it and applies it standardly to meet his needs and wants and not those of the church…”


    Exactly. That is the effect, which comes from the application of mindfulness as in KHTK. Most Scientology processes may be applied to oneself safely using the 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS. Any scientology process that is not applicable to the case simply does not bring up any response in the mind, and it can safely be set aside.

    An example of the above would be KHTK Exercise 2.1 as documented in KHTK EXERCISE SET 2


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

    Well, Vinaire is once again on vacation from Geir’s blog: Here is an interesting exchange:

    Bullbaiting exercise in Scientology is a failure when mindfulness is not there.

    Mindfulness in bullbaiting helps one as-is one’s reactions; but with the lack of mindfulness one simply ends up suppressing one’s reaction for the duration of the exercise.

    After the exercise one reverts to reacting as before.


    Trolls can be easily handled by not reacting to them, instead getting in real communication with them.


    Trolls are not welcome here. People with good manners are.


    I have excellent manners so I know you are not talking about me. But about some others on this blog you may be right.


    I am talking about you – the only person I have asked to take a vacation from this blog three times due to bad manners.


    I question your ability to judge bad manners.


    Of course you do. But that doesn’t matter. This is my home. I decide what is good manners here. You don’t need to agree. And there is no discussion on this.


    I am very much aware of your bias and double standards. Go ahead and put me on vacation once again.


    Sure. No more Vinaire blog promotion here for a week or so.


    I gotta say, I’ve seen much worse manners here than Vinaire’s.


    But not consistently so. And not completely impossible to better.


    The facts is that Geir’s blog is out of control, very similar to when ESMB went out of control and it was no longer a pleasant place to be. This happens when the owner of the blog simply goes by what is agreeable to him or her. There is no definite criterion of what good manners are.

    In the case of Geir’s Blog, Geir feels comfortable with those visiting his blog only if he can control them. If he cannot control a participant on his blog then he wants to get rid of him or her.

    “Good manners” on Geir’s Blog are simply defined by whether Geir can control the communication of the other person or not. And this becomes tyrannical. This probably reflects how the person likes to handle communication in real life as well.

    The criterion on Vinaire’s Blog is pretty straightforward. It is guided by:

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    Looks like KHTK is making the following two words popular among ex-scientologists:


    That is good.


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    Marianne Toth:
    Alanzo, You probably read Katageek’s post on MEANING. I see it the way he does. A flower just grows. Doesn’t need to explain to itself how to do that. I have found it very useful to examine how the mind works. In auditing and in studying it got pretty clear. Good stuff. But there is more to Life than just that – as you very well know it. Geir used a phrase-
    the Bridge is standing in mid-air. Perfect description! What the Bridge stands in is more important than the Bridge!


    The air may or may not be important than the bridge, but the above post brings an interesting point into focus.

    Duality, or dichotomy, such as, good-evil, survive-succumb, light-darkness, etc. represent two poles. One of these two poles attracts and the other pole repels. Thus, one tends to get fixed to one or the other pole. That is how fixation starts.

    In the ‘Bridge-chasm’ dichotomy used by Hubbard, ‘Bridge’ attracts and the ‘chasm’ repels. Thus, one gets fixed to the idea of ‘Bridge’.

    As one gets more aware spiritually, the importance of the fixation starts to reduce, and the importance given to the two poles start to come into proper balance. Thus, the fixation goes away and the person feels more free.

    Similar fixation exists in the ‘spiritual-physical’ duality. One finds oneself fixed to the ‘spiritual’ pole if one is religious, or fixed to the ‘physical’ pole if one is scientific. Either fixation is a trap.

    No fixation would be the ideal state.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:40 AM


    People make oneself right and others wrong because of the sense of individuality or ego, or… because of viewpoint.

    That means that none of the viewpoint, ego or individuality is complete in itself. Each represents a separation from completeness.

    So, Scientology worships individuality and believes in making that individuality more “able”. Scientology is basically boosting up separation, but for what purpose? This only creates more disharmony.

    What is so attractive about separation, individuality, ego, or viewpoint?


    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:45 AM

      The most vocal people on Geir’s blog, including Geir himself, seem to be broadcasting their version of reality, and trying to suppress the version of reality, which differs from their own by invalidating it.

      This is disharmony of, for and by the thetans, it seems. 😀


    • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      Vin: What is so attractive about separation, individuality, ego, or viewpoint?

      Chris: It seems that all illusion is in the direction of crystalization of stability; making things hold still; pretending that structures have some natural long-term duration.

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      Stable datum is necessary only when there is confusion.

      What is the ultimate confusion?


      • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM

        Vinaire: Stable datum is necessary only when there is confusion. What is the ultimate confusion?

        Chris: knock-knock joke again. Ok. What is the ultimate confusion? (muscles sore tonight from wheelbarrowing all afternoon!)

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 5:45 AM

          May be the ultimate confusion is NOTHING… storm in a tea cup. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 10:29 AM

          Vinaire: May be the ultimate confusion is NOTHING.

          Chris: Hmmm, interesting. For sure it’s the ultimate conjecture! Shame on you, you know that’s unknowable!

          Seriously, even the word “conjecture” breaks down over “nothing.” (Starting to sound like ‘who’s on first?’) Nothing can’t even be conjectured about as by definition there cannot be incomplete data about it, there can only be no data about it. Only unknowable is unknowable if that, but we just don’t know!

          I think about the giant intellects who built the knowledge base on which we operate. When banged up against impossibly wrong ideas about the world, I know they moved forward resolving inconsistencies resulting in epiphanies.

          Kurt Godel is teaching me. Teaching me day after day that the universe is incomplete and in our mortal state, so are we. The idea that there is unknowable seems to demonstrate that to me. Godel teaches me that we live in a system and that by definition this system is incomplete. We can have consistent science within this universe but it will never resolve what it points to outside this universe.

          I’ve changed my mind about unknowable. We should use it sparingly and reverently and not misuse it or abuse it or take it lightly. We should never say it flippantly! Once again: NOTHING IS UNKNOWABLE; and EVERYTHING IS KNOWABLE.

          Now say it! Say this is axiomatic. hahaha

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM

          Ha ha ha! You got it, my friend. 🙂

          And I got it too. That is the joke of all jokes.

          This is like hiding in broad daylight.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM

    In response to Spyros:

    If one is concerned about the misuse of Scientology in the Church of Scientology, then one should also be concerned about the misuse of Scientology on Geir’s blog.

    There is plenty of misuse there in terms of deliberate evaluation and invalidation.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM

    In response to Spyros:

    To me, ‘spiritual’ is not something mysterious or subjective.. It is simply the software on which human beings run.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM

    In response to the situation between Chris and Marildi:

    Nobody should be trying to determine the path for another. In their enthusiasm with their own wins, or conditioning, Scientologists try hard to determine the path for others by evaluating for them, and invalidating them if they disagree. This is as far from granting of beingness as one can get.

    I see Marildi doing that and Chris reacting to it.

    Granting beingness means seeing things as they are. You allow others to be what they are. You do not try to modify other people’s behavior to what you think they should be like. The ideal scene would be to help others work on what they see as inconsistencies. These may not be the same inconsistencies that you see.

    Proselytizing others, as Christians and Scientologists love to do, goes against granting of beingness. Instead one should simply follow one’s own belief and be a worthy example of one’s faith. If others see it and like it on their own accord then provide them with the knowledge they seek. But no knowledge should be enforced, especially by making others wrong for thinking differently.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM

    In response to debate on criticism of Scientology:

    I think that every worthwhile subject is worthy of criticism. This debate seems to be about whether Scientology should be criticized or not. Who is worthy of criticizing it and who is not? To me it is a waste of time.

    What would be worthwhile is to pick out an inconsistency with respect to Scientology and discuss it non-judgmentally. If it is not an inconsistency for somebody then it could be explained.

    Trouble comes when the discussion moves from the subject to secondary issues, such as people’s training, qualifications, intentions, etc. The discussion is then derailed.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    A look at a statement:

    “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.”

    I agree with Alanzo that this is a false statement. It is actually obvious when one looks at people around one non-judgmentally.

    This statement basically serves to introvert a person looking at how he caused what happened to him. It causes him to dig into his mind unnecessarily. It goes against the 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS.

    Also this statement sounds absolute. What is missing here is the definition of a person. A person is basically “an isolated group of considerations that are tightly interrelated.” Such considerations simply operate like a very sophisticated computer program in response to inputs. There is no perceptible cause.

    The whole range of reactive to analytic is simply the aspects of this program. There are no separate Reactive and Analytic minds as theorized in Dianetics and Scientology. The whole gradient from extremely reactive to extremely analytic depends on how the considerations are interrelated.

    There is no entity beyond this programming that acts as the “Cause”. Any idea of self is part of this programming.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    Being extremely logical does not necessarily translate as being intelligent.

    It may translate as being nit-picking to extreme..


  • vinaire  On February 20, 2013 at 5:57 AM

    On the state of Clear in Scientology

    If a person has no control on the State of Clear then it is not a State of Clear.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:04 AM

    This is in response to Spyros:

    Individuality in SCN is only 1st Dynamic. According to LRH one IS all 8 Dynamics. If one allowed his 1st to hinder ARC with all the rest, it wouldn’t be alligned with SCN philosophy. I understand there can be misunderstanding/misapplication of the philosophical principles –that is very common.

    I’m not implying the only reason one would misunderstand/misapply is a misunderstood word. There is something above that, and that is what one duplicates in this universe (others would say ‘in his mind’). I know people that have read similar stuff as myself have understood completely different things, as they combine them with different ideas that they have. So, I cannot claim that I am right over them. But I’m certain that SCN was not meant to empower ego nor the group (such as in the case of the SO, that was more important than all). It is a balanced thing. All dynamics are equally important.


    When we talk about individuality of Scientology Axiom #1, we are talking about a much more basic concept of discreteness, rather than the concept of First Dynamic.

    It is digital versus continuous. That is the dichotomy being looked at here. It is the digital popping out of something continuous. It is the appearance of a manifestation. It is what creates separation and space.

    Scientology Axiom #1 institutionalizes this discreteness as being fundamental. I question that. It is just one half of a dichotomy, which is being assumed by Hubbard as the basis of everything.

    This is a false assumption.


    • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:10 AM

      NOTE: Chris, you may direct Spyros on Geir’s Blog to the response above. Let’s see what he comes up with.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:20 AM

    In response to Maria:

    Marildi, you wanted the reference for the materials on responsibility. It is from Advanced Procedures and Axioms, the 14th Act:

    “DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

    “There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from in order to effect randomity but is descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated” data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable. One does not send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the cause of its tolling.

    There is a scale of responsibility between full responsibility and full other responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of full responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.”


    Here responsibility is being perceived from a perception point that is beyond the filter of SURVIVAL and its dynamics.

    This is not the responsibility from the viewpoint of an individual (first dynamic). The individual of first dynamic is an aspect of the filter of survival.


    • Marianne Toth  On March 1, 2013 at 3:58 PM

      True. The definition could also be the definition for what happens in nondual perceiving. (with no filter)

  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    Looks like GPM addresses two opposites. The ultimate in two opposites are the basic dichotomies, such as, Good-Evil, Survive-Succumb, One-Many, Digital-Continuous, etc.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    In response to Maria:

    How does one forsake individuality? That doesn’t make sense. Individuality does not disappear when one agrees with another completely. There is simply a larger individuality. When two drops merge, there is a larger drop. The individuality is still there.

    So, I wonder what Hubbard’s idea of individuality is. Is individuality some unique consideration that one forsakes? Or is individuality something with a boundary, which keeps it separate.

    To me, individuality is like a doughnot hole as described in PERCEPTION & KNOWLEDGE. Here the doughnut is a system of tightly knit considerations. Two doughnuts may merge into a larger doughnut. A universe is probably an all encompassing doughnut called EXISTENCE.

    The only way the individuality can be forsaken is by dissolving the doughnut (the system of closely knit considerations) altogether.

    Hubbard seems to be looking at individuality as a unique doughnut of a certain color and size. To him losing that color and size would be the forsaking the individuality. Individuality does not exist outside of MEST.

    This is where Hubbard fails to understand Buddha and the concept of Nirvana. Nirvana is not some single source. Nirvana is the dissolution of that doughnut. Individuality is a mirage to start with. It is the doughnut hole.

    If there are a lot of individualities, it means there are lot of doughnut holes. Individuality is not lost when they merge into each other or with the universe. There is simply a larger doughnut, and a larger doughnut hole.

    All that auditing is doing is resolving the inconsistencies within that system of tightly knit considerations. It loosens and simplifies those considerations until they are ultimately dissolved completely. This does not happen when one is tightly holding on to a consideration of individuality.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    in response to Maria:

    Of course, there is neither one no many sources of life. Individualities are just clumps of considerations that dissolve individually without affecting other clumps What they dissolve into is unknowable, or Brahma, which has no attributes or characteristics.

    Auditing, when taken all the way should serve to dissolve the tightly knit considerations, which give the impression of individuality. However, auditing seems to stop at a point where the clump of considerations is happily consistent within itself.

    It is consistent but not complete. 🙂


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 5:51 PM

    in response to Maria:

    ” It is notable that he considered existence as a human being to be a great boon and opportunity for liberation.”


    Apparently, life evolves until intelligence enters at the upper echelon of this evolution. It is like the development of a mental-physical system to a point that it can start influencing itself. Human existence is that state. It is the result of millions of years of evolution.

    A macromolecule has the capability of supporting very primitive computing circuits. As these macromolecules combine, the circuits multiply and the computing capability evolves. At first this computing capability is reactive; but as the structure improves, more sophisticated computing abilities emerge. There must come a point where the computations start influencing the structure itself. This would be the point where life emerges out of chemical reactions.

    So, the first phase of evolution seems to be from inanimate to self-animated structure. In the second phase of the evolution, the computing ability as well as the structure evolves much more rapidly. Whatever level the computing ability is at, it is influencing the structure toward supporting more sophisticated computations.

    A breakthrough seems to occur at the level of mammals where where the computations become able to spot and resolve inconsistencies beyond individual and in the communal existence.

    Further computing abilities seems to emerge at human level where the computations seem to venture into the dimension of abstraction and are able to model and address inconsistencies at deeper levels.


    To summarize, the basis of evolution appear to be spotting and resolving of inconsistencies. This has been going on from the inanimate level of simple chemical reactions to the emergence of life as a self-motivated structure, to the emergence of self-motivated social life, to the scientific intelligence capable of modeling at higher and higher abstract levels. Inconsistencies may now be resolved at much deeper levels. That is what seems to be happening.


  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM

    In response to Marildi

    Marianne, here are the definitions from the Tech Dict. I’ll try to find a reference that adds more to these.

    STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time,and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero.(5410CM06) …


    Per the above definition, the static is ‘something’. It is zero only in terms of MEST. It is not zero in terms of something else and that would be consideration. So, the static is a consideration.

    How does the consideration of Static come about?

    This is the same age old question. “Who created God?” Hubbard simply said, “God created the physical universe. God is not physical.” This does not add anything new at the fundamental level. It also does not answer the fundamental questions.

    Hubbard simply provided a new covering, but no fundamental answers.


  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 10:10 PM

    On Geir’s site I am still under moderation. On

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    2013-02-23 AT 02:35
    What makes you most irritable?



    I guess I irritate the hell out of him. Well his irritation is directly proportional to his ego. He is resisting like hell to the idea of “Unknowable”. Ha ha.

    Geir is responsible for his condition. He may blame me for it though.


    • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 7:23 AM

      Finally Geir responded to my question as follows:

      Arrogance, intolerance and insistence that others are wrong.


      To me a highly developed person would be very patient with such follies in others. A person who is getting irritated is being controlled by the other person. Such a person is reacting and blaming the other person for his own condition.

      This is the kind of non-confront, or inability to handle, which has brought about the concepts of SP/PTSs in Scientology.

      There are no SPs and PTSs. There are only behaviors that the technology of Scientology is unable to handle. Scientology is not as workable as it is made out to be.

      Anybody can pick low hanging fruits. What Scientology has produced as results, is nothing new. Such results are being produced in abundance in the east through Vipassana meditation and similar technologies. What Scientology has done is to apply PR technology and make a lot of money out of promoting such results. But these are low hanging fruits.

      But when when the push comes to shove, Scientology can only respond by declaring people to be SPs and PTSs. This is simply an admission of failure by Scientology in my eyes.

      So, Geir, in feeling irritated by Vinaire, and repeatedly putting “Vinaire” on vacation on his blog, is simply admitting his inability to deal with Vinaire and his ideas.


      NOTE: My responses to Geir on his blog are continued to be moderated. It is not because I am obnoxious. It is simply because Geir feels that his “OT 8 status” might be unmocked by my responses.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 5:55 AM

    In response to Chris

    Al: crickets

    Chris: If only you could go back in time and re-do the Tony Hitchman interview. What would that look like?


    The idea of STATIC replaces GOD in Scientology. “Who created STATIC?” is unanswered. In Hubbard’s view there are many STATICS with each STATIC being the essence of each individual (THETAN). Hubbard talks about “co-existence of Static” as a level where all individualities exist together. He heavily resists the idea of the individualities being formed out of some single reality.

    There may not be some prior “single reality” such as GOD, which is an idea based on the assumption that there must be a prior Cause. But Hubbard subscribes to that assumption as recorded in his FACTOR # 1.

    Essentially, Hubbard is saying that each individual is his own God but we don’t know how that God comes about. Hubbard doesn’t want to look beyond this point. This makes Scientology POLYTHEISTIC.

    This is like saying that each “Doughnut Hole” has been there forever.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      Yesterday I was thinking how LRH, even in a theatrical scene with total control over the interview questions, Tony Hitchman, etc., still comes across so smarmy and condescending that when watching himself, it must have been apparent to him. Thus this interview in my opinion was an important reason why LRH made firm policy to never ever give interviews to the press. He blamed the press for the way in which he comes across. I did a quick google to find the complete Hitchman interview and only posted that clip because it was what I found. I wasn’t really trying to show LRH’s opinion of God — even in this short clip, he is disingenuous.

      In 1991, When David Miscavige blatantly violated this policy by giving the Nightline interview to Ted Koppel , I was gobsmacked! That was the first time I remember being jolted into wondering about the firm foundation of Scientology leadership. I thought, “That’s a ‘know-best’.”

      LRH never had the nerve to do this and David Miscavige shouldn’t have either. DM’s responses to Ted Koppel are so lame and inconsistent that in retrospect, I imagine that I can see him channeling LRH.

      • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        I see the same characteristics in how Geir runs his blog. He cannot stomach any criticism or disagreement. He is disingenuous and loves strutting like a peacock. He is vary controlling of communications on his blog. All the “discussions” there are so lame that I have lost my interest in that blog.

        I am going to stop following that blog and focus on KHTK research.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM

    The principle of ARC in Scientology is inconsistent because it postulates a “co-existence of Static” as its ultimate.

    What does “coexistence of Static” mean. It seems to mean two different individualities co-existing. For this differentiation to be there space must exist. Thus, in Hubbard’s model, space never goes to zero because no merging takes place.

    Hubbard is basically saying that two drops of water can co-exist without merging into each other.

    Self-contradiction? Inconsistency?


    • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Kurt Godel keeps teaching me. And here’s one beauty of it. Hubbard’s construct can be perfectly consistent within itself. I think that consistency is self defining. One only gets into trouble when they try to apply it to a world view outside its own world view, the world view of Hubbard. Take a look at this statement and see how that looks to you.

      • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

        It is like eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. 🙂


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 7:43 AM

    In response to Geir

    I think there are no purpose for the past other than keeping it there for the purpose of the future. I believe purposes for the future are generated by the individual, but that there is a basic purpose of the creation of an effect (a definition of a cause).


    Didn’t Hubbard say, “Cause is motivated by future.”

    Doesn’t this mean, “No future = no cause.”

    To me this whole idea of Cause is a construct. This is not the basic truth. For a manifestation to come about it is not necessary that there be a cause. A manifestation, such as, an intuition, may occur spontaneously without any logical cause being there.

    It is a fixation that for a manifestation to occur a prior cause must be there. The whole idea of “individuality” is based on this assumption.

    There is no prior Cause as declared by FACTOR #1.

    The ultimate truth is not individuality as declared by SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM #1.


    NOTE: My responses to Geir on his blog are continued to be moderated. It is not because I am obnoxious. It is simply because Geir feels that his “OT 8 status” might be unmocked by my responses.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 8:01 AM

    In response to Geir’s Blog:

    2013-02-23 AT 07:36
    I haven’t figured out why a person attacks so much. Can you tell me?
    2013-02-23 AT 11:57
    I believe it comes from a deep-felt disharmony to what they hold as truth.
    Marianne Toth
    2013-02-23 AT 12:47
    Like! (desires, values…hm. deep issue)


    An individuality is simply the “doughnut hole” isn’t it? The doughnut is made up of those considerations (desires, values…hm. deep issue). Ha, ha!

    What is Geir?
    What is Vinaire?
    What is Marianne?

    These is just a bunch of tightly knit considerations separate from each other.

    Scientology became popular within countries with western ideologies only. Why? Because the western ideology worships individuality. Scientology simply resonated with that ideology by making individuality AXIOM #1.

    Scientology now appears rotten, but what is really rotten is this fixation on individuality. One cannot blame Scientology without also blaming the western cultural fixation on individuality.

    Geir may distance himself from Scientology, but he may find it much more difficult to distance himself from his cultural fixation on individuality.


    NOTE: My responses to Geir on his blog are continued to be moderated. It is not because I am obnoxious. It is simply because Geir feels that his “OT 8 status” might be unmocked by my responses.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 9:02 AM

    Like Scientology, Geir Isene appears to be very sensitive to being criticized, while he freely engages in criticism of others.

    This is a huge inconsistency for a supposedly spiritually developed person.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 9:46 AM

    My responses on Geir’s Blog are not just in moderation queue, they seem to be deleted now.

    I seem to be on a permanent vacation from Geir’s blog. Great!

    Non-confront? From an OT 8? Wow!


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    There goes the sham of allowing free communication on Geir’s Blog.

    It is not obnoxiousness or arrogance on my part. It is simply the inability on Geir’s part to face the challenge that my ideas bring forth.

    Here is an OT 8 with feet of clay.


    feet of clay noun

    1. a weakness or hidden flaw in the character of a greatly admired or respected person: He was disillusioned to find that even Lincoln had feet of clay.

    2. any unexpected or critical fault.


  • Brian  On February 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    I don’t know why you expect anything out of the ordinary from an “OT 8”.

    • vinaire  On February 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

      One would ordinarily have a lot of expectations from an OT 8 with the hype that surrounds it.


  • vinaire  On March 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    Hi Marianne,

    Thank you for your recent responses. I am leaving tomorrow on a trip to India. I may check on my blog during the trip.

    See ya,

    • Chris Thompson  On March 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM

      Have fun Vinay. Take photos and do something on your bucket list!

      • vinaire  On March 2, 2013 at 5:08 AM

        Thank you, Chris. What have you been up to lately?


        • Chris Thompson  On March 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM

          Poured my last big batch (13-1/2 yards) of concrete last weekend. Next, I’ve got to get around to building a patio cover . . . I must be getting toward the end of my home improvements list pretty soon.

        • vinaire  On March 2, 2013 at 8:15 AM

          Ah! You are young and feisty.


        • Chris Thompson  On March 2, 2013 at 8:25 AM

          Vin: Ah! You are young and feisty.

          Chris: I am old and have a crew, but at least by the way I use the word “I” when I write, you can see that I am fixated on the Self !

          Can you give a little itinerary of your trip? Will you do exotic things or just visit or what? (I must live vicariously through you)

        • vinaire  On March 2, 2013 at 8:34 AM

          In India, Jyoti and I shall be spending time with our families. We shall be going to my Alma Mater (Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur) to attend a 3 days reunion of my engineering college mates after 50 years. There are all kind of programs at the institute.

          In Myanmar we have the following:
          10 Mar
          Arr. Yangon and transfer to Summit Parkview Hotel (Dlx) for overnight.
          11 Mar
          YGN/HHO by W9 119 (10:30-11:40).
          Transfer to Inle Khaung Daing Resort (Cottage Dlx) for 2 nights.
          Fullday touring in Inle Lake with tour guide.
          12 Mar
          Indein village excursion and Inle Lake sightseeings with tour guide.
          13 Mar
          Transfer to the airport to take HHO/MDY by W9 119 (11:55-12:25).
          Transfer to Ayeyarwaddy Riverview Hotel (Dlx) for overnight.
          Continue fullday touring in Mandalay with tour guide.
          14 Mar
          Transfer to the airport to take MDY/NYU by W9 205 (07:40-08:10) .
          Transfer to Thande Hotel (Dlx) for overnight.
          Continue touring in Bagan with tour guide.
          15 Mar
          Fullday touring in Bagan and take NYU/YGN by W9 211(18:25-19:45).
          Transfer to Summit Parkview Hotel (Dlx) for overnight.
          16 Mar
          Transfer to the airport for your departure flight at 06:30.

          On our way back we shall be spending a couple of days in DOHA, Qatar shopping and sight seeing.


        • Chris Thompson  On March 2, 2013 at 9:12 AM

          Wow! I am so envious! It seems that you are no longer “good for nothing!”

        • vinaire  On March 2, 2013 at 9:46 AM

          My wife is very happy when I cooperate with her travel plans.


        • Chris Thompson  On March 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

          Yayyy! You are a good husband!

        • vinaire  On March 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM

          LOL! They is no other choice.


    • Marianne Toth  On March 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM

      Hi Vin,
      Have a nice trip and enjoy each minute of it! I “think” of you a lot! Will come here again!
      LOVE marianne

      • vinaire  On March 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        Hello Marriane. Just arrived here in Doha, Qatar. My flight to Delhi, India leaves in a couple of hours. I shall be responding to comments on this blog.

  • Chris Thompson  On March 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    . . . or while waiting, you could get your wife drunk and then try to take advantage of her!

  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 6:12 AM

    I am put on moderation on Geir’s Blog again. So, I think it is time to stop wasting my time there. I make great progress on my own blog with my mindful friends.


    • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 6:24 AM

      Geir accuses me of making snide comments. I think he sees himself in me. He himself is snide as hell. He has quite an “OT 8” filter going.

      He is not out of Scientology’s shadow yet.



      • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 6:43 AM

        Part of “OT 8 filter” is:

        “I am an OT. I don’t want anybody stealing my thunder.”

        Hubbard had this filter.


      • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 10:02 AM

        Several commenters on Geir’s blog clash with Geir or the other commenters, get irritated by that, leave and swear off. Later renege and come back then back and forth. To me, this seems like energy wasted and opportunities missed.

        Not one of us who were in the cult of Scientology are out of its shadow. Will we ever be? No more than the DNA of early man will ever be out of our genetic code.

        I blog for the stimulating questions and propositions which prompt my imagination. That is why I spend so much time with you and with Geir.

        When egos clash, I don’t think the sound which emerges is ever the sound of “one ego clapping.” Except in the case of me and Marildi, in which case it is only her ego and not mne which is inflamed! hahaha!

        • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 10:48 AM

          The following policy keeps the ego in check, and that includes my own ego.

          Discussions and what needs to be avoided

          Geir and Marildi violate this policy at the drop of a hat. There is no check on Geir’s blog.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 11:21 AM

          If and when our communications of our opinions are not well received, it seems that mindfulness can quell the acid reflux associated with such clashes.

        • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 11:24 AM

          Mindfulness means looking at bullying as bullying and taking action to stop it, or just leave.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 12:54 PM

          I’m not sure there is a pat protocol for this. On this topic, being comfortable with oneself seems to be of overriding importance to me. After that, it seems that controversial minutia can tend to slip away, can be allowed to simply drop. It’s only blogging after all.

        • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

          Yes, ultimately one needs to be consistent within oneself to the best of one’s ability. This time I have decided not to pull any punches.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM

          It seems that you might let Marildi’s comments, etc., simply stand on their own without response. Most writers there seem to have her comments well in hand. She has really become the poster-girl for what can be accomplished by being a Scientologist, so for me, ’nuff said. Even if I interact, my comments to her are not only for her but for others. I just hate to see you chop off this line with Geir as except with these clashes when the comments go wide from the OP, your presence there is valuable for me and provides a balancing counterpoint that helps me think.

        • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM

          I can’t respond to you on Geir’s blog because he has me under moderation again. So, I shall be responding to you here.


        • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM


        • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM

          Geir’s problem is that he feels that I am exploiting his blog by putting links on it to my blog. That idea is a games condition that belongs only in his head.

          What’s wrong with pooling knowledge? You don’t have any such feeling when I put links to my blog on your blog.

          What am I doing to harm Geir’s blog. What is he trying to protect?

          The only conclusion I come up with that he feels that I am stealing his thunder. And that is plain play of ego.


    • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM

      My following response on Geir’s blog is under moderation. Let’s see if it show’s up.

      Putting Marildi’s argument in proper perspective with Goedel, all Scientology axioms may be consistent, but they are not complete.

      Scientology axiom #1 is a theoretical conjecture only and it has no basis in fact. It is the traditional “God” postulate in a new garb. It is an attempt to make “God” look more scientific. But it cannot be sustained logically.

      From mindfulness perspective, one should start with what is obviously there. This has led me to the first chapter of my book as follows:


      CHAPTER 1: Objective and Subjective

      “The existence in us of psychic life, i.e., of sensations, perceptions, conceptions, reasoning, feeling, desires etc., and the existence of the world outside of us—from these two fundamental data immediately proceed our common and clearly understood division of everything that we know into subjective and objective.”

      ~ TERTIUM ORGANUM, ~ P.D. Ouspensky.


      Is reality truly that which is objective? Is reality falsely colored by what is subjective?

      Objectivity is generally defined as “the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject‘s individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.”

      Subjectivity is generally defined as “the condition of being a subject and the subject’s perspective, experiences, feelings, beliefs, and desires.”

      A subject is an observer whereas an object is a thing observed. Objectivity means perceiving an object for what it is. Subjectivity means adding distortion or color to what is there.

      The ultimate definition of objectivity is given by Kant as “thing-in-itself,” This theoretical absolute in objectivity is beyond sense perception because even the very act of perceiving seems to shape our experience of things.

      We shall never know the object, which is there, in an absolute sense. Our perception will always be subjective to some degree.

      To objectively understand what is really there, we should observe things as they are without known assumptions, expectations, or speculations. In addition, we should always remain alert for unknown subjectivity, and make corrections for that subjectivity wherever it is found.

      This is mindfulness.

      LINK: Reality & Mindfulness


  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 8:43 AM

    The following is an interesting comment by Chris Thompson on Geir’s Blog:


    Hi deE, Marildi views our discussions as an ongoing debate on Scientology — something which can be won. I don’t see what we are doing on our blogs in that same way. I mostly inquire from the viewpoint of I don’t know and then when I debate a point, I mean to exploit any weakness in the point and not the person. When I slip up and get snarky or go after a person, I regret it.

    As an example, the discussion on Axiom 1 of Scientology has been very well worn out with Axiom 1 being shown to be fallacious outside the metes and bounds of Scientology. Yet Marildi asks Vin whether he can name any inconsistencies in the axioms of Scientology. This is not a sincere inquiry on her part but an attempt to draw Vin into an emotional and fallacious argument as she does not look at these inconsistencies and address or confront them as they are presented. Vin has his issues too but sticks to his research and his output in this area is impressive. Yes, he still makes pronouncements a bit condescending at times, but it is just his style and culture and do not seem to faze his ability to review and correct or begin again even after going quite a ways down a particular line of thinking. Additionally, this is a defensive posture as when he is in a safer environment such as on his or my blog, he doesn’t really do this at all. When he is unhappy with the consistency of his work, he scraps it and begins again. In this regard, he has really earned my respect as he has scrapped mountains of writing and begun again, several times this year. Not many writers have the heart to go to this much trouble. Also, Vin is very forthcoming and honest about himself and experiences in Scientology whereas Marildi is still in the closet. She is in the closet out of a fear of something which would be for her to explain. Saying that may sound mean, maybe its mean. Marildi has shown for an years that she is not inquiring into Scientology as she already knows that Scientology is correct. Her comments and references are in the form of proving Scientology and Hubbard to be consistent and the best method for improving humans no matter the evidence to the contrary. Her misunderstanding is over the difference between the consistency of Scientology within the bubble of Scientology vs. the inconsistency of Scientology when viewed from outside the bubble of Scientology. What she is doing that is wrong is trying to apply Scientology outside its own frame of reference and she refuses to believe that someone like me can understand what she is talking about and grant that Scientology is consistent within its own self defined context.

    Vinaire is a new and improved Vinaire with a lot to contribute. Marildi has my respect as an excellent researcher and writer with a lot to contribute but until her brainwashed status of true believer in Scientology is modified, her comments here aside from here friendly social comments are going to be mostly ignored as Scientology is quickly falling into the category of old hat. I and a few others have moved on with our thinking. I didn’t want to go on so long about this but just kept typing. Guilty of excessive typing on a computer.


    • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM

      Both Geir and Marildi try to exploit the weakness in the person and not the weakness in the point being discussed. That is how they try to win their point.

      This is typical of how Hubbard behaved, and it seems to be built into Scientology.

      The following policy of discussions cuts right through it.

      Discussions and what needs to be avoided

      This policy is deadly for a Scientology mindset.


  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 2:06 PM

    Geir has been calling me snide while being snide himself. He didn’t like it when his snideness was pointed out to him.

    Geir wants to force politeness on his blog. Anything forced is not natural. Politeness will come naturally when the focus is on the topic of discussion and not on participants.

    Geir can never achieve politeness on his blog by forcing it by decree. He will only generate sycophants, or people who are limited in their expression because they have to mind their p’s and q’s. That hinders free thought.


    • Chris Thompson  On June 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      I understand your comments and agree that sincere politeness cannot be decreed, but not why the discussion on Geir’s is setting your teeth on edge.

      • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 4:58 PM

        It is not a one time thing. Please see below.


  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 4:53 PM

    This is in response to the following from Chris Thompson:

    More than Marildi, who comes across insincere to me is Geir. I met him in Oslo, Norway. My wife is a good observer of people.

    When my wife found that Geir has broken from his wife, she was shocked. When we were in Oslo, Geir talked about his wife in most glowing terms. How wonderful his family and children were and how much he loved them etc. Then right after his divorce, he just talked about his new girlfriend in most glowing terms. He no longer had much to say about his ex-wife. His glowing references to his girlfriend must have hurt his ex-wife quite a bit. The children are there but he no longer talks about them as he did before. Looks like children spend most of their time with his ex-wife. What seems to be important to Geir is he himself and his current interests.

    At one time Geir wanted to go with me to India. But when the time came he had conveniently forgotten all about it. That made me wonder how sincere his earlier enthusiasm was. There are other indicators that make me doubt his sincerity. He seemed to praise KHTK at one time, sort of did recently too, but he has hardly ever commented on my blog positively, or participated in discussions there. That makes me raise my eyebrows about his sincerity for his praise for KHTK and mindfulness. Is he really interested in exploring the mind, spirit, free will, etc., as he seems to claim?

    What is more important to him are the statistics of his blog. He sees me as a competitor. What about knowledge? What about cooperation?

    Geir seems to place value on knowledge based on its source. Can he evaluate knowledge for itself? I wonder. He would not give any value to discussion policy simply because I wrote it. He has never commented on it. This tells me that he is shallow in his understanding. He is more of a PR personality. He has some other axe to grind.

    What I have observed about Geir is that he is skilled in making people feel good about themselves by supporting their ego when it serves his purpose, and then simply cutting them off, or putting them down, as it serves his purpose. Sincerity has a sort of consistency to it. I don’t find that consistency in Geir.

    Bottom line of what bothers me about Geir is that he is insincere. He has demonstrated that to me in many ways.


  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    Chris, I can trust you and Rafael completely, but I can’t trust Geir. I can trust Maria to some degree too, but I shall reserve my final judgment about her.


  • vinaire  On June 8, 2013 at 5:15 PM

    Right now Geir is monitoring me tightly on his blog. Where things stand, I have to deal with his considerations fully first before I respond to others on his blog.


  • Nic  On November 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

    Hello Vin . , Geir was wrong to use that term.
    Could clarify the subject and so on. I have a blog
    Their humus. For example, if you take one of their leader and
    give him a fool , you have the effect of ‘ herd ‘ . your
    hahahaha blog is especially stinging to exscn .
    Often there is any purpose or ‘ obnossisti ‘ using a
    filter, an ‘ off ‘ , data, principles , etc. . What is true,
    real and reality, addressed to themselves, is avoided .
    Okay , materials of scn , it is useful from the date.
    The materials of the cos as you know, are often altered.
    I just provide address other blogs, exchange.
    Even Ron , without other people , who have discovered
    many important pieces of tech , would have done little .
    Now I am studying Trom . It ‘ an example of help.
    In the blog workabletechnology , they found that
    the EG living many years with the same Spirit . Ron said
    that changes each life. And ‘ interesting to see how
    have come to this discovery.
    I ‘m looking mainly based on tech .
    I found various things , there is a fundamental error
    on how Ron did Dn and scn . And ‘ the reactive mind ,
    only that life does not work that way.
    Well, after you have cut all ties with cos ,
    decades ago, I started slowly doing research.
    Who knows one day comm . , These small discoveries .
    Before the test course.
    Good search . Nic ARC infinity .

  • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM

    It is interesting to see how Geir is interpreting my recent posts on his blog

    It is the same old violation of discussion policy there. I guess nothing more needs to be said there.


    • vinaire  On November 30, 2013 at 6:17 PM

      Logic can be a trap. One can be very logical while operating on assumptions. It is mindfulness that continually watches for assumptions, but not logic.


%d bloggers like this: