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.


%d bloggers like this: