Response to Communications on other Blogs

freedom-of-expression

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.

Comments

  • 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
    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29337

    .

    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?”

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29338

    .

    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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29346

    Maria:
    “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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29346

    Maria:
    – 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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29346

    Maria:
    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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29346

    Maria:
    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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29348

    Maria:
    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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29348

    Maria:
    – 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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29348

    Maria:
    – 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

    http://isene.me/2013/02/11/my-scientology-enigma/#comment-29636

    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

    http://isene.me/2013/02/11/my-scientology-enigma/#comment-29597

    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

    http://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/#comment-29651

    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

    http://isene.me/2013/02/11/my-scientology-enigma/#comment-29800

    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

      Vin
      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

    http://isene.me/2013/02/11/my-scientology-enigma/#comment-29532

    .

    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 take.like 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:

    http://isene.me/2013/02/13/scientology-results/#comment-30002

    “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:

    .
    vinaire
    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.

    .

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

    .

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

    .

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

    .

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

    .

    vinaire
    I question your ability to judge bad manners.

    .

    isene
    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.

    .

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

    .

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

    .

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

    .

    isene
    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

    .

%d bloggers like this: