Home Page (Old)

woman_park

New Blog: vinairemath

Education

E-Learning

Holes in Understanding

Logic and Understanding

The First Hole in Understanding

The Second Hole in Understanding

Relativity and the Problem of Space

Disturbance Theory of Space

Origins of Uncertainty principle – Possible Flaw

Calculus and the Concept of Space

Quantum Mechanics and Space

What is a Quantum in Physics?

What is Quantum Field Theory?

Location in Space

Space, Field & Matter

Particles in Space

THE FIELD

The Boundary of Space

Objectivity of Space & Time

Viewpoint & Objectivity

Speed of Light (Revision 1)

Logical Consistency

Wave Function Collapse (Part 3)

KHTK Mindfulness

Mindfulness Exercises

Solving Real-Life Problems

Scientology versus KHTK

The Quest for Certainty

The Logics

The Logical Structure of the Universe

Metaphysics and Physics

The Core of Metaphysics

Mathematics of Space and Location

Shankar, Ramamurti. Principles of Quantum Mechanics

Griffiths’ “Quantum Mechanics”

.

Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM

    There is an important conversation with George W. White that I would like to link here.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310521.

    “George, Buddha understood exteriorization better than Hubbard ever did. Hubbard simply interiorized people into their self.”

    This is true and I have spent a lot of time researching this. Mindfulness is, in my opinion, not really exteriorization in the sense that Hubbard meant it. Hubbard was talking about a spiritual self, a thetan, going exterior to the body. This is why he makes the mistake of implying that Buddha did not see all of the truth. You are correct. Buddha saw more truth than Hubbard could ever expect to see because the Buddha looked at it from the perspective of “no self”. IMHO, Hubbard needed a quick grab on the subject of Buddhism and just simply interpreted it to suit his laws of theta and the spirit. No Buddhist in their right mind would follow Hubbard. I have discussed this with Theravada Buddhist monks. It is very clear that the Buddha NEVER said that there was anything like a thetan. Hubbard got these thetan ideas from Crowley.

    I read some discussion of the “reverse flow” by Marildi but I cannot get into that thread. Therefore, I will say my own opinion here. The “reverse flow” discussion is missing the point. In Buddhist terms, reality is impermanent and in a state of constant flux. (Please be advised that I do not follow the Tibetan style of Buddhism. You will find a different interpretation.)

    I have exteriorized in Scientology with full perceptions and I can tell you that it is totally unlike mindfulness. Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit. Mindfulness is really a framework or a base from which to activate right effort and right concentration. Hubbard was a “linear animal”. This means that he was looking at flows and reverse flows. This is a very difficult road to follow. He calls it “The Road to Truth”. Hubbard missed, in my opinion, the old Heraclitus idea. You are in a stream and it is flowing. You need to go upstream. Hubbard tries to direct the stream with his powerful thetan. Going “upstream” in Buddhism is difficult. It is not a “reverse flow”. It is in reality, the creation of a new reality which Hubbard totally missed.

    Kind Regards,
    GMW

    • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310528

      Valkov,

      You are correct in that the Discourses were written many hundreds of years after the passing of the Buddha. In fact, Karl Jaspers in his famous book doubts that the total truth will ever be known.
      All I can tell you is that millions of people have followed the Theravada tradition. The proof of the validity of the Dicourses is in the results of the practical application. I have read almost the entire teaching of the Buddha. In my opinion, it would have been impossible to screw it up. It is in the end so simple. We have a tradition in Theravada which includes many saints who have in modern times achieved the highest goal. You never hear about it because they do not announce it. It is against policy.

      In reality, IMHO, Buddhism is not a religion. It is a practical psychology. Please be advised that in Theravada we do not accept the Diamond Sutta. Also, there are many, many flavours of Buddhism. I like the Theravada flavour and stick to or grasp to it.

      Another point: the Buddha claimed that his teaching would only last 500 years. So it would have evaporated before Christ. Personally, I believe that it did evaporate. What is left is what a few monks wrote down. However, you might look at it as a path to purification which is what stayed in the Theravada tradition. We actually have a lot of fun; we know what you say about us. We do believe that the core of the Buddha’s teaching lives on. We live it.

      Kind Regards,
      George M. White

      .

      My answer to the above post from George is here.

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310606

      George, you are a very level headed person, and it is a joy discussing Buddhism with you.

      I have the background of Hinduism, which is a religion. Buddhism is eastern psychology and not a religion. My interest in Buddhism arose after I came across Scientology. My recognition of mindfulness came through Hubbard’s TR0. So, there is a lot for which I have to be thankful to Hubbard, but Hinduism helped me recognize that Hubbard was fixated on self, and Scientology was limited in that respect. I could see OT levels to be more of a fixation on self, so I did not take that route. Instead I took the route of Mindfulness.

      I have never studied Buddhism in detail to appreciate the differences between Therveda, Mahayana and Tibetan. I am glad that you are bringing up those differences in discussion with Valkov. I am basically a scientist and am interested in organizing the basics of knowledge. That is what I found attractive about Hubbard. In Scientology I loved the Study tech and Data Series.

      But Scientology was good to get me started. To me it has been like the kindergarten of “scientific spirituality”. There is much more out there than TR0, Study Tech, Data Series and Auditing. All that data needs to be organized “scientifically”. I now find Study Tech and Word Clearing to be very limited. It has a missing dimension that I have tried to incorporate in Subject Clearing on my blog. Please see

      Subject Clearing

      You can certainly help me in applying subject clearing (a form of mindfulness) to Buddhism. This is the only way that I think that I would be able to understand and organize what Buddha might have said.

      Thank you for being there.

      Much regards,
      Vinaire

      .

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310610

      I think that it is about time to conclude this discussion on Axiom #1. The discussion with Valkov has been quite enlightening. Here is my conclusion.

      Hubbard defined thetan as awareness of awareness unit. He was correct in narrowing everything down to awareness. All life starts with awareness. But beyond that he fictionalized a thetan.

      The correct scientific reasoning would have been as follows:

      (1) It is recognized that life starts with awareness.

      (2) Therefore, the dichotomy here would be “no awareness – awareness.”

      (3) Beyond awareness would be no awareness and any area beyond awareness would be unknowable.

      (4) We cannot tell if there is no life beyond awareness because that area is unknowable.

      (5) But we can use “absence of awareness” as a reference point of all awareness just like we use “zero” as a reference point for all numbers.

      (6) From this reference point the “Static” of Scientology, which refers to a specific type of individuality, would be a point of awareness.

      (7) Thus, “Static” of Scientiology is a variable in itself. It is not the reference point of all life as assumed by Hubbard.

      Q.E.D.
      .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

    Here is another conversation:

    GMW:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310524

    I need to clarify this:
    “Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”

    Buddha was directly asked by the monk Sati whether there was “an interval” at death where “self” continues. The Buddha said directly that he never taught that idea. Theravada and Tibetan and Mahayana differ in this regard. Tibetan have a between lives area which is not considered valid by Theravada. In exteriorization you would, in Theravada terms, be looking for a spirit that does not exist.

    In mindfulness in Theravada the spirit is not considered part of the process. So you are not looking for an immortal spirit. The Buddha was silent on the issue of the spirit as he considered it pointless to talk about it. Hubbard spoke millions of words about the spirit in theory. Buddha said do not talk about the spirit. Buddha said once you find the roots of craving and blow away your defilements, you will see the truth and you thus have no need for the idea of the spirit.

    Kind Regards,
    GMW

    .

    Vinaire:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310626

    George, let me make a few comments on INTERIORIZATION first.

    (1) Hubbard says, ”…interiorization means going into it too fixedly, and becoming part of it too fixedly. It doesn’t mean just going into your head. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13)”. Thus, according to this definition, one can be interiorized into the body, but one can also be interiorized into the self. Here self means “whatever one thinks one is.”

    (3) To me Hubbard’s THETA-MEST theory and the concept of STATIC and THETAN speak of a self-centric viewpoint. This, to me, leads to an interiorization into self.

    (4) Buddha’s Nirvana, essentially, is a release from fixation on self. At least that is how I understand it. Buddha achieved nirvana at the age of 35. He then lived up to the age of 80. During this period after nirvana, Buddha did have a body and a self, but he was simply not fixated on any of it.

    (5) Mindfulness, to me, is the practice of looking without fixations. This automatically makes one aware of fixations that one was not aware of before. As a person gives up his fixations one by one, he moves toward nirvana, and finally achieves nirvana.

    To me this is the simple Buddha technique. It leads to exteriorization from any fixation. This is what I have tried to explain on my blog. How does this compare to your understanding of Theravada Buddhism?

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310627

    GMW: “Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”

    I see exteriorization as “freedom from fixation.” Here I give credit to Hubbard for this insight. But I doubt if Hubbard had this insight himself, because he didn’t pursue it all the way.

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310628

    GMW: ”Buddha was directly asked by the monk Sati whether there was “an interval” at death where “self” continues. The Buddha said directly that he never taught that idea.”

    I can see why Buddha remained silent. My reasoning is as follows:

    (1) At death both self and body disintegrate.

    (2) We can understand the disintegration of body as becoming “dust”.

    (3) To me disintegration of self means that the overall awareness of self is no longer there.

    (4) It is like an overall computer program breaking down into sub-routines, sub-sub-routines, etc.

    (5) When there is no fixation on self, and in nirvana, the self simply evaporates after death.

    (6) No computer program, or its residues as sub-routines and sub-sub-routines, survives. So they do not carry over to the next body.

    (7) Buddha probably couldn’t find words to explain this. There were no computers in his time.

    So, George, how does this explanation compare to Theravada Buddhism? .

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310632

    GMW: ”Tibetan have a between lives area which is not considered valid by Theravada.”

    My reasoning is as follows:

    (1) At death both self and body disintegrate.

    (2) The body may ultimately disintegrate into molecules and atoms.

    (3) The self may ultimately disintegrate into electromagnetic patterns in space.

    (4) These atoms, molecules and electromagnetic patterns come together to make a new body and a new self.

    (5) A new body and self are very basic as patterns. They then grow by absorbing both material and patterns from its environment. But the basic pattern always remains there.

    (6) There is a between-lives area in terms of atoms, molecules and basic electromagnetic patterns. But there are no “souls” that compare to the living “selves”.

    (7) The self also disintegrates after death and does not survive as soul. There is no immortal self or soul.

    So, George, how does this explanation compare to Theravada Buddhism?

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310633

    GMW: “In exteriorization you would, in Theravada terms, be looking for a spirit that does not exist. In mindfulness in Theravada the spirit is not considered part of the process. So you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”

    That is correct.

    In exteriorization there is simply an absence of fixation. It has nothing to with immortality of spirit.

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310636

    GMW: “The Buddha was silent on the issue of the spirit as he considered it pointless to talk about it. Hubbard spoke millions of words about the spirit in theory. Buddha said do not talk about the spirit. Buddha said once you find the roots of craving and blow away your defilements, you will see the truth and you thus have no need for the idea of the spirit.”

    I can see why. the model created with form and essence explains it very well. When form is gone, the essence is gone too.

    There is no “absolute spirit” that remains.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 26, 2014 at 3:44 PM

    Here is a classic response from George to Marildi that I must keep a link to on my blog.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310561

    😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

    marildi,
    “It was clear from the excerpt taken from the correct transcript that LRH only said that Buddha had not gone down the whole road to truth and thus had not discovered the reverse flow. And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was vulnerable to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery – not original Buddhism.”

    This is very offensive to me as a Buddhist. You know that first LRH implied he was the Buddha and then he makes a false statement.

    The false statement is that he implies that he never walked the road to truth! You are missing so much information that it would be almost impossible to write it all down for you.

    First of the all, Buddha was only one of a series through the eons. Hubbard is again putting his foot deep, deep into his mouth because there were Buddha’s before Gotama.

    Second, Hubbard has no conception of what it takes to be a Buddha in terms of the qualities that must be developed.

    Third, the average person on the street would laugh at Hubbard for being so bold as to criticize the Buddha.

    Fourth, the Buddha speaks of a type of “reverse flow” in the Discourses which Hubbard probably never read. (As an aside, Hubbard confused Ananda – Buddha’s personal attendant – as his dialogue partner! ) In Buddhism, the end game of Nirvana is more important. Hubbard thought the thetan was the key. In Buddhism, it is mind and Hubbard never got that point.

    Fifth, Hubbard never accepted Nirvana so why does he even mention the Buddha? The answer is that he wants to USE the Buddha for his own ends.

    Sixth, there is no way that a Theravadin would accept that Buddha taught a “half truth”. The other half of what Hubbard thinks is the truth has its roots in Lucifer or in the Buddhist Mara which means “death”.

    Seventh, Buddha said quite plainly at least 200 hundred times that he only “taught the end of suffering ( Dukkha)”. Hubbard missed the point. If Buddha said he only taught the end of suffering, how could Hubbard accuse him of a half-truth?

    Eighth, Hubbard does not explain the interaction of the eight-fold path. He does not mention that English translations of Pali are next to useless. Hubbard knew no Pali; he read it in English with a high school diploma. He got it wrong.

    Ninth, almost all serious scholars agree that the enlightenment was a psychological experience. None that I know of would even agree with Hubbard on the exteriorization part. Hubbard also implied that he was the future Buddha or Matreya. What does Hubbard want? He wants to be Lucifer, Buddha and every key figure in the universe at the same time?

    Tenth, if I can get this to you I will feel happy with it all. To be a Buddha requires a lot of virtue.

    Did Hubbard have any at all? To be a Buddha he would need to be steeped in virtue. Lucifer does not cut it. This is not Hollywood.

    “And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was vulnerable to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery – not original Buddhism.”

    I do not agree with the above statement. Hubbard has taken Buddhism completely out of context. He is looking at it from a Western viewpoint.

    There is no way that a missing piece of truth can enslave people.

    Hubbard is being far, far too critical. He is using words that only we as Buddhists can use as tests for mindfulness, compassion and wisdom.

    I will chant for Hubbard. He will need it. His personal attacks on the Buddha are not good for his Kamma or Karma. May he be in peace.

    Kind regards,
    George M. White

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM

      That is a hard hitting comment from George to Marildi. We should not revel in such a well written put down, but it is hard not to enjoy it. Does my enjoyment of his comment violate the discussion policy? I hope not as I do not know how to un-enjoy it.

      • vinaire  On July 27, 2014 at 12:47 AM

        I think that Marildi needs to study more about Buddhism. George gave her a quick lesson.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2014 at 3:08 AM

          My comment meant as a joke. Marildi is a true seeker of confirmation bias only. Aside from this, there is no research at all. The marvelously puzzling thing to me is her staunch defense of her fragmented and deviant use of Scientology. Though she cuts and pastes volumes of L Ron Hubbard quotes, she seems oblivious of her overall disuse of the practice.

        • vinaire  On July 27, 2014 at 6:07 AM

          I wrote the following on Marty’s Blog

          “I have come to believe that Valkov and Marildi are operating on a
          “logic” very different from mine. So, one of the items on my list is to understand their specialized logic.”

          and

          “I think that Scientology does something to people’s logic circuits. It will be an interesting area to investigate.”

          I haven’t gotten any response back yet. I have gotten them to follow the Discussion Policy on Marty’s Blog.

  • vinaire  On July 27, 2014 at 2:48 AM

    Here is another response on Buddhism by George:

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310614

    val,
    “The main difference between the central Mahayana teachings and the Theravadan, that I am aware of, is in Mahayana there is a greater focus on the 3rd and 4th dynamics, in the concept of Bodhisattva service, while the among the Theravadans the focus is on individual salvation. Perhaps George can correct me if I’m wrong.”

    This is a fair statement while making comparisons.

    Buddha was criticized for not looking at the third and fourth dynamics even during his lifetime. In actual fact, about 25,000 people were killed in an attack on his hometown. Buddha was silent when he heard the news. Buddha responded to his critics by saying that each individual needed to dig deep into his or her mind. In the end, the one-by-one works best. Remember Buddhist time in long, long, and longer. There have been attempts in the Theravada school over the centuries to remedy this. They center on the application of the principles of greed, hatred, and delusion into a sort of “3rd and 4th dynamic mind”. Scholars follow a few threads scattered in some of the Discourses. In addition, Buddhist cosmology is extensive but some of the Suttas are of doubtful origin so it is not worth it to quote them. At any rate, we get a picture of a very compassionate Buddha in regard to families, nations, and mankind. I don’t think the Buddha would be in the Tea Party today.

    The major split into Mahayana from Theravada centered on the idea of how to be a Buddha. In the Theravada school, it is not necessary to be a Buddha to be a saint. The major disciples of the Buddha had psychic powers to varying degrees based on their past Karma or Kamma. None had all of the powers of the Buddha which were quite extensive. The devas or spirit gods pose an even greater challenge. In Mahayana there are powerful gods which are not even considered in Theravada. In Theravada these spirits are impermanent and even quite foolish.

    There is a lot of disagreement about Buddhism. On the other hand, I have been honored by a few people in giving me recently Yoga instructions and Yoga philosophy. It is actually closer to Theravada than Mahayana. I really enjoyed it and wish to thank them.

    Mahayana Buddhists like to call Theravada “the smaller vessel”. This is actually accepted by us because it implies focus. It would not be accurate to say that Theravadins focus on “personal salvation” because there is no self to save. I had an extensive conversation with a Tibetan monk on this subject. Tibetans are a unique blend of Buddhism.

    I am perfectly happy with Hubbard’s statement when I interpret it as “Buddha enslaved beings”. This is actually quite accurate. I do object to the wording which says “Hubbard saw a half-truth.” The key is in the Buddhist notion of beings. Hubbard had this permanent idea while we do not. It is a mistake to get into the idea of half-truth. It leads nowhere and it is not in any way scientific. I conclude that Hubbard said basically that “Buddha enslaved beings.” It makes more sense from a balanced point of view and is in no way offensive. It is what I get out of what he said from my viewpoint.

    Kind Regards,
    George M. White

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2014 at 3:29 AM

      I read it as requested. George White has interesting things to say and in that exchange, So does Valkov. Issues about the chains of possession together with source are valid concerns. For me, I am no longer interested in learning ideologies as a philosophical path.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 27, 2014 at 3:37 AM

      My own take on the world is currently that its impermanence, and relativity are due to the intrinsic Nature and mechanics of space-time and not due to any particular anthropomorphic past events such as politics or war.

      What I am seeing in the world are patterns whose repetition and so called randomness can now be seen to be duplicable by simple computer code, through enormous iteration.

    • vinaire  On July 28, 2014 at 5:58 AM

      My responses to George’s post are here:

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310691

      GMW: “Buddha was criticized for not looking at the third and fourth dynamics even during his lifetime. In actual fact, about 25,000 people were killed in an attack on his hometown. Buddha was silent when he heard the news. Buddha responded to his critics by saying that each individual needed to dig deep into his or her mind.”

      My conclusion is that Buddhism is the psychology of getting unfixated. If people are unfixated on the first dynamic then unfixation on the rest of the dynamics would follow automatically.

      Unfixation on first dynamic makes the person become reality-centric. He is more in tune with the reality. He is more compassionate. He is more likely to come up with optimum solutions when he is not fixated on self and no longer thinking in terms of the survival of self. That is the key.

      Hubbard talks about optimizing one’s actions by taking all eight dynamics into consideration. But this is not possible as long as one is looking through the filter of self.

      .

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310693

      GMW: “In addition, Buddhist cosmology is extensive but some of the Suttas are of doubtful origin so it is not worth it to quote them.”

      This has been the problem with all scriptures – the determination of whether they are genuine or not. But even when the scriptures are proved to be genuine, the problem of interpretation arises. The followers try to get into the mind of their founder. But this is impossible.

      There is a Buddhist saying, “If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!” This saying is very germane to the present discussion. One cannot discover the truth by depending on the thinking of the founder.

      The truth is discovered by giving up all fixation on self, including fixation on the self of the founder.

      So what is the criterion of realizing the truth?

      Truth lies in the consistency and coherency of all reality.

      And this is the dimension that Subject Clearing takes one in.

      .

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310695

      GMW: ”The major split into Mahayana from Theravada centered on the idea of how to be a Buddha. In the Theravada school, it is not necessary to be a Buddha to be a saint. The major disciples of the Buddha had psychic powers to varying degrees based on their past Karma or Kamma. None had all of the powers of the Buddha which were quite extensive. The devas or spirit gods pose an even greater challenge. In Mahayana there are powerful gods which are not even considered in Theravada. In Theravada these spirits are impermanent and even quite foolish.”

      To focus on the powers, psychic or otherwise, is foolish. It only adds to the fixation on self. I do not think that Buddha ever bragged about his powers. Those fixations on personal powers of Buddha are the aberrations of the followers.

      Reality is what it is. Fixation on any part of reality is just as aberrative as fixation on self. All filters that distort the perception of reality are made up of fixations.

      Buddhism is the psychology of getting unfixated.

      .

      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310698

      GMW: ”I am perfectly happy with Hubbard’s statement when I interpret it as “Buddha enslaved beings”. This is actually quite accurate. I do object to the wording which says “Hubbard saw a half-truth.” The key is in the Buddhist notion of beings.”

      For me, it is not a matter of being happy or unhappy. I am basically concerned with consistency and coherency. Buddha, as a self, doesn’t matter. Buddha, as a self, needs to be killed. It is knowledge, which Buddha imparted, which matters. And even in that knowledge, it is consistency and coherency that matters.

      Hubbard was self-centric. He was critical of Buddha in order to boost up his own self. Just on this ground Hubbard was foolish. He never studied in detail the knowledge contained in Buddhism. His ignorance of Buddhism is pretty obvious.

      In the end, it is the result that matters. Hubbard counted his chickens before they were hatched. Now Hubbard’s chickens are hatching, and the scene is not very pretty.

      .

  • vinaire  On July 28, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    Here is another exchange with George on application of gradients:

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310715

    vinaire,

    In theory you are correct. However, the practical application, in my opinion, creates difficulties. Even the Budddha said that his teaching would be grasped by only a few “with no dust in their eyes.” My wife and I spent over ten years working with public who wandered into our Vihara in Tampa. I was sort of a middle person between the monks and anyone who was interested in Buddhism. After ten years, we only could reach only one in one-hundred. It was not because of our theory. We had that down cold. We traced the problem to two factors:

    1. Modern culture and technology creates a strong illusion. Even if a person is having problems, there are hundreds of ways to adventure. It is very easy for people to seek help. Those without problems are far too happy because electronics such as TV divert their attention.

    2. The concept of “no self” is very subtle and difficult to feel, comprehend or practice. I gave many lectures to hundreds of adult and early 20’s college students. They loved our talks. The teacher would say “Wow, you got them motivated. Most wrote about Buddhism and the papers were great!” However, we never got one college student to return for advanced theory.

    As far as the data about interiorization and exteriorization is concerned, it has been my special topic of research in the last few weeks. If you read past data on this blog, you can see the issue. OT-TR zero is confused with meditation. The benefits of OT-TR zero are real and students cling to it.
    Mindfullness, on the other hand, techically requires “right view” to be in place. Without “right view” there is no traction. “Right view” implies actual “stream entry”. The path factors are out of balance to the average public person.

    Hubbard invented his “out/int” in a very much more simplified fashion. You just imagine that your attention is immortal and that it moves. That it is subjective is not important. Yes, Hubbard actually does interiorize beings into self but it is quite easy given the roots of lust. Framed out mindfullness based on body, feelings, mental constructs, and objects is more difficult and thus not practiced as much. In addition, you can get sensuality blasted on electronics constantly hitting a person. Then you get lack of attention and it all breaks down. The Hubbard way creates a being and keeps one into “bhava kamma” which is enjoyed in our society of plenty.

    Kind Regards,
    GMW

    .

    My response:

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310723

    GMW: ”In theory you are correct. However, the practical application, in my opinion, creates difficulties. Even the Budddha said that his teaching would be grasped by only a few ‘with no dust in their eyes.’ ”

    Thank you, George. My primary concern is theory. I want to make sure that I understand the theory correctly. I have been helped by Hubbard in interpreting that interiorization is essentially a fixation. Now I want to apply the hypothesis that mindfulness will gradually unfixate the attention and exteriorize the person. I see the 12 aspects of mindfulness as follows.

    1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
    2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
    3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
    4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
    5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
    6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
    7. Experience fully what is there.
    8. Do not suppress anything.
    9. Associate data freely.
    10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
    11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
    12. Let it all be effortless.

    The next step would be to work out the exercises for mindfulness on a gradient. I shall be presenting these exercises soon.

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310740

    GMW: ”My wife and I spent over ten years working with public who wandered into our Vihara in Tampa. I was sort of a middle person between the monks and anyone who was interested in Buddhism. After ten years, we only could reach only one in one-hundred. It was not because of our theory. We had that down cold. We traced the problem to two factors:

    1. Modern culture and technology creates a strong illusion. Even if a person is having problems, there are hundreds of ways to adventure. It is very easy for people to seek help. Those without problems are far too happy because electronics such as TV divert their attention.

    2. The concept of “no self” is very subtle and difficult to feel, comprehend or practice. I gave many lectures to hundreds of adult and early 20′s college students. They loved our talks. The teacher would say “Wow, you got them motivated. Most wrote about Buddhism and the papers were great!” However, we never got one college student to return for advanced theory.”

    George, my understanding of the difficulty that you and your wife ran into is that the people you were dealing with were too distracted to implement a more permanent solution to their problems through Buddhism. Looks like a better gradient is needed at Tampa Vihara for teaching Buddhism.

    Here I would give credit to Hubbard for coming up with the right gradient for the current society. His TRs Course, Upper Indocs, Basic Dianetic auditing and the Basic Study Manual were very appealing to me. Maybe similar introductory courses can be developed from the knowledge of Buddhism to provide more permanent solutions.

    Here is the outline for developing introductory exercises based on Mindfulness.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310745

    GMW: ”As far as the data about interiorization and exteriorization is concerned, it has been my special topic of research in the last few weeks. If you read past data on this blog, you can see the issue. OT-TR zero is confused with meditation. The benefits of OT-TR zero are real and students cling to it. Mindfullness, on the other hand, techically requires “right view” to be in place. Without “right view” there is no traction. “Right view” implies actual “stream entry”. The path factors are out of balance to the average public person. ”

    George, OT-0 helped me to develop the right view and led me to “stream entry”. It was however wriiten in a very skimpy manner and data from some other HCOBs was required to understand it. Lot of people had trouble applying it. I used to be the word clearer for the famous Flag TRs Course, and could speed up the progress of the student through TR-0.

    I think we can use the TR-0 model to develop exercises for the ‘Right view’. Here is one:

    MINDFULNESS #1: Observe without expecting or attempting to get an answer.
    1. Observe as usual. Notice the environment and other people.
    2. While observing, spot expectations that you have one at a time.
    3. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.
    4. Spot extraneous thoughts. Notice any underlying expectation.
    5. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    6. Spot uncontrolled thinking. Notice the possible scenarios the mind is trying to predict.
    7. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    8. Spot unanswered questions. Notice the speculations that the mind might be entertaining.
    9. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    10. Expand your span of attention and let the perceptions pour in.
    11. Let the realizations present themselves to you without you making any effort.

    For full exercise please see

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/27/mindfulness-1-dealing-with-expectations/

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310750

    GMW: “Hubbard invented his “out/int” in a very much more simplified fashion. You just imagine that your attention is immortal and that it moves. That it is subjective is not important. Yes, Hubbard actually does interiorize beings into self but it is quite easy given the roots of lust. Framed out mindfullness based on body, feelings, mental constructs, and objects is more difficult and thus not practiced as much. In addition, you can get sensuality blasted on electronics constantly hitting a person. Then you get lack of attention and it all breaks down. The Hubbard way creates a being and keeps one into “bhava kamma” which is enjoyed in our society of plenty.”

    Hubbard’s approach was to create fast dramatic effects. There is definitely an advantage to that. But the drawback is that these effects do not go deep enough as is the case with Buddhism. For example, the int/ext process takes care of fixed attention on the body and that is all. It doesn’t take care of fixed attention on other significances, the key one of which is self.

    I have been working for some years now in understanding the gradients required here. I believe I can start putting all that stuff together with some help from others who are similarly inclined. We don’t have to worry about creating and destroying the beingness. It’ll all come out in the wash.

    .

  • vinaire  On July 28, 2014 at 6:39 AM

    Here is an exchange on Between-Lives Area:

    George:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310721

    vinaire,
    “(6) There is a between-lives area in terms of atoms, molecules and basic electromagnetic patterns. But there are no “souls” that compare to the living “selves”.”

    In Theravada we have spirit realms of impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings. This is sort of a “waiting area” which cannot be considered “between lives”. Some of this is also disputed, but Buddha talked about a few specific cases. These spirits are blended from various proportions of matter and “mind”. You basically get immaterial spirits with a primitive consciousness.

    In Theravada, most of these spirits are at a serious disadvantage without a full human mind. These “beings” can actually change realms. Remember the fairy tale of the princess and the frog who turns into the prince? That is ancient Buddhism at work. There are “selves” in the spirit realm but they are impermanent. A Buddha can communicate with a few of these higher beings. The average person is too low on the scale.

    The concept of “no soul” in Theravada must be seen in its negative form as really a “working construct”. That is to say, it is not something to discuss in theory. It is, no soul, a practical method which is a “characteristic” of existence.

    GMW

    .

    Vinaire:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310819

    GMW: ”In Theravada we have spirit realms of impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings. This is sort of a “waiting area” which cannot be considered “between lives”. Some of this is also disputed, but Buddha talked about a few specific cases. These spirits are blended from various proportions of matter and “mind”. You basically get immaterial spirits with a primitive consciousness. In Theravada, most of these spirits are at a serious disadvantage without a full human mind.”

    Exactly! I am simply looking at it from the perspective of my background, which is Nuclear Engineering. The fundamental realization for me has been as follows:

    Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.

    Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.

    A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light, and essence of awareness.

    Therefore, as the body disintegrates after death, the disintegrated parts have their own self. The previous “whole” self does not remain. In the disintegrated parts the physical and spiritual aspects go together. This would account for “impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings.”

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310820

    GMW: ”These “beings” can actually change realms. Remember the fairy tale of the princess and the frog who turns into the prince? That is ancient Buddhism at work. There are “selves” in the spirit realm but they are impermanent. A Buddha can communicate with a few of these higher beings.
    The average person is too low on the scale.”

    I can see that after death, the body disintegrates, and so does the self along with it. This disintegration can keep on going through many levels ending up at the most subtle level of molecules/atoms and electromagnetic patterns.

    I would not assign them any opinion, such as, “higher” or “lower”. They are what they are. Science may come up with the means of perceiving and identifying them. Who knows! The first step is to better understand what we are dealing with here.

    Of course, they are all impermanent.

    .

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310824

    GMW: ”The concept of “no soul” in Theravada must be seen in its negative form as really a “working construct”. That is to say, it is not something to discuss in theory. It is, no soul, a practical method which is a “characteristic” of existence.”

    Yes, the “soul” of something is simply its properties. It is the “awareness” of that thing. Everything interacts exactly per its properties.

    Hubbard was correct in differentiating between “awareness” and the “awareness of awareness”. Humans have “awareness of awareness” but other things have “awareness” only. But we have totally misunderstood what these two things are by looking at them from a “human-centric” viewpoint.

    Beingness = “Existing-ness”

    A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence and a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes.

    ”I” = The basic viewpoint of beingness (self)

    An animal has “existing-ness”. Therefore, an animal has beingness. Therefore, and animal has an “I”. The “I” of an animal consists of its physical form, and its interactions with its environment. It will include all its instincts and the functionality of its body.

    A mineral also has “existing-ness”. Therefore, a mineral has beingness. The “I” of a mineral consists of the space-time its physical form occupies, and the awareness it extends through its chemical properties.

    Hubbard was incorrect in his “human-centric” definitions for “beingness” and “I”. When we apply the more inclusive definitions to humans we see that the “I” of a human being consists of the human form and its vast capacity for interactions. It will include his intelligence and skills.

    But we also find that “awareness” is something that exists all across the board as “properties of things.” The property of glue is to be sticky. That is its awareness. It is not awareness of awareness. We get the definition of awareness wrong when we look at it from a “human-centric” viewpoint.

    The awareness of humans shall include all the properties of humans, whether humans are aware of them or not.

    The basic peculiarity among humans is that they want to be aware of their awareness. Animals don’t. The minerals don’t. Objects don’t.

    So, this peculiarity of “awareness of awareness” is not common to beingness all across the board. It is peculiar to humans only. And it is a two-edged sword. It also leads to FIXATION and INTERIORIZATION.

    There is no such thing as fixation or interiorization among animals and minerals. But there is fixation or interiorization among humans and the origin of that is “awareness of awareness”.

    Hubbard immortalizes “awareness of awareness” in the definition of THETAN and reverses the whole evolution by putting Thetan at the beginning of the track. The truth is that track starts with “awareness” only. The “awareness of awareness” enters the track much later at the level of humans.

    I know that this turns the Intelligent Design Theory of Abrahamic Religions on its head. But mindfulness has led me to this understanding.

    For my complete reasoning underlying the above, please see:

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/18/beingness-viewpoint-and-reality/

    .

  • vinaire  On July 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    Here is another exchange on REBIRTH.

    GMW:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310718

    vinaire,

    Your interpretation aligns with Theravada. There is one additional step which involves re-birth. The self does “evaporate” at death, but we need to account for the next life. This happens with a special type of “rel-linking kamma”. This specialized Kamma contains a package of good and bad deeds in a balance. The computer anaolgy is correct as I spent over 20 years as a computer programmer. I consider Buddha to be the first computer programmer. At any rate, this Kamma is like salt in a glass of water. The more salt, the more you taste it. The more water, the better.

    This re-linking is a highly specialized area which has also been covered in higher teachings. Some of these are disputed as to authenticity so I won’t cover them here.

    GMW

    .

    VIN:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310837

    GMW: ”The self does “evaporate” at death, but we need to account for the next life. This happens with a special type of “rel-linking kamma”. This specialized Kamma contains a package of good and bad deeds in a balance.”

    George, I understand that there is a difference between the death of an ordinary person, and the death of a Buddha. The “next-life” routine applies to the ordinary death, and not to the death of a Buddha. Here is my reasoning.

    (1) The “self” evaporates completely only in the case of a Buddha. Some residual “self” is left in ordinary death.

    (2) Complete evaporation in the case of a Buddha means that disintegration of a body occurs completely to the level of elements of the Periodic Table. No organic, DNA type molecules are left. However, in case of ordinary death, organic, DNA type molecules are left as residues.

    (3) This is just a hypothesis at the moment. DNA molecules contain the most basic programming in the form of genetic code. The genetic code contains not only the instructions for the structure of the body, but also instructions for the elemental programming which constructs the self.

    (4) This gives a new meaning to the concept of “Kamma” or to the “Theory of Karma.”

    (5) I have always looked at “Karma” as not something “good” or “bad”, but as “an incomplete cycle of action.” It is like “as-isness” not take to completion. Let me call it “incomplete as-isness.” It is a residue.

    (6) This residue of “incomplete as-isness” is what prevents a DNA molecule from disintegrating completely. The complete integration takes place only in case of Buddha where no such residues exist.

    (7) New bodies with new selves are created with residual DNA molecules. Thus, what is transferred from one life to the next are not complete “selves” but only certain characteristics made up of “incomplete as-isness.”

    This is just a hypothesis at a very early stage. A lot needs to be worked out here. The advanced teachings that you are referring to could provide some clues here.

    .

  • vinaire  On September 8, 2014 at 5:33 AM

    Here is another exchange on BASIS of existence and REINCARNATION:

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/congruence/#comment-317122

    George,

    I have been fascinated by your journey to OT VIII too and the subsequent exploration of Buddhism.

    If you read Eastern authors versus Western Authors on the same subject you’ll find a big difference. The reference point used Eastern authors is “no definition from which all definitions arise.” But the reference point used by Western authors is “a being from whom all things come forth.”

    In general, the Eastern mind has been focused on knowledge, whereas, the Western mind has been focused on self. Of course, there are many exceptions. so please don’t take my labeling too seriously. But there are these are two different foundations that are also mentioned in the TAO OF PHYSICS. The relevant excerpt is documented here.

    Ground State of Universe – History

    I believe that a lot can be learned from Hubbard when one compares his works to other works and focuses on the differences. One can see right away that Hubbard used the reference point of “a being” all along. He was quite consistent in that. He even declared himself as the “source” (basis = a being).

    Buddha’s idea of reincarnation was totally different. Just like there is the disintegration of body into molecules and reintegration of molecules into a new body. Similarly, there is disintegration of self into “spiritual elements” and reintegration of “spiritual elements” into a new self. That is why Buddha talked about non-human reincarnations as well. But Hubbard believed in complete transfer of the self from one body to another as a complete unit. This is squirreling of what is believed in the East about reincarnation.

    Vinaire

  • Nic  On January 1, 2015 at 4:43 AM

    Hello Vin. Well your analysis
    Book one and Dn. continue up
    ned to? E ‘useful to make your own
    list. In separating what
    is effective or usable.
    Or not, or never Verified.

    A happy and prosperous new year.
    Nic.

    • vinaire  On January 1, 2015 at 7:50 AM

      Thank you Nic. A very happy and prosperous New Year to you too.

%d bloggers like this: