Scientology and the Ultimate Reality


To understand the essence and scope of a subject one must start with an examination of its basic postulates. To understand how ultimate reality is viewed in Scientology one must examine the following postulates.

  1. Scientology Axiom #1: Life is basically a static. DEFINITION: a life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

  2. Scientology Factor #1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

  3. Scientology Pre-Logics #1: Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses.

Axiom #1 claims that a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time, yet it has the ability to postulate and to perceive. It is Aristotle’s unmoved mover, Factor #1 simply posits the same concept as uncaused cause. Here it is an abstract capability from which all creation pours forth. In religion, we are familiar with this concept as God. Pre-logics #1 puts this capability to be the essence of all human and other beings.

Scientology essentially makes people believe that the characteristics associated with God are within the reach of every individual, and that one can actually achieve the state of Godhood through the processing available in Scientology.

The ultimate reality in Scientology is the attaining of beingness, which hitherto was exclusively associated with God.

Thus, a Scientologist believes that he is creating this universe continually in agreement with everyone else; and to enforce his will he must get everyone to agree with him. He entertains the ideal scene of a being who is cause over “matter, energy, space, time and all life.” In other words, his ideal scene is to act like God.

It is very hard to visualize a universe where everyone is acting like God. Such a universe is going to be highly unstable. To get the universe going, all the Gods must agree with each other. And when that happens then there remains no individual will. It becomes a collective like the Borg species of Star Trek.

The other alternative is for each “God” to postulate and perceive one’s own universe in which one can do whatever one wants. Such a “God” becomes out of touch with the physical universe. The physical universe simply does not exist for such a “God.”

At this moment the effort of the Church of Scientology is to survive as a collective in a physical universe that is unknowingly being created by unenlightened WOGS. The “solution” therefore is to assimilate all WOGS into the collective of Scientology by enlightening them the Scientology way. If this effort fails then the alternative would be for Scientology to get absorbed completely in a self-created universe and become totally dissociated with the “physical universe.” These are the ultimate realities in Scientology caused by the desire to identify oneself with a Godlike beingness that can have its way in spite of matter, energy, space, time and other life.

The source of this reality may be traced back to the theistic view prevalent in Abrahamic religions that God is a being, and that one is created in the image of God. When we take this view literally then the pursuit in Scientology starts to make sense.

In Scientology we see the theistic view being taken literally, and being pursued relentlessly.

Let’s look at the alternate view, where God is not viewed as a “being.” This is the atheistic view of the Eastern religions. In this view, God is seen as a power that underlies all manifestations. God is understood to be like a field similar to an electric or a magnetic field, but much more basic. It is from the condensation of such a field that self emerges. This is the field into which self ultimately dissolves.

In this view of God, there is no individuality that creates anything. Things just come together due to underlying laws. Here the ultimate reality is neti-neti (not this, not that), meaning that there is always something beyond to be understood. All phenomena are relative. Nothing can be pinned down in an absolute sense like the last digit of pi. There is no absolute God like that of the theists.

We can postulate anything but the postulate must be consistent with the existing reality to be real. The reality of the universe cannot be ignored. The thrust should always be to understand the reality, which is the universe. That is the thrust of science.

Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of this universe. These aspects do not exist independent of each other. “God” and the “physical universe” exist together. The physical universe may be looked upon as a form of God; and God may be looked upon as the essence of the physical universe. Scientology veers off this philosophy when it postulates “The origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.” This postulate is not real.

Cause and effect do not exist outside this universe. Cause is as much a part of this universe as the effect. There is no uncaused Cause or unmoved mover. Cause and effect are always associated and should be viewed as a single phenomenon.

My view of God fundamentals is as follows:

Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness. The undisturbed primordial field is the theoretical ground state for this universe. The primordial energy is what generates disturbance in this field. The disturbance arises as awareness that gradually condenses as self. The outer form of this disturbance is electromagnetism that gradually condenses as matter. Life has the characteristics of both awareness (spirituality) and electromagnetism (physicality).

Can the ultimate reality be ever defined? I believe that the pleasure of defining the ultimate reality more accurately will always be there.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • MarkNR  On February 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM

    That places the physical universe in the position of God. Awareness becomes a what and the physical becomes the why.


    • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

      I don’t see it that way. There is no such thing as some exclusive “physical universe”.

      The universe has both spiritual and physical aspects. There is no God separate from this universe.

      The universe is made up of IS-NESS. If there is a God, it would be part of this is-ness and not separate from it.

      This is my opinion, of course.


      • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 5:38 PM

        I looked at interested vs interesting with relation to these comments. When something is interesting, then with respect to this line of discussion, a disturbance out there is said to cause a particular disturbance within the self and when that occurs, we call the phenomena happening out there interesting. Interest is focusing attention. What is attention? It seems to be a field set up within the self in such a way that it is receptive to receiving a disturbance. When a field is set up and prepared to receive such a disturbance, then the self is said to be interested. I may not have written this very well. I am mostly trying to communicate how reality would seem when compared to this discussion including the latest KHTK thoughts on “disturbance levels.”


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 8:17 PM

          I am not quite sure yet how self develops out of awareness.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:36 PM

          I’m trying not to make that leap until I can see the disturbances as they are conjectured to be. This is powerfully hard to do since the disturbances seem to begin smaller than nuclear particular size, thus difficult or impossible to observe using light as well as difficult or impossible to observe because the disturbances are of short duration. Thought disturbances are very small and so it is interesting to me to observe that an idea beginning as a dim thought can yet be developed into a plan which can be built such as in architecture or engineering. This is a fantastic process as the disturbance levels seem to span quite faint to solid.


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 9:40 PM

          Disturbance levels go from -∞ to +∞.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 5:30 PM

      I can see how you would say that; however, we can turn our thinking away from anthropomorphic models such as “gods,” give up if you will our anchors in reality that model how very in the center of the universe we are. Of course, we are at the center of our own experience but acknowledging that while acknowledging that every other one of us is also at the center of their experience helps quell my own compulsion to think in terms of an anthropomorphous reality. For me, it’s a start. I agree with you, it’s very interesting.


  • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

    It seems that the “own universe” is a postulated (assumed) universe. It is interesting to contemplate its relationship to the universe of is-ness..


  • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 11:19 AM

    I believe that the “own universe” is a part of the universe of is-ness to the degree it is consistent. Based on consistency, the is-ness forms a gradient from concrete to abstract to postulated.

    The lack of consistency would belong to the postulated gradient of is-ness. The first two parts of the gradient would pretty much be consistent.


  • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM

    The postulated universe would be constructed out of the abstract part of the is-ness gradient. All the wonderful novels are examples of postulated universes.

    ALICE IN WONDERLAND was apparently a political satire that created such a wonderful nonsensical universe that it is still visited by many.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM

      Yup and when doing so, politics is rarely or never discussed! Funny!


      • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM

        Maybe the whole “universe” was supposed to be just nonsensical; and that’s just what so adorable about it.


        • MarkNR  On February 28, 2014 at 9:37 PM

          “Maybe the whole “universe” was supposed to be just nonsensical……”
          It was no accident.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:43 PM

          That’s a good bet since you agree with Einstein. But I am not a betting man. There seems to be no certain way to isolate and compare our experience to our experience in such a way as to discover the zero reference of truth. Truth seems to be ever relative and impermanent. We can say that we’ve separated the “lies from the truth” however, have we?


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 9:54 PM

          Any point on a line can be taken as the reference point of zero. A reference point determined in a completely arbitrary manner. But once it is determined, and when it is part of a system, then it must remain consistent with that system. Lies are relative truths.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:59 PM

          I believe that is my point. Truth is relative, conditioned, and impermanent. Yet knowing this, having worked this up and down and back and forth, we yet grind away as though we do not believe this. What is that about? Is that mental process which turns and turns simply a part of our matricidal structure?


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 10:04 PM

          I don’t think that I do that (grind away). I simply look closer and closer.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 11:02 PM

          You don’t need to think of it in a negative way. I didn’t mean it in a negative way. I meant it in terms of “that is what we do.” If you want to use a word like “look” rather than grind, I don’t have a problem. The point I’m making is that we run this process ongoing, maybe even when we are asleep. I guess I could say that’s who we are. That’s how we are wired.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:40 PM

          Many times I’ve had that thought only to realize that being within this system, I cannot tell whether there is an objective reality to discover or not. It seems to be one model only to describe things which are going on.


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 9:42 PM

          A universe seems to be how the postulates add up


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:46 PM

          “A universe seems to be how the postulates conjectures add up”


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 9:47 PM

          Is postulate not a conjecture? Or is conjecture not a postulate?


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:55 PM

          I suppose if you want to use it that way. Postulates seem to be related to how one experiences their reality. Postulates as such seem to be popularly used to reinforce an illusion of control. Conjectures seem to be more widely used to simply state an unsubstantiated opinion.


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 10:01 PM

          5. something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.

          1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.


        • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 9:46 PM

          It would be interesting to look at the self objectively. It is part of the overall “program” . Self is designed into the matrix.


        • Chris Thompson  On February 28, 2014 at 9:49 PM

          Yes, that is the way I see it. Self as such has very little to do with anything causing the Matrix. To me, self is a result of the Matrix.


  • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 10:06 PM

    I think that I want to start a non-profit Tutoring and Coaching Center as part of my retirement project.


  • vinaire  On February 28, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    I am currently reading the following book:

    The Evolution of Physics by Einstein (1938)


  • Arjuna  On March 5, 2014 at 12:44 AM

    Drg Drsha Viveka, Avadhuta Gita, tell is like it is.


  • vinaire  On March 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM

    In Scientology, the ego has become a religion. When Tommy Davis protests, “You are attacking my religion.” he is basically expressing the intense feeling of the collective ego of the Scientologists being hurt.


  • vinaire  On March 9, 2014 at 8:47 AM

    When one is attacking and wishing to destroy the person or the personality, such as, the “scientologists”, then one is leaning toward a nazi like intolerant mindset.

    But when one is simply wishing to destroy the illusion existing in the society then one is leaning toward a Hindu like tolerant mindset.


  • vinaire  On March 9, 2014 at 9:41 PM

    Scientology is just a symptom of the present culture. One cannot eradicate Scientology without also fixing the present culture.


    • Chris Thompson  On March 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM

      The notion that there is an ultimate reality from within the infinities is simply a mistake. However, like the value of π, one may stop counting at any point and declare that is it. It won’t be it but one may still stop counting.


      • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 7:43 PM

        There are no mistakes. There are only relative truths. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On March 10, 2014 at 8:27 PM

          LOL true enough. And so there were an infinity of relative truths! However, some of the frames of reference are very small and produce only very slight disturbance as they appear and disappear. When discussing an ultimate reality or TOE, a person is supposedly shooting for a bit larger relative truth than the tautology of “in the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.”


        • MarkNR  On March 11, 2014 at 12:07 AM

          Actually, as I recall, the very first purpose was to continue. To cause an effect came much later. There had to be at least some slight division of self for there to be cause,,,,,,,,and then effect. The idea of time pre-dates this. The idea of multiples, the most rudimentary form of numbers had to exist before C and E.

          Ron may have been close, or he may have learned this from others, but it just fell short. For whatever reason, he never finished his work.


        • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 8:29 PM

          I have left the Factor#1 far behind in the relative truth department.


        • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 6:27 AM

          KHTK Postulate M-1: Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness.

          This postulate is also presented under KHTK Postulates P1 and P2. The undisturbed primordial field is the theoretical ground state for this universe. The primordial energy is what generates disturbance in this field.

          The disturbance arises as awareness. A co-harmonic of this disturbance is electromagnetism. Life has the characteristics of both awareness and electromagnetism.

          Awareness condenses into SELF, just as electromagnetism condenses into MATTER.


  • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 5:57 AM

    The current culture is unable to think deeply. It is prone to assumptions.This is reflected in Scientology.


  • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 11:44 AM

    I see Scientology as a cultural phenomenon in America and in the western world.
    Scientology represents a cultural extreme. It is of concern because the American culture is influencing the whole world.

    In many ways most critics of Scientology share the same culture as Scientology does. The hypocrisy of these critics does attract my attention. The critics seem to profess as much “knowing” as Scientology does. This is expressed in the behavior and intolerance of these critics toward people of different culture like me.

    I do not believe; I simply look at inconsistencies hoping I can resolve them within myself.


  • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 8:04 PM

    Since the American culture is influencing the rest of the world, it is very important to clean it up of characteristics that Scientology displays in the extreme, such as, the big corporate structures, greed for money, and immature behavior.


    • Chris Thompson  On March 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

      You have my imagination at a disadvantage with that statement. I have trouble imagining the current culture “cleaning up” as though it is making mistakes. The American culture is predatory and aggressive. Trying to get an African lion to be nice to the antelope starts with the assumption that the lion is making mistake or going somehow against its native conscience. The World as a whole seems that way. Mankind may be an experiment without a long term future.

      The one hope that I see is in your sentiment that “education makes the environment safer.” That idea has had an important effect on me and it has taken hold in my own life and in my attitude toward my children and relatives. I am encouraging everyone to learn. It appears to be something I am doing religiously — learning. I wonder if it will be enough?


      • vinaire  On March 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM

        Animals don’t kill for fun. They only kill for food. Even the beast of prey can be very friendly with their natural prey when they are well fed.

        Humans are very afraid of dying and that messes up their behavior quite a bit and their culture too.

        I do think that education gained from resolving inconsistencies is the key, especially when it helps them conquer their fears..


        • Chris Thompson  On March 11, 2014 at 7:28 AM

          “Animals don’t kill for fun.”

          Are you sure?


        • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM

          Maybe if trained by humans.


        • Chris Thompson  On March 11, 2014 at 7:52 AM

          The notion that “animals” get no pleasure from killing seems a short look. Possibly we have to look at the word pleasure. This seems to me similar to saying that food animals suffer no pain when becoming food. Possibly we have to look at what is suffering.


        • Chris Thompson  On March 11, 2014 at 7:44 AM

          “Humans are very afraid of dying and that messes up their behavior quite a bit and their culture too.”

          Fear of death is part cultural. That doesn’t have to be that way so there is room to change. Another part is in our DNA — I don’t know what can be done about that. Different peoples with different cultures have cultivated different DNA, hence predispositions toward events in life such as death. Dog breeds and human races seem to be similar taxonomically. These sub-species, populations, communities, etc., seem to have the potential and actuality of very different predilections.

          So far, man seems to have difficulty learning from its mistakes. Or maybe it just takes a while. Possibly some future evolutionary race of man will be able to understand and live in this world in peace.


        • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 10:49 AM

          I am sure mindfulness can provide answers to these questions.


  • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM

    Denigration of what one does not understand seems to be a widespread trait in this culture. It is specially a trait amongst the Scientologist and the critics of Scientology. I have come across it on ESMB and at The Underground Bunker.

    This is quite an interesting phenomenon, which is perceived when one is being mindful.


    • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM

      I have come across it on Geir’s Blog also.

      In my opinion, one can behave in a civil fashion no matter how much one is provoked. Uncivil behavior seems to proceed from a non-understanding.


      • vinaire  On March 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM

        When one is severely provoked, the only civil response may just be a non-response to end the cycle. An acknowledgement is not always necessary to end a cycle.


  • vinaire  On April 1, 2014 at 8:00 AM

    Here is an interesting letter that Hubbrad wrote to his University professor in 1936.

    The following are my thoughts:

    It seems that Hubbard’s reality was very different from those around him. Hubbard thought in cultural domain with broad brushstrokes, whereas, the university environment was more pedantic, and out of touch with down-to-earth culture.

    That doesn’t make anything right or wrong. That was just the way it was. Universities were oriented toward formalism in the prevailing scientific environment. Science has made great progress since then. However, cultural progress has stymied. Hubbard was simply a pioneer in the large area of culture.

    Hubbard was disappointed because his talk on writing was not received well at GWU. His success in the field of writing was not well acknowledged. Hubbard was more concerned with the practical aspects of writing, whereas, the university was concerned with formalism.

    I think that both the practical aspects, as well as the formalism, has its place in the field of writing.

    It seems that Hubbard wanted to be acknowledged, to be granted beingness, in an academic setting, but he was disappointed. He is making the university wrong in this letter.

    Hubbard was a perennial rebel with a big ego. Here he is criticizing the university in broad brush strokes. Later he criticized the psychiatric field in broad brushstrokes. And then he criticized the non-scientology wog culture in broad brush strokes.

    Hubbard was a genius, but he was very fixated in the correctness of his vision. He wanted to mould the whole culture around him according to the vision he carried. That vision has been Scientology. He was so fixation on his own rightness that he ignored the rightness around him. In his genius there was also the seed of destruction.

    The current Church of Scientology is simply dramatizing that seed of destruction, which was present in Hubbard’s thinking. It is the result of Hubbard’s thought.

    But let’s not make the mistake that Hubbard made. He allowed no self-criticism, while being very critical of anything that he disagreed with.

    Let’s recognize the rightness where rightness is, even when it is not according to Scientology. Let’s recognize the things that are right in Scientology as well, and not ignore things that are wrong in Scientology.


    A Scientologist is conditioned not to look at LRH critically. Until he can overcome this conditioning his ability to think critically will remain compromised.

    “Hubbard is source, and one cannot be critical of the source.” This kind of conditioning is unique to Scientology. This is very different from Buddha, who actually encouraged his followers to be critical of his teachings and not to take anything for granted.

    It is interesting to note that Hinduism allows its scriptures to be questioned, but the semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) don’t. The semitic religions are religions of the book.

    Scientology has also become a religion of the book.



    • Chris Thompson  On April 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM

      Why do you call Hubbard a genius? What do you mean by that?


      • vinaire  On April 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM

        gen·ius noun

        1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart. Synonyms: intelligence, ingenuity, wit; brains.

        2. a person having such capacity.


        I think Hubbard meets that criteria looking at what he accomplished. He brought about renewed interest in philosophy at the grass roots level, single-handedly.


  • vinaire  On April 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM

    I am cleaning up my old emails. Here is something I wrote to a Freezone group in May 2004:

    So far I have met no one who is not interpreting LRH data. Even the most fastidious Scientologist who swears by LRH is interpreting LRH data. He is saying, “This is per LRH, this is not per LRH.” He is interpreting, isn’t he?

    A person who limits himself to quoting literally from LRH data, is doing just that. That is an important service. But it is no guarantee that the person himself understands LRH data without misunderstoods.

    Should one refrain from expressing one’s understanding of LRH data in one’s own words with certainty? Actually, someone who is refraining oneself could be afraid of exposing his or her own misunderstoods.

    A person, who is boldly stating his understanding of LRH data in his own words, is actually being quite adventurous, especially in the company of trained Scientologists. He is at least willing to confront his misunderstoods. He is not ashamed of NOT KNOW.

    Yes, we uphold LRH writings as the standard. That must be so. One is obligated to be consistent with the LRH standard in one’s own utterings on the subject. But one should not be afraid of expressing one’s viewpoint. The only caveat is that one must also watch for any apparent inconsistency in one’s viewpoint with LRH data, and immediately examine such inconsistency with thoroughness, until none remains.



  • vinaire  On April 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    Another comment from May 2004:

    My purpose is to increase my understanding by exploring the ideas expounded by LRH. My purpose is not to make myself right… the analogy of “camera” applies to a “remote viewpoint” and not the actual viewpoint. The actual viewpoint is what defines the incoming vibrations as perception.

    Change is an awareness of difference in location of something in space. To know that a particle has moved in space, there have to be reference points. These would be anchor points, which are relatively stable. In fact, these anchor points are what would constitute one’s viewpoint.

    Motion is the basis of activity (energy). The consideration that a change has taken place due to motion would be the basis of TIME. One can be exterior to TIME. An analogy would be a programmer looking at a computer program. When a computer program runs, it executes sequential steps, which provide an apparency of time passing in its own cycle of action. But a programmer, when debugging that program, can stop the execution of the program at any step to examine it more thoroughly. He can make the program run backwards or forward. He may enter that program at any step. This same understanding may be applied to the viewing of the TIME TRACK. If one understands “programming” of this MEST universe thoroughly, one may be able to enter the TIME TRACK at a “future” point.



  • vinaire  On April 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM

    Another comment from May 2004:

    At Factor # 2, the decision TO BE manifests itself. This is a postulate (a dimension point posted out there). Thus, we have

    The consideration “TO BE” as thought matter.
    The activity of postulating as thought energy.
    The awareness of the BEING as thought space.
    The sequence of something from nothing as thought time.

    This is my understanding of how MEST appears spontaneously with any postulate or consideration. This applies to the decision (postulate, consideration) made at Factor # 2, and any subsequent consideration.



  • vinaire  On May 13, 2014 at 7:00 AM

    To me the theistic viewpoint is an aberration. It views God as a being. The atheistic viewpoint does not deny God. It only objects to viewing God as a being.

    The theistic viewpoint germinates from viewing oneself as a being and imagining God on the same basis. The theistic view is, therefore, a self-centered view.

    How does the view of self come about? It starts from fixation on the body. It comes from a condensation of the dynamics. Instead of looking at the universe as a single, vast entity or body, one’s viewpoint condenses by separating mankind from all other forms of life, and separating mankind into groups and then down to individuals.

    The idea of self comes from this fixation on indivuduals. It is then projected back into the idea of divinity as God.

    This is the theistic viewpoint. It is self-centered.


%d bloggers like this: