[June 19, 2014: This document is now obsolete. It is superseded by the document Theism, Atheism and Non-theism]
Reference: The Theistic Viewpoint of God
.
Theism views God existing of itself from eternity, and considers it the cause of all other things. In this special role God is separate from all existence. A theistic culture assigns a similar role to self and assigns it a spiritual status, which is senior to, and separate from the physical existence around it.
Atheism is based on the reality of existence. An atheistic culture does not separate self from other things, but sees everything as part of the same reality of existence.
Abrahamic religions, such as, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are theistic. The Eastern religions, such as, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, are atheistic.
Theism, therefore, is self-centric. Atheism is reality-centric.
Theism is based of subjectivity. Atheism is based on objectivity.
Theism takes the affinities of people and molds it into a reality that is built around the idea of God.
Atheism takes the existing reality and transforms it into a sense of all-inclusive affinity.
The focus of Theism is on the separation of self (individuality). This gives rise to the ideas of us and them.
The focus of Atheism is on oneness of all existence. Thus, differences may arise but they are secondary.
Theism holds a special idea of God. The idea of being one with God is unacceptable to it.
Atheism holds no special idea of God. The idea of being one with ultimate reality is part of it.
.
NOTE:
The account above is from eastern perspective. West looks at it differently.
The fact is that western atheism is a reaction to western theism. The concepts of Theism and atheism are exclusively western.
In the East there has been no theism, so there has been no atheism either.
West looks at eastern religions through its filter of theism-atheism and comes up with further terminology like monotheism and polytheism.
All these terminologies are foreign to the East and do not apply to the eastern religions.
.
Comments
Vinare
Interesting delineation of viewpoints. Thank you.
I apparently tend toward an “atheistic” viewpoint.
I often find it difficult to communicate at the level of the address of this post due to factors of missing, or inaccurate terms available to communicate these concepts. Dualism, or “separateness” seem to be hard-wired into the available terms or concepts.
Of the concepts that I have some grasp of, I find that that of a superior entity or “beingness” the least easy to consider as an “ultimate truth”. (or whatever wording would represent the seemingly all pervasive aspect seemingly extant in this universe…. You see where language fails me…)
Eric
Dualism, or “separateness” seem to be hard-wired into the available terms or concepts. Yup.
I always wondered what “dualism” is. Well, now I know. And I also understand why I am having such a difficulty in getting myself understood.
What I write is very often misinterpreted, so much so that I am forced to develop the use of new vocabulary like self-centric, reality-centric, filters, etc., to get my point across. I guess there are both advantages and disadvantages of belonging to a different culture.
My basis is mindfulness, which became real to me when applying the confronting exercise, TR0, in Scientology. But it soon became clear that it went against the idea of “agreement is reality” that was indoctrinated in Scientology and which is based on self-centrism of duality.
Scientology is a mixture of inconsistencies. It is trying to saddle itself between “dualism” and “non-dualism”. Seems like Hubbard was a genius, but also a very conflicted person. It is up to us to learn from the experience of Scientology, and not to just accept or reject it robotically.
Yes, language seems to be limited in expressing non-dualism. It is oriented towards dualism because that is what reality appears to be. “Dualism” is the common reality of the masses. “Non-dualism” does not manifest itself until one looks very closely at reality.
Anyway, that is what it is. We have to look at many spiritual definitions in the dictionary and clarify their bias toward dualism.We need to look at the spiritual concepts more objectively. I believe that to be the direction of any spiritual progress.
A must watch video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQFUpOOINd8
Love
Pip
In this video the first issue that OSHO takes up is that of consciousness.
Theism looks at consciousness as something subjective and does not make effort to understand it any further. Atheism looks at consciousness objectively as a phenomenon to be understood.
My understanding in this area of consciousness rests on the postulates summarized in the following essay.
https://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/
.
It is the same error that one makes, in my view, when one says that
(1) The spiritual brings about the physical, and therefore the spiritual is senior to the physical.
(2) The physical brings about the spiritual, and therefore the physical is senior to the spiritual.
Both of these statements are in error in my humble opinion. They try to establish a sequence. There is no such sequence.
The objective observation is
Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality.
.
Vinaire
“Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality.”
That is a concept that I am struggling with…
Perhaps there is a third possibility to add to your list.
Perhaps the “spiritual” and the “physical” are simply two different universes or “dimensions” that overlap. Perhaps they do not have any “connectedness” at all, except by association.
Perhaps like air and sky. They are not “of” each other. Neither is the creator, or “cause” of the other. They are not “one”, and “two aspects of the same thing.” Perhaps they simply “overlap” in some objective or subjective way(s).
Eric
The idea of two universes side by side is an inconsistency if you look closely at the definition of UNIVERSE.
UNIVERSE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe?s=t)
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English < Old French univers < Latin ūniversum, noun use of neuter of ūniversus entire, all, literally, turned into one, equivalent to ūni- uni- + versus (past participle of vertere to turn) = the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Basically, what you are saying is that the universe can be split cleanly into two components: spiritual and physical. Could you please elaborate on that. Can you give an example of something that is purely spiritual with no physical association?
Vinare
“The idea of two universes side by side is an inconsistency if you look closely at the definition of UNIVERSE.”
Yes, I had thought of that as I was writing that post.
You asked… “Can you give an example of something that is purely spiritual with no physical association?” NO. Not in this “universe”, as the concept of “universe” includes all existence and phenomena.
I think that the very definition of the term “universe” has perhaps dictated a unity of everything (and non-thing) in it, as ONE, at all levels. This is perhaps only a “semantic” relationship and does not reflect “actuality”.
I find myself unable, at this point, to fully separate the “spiritual” from the “actual” because so far, my entire available experience as “spirit” is experienced in somewhat objective terms. I have never experienced “spirit” without the presence or awareness of some physical aspect.
But somehow I want to leave that door open. I want to have the option of two unique but interactive “universes” to consider when viewing physical/spiritual interactions.
Eric
I believe in the actuality of the Universe as the overall set. Afterall, I love mathematics. 🙂
Vinaire
We seem to have gotten several lines of discussion going here at once, but I want to address them all.
Your statement: “I believe in the actuality of the Universe as the overall set. Afterall, I love mathematics. :)” is interesting to me.
From my viewpoint(s) I seem to be detecting an inconsistency within that post itself.
The way I see it, “Mathamatics” as a tool, or as a “game” was not created by, nor does it seem to have any value to the physical universe itself. The value seems to revolve solely around “observer” viewpoints. It appears to be the result of “something” with the capability of evaluation, translating the universe that it “observes” into “code”. It could potentially be called “programming code” for the physical universe.
Curious thing is though… I can not see any evidence that the physical universe itself has any use, need, or even “awareness” of it.
Elsewhere on this thread you ask me about my views on “spirit”. Mathematics appears to be an example of “something” that is a reflection, or interpretation, or a “filter” that is seemingly not required by the physics of the universe in order to exist or change.
The only “value”, or use that I can see it having, is to something else..
This I call “spirit”. “Spirit” seems to “value” mathematics for its potential use (as a filter) in understanding and dealing with the physical universe.
(This next bit is all said in good humor.)
Seemingly, for some wild and crazy reason, perhaps not even known to themselves, some beings feel they can better communicate with the physical universe if they “talk with it in code”.
Eric
Eric, You have many good ideas. KHTK basics can help narrow this down and get one grounded in reality. I am recommending it. Maybe tell us a little more about yourself, experience, religion, Scientology, etc.,.
Hi Chris
You have asked about me and my experience. (I hope to get to the rest of your communication as I can).
I am Canadian. I live in British Columbia on a five acre wooded property, on the lower slopes of a small mountain, and overlooking a “sound” between us and Vancouver B.C.
I just turned 65, and am in good health.
I was brought up in a Protestant Christian household (well, at least my mother).
In 1971 I got into Scientology. The last acknowledged Scientology state is Clear. I have done L12.
I am trained as a Hubbard Professional Course Supervisor, and all the supervisor courses below that, as well as being an HDG (Hubbard Dianetic Graduate) which is a supervisor specifically trained to run the Standard Dianetic course.
I am Staff Status II, Org Officer mini hat, Esto full hat, ED mini hat, PRD,
I have been on and off staff several times at our local mission and once at the local Org.
My favorite part of my Scientology history is the times when I was supervising. I loved supervising the Comm Course especially.
I also was very good as an Ethics Officer. (Since leaving The Church I have developed an “Ethics Orientation” to assist people with their understanding and use of Ethics as a tool for changing their lives.)
I am a declared “suppressive”. (about five years back)
Recently I have stopped considering myself a Scientologist.
That is the “nut-shell” version.
Eric
Wow! That is a helluva a pedigree Eric! I am so glad you’ve decided to communicate here. I was declared suppressive over 20 years ago and my oldest daughter is still not allowed to communicate with her mother who is still in the SO. I have been decompressing ever since the early 90’s. I had no idea from your posts and thought you were some young curious guy! haha laugh’s on me! Take your time there’s no rush or pressure. There are many smart and savvy exes who read and comment here — lotta canucks it seems! I am the only guy from Arizona that I know of.
I’m gonna be off this channel now for probably a day so if I don’t write, I will soon. Nice to meet you.
Eric, thanks for the introduction. You live in a lovely place. I enjoyed my trip to British Columbia.
I am glad in a way that you didn’t do any OT Levels. They do something weird to a person. They really buid the self-centric filter in a person.
I had started to convert the L’s into KHTK processes. That project still needs to be completed. Here is a process that came out of that study
PROCESS: The Intention to Harm
I think that those people who became word clearers and course supervisors in Scientoilogy really wanted to know and understand. If that postulate to know did get fulfilled is another matter. I was the word clearer on Flag for the TRs Course.
Ethics is an area I haven’t delved much into. It would be interesting to look at it in a new unit of time.
By the way, here SP means a special person who can think for himself or herself.
Wecome to Vinaire’s Blog.
Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality just like an object and its properties are two different aspects of the same reality.
One may compare it to software and hardware also. But here I would broaden the definition of software as the property of the hardware.
What would be the spirituality of an atom? It would be the pattern of electrons around the nucleus and the resonances they are capable of with other atoms.
.
According to Scientology “man creates his past, present and future by postulates. His past, present and future exist to the extent that he can postulate them.”
I find the above to be inconsistent.
By Hubbard’s definition, a postulate is a truth created by oneself for oneself. This is like an assumption, premise or a hypothesis. It can bring about a future for a person through visualization. It could be a belief in the present (consideration). A belief (consideration) is a continuing postulate. Beliefs are created in the past and continue in the present. Beliefs can influence one’s view of the past.
One can certainly consider a different past, but one cannot create a different past.
The beliefs of a person may be changed through application of force, such as, brainwashing, implanting, etc.
Beliefs may also be changed through gradual agreement, which is essentially the application of logic. We try to do this through debates.
The best way of changing beliefs is through better understanding. This comes from the application of mindfulness by oneself as in a discussion.
.
A debate is self-centric.
A discussion is reality-centric.
A debate is self-centric. A discussion is reality-centric.
Excellent! The difference between between the goal of winning and learning.
Vinaire
Yes,
The concept that … “man creates his past, present and future by postulates. His past, present and future exist to the extent that he can postulate them.” … does not seem to reflect the actuality of the situation.
I would suggest that the first sentence would more reflect “reality” if it read….”man EXPERIENCES his past, present and future THROUGH (as in “filters”) HIS postulates.
The second sentence would then read something like… “His PRESENT TIME EXPERIENCE OF HIS past, present and future IS MODIFIED BY HIS PRESENT TIME postulates REGARDING them”…
I also consider that “One can certainly consider a different past, but one cannot create a different past.”
We have the ability to create a different view of the past, but I do not consider that that alters the “reality” of the past in any way.
Eric
Anther dictum of Scientology, “What is true for oneself is true” is an inconsistent statement. It may be true “for oneself” in terms of a filtered reality, but it may not necessarily be true in terms of what is out there as unfiltered reality.
By postulating, one creates past, present and future as a filtered reality only. The actual past, present and future as unfiltered reality can be very different.
“The actual past, present and future as unfiltered reality can be very different.”
The concepts of past, present, and future seem to be human abstractions for “relative ongoing processes.” These divisive words for me obscure an understanding of what is physically ongoing. Just saying that I am clinging lightly to these definitions and though I use them in daily life I am remembering that they are abstractions.
Time is essentially a sequence. An example would be the sequence of prgramming instructions in a program.
Present would be the program instructions being executed.
Past would be the sequence of program instructions already executed.
Future would be the sequence of program instructions yet to be executed.
.
Vinaire
Currently I am considering that there is only “the present”, or perhaps “time” is only experienced in the present. I do not consider that the past, present or future have any “time” (continued existence) in them at all.
It seems possible that the concept of “time” is an experience created by “spirit”. There is apparently a constantly changing “reality”, but the concept of “time” could seemingly only belong to an “observer of change” not the change itself.
Eric
To make progress in this field of knowledge, it takes a lot of dilligent effort – a lot. It gives me pause and makes me wonder at knowledge and how it is aquired.
Ultimately, Time (sequence) is also a filter, just like Space (separation) is a filter. But going that far is not productive.
What is productive is spotting inconsistencies in what we perceive at the moment.
Do you think that there is a “spirit” that “creates”? If yes, could you please elaborate on your beliefs in this area!
Vinaire
You asked… “Do you think that there is a “spirit” that “creates”?
At this point I do consider that there is something (this word lacks the breadth of possibilities) that is capable of creating, that is associated with, or part of, this universe. The creation that “it” seems to demonstrate falls generally into two categories, “pure” creation, which does not necessarily manifest in the “physical universe”, and the altering of energies and spaces that appear as created or altered effects observable in the physical universe.
This “something” appears to be unique, or different from the forces and spaces of the physical universe, in that it seems to be capable of perceiving and recording phenomena, and through combining and recombining these perceptions and evaluating the results, creates something that only “it” and perhaps “others of its kind” (assuming that that is a possibility) consider valuable.
The stuff and spaces and energies of this universe seem to have no such ability.
Hugely simplistic, but it is a start.
Eric
Yes, there has been this nebulous idea of spirit that is very subjective. People think that there must be some truth to it because it has been around forever. They accept it while not able to define it. To me this falls under the category of inconsistency.
I have found mindfulness to be very useful. Here are the 12 aspects of mindfulness as I understand them:
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.
When I mindfully look at the subject of spirit, I find it to be a theoretical postulate that is assumed to be real. I have looked at myself as to what this spirit is. The best I can come up with, having a scientific background that spirit is the sumtotal of all the mental and physical energies that I am composed of. Here is an essay that I wrote on it.
If you have any different ideas, let’s look at them.
I wonder does light have a past?
From what viewpoint are you wondering?
Good. If I wonder from my eyeball, where I watch starlight on my back porch. If I wonder considering the span of the entire universe, looking as though I can embrace the whole. If I wonder considering from the wave crest of a photon as it emanates across the universe.
If you are viewing the universe as a 5-dimensional object then there is no past.
Your question is very interesting. Electromagnetism seems to be the basis of all physicality. Time would vary with Disturbance levels. But one would be able to see all variations of time when viewing the universe as a 5-dimensional object.
Vinaire
In your post to me on the inconsistencies of the concept of “spirit” as separate from the physical universe, you stated…
” The best I can come up with, having a scientific background that spirit is the sumtotal of all the mental and physical energies that I am composed of.”
Yes, I can see how you arrive there based on the viewpoints that you have shared.
But in your statement you seem to have left out one factor that I think makes all the difference. You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.
I would postulate that the one would be wise to attempt to view all phenomena from as many viewpoints, or filters, as one is capable.
At this point I am guessing that “breadth of one’s data base”, from as many viewpoints as possible, will eventually lead to the best “why” finds and evaluations.
Seems we always come back to what we are calling FILTERS.
Eric
“You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.
Eric, Vinaire does very little without addressing how his research addresses the “I.” If this is what you are primarily interested in, then read through this voluminous blog before correcting it. When you become very well grounded in science and mathematics or well grounded in a piece of it is a better time to throw out what cannot be known through science and mathematics. You have lept into an ocean of ideas without first testing the water with your toe. I recommend reading and drilling KHTK basic principles to find your center of balance and see what is there rather than what seems to be there.
Science is the way to organize one’s observations and ideas for testing them to see if they are sound. It is science and not Scientology which is self correcting.
Mathematics is the most beautiful and eloquent language in the world and shows the precise relationships between things. No poet can describe all the vectors necessary to land a rocket on the moon but mathematics can. Mathematics makes it possible for man to view the heavens in ways never dreamed of before the advent of telescopes and a knowledge of the light spectrum… What would be more beautiful than this?
This path that you want to walk requires a commitment to knowledge that for me is daunting. Between the adventures of living, I spend as much time as possible learning facts rather than piling on more beliefs.
“seems we always come back to what we are calling FILTERS.”
It is just a word and we have refer to filters with many expressions. Another word for this that I like is assumptions, and another is considerations. Get a thesaurus for more synonyms, they are all good. We’re just trying to pair down the difference between a belief and a fact.
Vinaire
You invited me to share my ideas on “spirit”.
To discuss this fully will likely take some time but I will include aspects of my thoughts on it as they apply to other posts and subjects.
I have also given some of my ideas in answer to some of your other questions to me about the area.
But first I would like to address one other aspect, brought up in the early part of the post I am responding to.
In looking over the numbered statements on Mindfullness, I noticed an inconsistency when numbers 2,3, and 4 are included together.
Here they are:
“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.”
Number 2 suggests that one not assume anything, and yet both number 3 and number 4 include assumptions in their statement,
The assumption in number 3 is that “something is missing”. The assumption in number 4 is that “something does not make sense”. Neither of these is purely observable. They are evaluations.
Oh, damn… Just noticed the time… gotta run…
but I will get back to the “Spirit” thing tomorrow.
Eric
An assumption is something taken for granted. Aspects of mindfulness #3 and #4 are conditional statements. There is nothing taken for granted in those statements. Please see the exercises on them here under the section on Mindfulness.
https://vinaire.me/research-on-learning/
.
Vinaire
Yes, this is an interesting one. I believe one of Ron’s statements of that concept is… ” What is true for you is true for you.”… which strikes me as pretty much a “throw-away” statement.
I have come to the consideration that “all “truth” is personal. “Truth” is not “reality”. “Truth” is one’s consideration of the reliability of his own postulates regarding something. ( And the “something” itself is not necessarily a “reality” either, but could already be someone else’s postulated reality.)
Eric
Scientology looks at all truth as subjective. It has no concept of objective truth.
This kind of thinking comes from self-centric approach which is characteristic of theism.
Vinaire
What you are calling “objective truth” I seem to be calling “reality”. (somewhere the term “actuality” was used to represent this.)
I am using the concept of “truth” as separate from “reality”(actuality). I am using the word “truth” to represent what one considers, or postulates, and “reality” as what IS. (actual existence)
Eric
How do you know that what you are perceiving is the actual existence?
Usually what one perceives is the filtered reality (think of filtered light). One may say that somewhere there is unfiltered reality back of all those filters; but that would be theoretical for a person who doesn’t even know that he has filters.
Eric, are you sure that you have no filters?
.
Vinaire
You asked… “Eric, are you sure that you have no filters?”
Absolutely not! The likelihood of that seems seems almost unimaginable.
Actually my involvement with Scientology was initially simply to be able to eventually view the universe, or universes, without what I called “rose colored glasses” and you call “filters”.
It became apparent to me that how I experienced the world around me was totally dependent on my own considerations and postulates. So far I have not experienced any unalterable “reality” as I compulsively view things through my own filters.
But I haven’t given up on attempting to remove filters. I think one aspect of discussion, or experiencing different realities, is that hopefully “actuality” may shine through from time to time.
Eric
Eric, my method of discovering my filters is as follows.
https://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/
.
Vinaire
You also asked…”How do you know that what you are perceiving is the actual existence?”
Well… I don’t. I am not even certain that that is “knowable”.
Some of my thoughts on this…
Anything perceived, by whatever is perceiving, is already an alteration of “actuality”. Any perception, or recording it makes, already contains altered space, altered energy, and altered time. The perception itself may have its own actuality, but it is not the original actuality.
The only way to experience, duplicate. etc. (all these words fail to convey unfiltered actuality) some aspect of the “physical universe” would be to totally exist solely in the terms of that universe. Nothing would have been perceived, duplicated, “been”, etc, it would simply exist as it exists.
Eric
That’s pretty good. It makes sense to me. 🙂
In my view the only way one can view the unfiltered reality is by erasing the filter.
Generally, one is not aware of the filter so it is difficult to erase it. The only way to erase the filter is to become aware of it and examine it closely.
One can become aware of the filter and erase it only in gradients… little by littlw.
The way to become aware of the filter is to be alert for inconsistencies and then examine those inconsistencies more closely. The present explanation of “spirit” presents an inconsistency to me as it is too subjective and vague.
Just by calling it thetan doesn’t make it any clearer.
Hi Vinaire
Please can you tell me how you understand the difference between THETA and A Thetan
Regards
Pip
Theta and thetan are postulates by Hubbard to base his theory on. The definitions of THETA and THETAN as defined by him are available in the Tech Dictionary below.
Click to access technical_dictionary.pdf
THETA, 1. theta is thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years. (SOS, p. 4) 2 . the life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. It is susceptible to alteration in character or vibration, at which time it becomes enturbulated theta or entheta. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 21) 3. theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic laws. The three primary components of theta are affinity, reality, and communication. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 4 . reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which man ordinarilyconsiders desirable. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 12) 5 . an energy existing separate and distinct from the physical universe. (SOS, p. 4) 6 . Greek for thought or life or the spirit. (Aud 10 UK) 7 . not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms. (PDC 6)
THETAN, 1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1) 2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55) 5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9) 6. the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46) 7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247) 8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——) 9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK) 10. a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )
What distinction did Hubbard make between THETA and THETAN should be obvious from the above definitions by Hubbard. As far as I am concerned I consider these fundamental postulates to be flawed.
It is an error to consider THETA and THETAN anything other than postulates made by Hubbard to “clarify” the observations about life.
These postulates are part of Hubbard’s hypothesis that grew into the subject of Scientology.
Vinaire
Regarding: “In my view the only way one can view the unfiltered reality is by erasing the filter.”
I think that that is what one would ultimately need to do, but as you say, achieving that is problematical, due in part to the aspect of often not knowing they are there, or what form they take.
From some of the statements that you have made I take it that you would be looking for inconsistencies based on a physical model. To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.
My approach is to acquire viewpoints of all kinds, based on all sorts of models. I do not look for inconsistencies based on a single model. By comparing these viewpoints with my own, where I find inconsistencies, I look for filters in my own viewpoint first, and then in the other viewpoints.
I do not generally pitch out a viewpoint in its entirety simply because I noticed an inconsistency upon a particular inspection. Things change as filters are removed, and new doors open. I maintain all data sets for future evaluations.
Will this eventually erase all filters? Hard to say.
So, as an example, here is something that I have come up with from this thread. I was looking for inconsistencies in both our models (as I view them at this point) as compared to each other.
As I said earlier: “Anything perceived, by whatever is perceiving, is already an alteration of “actuality”. Any perception, or recording “it” makes, already contains altered space, altered energy, and altered time.”
Even after stating this, I continued to hold the concept that “getting rid of all filters” would be a good thing. (Even the first line of this post reflects this viewpoint.)
But, upon closer inspection, ( which I have been doing as I have been composing this) I came up with this:
“Perception” itself appears to be a filter, if that statement is accurate. “Perception” appears to be one of the unique attributes of “life”.
Personally I cannot conceive of a state of “no perception”.
By inspecting the inconsistencies between these two viewpoints I have re-evaluated my initial viewpoint.
At this point, I now am of the mind that “removing filters” is seemingly a limited process. I would still need to test this hypothesis, by attempting to isolate or categorize the parameters of this limitation, but it is a start in a new direction of thinking for me.
Eric
“To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”
Throughout the history of science and especially before the advent of science, the search for understanding through “non physical possibilities” has brought forth strange and unworkable ideas. I would give a thousand famous examples but you get the idea. Considering non physical possibilities has never been necessary so far. Maybe in the future when we’ve run out of universe to scour?
“To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”
One more thing, the search for non physical possibilities yields nothing of substance (pun intended) and undercutting that search if the assumption that “physical possibilities” have already been exhausted. This has always been an error and we are nowhere near exhausting “physical possibilities” to learn about. The advantage? Physical possibilities are, well, there to study. And non-physical possibilities? Well, they are, well, uh, not there. Acknowledging these few items gets one’s research on track and rather than closing the door on the non-physical, it throws wide the door to some serious and we hope fruitful observation. Using Vinaire’s KHTK methods, to me seem fruitful to begin the journey away from the assumptions of unproductive theism and onto the track of beginning to see what is there rather what seems to be there.
“What is true for you is true for you.”… which strikes me as pretty much a “throw-away” statement.”
Eric, for me it is a tautology when describing one’s personal reality (beliefs, the self-centric) and false when describing the objective reality (facts, reality-centric view.)
Chris
Yes
Eric
CAUSE
Wikipedia
“Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.”
.
Scientology
“1. Cause could be defined as emanation. It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point. 2. A potential source of flow. 3. Cause is simply the point of emanation of the communication. Cause in our dictionary here means only ‘source point’.”
.
KHTK
When an event is identified as the consequence of another event, then the former is called an effect of the latter cause. Cause is actually the starting point of effect. It is the same event extended in time. It is an error to look upon cause and effect as separate events.
.
COMMENTS:
Cause and effect are abstractions gleaned from associations observed among events. The ‘effect’ event is understood as a consequence of the ‘cause’ event. A closer look shows cause and effect to be aspects of the same event that is essentially extended in space – time.
All ’cause-effect’ events seem to be concatenated with each other with no absolute beginning or ending. The point to be emphasized is that cause and effect are relative to each other. Neither cause nor effect exists in isolation. The idea of a potential cause is balanced with the idea of potential effect.
Cause-effect association is not necessarily linear or one-dimensional. It can easily be observed to be 2-dimensional since an event may be caused by many causative factors, and a causative factor may influence many events.
Cause-effect associations may even be perceived as a three or multi-dimensional matrix.
.
.
BEINGNESS
Dictionary
“1. the state or fact of existing; 2. a point of view gradually coming into being; 3. laws in existence for centuries.”
.
Scientology
“1. the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained. Examples of beingness would be one’s own name, one’s profession, one’s physical characteristics, one’s role in a game—each and all of these things could be called one’s beingness. 2. the person one should be in order to survive. 3. essentially, an identification of self with an object.”
.
KHTK
Beingness is the state or fact of existing. It may be looked upon as a matrix of events that are associated with each other through cause-effect relationships.
.
COMMENTS:
If something exists then it is being. The two words ‘existing’ and ‘being’ seem to be synonymous.
An event seems to come into being by virtue of another event. So the beingness of existence, as such, may be looked upon as a matrix of events that are associated through cause-effect relationships.
Scientology seems to look at beingness as the property of a being (see below), in terms of a role or an identity. Thus, in Scientology, beingness is defined in terms of a being.
.
.
BEING (INDIVIDUAL)
Wikipedia
“Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a ‘being’, though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression “human being”). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.”
.
Scientology
“1. a viewpoint; he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints. 2. an energy production source (thetan). 3. essentially the beingness of theta itself acting in the mest and other universes in the accomplishment of the goals of theta and under the determination of a specific individual and particular personality for each being. 4. when we say the individual we are talking about something as precise as an apple. We are not talking about a collection of behavior patterns which we all learned about in the study of rats. We are talking about something that is finite. We are talking about somebody. The somethingness that you are and the capabilities you can be and this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the color of your hair or the length of your feet. We are talking about you.”
.
KHTK
A being is a part of beingness (the cause-effect matrix) that has acquired a sense of individuality and has separated itself from rest of the beingness. This is a specialized “beingness”, which has the purpose to survive as itself.
.
COMMENTS:
A being is thought to be that part of overall beingness (existence) that has developed subjectivity. The subjectivity provides a sense of individuality, which separates it from rest of the existence. This is the view in general philosophy as well as in KHTK.
Scientology, however, looks at beingness as the consequence of a being. The being is the innermost sense of individuality. In Scientology, the universe exists simply because we all agree that it exists. Thus, Scientology believes that all existence emanates from the individual being.
.
.
In Scientology the relationship between the concepts of BEINGNESS and BEING is reversed compared to what it is in general philosophy.
It is the self-centric postulate.
Scientology says (in L. Kin’s words):
“What is true for oneself – whether referring to the past or the future – is true now, simply because postulates are always now, once they have been made. This is because postulates are thoughts. They are thoughts connected with action or states of being, so they have a dynamic connotation, but still: they are thoughts. And thoughts, as we saw, exist outside the physical universe. The physical universe – or “mest universe” – consists of the components matter, energy, space and time (mest). Thought is outside and above time and therefore outside and above the mest universe. Thoughts and postulates impinge on the physical universe to give it shape, form and dynamic action, yes, but they are not part of it. Thoughts and postulates all by themselves are static. They don’t move, they are not dynamic, yet bring about dynamic action. They “float along in time” as it were; they are always in the present, forever now, no matter when they were made. The totality of all postulates ever made are expressed in the Now of each moment. They determine life in each instant.”
I think differently. Yes, postulates are always now, once they have been made
(1) They become considerations
(2) These postulates determine the truth for you
(3) They become part of your makeup
(4)This makeup is dynamic because of changing configuration
But,
(1) Thoughts exist as patterns in what is physical
(2) Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of existence
(3) Spiritual and physical influence each other (it is not just one way)
.
The following is an excellent clarification by LRH:
A cycle of action starts with creating a postulate
(1) Life is created on the basis of this postulate.
(2) It goes on creating-creating-creating.
(3) It stops only when the original postulate is undone.
(4) The cycle of action does not come to an end by counter-creating.
(5) That only sets up a ridge.
(6) Counter-creating doesn’t do away with the postulate.
You can undo a postulate only by becoming fully aware of it
(1) All aspects of mindfulness apply here.
.
Can intention be a “suppressed postulate”?
It is something that one has postulated but cannot bring it about.
It is just hanging there unfulfilled.
“Can intention be a “suppressed postulate”? It is something that one has postulated but cannot bring it about.”
IDK. Do the properties of electromagnetic radiation apply?
Oh Chris
I don’t know if you intended that to be funny or not, but it totally broke me up.
Thanks for a good chuckle.
Eric
Thank you Eric. Glad you liked it. But, uh, no. I was being serious! There is a lot to look at here! You’ll catch onto us if you hang around! I’m glad you are here.
The fundamental relationship between spiritual (awareness) and physical (electromagnetism) is covered here.
https://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/
.
That’s a good question. If awareness and electromagnetism go hand-in hand then what would be a postulate?
As soon as a postulate is made, it “radiates” influencing other considerations. If those cosiderations do not align with the postulate then its radiation could be “suppressed.”
Yes. I can face two guitars, pluck a string on one and get a corresponding and harmonic vibration on its twin. Harmony and harmonics in my opinion may contain low hanging fruit.
I am thinking of my recent study of “Cycle of Action” from L. Kin’s book. See page 68 here:
Click to access vol1-the-principles-unveiled.pdf
When you postulate a palace, there is only a vision. That vision is fulfilled when that palace is actually constructed as visualized. This would be the completion of the cycle of action that started with the postulated palace. This would also be the AS-ISNESS of the original postulate.
This gives me a different idea then what LRH said about postulating it again in a new unit of time to bring about as-isness of the original postulate. This definition of as-isness does not require the completion of any cycle of action.
Anyway, it seems that as soon as a postulate is made, it radiates outwards as a cycle of action and it is as-ised only upon its fulfillment. I don’t know how one can turn back the time and unpostulate that postulate.
Am I missing something?.
“I don’t know how one can turn back the time and unpostulate that postulate.”
There is a mechanism, a reverberation which continues to iterate the postulate. I do not particularly think the original postulate from the past exists in the present but that is what we were taught and is what we say. Is this consistent with behavior? Maybe. I think it is a type of continuing reverberation which comes to a halt when the iteration-crank stops turning. This is what we call as-isness, the beginning of the iteration and the end of turning the crank (formula).
So, as-isness is start turning the crank and stop turning the crank. What happens in between?
According to Hubbard, each turn of the crank is alter-isness. That alter-isness now exists in terms of a beautiful realized palace. There is some confusion here about as-ising the mass of that palace. It doesn’t go away by stop turning the crank.
Only the tension created by the postulate goes away.
So, a universe may be postulated. When that universe comes into being, the postulate is satisfied (as-ised). The postulate no longer exists.
But the universe exists as postulated. How do we as-is that universe? What is keeping that universe there?
I guess it would be the not-knowing of why did I have that postulate of building a universe in the first place?
You are losing me a little bit by personifying these physical processes… Is this intentional? Not the losing me part, the personifying part. Are you paving a road to an unrevealed idea?
Let me try again.
(1) Say a person has a postulate to be a doctor. (2) He works hard and becomes a doctor. (3) The postulate is fulfilled. This is as-isness of the postulate. (4) But he is now a doctor. (5) That beingness of doctor is not as-ised. (6) Nor do we want it to be as-ised (7) Because it would re-ignite the earlier postulate. (6) So, what does as-isness really mean?
________________________________
“So, what does as-isness really mean?”
I swear I never liked this term since I first heard it 37 years ago. Probably because of why you and I are discussing it now. So what do we know? It is the coming into and out of existence. I look down at the flowing river and I watch as currents combine to create and dissolve little whirlpools. Is it this simple? We kind of seem to go back and forth about the cause and effect thingy. I only see things popping into and out of existence. Mostly in the mental realm which I think may resemble a tropical storm with lots of dynamic activity. This whole thing of will . . . I went over the idea of building my garage today. From the idea that I needed a garage, to measuring and sketching, serious dimensioning on a piece of paper, architecture drawings, building, painting, finally flushing the toilet for the first time. (Yes, my garage has a toilet, and a tub and a sink. hahaha) You are right about the postulate and how it very nearly extinguished as my little project nears completion.
“According to Hubbard, each turn of the crank is alter-isness.”
That is consistent with fractal math if we make the analogy of the crank as the formula. There is a seed and a turn of the crank and a coordinate spits out. The new coordinate becomes the seed for the next turn of the crank. Is that take on Hubbard yours? or some reference with which I am not familiar? I am pretty sure that Hubbard did not know about fractals. It ends up being quite an astute observation by yourself for sure, and by Hubbard if the reference is real.
“There is some confusion here about as-ising the mass of that palace. It doesn’t go away by stop turning the crank.”
What I think that I’ve learned is that in this universe, there is one helluva lot of crank turning going on. Any confusion is not because that idea you expressed is wrong. It is only misleading because of the enormous orders of magnitude involved — both large and small.
A cycle of action may appear as
(1) Create – Survive – Destroy
(2) Things are brought into being because of postulates
(3) There is an interaction of many continuous create-create-create cycles
(4) These myriads of cycles may have different and conflicting purposes
(5) Thus things may change, decay, or be destroyed because of such influences
But,
(1) A thetan is merely a postulate to explain what is observed
(2) “Agreement among thetans” is just one way to describe interactions
(3) Theta is senior to Mest is just another postulate.
(4) Postulates may act as filters that color the reality
The cycle of action provides the perception of time
(1) Change is the primary manifestation of time.
If something appears unchanging and merely persisting then
(1) The viewpoint must be changing to give the perception of persistence
.
GOALS PROBLEMS MASSES (GPMs)
(1) Counter-creation doesn’t undo the original creation (see above)
(2) It doesn’t complete the cycle of action
(3) It only forms a ridge called a GPM or Goals Problems Mass.
(4) Goal is the original postulate of the cycle of action (create)
(5) Problem is the changes coming out of that postulate (create, create, create…)
(6) Mass is the counter-create against this creation
.
Is all mass then a GPM?
Well, the idea of mass comes from condensation, and condensation comes from encountering resistance.
I have to learn more about resistance.
Chris, checkout KHTK postulates P4 and P5 here.
https://vinaire.me/2014/02/16/khtk-postulates-for-physics/
.
Is a consideration a phenomena of space-time? And Is the GPM a phenomena of space-time?
If considerations are senior to mechanics, which I believe they are, and G.P.M’s are mechanical phenomenon then G.P.M’s are brought about by considerations.
Yes, I am familiar with that idea. I don’t see considerations as apart from mechanics. When I attempt to split them apart, I see many inconsistencies in the resulting phenomena. However when I consider the two as a part of the whole, my understanding of how things occur smooths out.
I think senior/junior is Hubbard’s opinion. To me they are simply two different aspects of the same phenomenon much like software and hardware. These are simply two different functions that go together. The senior/junior consideration is after the fact.
GPMs, to my understanding are those steps above. There are postulates that propagate forward as considerations and interact with other considerations. If they all are consistent the cycle of action goes forward without problem. If they are inconsistent them mass is formed, which may end up as a static ridge.
I think I have to first figure out where postulate fits into the KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics (oh no! that is a lot of work). Consideration is a continuing postulate.
“How does a postulate start” makes me wonder how does an electromagnetic wave ( a point of light) comes about.
I know. What is a photon – really. Feynman says my worst fear when he says about quanta that it is not like anything else. Electricians are fond of using garden hoses and water pressure and volume to make analogies for electric current. But at these levels, they are no longer meaningful. I continue to create analogies and metaphors but I need to keep that in mind, what I am doing and not mistake it for the real thing.
Can a “postulate/light” be a BANG, if not a Big Bang.
It appears from “nothing”, or from “unknowable”, and then propagates equally in all dimensions until its cycle is completed!
As it propagates it evolves according to the seed in it.
When it is consistent throughout the seed comes to fruition and the cycle is completed.
When it is inconsistent it ends up in masses and ridges to be resolved.
All the mass of Scientology currently visible in the Church of Scientology is coming from counter-create against the outcome from the original THETA-MEST Theory.
The Theta-MEST theory is self-centric as outlined in the OP. This is leading to the US-THEM phenomenon. The phenomenon is counter-created with the use of US-THEM by the critics of Scientology, who are theists (also self-centric).
The mass is building up as US-THEM.
The original postulate provides the AS-ISNESS on which to build
(1) A development consistent with the original postulate provides IS-NESS
(2) Introduction of inconsistencies in that development will be ALTER-ISNESS
(3) Counter-create would be the effort to bulldoze those inconsistencies down
(4) This would result in NOT-ISNESS.
(5) AS-ISNESS would be to recognize those inconsistencies and reverse them
(6) Then one would be back on the track of the original postulate
(7) One would then be able to complete the cycle of action
(8) And achieve the AS-ISNESS of the original postulate.
If the “original” postulate alters the postulates that went before it, then it would be an alter-isness of prior postulates. It would introduce an inconsistency.
I think this is what the THETA-MEST theory did. It introduced an inconsistency.
There is no atheism really. It is an after-thought following the introduction of Theism. Theism itself is an inconsistency introduced in the natural order of things.
I agree atheism is a reaction to the belief in God which is brought about by a misunderstanding of what is meant by God. As I have said before God does not exist HE IS EXISTENCE what OSHO would call CONSCIOUSNESS.
Love
Pip
Theism and atheism exist in West only.
In the East there has been no theism, so there has been no atheism either.
West looks at eastern religions through its filter of theism-atheism and comes up with further terminology like monotheism and polytheism.
All these terminologies are foreign to the East.
Fundamental spirituality is consciousness (awareness).
Fundmental physicality is electromagnetism.
Consciousness (awareness) is the pattern built into electromagnetism.
I would say that all there is is IS-NESS. Man has been trying to make sense out of it for some time. In doing so a lot of vocabulary has been developed. God is part of that vocabulary.
Associating the idea of SELF with God has been a primary inconsistency.
Here are some thoughts on soul.
(1) The soul is trying to understand itself.
(2) It is actually looking at its “reflection” to do so.
(3) This is like looking at oneself through a filter.
(4) The filter is made up of mental and physical forces or energies.
(5) So the soul appears to have mental and physical forces or energies.
(6) As filters lessen the energies comprising the “soul” also lessen.
(7) The complete cessation of filters is nirvana.
(8) At that point the “soul” and its “reflection” become one.
(9) Both annihilate each other because who knows which is the soul, and which is its refelection.
(10) There is no longer that effort to understand oneself.
(11) No longer is any awareness needed.
(12) With its reflection gone, the soul is gone too.
(13) There is only BRAHMAN.
“(13) There is only BRAHMAN.”
. . . or Higgs Field. Those Hindu boys were pretty smart.
This is the reversal of Big Bang!
Each postulate is a mini bang. Each realization is a reversed mini bang.
Or, each postulate is a ‘mini source’. Each realization is a ‘mini sink’.
A postulate is a start of a cycle. A realization is the end of a cycle.
Postulate is positive or addititive. Realization is negative or subtractive.
Brahma is the background of no postulate, no realization.
No theism / Theism / Atheism was quite a realization. 🙂
Self-centric (ego-centric) versus realitiy-centric was also quite a realization.
Hubbard called postulation and realization alike as as-isnesses, but they are different in polarity. One is start and the other is end of a cycle.
“One is start and the other is end of a cycle.”
So we say! However, is there any evidence of the absolute beginning of anything at all which cannot easilly be shown to be an mental abstraction?
A point of light starting would be like a postulate. Light disappearing would be like a realization.
What would be a realization in physical terms?
“What would be a realization in physical terms?”
Yes, what!?!
Some quality of space-time or EMR? There I go with the tautology – again. Which is the mirror and which is the looker? Or is this a kind of paradox like cause-effect?
(1) The very first postulate must be that there is the very first postulate.
(2) So, the universe has to start out tautologically.
(3) Tautological in spiritual realm would be circular in physical realm.
(4) A 3-dimensional circularity would be a sphere.
(5) This tautology-circularity would apply to all dimensions.
(6) The universe would inherently be tautological and circular.
(7) So a postulate or a point of electromagnetism that starts out from nothing would have to be tautological and circular.
I have no idea where this all is leading toward.
“(1) The very first postulate must be that there is the very first postulate.”
The very first postulate of self-realization, not the very first postulate.
You are showing me something here. Our explanations, our self reflections seem to be tautological. Telling ourselves what we know is tautological. I have been flogging this for a while but this is a newer angle.
(2) So, the universe has to start out tautologically. (3) Tautological in spiritual realm would be circular in physical realm. (4) A 3-dimensional circularity would be a sphere. (5) This tautology-circularity would apply to all dimensions. (6) The universe would inherently be tautological and circular. (7) So a postulate or a point of electromagnetism that starts out from nothing would have to be tautological and circular.
“I have no idea where this all is leading toward.”
No, but I like the sense of motion. You are really wearing this down to something – keep going.
A postulate starts, it starts developing, and then it ends in a realization.
Is this a circle completed or a spiral? At every point in its journey a postulate is tautological. What keeps it going? What is the seed in it?
The seed seems to be the ‘desire to know’… the desire to know itself… hahaha!
It finally knows, “How stupid I have been!” Hahaha.
That is the Mother of all Realizations. Hahaha!
Existence is a cosmic joke!
God must be getting red in face!
Now this would be the mother of all exteriorizations… it is exteriorizing out of oneself. Hahaha!
Can you imagine a thetan imploding!
And turning into a black hole!
I’m feeling your pain and laughter brother! Rafael should drop in.
Brother Rafael seems to be missing in action!
But seriously, the physical processes that we personify, the way that we do that, intrigues me! Existence IS totally a cosmic joke. But “cosmic joke” is a personification of what we don’t understand. Possibly the filters, the personifications, the self-centrism, and all the rest are burning like a rocket and do not totally fizzle until the last moment and then poof, gone.
Eric said: “From some of the statements that you have made I take it that you would be looking for inconsistencies based on a physical model. To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”
To me physical and spiritual are not separate. They are one phenomenon two aspects.
.
Eric said, “The way I see it, “Mathamatics” as a tool, or as a “game” was not created by, nor does it seem to have any value to the physical universe itself. The value seems to revolve solely around “observer” viewpoints. It appears to be the result of “something” with the capability of evaluation, translating the universe that it “observes” into “code”. It could potentially be called “programming code” for the physical universe.”
Mathematics is simply an aid. It does not do the looking for you or for the universe. Mathematics points this out, and I can see directly without the filter of mathematics that the concept of an overall universe is consistent.
If you see any inconsistency in the concept of an overall universe then please let me know.
I go by mindfulness. This whole site is built on mindfulness. If you have any disagreement with mindfulness then those disagreements needs to be sorted out as a priority, otherwise we shall just be wasting time. Please see:
.
Mathematics is the language which is precise enough to allow us to express what we observe. Mathematics expresses concepts and is self-diagnostic for consistency.
Well said!
Thanks Vinay. It helps me to get the idea of math whether or not I can speak it.
Eric said,
But in your statement you seem to have left out one factor that I think makes all the difference. You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.
It is difficult to put everything in a few sentences. There is a lot more said on this subject, which exists here.
Besides, this is a developing subject. My latest realization is that soul thins out as filters thin out. In the end when there are no filters then there is no soul either. There is only Brahma. Please see
.