Scientology and Suppression

Suppression

Reference:  THE “INVALIDATION” BUTTON

Scientologists make a big deal about being suppressed by social and governmental institutions like psychiatry and IRS. They always have legal battles waging against their perceived critics.

Scientology worships individuality in the form of “thetan.” Hubbard was critical of the idea of “nirvana” of Buddhism. The individual scientologist screams loudly of being invalidated, the moment they hear anything said against their idea of self. One gets a strong sense of “I am right and you are wrong,” when talking to a scientologist.

On various blogs discussing matters related to Scientology, there is no genuine discussion possible. There would be endless advice imparted that uses scientology ideology and vocabulary. But the moment one insists on anything that differs from Scientology ideology, one is accused of preaching.

Scientologists can be very suppressive to ideas that do not agree with their ideology. But they are quick in identifying themselves as victim of suppression from the society.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 8:51 AM

    Why does a Scientologist always gets personal when talking about ideas, and can’t discuss them for what they are?

    Because he is too strongly identified with the ideas in Scientology. This is the case with any fanatic.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 18, 2014 at 11:43 PM

      “Because he is too strongly identified with the ideas in Scientology. This is the case with any fanatic.”

      Everyone seeks consistency in all their metaphors. When another muddies one’s own pond, one becomes exasperated especially if one had been enjoying some temporary clarity. If we wish to condition another’s metaphors to match our own, then we should pay attention where we step so as to cause little or no interference. This is assuming another wants to be conditioned into our views. I am using conditioning in an educational sense.

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:05 AM

        An example of seeking consistency would be seeking the correct sequence of say cards 3 to 5 of clubs. If all the cards are loose, it is easy to place them in a sequence on the table. But if cards 3 and 5 are glued to the table right next to each other then we have a problem.

        That glue is like being identified with the ideas. The sequence “3,5” is glued in his mind. He would not know where to put 4 because he cannot put it between 3 and 4. He would make the best guess for 4 in the sequence he creates, and then would stick to that guess from then on. He would then swear by that guess of his as correct because underlying that guess is the sequence “3,5” with which he is totally identified. The sequence “3, 5” is an accepted truth to him that cannot be questioned.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM

          So “self-determinism” does not necessary mean that the person is truly self-determined. He is determined by his filters but he does not know it.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:10 PM

          Yes, self determinism is a limited way of looking and acting. It might be likened to a narrow field of vision where a wider view is necessary to behave wisely.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM

          When there is a disagreement between two people, we do not know whose filters are creating the inconsistency. The solution is for both of them to work together without bringing in their ego to resolve the inconsistency. The discussion policy is designed to make this happen.

          If one of them is resisting to apply the discussion policy then it is very likely that the filter creating the inconsistency belongs to that person.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM

          Yes this could be one result but it is my belief that we are running up against a basic of human nature which works against perfect duplication which is the fractal.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM

          That is why discipline per Discussion Policy is needed.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:19 PM

          I’m not following why you keep invoking the discussion policy when pretty much only you and I know about it, and I don’t follow it.

          When you bring it up on other blogs, people just go, “Huh?” or worse.

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM

          I answered that question earlier here:

          https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/scientology-and-suppression/#comment-25872

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM

          The person who is resisting the discussion policy is bringing their ego into play. The ego is mother of all filters.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 8:18 PM

          Yes, and the ego inflates and amplifies through a kind of reverberation when the self centric view is the only view adopted to understand the environment.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 9:09 PM

          The Discussion Policy is written from a reality-centric viewpoint.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM

          Meaning?

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM

          Meaning, don’t bring self into the discussion when the topic of discussion is about some reality other than self.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM

          Here is an example of this situation on Marty’s Blog.

          http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond/#comment-309743

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM

          Got it. So I followed the link and read that give and take. Since you first wrote that discussion policy, you have been asserting it to others as those they have signed up for it. This is an assumption that everyone reading your posts about it sees. Even to the degree that I can agree with that policy and even though I agree for you to apply it to yourself and to your blog, I don’t understand how you are missing that you can’t successfully assert and apply policies to others that that haven’t signed up for. This is only done in fascist situations and then force is required.

          What I think you are assuming is that Scientologists are interested in working out the truth. No matter the reason a person got involved in scientology, if they stayed, they became conditioned to hold that ideology above all else. I think your time is wasted on scientology blogs and if you think blogging on other’s blogs is constructive, then rummage around for blogs similar to Quora where you will find hundreds of people really trying to understand instead of the same half dozen people with the unchanging axe to grind. Meanwhile continue your research and meaningful public service of tutoring, etc. Your intellect and contributions are to valuable to be focused on Scientologists and their love affair with with L. Ron Hubbard.

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 9:20 PM

          The Discussion Policy is my shield from getting into unproductive exchanges. If the other person does not want to use this this policy, that is perfectly fine with me. He knows why I am not continuing with that exchange. There is a gain for me in the sense that I have put an end to unproductive conversation. If the person does apply the discussion policy as you do, then there are dividends for both of us.

          So, I don’t take it as an affront if the other person does not apply the policy right away. But I am noticing that on a long term basis people are getting less personal and more discussions are taking place. On the whole I see a net positive gain since I have been pushing this discussion policy. It is certainly more successful than Ad Hom policy.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:23 PM

          Alright, I get it, so good. I suppose you could be right about others, I can pretty much only read their words, can’t see their thoughts.

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 12:39 PM

          Their thoughts are expressed through their words. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 1:11 PM

          Then why not take them at their words? They are saying what they think, but you are not happy about that. This is a self centric view, isn’t it?

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM

          I am neither happy nor unhappy. I am simply making observations. The essay above is my observation about Scientology and Suppression.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 19, 2014 at 3:52 PM

          Right, so my point is if you can see that and you can explain it in a reality centric way for the self centric view that it is then you can, 1. Modify your delivery to take that into account, or 2. Continue researching and writing on your own blog and stop frustrating yourself by blogging on sites which seem to be antagonistic.

          For me, these seem to be the choices. The alternative is to violate the discussion by deliberately writing, and then writing again things which you know will piss people off. Hahaha! 🙂

        • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

          You seem to think that pissing people is bad, why?

          Couldn’t they be coming out of apathy?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM

          “You seem to think that pissing people is bad, why?Couldn’t they be coming out of apathy?”Not bad. Do you want to communicate or feel rightly about your blogging? Because I think you are complaining about being misunderstood and that is what I am addressing, your complaint.If you think pissing people is good, then please continue, I love you anyway.P.S. Those people you are writing to do not seem to be in apathy. That is a violation of discussion policy anyway. 🙂

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM

          Let’s take the reality-centric view here.
          (1) I am writing something.
          (2) People are not grasping it.
          (3) They are refusing to get into a discussion to clarify it.
          (4) Instead they are getting pissed and getting personal.
          (5) This is happeneing mainly with scientologists.

          Why?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 20, 2014 at 1:08 PM

          You are knowingly seeking out people who do not want to talk to you, to talk about something they do not want to talk about.

          This is not their problem, it is yours. So why is this a problem? Because you are failing to sell them. Your desire to sell is self-centric and ambitious. Your ambition seems to be giving the headache! 🙂

        • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM

          (1) I am not seeking out anybody.
          (2) I am not trying to sell anybody anything.
          (3) I have no problem or headache.
          ( 4) It is all an experiment for me.
          (5) There is a system in front of me.
          (6) I input something and then observe the output.
          (7) Then I contemplate over the inconsistencies. 🙂

      • vinaire  On July 19, 2014 at 11:32 AM

        Chris, the exasperation that you are talking about is actually the participation of the ego. When one is being mindful one can easily see this ego in oneself as well in others.

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 8:53 AM

    “You are critical of my religion,” is the refrain from a Scientologist who cannot counter an argument on some idea in Scientology.

  • vinaire  On July 17, 2014 at 9:08 PM

    “You are critical of my religion,” or “You are disrespectful to my religion,” are sentiments that throw back to Dark Ages. Scientology’s use of PIs (personal investigators) and its hacking of the justice system are substitute for burning people on stakes.

  • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 7:22 AM

    The workability of Scientology is a sensitive topic with scientologists. They always assume that Scientology Tech works 100% of the time. If there is any unworkability they blame it on the practitioner that he applied Scientology incorrectly, or did not apply it at all.

    So, all the logic of a scientologist is based on the faith, “Scientology Tech works 100% of the time when applied.” It is like assuming a hypothesis to be true before it is fully tested.

  • vinaire  On July 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM

    The following discussion policy takes away the power of scientologists to enturbulate others during discussions.

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided

    .

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 5:55 AM

    I no longer believe in self-determinism. I find that “self-determinism” is a feeling only and it doesn’t mean much. A person may think that he is being self-determined while acting completely per external conditioning.

    The following definitions from Tech Dictionary no longer mean much to me.

    SELF-DETERMINISM,
    1. the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter; also the ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy and matter. (Scn 0-8, p. 25)
    2 . self-determinism in the field of motion consists of, by own power of choice, permitting the object or body to be still or not to be still; permitting a thing to be changed or not to be changed; permitting a thing to be started or not to be started. (CMSCS, p. 18)
    3. self-determinism is that state of being where in the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. In that state the individual has self confidence in his control of the material universe and the organisms within it along every dynamic. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He is confident in his interpersonal relationships. He reasons but does not need to react. (AP&A, p. 53)
    4 . entirely and solely the imposition of time and space upon energy flows. By imposing time and space upon objects, people, self, events, and individuals, is causation. (Scn 8-80, p. 44)
    5 . the theta control of the organism. (Scn 0-8, p. 83)
    6 . full responsibility for self, no responsibility for other side of game. (Scn 0-8, p. 119)
    7 . means the ability to direct himself. (2 ACC 30A, 5312CM21)
    8 . the individual can only determine something from his own viewpoint. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06)
    9 . a condition of determining the actions of self. It is a first (self) dynamic action and leaves the remaining seven undetermined or, in actuality, in opposition to the self. Thus if one wants to take on the rest of life in a free-for-all fight, one could be entirely insistent upon total self-determinism. One is Self-determined, then, in any situation in which he is fighting. He is pan-determined in any situation which he is controlling. (FOT, p. 50)
    10. self-determinism meant, in essence, control by the awareness of awareness unit of that which it conceived to be its identity. (Dn55!, p. 98)

    It is the process of Mindfulness that starts to take care of conditioning. Without mindfulness there is no real self-determinism.

    I find mindfulness to be lacking in most Scientologists whether they are in the Church or out of it. This is not a generality.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 8:02 AM

      I see some similarities between between self determinism, egotism, and self centrism.

      Likewise between pan determinism, reality centric. Both the similarity and the difference being direction (vector) of attention and of iterations.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    (1) A person who is very attached to a source, such as, Buddha or Hubbard, is probably unable to assess the reality on his or her own.

    (2) This person’s ability to assess reality is somehow compromised.

    (3) This person has quite likely very many confusions.

    (4) An application of Subject Clearing will definitely help this person.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 2:49 PM

      “(1) A person who is very attached to a source, such as, Buddha or Hubbard, is probably unable to assess the reality on his or her own.”

      The Scn term for this was “out-of-valence.” This term was used and abused but I like it, for me it is a very simple concept that communicates very well. and It is chemical in flavor.

      • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM

        To me it seems that whatever this system is, which is called a “person” is just in too much of a disarray. But Subject Clearing can straighten out this system. It is a matter of start unstacking the inconsistencies.

        I am thinking of Marildi, while writing this. There is a top-level inconsistency that makes Marildi what she is. Her reactions are very predictable like that of a robot. And there is only a limited set of such reactions.

        There is an LRH stable datum that is restraining her confusions. But those confusions are still very much there.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 3:08 PM

          If I can somehow zero in to Marildi’s confusion, and give her a better stable datum that is more consistent and coherent then she will start becoming more of a person.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM

          I wonder what is, as they would say in Scn, “the entry point of her case?” I think locating that would give her so much relief. I imagine feeling her tension, pain, and pressure and I really want to cry for her sometimes. I have tried many different approaches with her but I never noticed anything after very early on when I was bashing you and canoodling with her at Geir’s and one day she said that she had gotten her emeter out and plugged in the charge cord, I think she said, years ago now. I was solo auditing at the time and I really thought she was going to give it a try. But no, and then I said many wrong things to her after that and a few right things but nothing seems to ever have made an impression on her stable data that stops her from gathering herself and trying out, I say, Scientology. I don’t see anything wrong with her using the thing she most believes in. It even makes the most sense to me. Then later, she can dissolve that or keep it or whatever.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM

          “There is an LRH stable datum that is restraining her confusions. But those confusions are still very much there.”

          And like myself, that inconsistency which holds the inconsistencies of Scn in place may itself have nothing to do with Scn but may precede it. I found many of these in myself. As I resolved these, problems and fixations with Scn dissolved as well.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 6:33 PM

          I think I shall approach Marildi with only the fundamentals following the subject clearing strategy. She didn’t interfere at all in my discussion on fundamentals with Valkov on Marty’s blog. When I asked her directly to discuss “thetan” she backed out saying that she has no interest. Her biggest confusion must lie in the area of fundmentals.

          The trouble with her is that she hides behind “verbal tech” policy by never discussing but only giving quotes. She is trying desperately to hide her confusions.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 3:38 AM

          “She is trying desperately to hide her confusions.” And hiding her pain and her fear. She’s in a bad way with her stable data being challenged…very uncomfortable place.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 3:42 AM

          Yup! She can be helped but she doesn’t trust anybody.

          That is why I have to provide exercises that one can do on one’s own. The primary exercises have to do with mindfulness. I had not published them broadly, but I am doing that now.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    Subject clearing rapidly moves towards clearing the fundamentals of a subject. This reduces confusion right away because fundamentals are really not that many. Clearing of fundamentals makes it easy to clear later confusions in that subject.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM

    Hubbard himself was quite attached to the E-meter for assessing reality. Therefore, I suspect that his ability to assess was compromised too. It is quite likely that he had many confusions.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 1:52 PM

    People like MarkNR are using the E-meter to find the truth. They ask questions to themselves and look at what comes to their mind. Then they look at the e-meter. If there is a read then they take whatever came to their mind as the truth.

    Meter reads on subjectivity. So, one is essentially groping around for truth based on subjectivity. Truth becomes what feels good. This is a very ineffectual process. If an assumption happens to feel good then that assumption becomes the truth for this person and he then trusts it implicitly.

    • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:02 PM

      Using the e-meter this way is not scientific at all.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:14 PM

    The current self starts at birth just like the current body that starts at birth. Any influences prior to birth do not exist outside the DNA programming. The whole track prior to the fertilization of human egg is part of DNA coding. The whole track believed by Scientologists is just an interpretation of this coding. This interpretation is mixed with all kind of subjective feelings and assumptions.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM

      “This interpretation is mixed with all kind of subjective feelings and assumptions.”

      Hubbard liked to make hard lines between body, thetan, etc.,. When inconsistencies arose, one is referred to the materials to clear up the inconsistency and puts the person in spot where they must manipulate their understand to fit the inconsistency rather than the other way around.

      Because I am not believing in these hard lines, divisions anymore, I am wondering more about our genetic code and how it is not a hard line either between body, mind, spirit, etc.,. My belief is that these categories are not well understood yet and I am excited how future understandings will bring revelations about memory, whole track, etc., these things which man seems to believe but which exist and their realities are very different from a “flat earth.”

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM

    There is no absolute individuality as believed in Scientology. There is no absolute individual power of choice. The DNA coding influences both the body and the self. There are codes that are common to the species, and to larger categories. This coding cannot be changed by “power of choice.”

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    There is no awareness that can exist without a body. When body disintegrates, the awareness disintegrates also. The ultimate disintegration is in the form of a light pattern. Here instead of a binary code there may be an infinite-valued code. Now that would be SOME computer.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM

      “Now that would be SOME computer.”

      When I read where someone says we live in one, I cannot disagree or agree… It would be hard to figure out the truth of that since that supercomputer would be outside our set of values and therefore unknowable. This is Godel. And yet, I truly wonder if or how that code could be cracked.

      • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 6:19 PM

        Start with an approximation knowing that it can be refined further.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 3:19 AM

          “Start with an approximation knowing that it can be refined further.” In reference to the math, if set theory holds the human condition, then we are a little bit ducked before we start. Because we can refine and learn but we can only ever approach the edge of our “Truman Show” but never go outside it. Granted we are still in a pretty big circus tent. Do you understand what I’m getting at?

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 3:29 AM

          Let’s see

          (1) Absolute equality between two concrete things is not possible.

          Two apples, however much alike, will always have differences in some aspects, such as, the internal arrangement of atoms, or the space they occupy.

          https://vinaire.me/2013/06/21/equations-transposition/

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:41 PM

    Thought has a physical form and a spiritual essence. There is no thought without a physical form. The form of thought may lie in the electric, electronic and electromagnetic type of physical media.

    • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM

      Life does not derive from thought. Both spiritual and physical aspects of life are made up of thought.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:08 PM

        “Life does not derive from thought. Both spiritual and physical aspects of life are made up of thought.”

        I get what you are saying but this takes me to a place where you say I am getting complicated. What is going on with me is that I feel these basic divisions created by this language is not basically understood well enough and so leads one toward fallacious logic through the use of false major premises such as “What is life?” We assume we understand what is “spiritual and what is physical” but I am leaving myself open to understand more about this.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 3:12 PM

          I think that life is basically the operation of a computer based on an infinitely-valued code.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM

          “I think that life is basically the operation of a computer based on an infinitely-valued code.”

          I would not dispute this.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM

          Tell me the first thing about that “complicated” place without throwing too much at me.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 9:56 PM

          Something like the next layer after metaphor.

        • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 9:59 PM

          What is not a metaphor? What are you looking for beyond a metaphor?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 3:45 AM

          Nothing that I know seems to be more than a metaphor. If there’s anything beyond that, I don’t know what it is.

          Original Message—–

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 3:48 AM

          So what do you mean by the next layer after metaphor?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 3:55 AM

          At this time that seems to be unknowable.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 4:02 AM

          Then are you just trying to speculate without regard to consistency?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 4:20 AM

          Possibly. Let me digress one time to unknowable. I am wondering at the conjectures toward an unknowable. What could be known that would direct a person’s attention off into such an abyss?

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 4:31 AM

          My best understanding of unknowable is as follows.

          The Quest for Certainty

          One cannot assume that the unknowable is “something” because one doesn’t know. All one can do is build up on one’s certainty brick by brick.

          The starting point of looking has to be an inconsistency that is grounded in what one knows. The inconsistency has to be well defined. The resolution to inconsistency occurs as one continues to define it more exactly. This is how the brick is laid.

          Wild and discionnected speculation with figure-figure has no place here. One should follow the scientific method. Subject Clearing provides the direction.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 8:04 AM

          I am having a problem with an observation.and that seems to be covered by godels incompleteness theorem. If I am right and if it does, I am not wildly speculating but am confronted with a dirt of end game problem.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

          Here are my comments on Godel’s incompleteness theorems:

          First Theorem:
          This may mean that if this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.

          Second Theorem:
          This may mean that this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.

          For details, please see
          https://vinaire.me/2012/07/20/godel-and-determinism/

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 2:05 PM

          And so I do not seem to be reaching too far nor wildly speculating. We land where each philosopher of every Age lands, squarely in the – – – * – – – of unknowable.

          Godel seems to be stating the Science of the following quote. Please tell me if you understand what I mean with the following quote from the KJV Holy Bible written by Solomon, “The wisest King who ever lived”:

          Ecclesiastes

          1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. 12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. 14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. 15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. 16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. 17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. 18For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 9:28 PM

          Here is the summary from Wikipedia:

          “The ten-verse introduction in verses 1:2–11 are the words of the frame narrator; they set the mood for what is to follow: Koheleth’s message is that all is meaningless.[6]

          After the introduction come the words of Koheleth. As king he has experienced everything and done everything, but nothing is ultimately reliable. Death levels all; the only good is to partake of life in the present, for enjoyment is from the hand of God; everything is ordered in time, man is subject to time in contrast to God’s eternal character. The world is filled with injustice, which only God will adjudicate; God and humans do not belong in the same realm, and it is therefore necessary to have a right attitude before God. Men should enjoy, but should not be greedy; no-one knows what is good for humanity; righteousness and wisdom escape us. Koheleth reflects on the limits of human power: all people face death, yet life is better than death, and we should enjoy life when we can. The world is full of risk: he gives advice on living with risk, both political and economic. Mortals should take pleasure when they can, for a time may come when no one can. Koheleth’s words finish with imagery of nature languishing and humanity marching to the grave.[8]

          The frame narrator returns with an epilogue: the words of the wise are hard, but they are applied as the shepherd applies goads and pricks to his flock. The original ending of the book was probably the words: “The end of the matter” (12:13:) but the text we have continues: “Fear God” (a phrase used often in Koheleth’s speech) “and keep his commandments” (which he never uses), “for God will bring every deed to judgement.”[9]”

          Essentially, life is a disturbance that goes on mechanically. The desire to calm it leads one to Nirvana, blowing out and extinguishing of self. To me that means continual resolving of inconsistencies as they arise. Resolving of inconsistencies calms one down.

          So, what major inconsistency is taking up your attention these days?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 10:50 PM

          “So, what major inconsistency is taking up your attention these days?”

          I seem drawn to coming to terms with “immanence without hope.” This again seems covered nicely by Godel’s Incompleteness. This is not a negative feeling, but it is a touch strange, mysterious, and unusual. Maybe it is my age, but with my ending days proportionately nearer, I find myself drawn to existential thoughts which have no substantial contradiction. All that we are and all that we will ever know seems to be wound up in a self which seems surely immanent. Without hope seems to direct my attention to release from earthly and temporal attachments. This feels disconcerting, but it is the disconcerting of a baby letting go of the couch and taking his first steps, or feeling the bicycle when one’s father lets go and you are no longer supported. And in my world of immanence, transcendence seems unknowable. Do you feel me?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 5:48 AM

          Ecclesiastes seems to refer to a feeling of boredom when one is finding nothing new to experience, and everything is going to end in nothing regardless. One starts thinking of death.

          But I do not feel that way. To me, there is so much to discover. Behind every inconsistency there is a lesson to learn. “Nothing” is full of wondrous things that nobody knows about yet.

          Immanence seems to be the feeling that this it it. There is nothing else to find. “Immanence without hope” seems to say it is hopeless to look beyond what we have here. There seem to be an assumption that everything that can be known is now known.

          Frankly this sounds like a justification for apathy, because there is so much to know. This universe abounds with inconsistencies. Behind these inconsistencies are a tremendous amount yet to be discovered.

          Subject Clearing will keep me busy for rest of my life.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:32 AM

          “Frankly this sounds like a justification for apathy, because there is so much to know. This universe abounds with inconsistencies. Behind these inconsistencies are a tremendous amount yet to be discovered.”

          In some contexts, you are right this could be a justification for apathy. But not mine. Let me explain the different take that I have on this: 1. The universe does not abound with inconsistencies, our abstractions do abound with inconsistencies. 2. Short version: Immanence=within; Transcendence=without. “Immanence without hope” means “knowing from within (the universe) without hope of knowing without the universe. With this statement, I believe I have made this thought consistent but very different from your idea involving apathy. 3. Immanence=knowable=achievable; Transcendence=unknowable=achievable. Think about it, then tell me if you like it.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 1:31 PM

          I can acknowledge here that you certainly don’t sound like in apathy. But I have the following difficulties with your ideas here:

          “1. The universe does not abound with inconsistencies, our abstractions do abound with inconsistencies.”

          Here I see all selves and the abstractions coming from them as part of the universe too. I see this as the key difference between my background and your background. I do not see spirituality as separate and independent of physicality. I just pointed out this difference to Mark NR in a post on Marty’s Blog. The link to my actual response may not be available yet, but it is on this thread:

          http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-311186

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:35 PM

          Ok. I get that. Big picture, universe, personal reality part of universal reality. Inconsistencies within personal reality = inconsistencies within the universal picture…

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:37 PM

          But you throw me by talking from this point of view of universal then changing to referring to, let’s say Marildi or EH “own universe.” You must watch doing this and be clear about the difference if yo mean for there to be one.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 8:22 PM

          The trouble with English language is that it has many definitions for the same word. I am using Scientology defintion when I using the familiar Scientology phrase.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 8:36 PM

          “I am using Scientology defintion when I using the familiar Scientology phrase.”

          I get it. Referring to “own universe” as they would use it.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:04 PM

      My sense is that these are generally good and fresh directions to take this line of thought. And I also think this is your strength. Why? Because it agrees with my own views. I hate writing that but I am also trying to be candid.

      • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM

        Why do you hate writing that?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 3:23 AM

          Because of my acknowledged bias for confirmation.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 3:32 AM

          You don’t have to confirm or not confirm anything. Just provide your independent observation. It could be same or different.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM

    There is no mysterious entity separate from a life organism that is animating that organism. Animation is inherent characteristic of life organism.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 29, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      This seems axiomatic to me. A good place to give it its own check mark and slot on the list.

  • vinaire  On July 29, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    There is no immortal core to life. Life is changing at all levels of beingness. There is no absolute level of beingness.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 1:27 PM

    “Thus, to him the group became more important than the individual. He stopped looking from the individual’s viewpoint.”

    schiz·o·phre·ni·a

    ˌskitsəˈfrēnēə,-ˈfrenēə/

    noun

    a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.

    (in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.

    • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 1:29 PM

      Would you characterize people like EH, Oracle, etc. the same way who are now pretty much living in their own universes?

      • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM

        Without assigning any importance to my judgement, yes.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM

        Let me qualify “own universe” as I see it. As we have been researching and discovering, there are no hard lines between the categories of existence, right? I mean, that is one thing we’re discovering, right? With that in mind, take a fresh look at a Mandelbrot Set or other fractal and run it in and out and meditate upon it for a bit and imagine if you will that the graphic of a Mandelbrot Set of fractal coordinates to be a metaphor for all of our existence, then you will be able to get a glimpse of my Metaphor for Nature. Then you’ll see that I no longer see a division between one’s thoughts and another’s thoughts, just extraordinary quantities of space-time. Like when we play at the beach in Clearwater, we are jumping in the same puddle of water as the guy in Sri Lanka and Los Angeles and Japan and Australia and South Africa. The “divisions” of existence to me seem to be divided only by enormous space-time. And small bits of space-time are enormous when we look closely.

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 9:41 PM

          So, what is the common denominator of all this?

  • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    “Thus, to him the group became more important than the individual. He stopped looking from the individual’s viewpoint.”

    More complicated. He seemed fragmented to me. Similar to Elizabeth in that he went from one idea which he held and promoted as consistent to another contradictory idea which he held and promoted as consistent. Upon being called to account for the inconsistencies, he displayed fits of anger and other destructive emotion. He seemed unable to tell a fact from a belief. I can go on, but you get the idea.

    • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 1:37 PM

      That is a great point. Hubbard was a very angry person as i remember him… very much like David Miscavige.

      Now it makes sense why he was that way! He could not see his way out of the inconsistencies.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM

        “Now it makes sense why he was that way! He could not see his way out of the inconsistencies.”

        He just insisted he was right at every moment and without any responsibility to explain the inconsistencies, not that he could, he could just point to KSW #s 1-10 and simply make his sycophants wrong when they stumbled. It is an awful thumb to be under. You can see examples of this in EH posts where alternately she is offended, she is right, she is angry, she is kidding, she is offended, she is right, she is angry, she is kidding, etc.,. No inconsistency is great enough to generate pause and a moment of self-reflection and a query of “How do I think this way?” or “How can I reconcile these two different ideas?”

        • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 9:43 PM

          So, what is the bottomline inconsistency?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 5:05 AM

          The bottomline inconsistency seems to be that they are isolating themselves by completely ignoring all other viewpoints around them. It is like the ultimate in “Being Right”. Marildi is the same way but to a lesser degree.

          Why would Hubbard try to make himself right so strongly? Such people are very sensitive to being made wrong. Hubbard was very vicious in taking revenge against whoever made him wrong, and so is the Curch of Scientology.

          Such people must have found themselves being made wrong, and so they decided that they would stand up to it. They did not inspect why they were being made wrong.

          So, at their core they seem to be attached to some idea that they can’t let go.of. In Hubbard’s case he justified it as “individuality” to which he had a right.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 5:16 AM

          I have my certainties too, and I can be stubborn, but I am willing to look and to be convinced otherwise if there is a better argument out there.

          But people like Hubbard are unwilling to look. There mind has been made up. Their mind is closed. They put out great resistance to different ideas.

          Hubbard put great resistance to Buddha’s idea of Nirvana. He pretty much undermined all science, especially psychiatry, because it made him wrong.

          The inconsistency is that such people have a very high opinion of themselves in contrast of what others think of them. They are out of communication except in their “own universe”. Outside their universe, they are very sharply reactive and intolerant. So the reactive mind is very much there. Hubbard was no Clear.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 7:42 AM

          “I have my certainties too, and I can be stubborn, but I am willing to look and to be convinced otherwise if there is a better argument out there.” I think you’re one of the smartest guys I know. You’re a good auditor and a good researcher, one of the best. But conversations with you are tough for the reason you don’t acknowledge in a way that makes it seem you are listening but rather waiting to retort. I mostly overlook this because of your other positive qualities and you are my friend and I don’t want to say something hurtful. Sometimes a person doesn’t want to know about a better argument, they just want to be understood. I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, it’s just that we seem to have gotten onto the subject so I’m mentioning it. Maybe I do t this too?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 8:49 AM

          Smartness is one aspect of beingness. Hubbard was very smart. You are quite smart too.

          I am aware of my shortcomings but I have improved a lot since I started to practice mindfulness. I have a long way to go still.

          I have come to realize that I can’t force a permanent change in me. So, I do the best I can as the situation demands, and then leave the rest to the practice of mindfulness and Subject clearing. I believe that the improvements will come.

          Maybe Hubbard thought too that he would improve through Scientology. In my estimation he accomplished a lot with Scientology, compared to what was before it. We are not in his shoes so we do not know how he may have felt. But we do know that much can be improved from where he left off.

          I am willing to look at things that you feel I have overlooked and not acknowledged. Maybe this topic will help us look at those things more closely. I don’t seem to acknowledge things when I don’t understand them.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:12 AM

          “I am willing to look at things that you feel I have overlooked and not acknowledged.”

          We’re friends. Sometimes I just (like our wives) want to be heard and understood, not debated or corrected. Sometimes I don’t have any big point, I just like to know if it can even be understood, not agreed with.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:17 AM

          I don’t think in terms of debate, but rather in terms of discussion.

          If you feel that you are not being heard and understood then definitely I am not doing a good job of explaining my viewpoint with respect to yours or commenting on your viewpoint adequately.

          The whole purpose of discussion is to improve the understanding of what is there. This also includes looking at self with mindfulness. It could be that I am not adequately looking at things from your point of view first before presenting my point of view.

          I shall try to do better in this respect.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:22 PM

          “The whole purpose of discussion is to improve the understanding of what is there.”

          Is it the whole purpose? Are you sure?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 3:07 PM

          That is how I see it. How do you see it? I am curious.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 3:43 PM

          I do see it that way but I like the social aspect as well. This gives flavor to the food.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 9:56 PM

          I guess I am more product oriented.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:00 PM

          “I guess I am more product oriented.”

          Your only eat for nourishment?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM

          I think so.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:35 PM

          hahahaha, maybe I believe you!

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:37 PM

          🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM

          “This also includes looking at self with mindfulness.”

          And I think that also includes looking at what others are saying about self with mindfulness as well.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 3:11 PM

          Others are “self” too, so I think I covered that. So, I am not quire sure what you mean.

          I am not playing dumb. I really don’r understand you. It seems that you want me to blindly agree with some point of view you hold.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 3:46 PM

          “I am not playing dumb. I really don’r understand you. It seems that you want me to blindly agree with some point of view you hold.”

          Not blindly and not necessarily agree. This is important to me – I want to be understood, and then you can disagree all you want, then it is so much easier for me to listen to the critique when I feel understood first.

          Hubbard got this bit of ARC wrong as well calling understanding 1/3 agreement. It is not necessary to agree to understand, but it is necessary to understand to communicate.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 9:57 PM

          How are we doing now?

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:00 PM

          “How are we doing now?”

          Very well, thank you for sticking with me.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:13 AM

          “Maybe this topic will help us look at those things more closely. I don’t seem to acknowledge things when I don’t understand them.”

          I will keep this in mind.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:20 AM

          I shall question you more closely now about the things I don’t understand of which you speak of.

          We have very different backgrounds. There is Christian background versus Hindu background in play here. This is a good oppurounity to resolve the inconsistencies between these two religions.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:25 PM

          “This is a good oppurounity to resolve the inconsistencies between these two religions.”

          And a good opportunity to get to know one another better and draw closer as friends.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:16 AM

          “I have come to realize that I can’t force a permanent change in me.”

          Nor I. Part of feeling the reality of reality is knowing whether someone else can see what you see. Not agreeing, just seeing and understanding.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 12:19 PM

          That is nicely expressed. I can see that. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:28 PM

          “That is nicely expressed. I can see that. :)”

          I like it best when our minds meet. I hope I did not say that too gay. (joke)

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:18 AM

          “I am aware of my shortcomings but I have improved a lot since I started to practice mindfulness. I have a long way to go still.”

          You have. Then mindfulness will . . . help.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 12:21 PM

          Thank you.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:22 AM

          “Maybe Hubbard thought too that he would improve through Scientology.”

          This is a good point to ponder. Did Hubbard want to improve? Early on he did as evidenced by his “Affirmations.” But what sort of improvement did he desire? To be granted all his wishes and desires? Is that how he would know if his improvement had occurred? It seems to me that having some measure of success with his book validated his rightness and dissolved his desire for improvement. Possibly ALL of Scientology is a reflection of Hubbard upon his own case. Such as the definition of “hidden standard.” Possibly his own hidden standards were satisfied by money and power and that was the evidence that he had “risen above the bank.” Of course I conjecture.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 12:45 PM

          Hubbard’s premise seems to be that individuality is the ultimate reality. At least, this is the premise of Scientology. To him individuality was the starting point of all control. He resisted the premise of Buddha that even individuality is part of the flux of this universe, and that there is nothing permanent at the core of individuality.

          It is hard for someone to believe that he could be part of a bigger reality if he wants to be the starting point of all control. Hubbard realized that he had failed in that quest. In the end he had wanted to commit suicide.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:31 PM

          Yup.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:35 AM

          Interesting article on immanence vs. transcendence.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 7:58 AM

          “Hubbard was no Clear.” This occurred to me as well. “Risen above the bank” implies transcendence, which I am not believing in. Understanding what we can through immanence is subject clearing, etc. It’s what we can do and seems all we can hope for. “Without hope” is not apathy. It means without hope of “transcendence” and for me is a profound statement. It blends or bonds Godel’s science with the religious philosophy of Mahamudra.. Please spend a moment understanding my statement.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:05 AM

          You seem to have struggled through transcendence versus immanance. Maybe this is because of a Christian background. Somehow it is not a big deal to me.

          I am just focused on Mindfulness and Subject Clearing. I think the rest would follow.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 1:19 PM

          I’m glad it is no big deal. I don’t know about the Christian upbringing but the sense that there is a difference between immanence is different from the sense of transcendence is new exploration for me. Did you get my point of inside / outside? Do you see the connection I am making to set theory? Do you think that is relevant?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 3:03 PM

          I think you are talking the following verse from your preferred translation:

          All self-will and pride will vanish into naught.
          The supreme Understanding transcends all this and that.
          The supreme Action embraces great resourcefulness without attachment.
          The supreme Accomplishment is to realize immanence without hope.

          Now this verse also uses the word “transcend”. So, I am still confused about the precise distinction you are making.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 3:42 PM

          “Now this verse also uses the word “transcend”. So, I am still confused about the precise distinction you are making.”

          Right you are. I am sorting out the inconsistencies which make all these distinctions. Somewhat in the vein of Korzybski when he distinguishes between illusion and abstraction, I simply understand the difference he is making. In this way, I am trying to distinguish between transcend and immanent. They are different, are they not? Are deductive and inductive in this same vein? Do you think that I am onto something with this? Or is this distinction transcendent and immanent — irrelevant?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 9:44 PM

          The words “transcendent” and “immanent” mean what they mean. They are different words with different meanings. But they have meaning only within this universe, just like cause and effect, or spirituality and physicality, has meaning only within this universe.

          The boundary of this universe is a different subject to which the realities within the universe do not apply. There is no cause, spirituality, or transcendece beyond this universe.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:50 PM

          Yup. Right together. (except for the tautology “mean what they mean”) And this is precisely what I think “immanence without hope” means.

          I’m good with that. Are you still not quite comfortable with it?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 9:54 PM

          I write what I feel comfortable with.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:14 PM

          “I write what I feel comfortable with.”

          So did we decide that we’re good with immanence on the inside and transcendence on the outside? And Godel’s Theorem states that we, as members of the set on the inside, cannot completely resolve the inside using only what is on the inside and especially cannot solve for what is on the outside?

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:36 PM

          I think I have already answered that.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:50 PM

          You should be like the simple Brahman and simply answer yes or no when it is appropriate. But this rubs friction with you and is a matter of some type of control. I may have to have a little talk with Jioti! She will help me get your number!

        • vinaire  On August 1, 2014 at 5:18 AM

          “If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

          https://vinaire.me/2014/07/24/kumare-an-enlightening-experiment/

        • Chris Thompson  On August 1, 2014 at 7:16 AM

          That is just excellent.

        • vinaire  On August 1, 2014 at 8:21 AM

          Yes. That is the final word against conditioning.

        • Chris Thompson  On August 1, 2014 at 3:26 PM

          It can be. But for those prone to and desirous of conditioning (groupies, etc.,) will it be?

        • vinaire  On August 1, 2014 at 3:31 PM

          All you can do is to keep bringing Discussion Policy and Discussion Tech (12 Aspects of Mindfulness) to their attention.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

    “It seems like that Hubbard was primarily interested in handling his own case. He wanted to clear the planet to handle his own case. It didn’t matter to him if others got helped or did not get helped.”

    I do see this as well as defined thusly:

    nar·cis·sism

    ˈnärsəˌsizəm/

    noun

    excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one’s physical appearance.

    synonyms: vanity, self-love, self-admiration, self-absorption, self-obsession,conceit, self-centeredness, self-regard, egotism, egoism More

    PSYCHOLOGY extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

    • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 1:39 PM

      Yes. His Scientology philosophy is a reflection of that.

  • Chris Thompson  On July 30, 2014 at 1:43 PM

    “It seems like that Hubbard was primarily interested in handling his own case. He wanted to clear the planet to handle his own case. It didn’t matter to him if others got helped or did not get helped.”

    Hubbard was split with regard to individual importance vs group importance. 1. He worshiped the Self in his writing, as it pertained to himself, and to selling Scientology to others, etc., but really 2. He promoted the group importance to YOU since it supported Him. No SELF for SO members if your remember.

    He seems more and more narcissistic as research my understanding of Him.

    • vinaire  On July 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

      This is consistent from his viewpoint in terms of service to his SELF. Other selves are only as important as they can serve his self.

      So there are two categories of SELF.

      (1) The OT SELF, which is basically Hubbard.
      (2) All other selves whether individually or collectively.
      (3) Auditing of others was always the experimental part of his research. It was also a source of income.

  • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 1:56 PM

    This is an extension of my response to Chris’s post here:

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/scientology-and-suppression/#comment-26562

    Chris, your observation is consistent with the fact that animation is inherent characteristic of a life organism. Animation is not brought about by something separate from the organism, such as a thetan. Theta and MEST are simply two aspects of life.

    You are extending this observation to the whole universe and saying that the universe is immanent and we cannot consider anything beyond this universe. That there is no transcendence.

    My position is that we are limited to this universe by our awareness. There is no awareness beyond this universe. So we cannot know what is beyond this universe. But per Godel’s Theorems The universe cannot account for itself completely, so there has to be something beyond this univrse.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 2:15 PM

      “My position is that we are limited to this universe by our awareness. There is no awareness beyond this universe. So we cannot know what is beyond this universe. But per Godel’s Theorems The universe cannot account for itself completely, so there has to be something beyond this univrse.”

      You are almost all the way there. This is not about whether there is something beyond the universe. My position or rather my point is that we cannot and will not experience awareness beyond the universe as we are part of the set of this universe. This is what Mahamudra means by “immanence without hope.” What we can know is immanent and the “hope” means hope of transcendence. Don’t bother having this particular hope as it leads to unknowable which ain’t going to happen. We can make stabs at extrapolating unknowable, outside and beyond the universe, and transcendence, but it is a futile activity and is not going to give any fruit. By definition, if our perceptions begin to perceive something outside the universe, then in that event that new awareness will become included within the universe and not without the universe and on we go. Finally, our knowledge of God, etc., is immanent and never transcendent. Now do you feel me?

      • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 8:33 PM

        There is a region of unknown between known universe and unknowable. One can transcend to this region by resolving inconsistencies. We do not know the boundary between unknown and unknowable.

        Of course, the question of transcening to unknowable doesn’t even arise in any knowable sense. That is part of the definitions of knowable and unknowable.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:20 PM

          Now I think we are right together on this. I like your boundary or buffer area between knowable and unknowable. There is your “limbo” or “purgatory” and this has been thought of for eons. Our ponderings and philosophy seem to be recursive and self-similar throughout space-time. One doesn’t even need to “die” to go there.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:08 PM

          LOL!

  • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    From article on immanence vs. transcendence:

    “There are two definitions of transcendence that have relevance to our discussion. These are given in my dictionary as:
    1.Exceeding or surpassing in degree or excellence.
    2.Theology (of God) having existence outside the created world.

    Immanence has these meanings:
    1.Existing, operating, or remaining within; inherent.
    2.Theology (of God) present throughout the Universe.

    It is clear that definition 2 in both cases is derived from definition 1.”

    .

    Objectively, what is present throughout the universe is awareness. Here awareness does not mean “awareness of awareness”. This would be immanence.

    Objectively, what is beyond the universe is absence of awareness. This would be transendence.

    .

    • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 2:11 PM

      The “God” of the West is immanent and knowable.

      The “Brahma” of the East is transcendent and unknowable.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 2:20 PM

        “The “God” of the West is immanent and knowable. The “Brahma” of the East is transcendent and unknowable.”

        The inconsistency of this is that you’ve named the unknowable making it immanent. There isn’t any transcendent knowledge of the universe no matter how long we sit zazen or how many books we read or write. If we follow the advice of Mahamudra, we will have “immanence without hope.” See? C’mon, say IT!

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 8:47 PM

          Brahma is just a placeholder for a concept. It is that theoretical ground state in my document. The use of the term “Unknowable” implies that there is no transcendent knowledge into that sphere. I thought it was self-evident.

          If you like that phrase “immanence without hope” that is fine with me. To me it was peculiar to that translation, which was done by a Westerner. An Easterner would not think twice about it. He knows the significance of Brahma as Unknowable.

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 9:22 PM

          “He knows the significance of Brahma as Unknowable.”

          Well, then maybe he is too comfortable.

        • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 10:09 PM

          He is just simple, and not complicated. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 10:37 PM

          🙂

    • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      West uses “God” as its ground state.

      East uses “Brahma” as its ground state.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 2:21 PM

        Did you like that article?

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 2:41 PM

        “East uses ‘Brahma’ as its ground state.” As this value is unknowable, it cannot be the lowest energy state of existence. Or else maybe choose ground state or choose unknowable.

    • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 2:16 PM

      Yes? . . . And? You feel me right?

    • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 8:04 PM

      From article on immanence vs. transcendence

      “What I find striking about his dictionary definitions is that they point very well to the complementary nature of transcendence and immanence, with definition 1 and 2 in each case representing the relative and absolute perspective respectively.”

      .

      I am having difficulty with this first paragraph. I don’t like the absolute definitions (Def 2 in each case). To me “God” is not well defined here. About definition 1s, I do not see how they are complementary.

      Existence is what it is. There are different levels of existence. A level of existence is derived from an earlier level of existence (think disturbance levels). There are no two different existences totally independent of each other.

      So, the core of all levels of existence is the same implying immanence. But in movement from a level of existence to an earlier level of existence there is transcendence.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 8:27 PM

        Excellent. I see that. We are getting into something significant not about God, but about our metaphors of God which tell how we see our relative existence in the world, within or without.

        Your point that within the whole there is moving out of one atmosphere and into another, as a good definition of transcendence is workable to me.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 8:32 PM

        Absolute definitions of God are sort of to be expected when dealing with metaphors and the metaphors can continually be improved. I am enjoying the Song of Mahudra and Hindu metaphors.

      • Chris Thompson  On July 31, 2014 at 8:35 PM

        “About definition 1s, I do not see how they are complementary.”

        I agree, they do not seem to be complementary.

  • vinaire  On July 31, 2014 at 2:59 PM

    Chris, about the Song of Mahamudra, you seem to going by the translation given here.

    http://allspirit.co.uk/song-of-mahamudra/

    I seem to prefer the translation that I have put on my blog here:

    https://vinaire.me/2014/07/17/song-of-mahamudra/

    How do the two translations compare in your view, specially the verse in your preferred translation that uses the phrase “immanence without hope”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: