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.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • 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”?

%d bloggers like this: