It is from out-of-body experience (OBE) that Scientology derives its idea of thetan. In OBE, a person feels that he is outside the body. He can view his own body from a distance. He can perceive the environment also from that vantage point. This experience is accompanied by a feeling of peace and painlessness.
From Scientology Technical Dictionary:
“EXTERIORIZATION, 1 . the state of the thetan, the individual himself, being outside his body. When this is done, the person achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. (PXL Gloss) 2 . the phenomenon of being in a position in space dependent on only one’s consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. (PAB 125) 3 . the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception. (HCOB 22 Oct 71)”
Scientology refers to OBE as “exteriorization”. Objectively, a person is the spiritual viewpoint as well as the physical body. The “exteriorized” viewpoint cannot exist without the body. The two remain connected as part of the same identity. It is more likely that the viewpoint is expanding beyond the body rather than that a thetan is leaving the body.
From Scientology Technical Dictionary:
“VIEWPOINT, 1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2) 2 . that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)”
The error here is to think of viewpoint as a location in space. The viewpoint is actually “the frame of reference” that a person is using to observe. Most people look at the world from the frame of reference of their body. When this frame of reference happens to become larger than the body, the person experiences the dramatic phenomenon of OBE or exteriorization.
Exteriorization is due to expansion of the person’s viewpoint (frame of reference) and not because some thetan has detached itself from the body.
We can get a better idea of this spatial aspect of viewpoint from the following example.
Let’s look at an atom. When the viewpoint is limited to the nucleus we are subjectively aware of the nucleus, but not much else. When that viewpoint expands to the first electronic shell of the atom we can objectively see the nucleus. When that viewpoint expands beyond the electronic region, we can objectively see the whole atom – a nucleus surrounded by electronic shells. If we expand that viewpoint beyond the electromagnetic field, we can objectively see atoms as “whirlpools” in the electromagnetic field.
Human viewpoint has many dimensions. Spatial dimension is just one aspect of it. But this one aspect can easily expand beyond earth. The resulting view is essentially visualization but it can be a good approximation of reality, and very vivid as in case of OBE.
Most people are interiorized into their identity. When a person’s viewpoint expands beyond his physical body and subjective self, he obtains a great sense of freedom.
But when a person’s viewpoint remains interiorized into his physical identity, it represents a level of fixation deeper than fixed attention. Such deeper fixation is referred to as a filter (See: The Scientific View).
The interiorization of viewpoint is visible in filters, such as, biases, prejudices, assumptions, fixed ideas, blind faith, etc.
It is the freeing of the fixed idea, “I am just this body” that brings about the out-of-body experience. To fully understand one’s identity, one needs to expand out of the subjectivity of what one is. Exteriorization from other filters leads to greater objectivity of viewpoint and understanding of one’s true identity..
A person is as sane as he can expand his viewpoint.
.
Comments
“In OBE, a person feels that he is outside the body. He can view his own body from a distance. He can perceive the environment also from that vantage point.”
Vinnie, since the person is “viewing his own body from a distance,” for example, what is the means of perception? It obviously wouldn’t be through the sense organs of the body as that would give entirely different perceptions than what is viewed from a distance.
It is a mental perception similar to visualization. Per the post above,
“Human viewpoint has many dimensions. Spatial dimension is just one aspect of it. But this one aspect can easily expand beyond earth. The resulting view is essentially visualization but it can be a good approximation of reality, and very vivid as in case of OBE.”
You mean it’s just the person’s imagination? If so, how do you explain the many instances where what the person saw when OOB was objectively confirmed – in other words, they had no physical universe way of getting that perceived data.
In my view, it is more than imagination. It is more like being plugged into the continuity of reality that was postulated in MP1, in addition to the bypass of “body filter”.
Sounds good so far, but isn’t there an explanation for how a person is “plugged in” when exteriorized or having an OOB experience? Otherwise, it seems the phenomenon is only being given a name as opposed to an explanation.
My approach is to keep resolving inconsistencies and filters as I come across them. Hopefully I shall get plugged in. See MP1.
My approach to resolving inconsistencies is mindfulness meditation. See Mindfulness Exercises on the home page.
You stated that a person can view his own body from a distance. In such instances it’s obvious that the person isn’t using the body’s sense organs to perceive. Furthermore, it indicates that a person is more than just a physical body. I don’t see how that could be logically denied.
Yup! I don’t see it either.
Cool. It also follows that a “person” is separate from a body in that one does not need a body to be aware – based on this fact of perception being possible without a body.
Btw, George White (Path of Buddha) posted the following comment not too long ago:
“The great thing about the idea of soul in Theravada is that the soul is considered nearly permanent but not permanent.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/culture-of-complaint/#comment-337396
From what I have gathered, George and his wife are Theravada scholars. So apparently, even in that school of thought the belief in a soul exists, although it is not permanent – just “nearly” so. I can have that.
In order for reality to be consistent the person must be made up of the viewpoint and body, so body is necessary for viewpoint and mental perception to exist.
There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence of “viewpoints” without bodies, including people recalling their last death and then knowingly choosing their current body. What would you say if this evidence also becomes irrefutable?
Without bodies may mean without solid bodies. But there might still be a very simple energy body. A simple (not complex) body may be accompanied by a simple viewpoint. This is what may appear to be, at first sight, a viewpoint without a body.
Vin: “But there might still be a very simple energy body.”
(Then you should qualify the word “body,” because in everyday language the reader will think you mean the usual physical body.)
There are others who also have the idea that there are energy bodies – including Hubbard, it would seem, as he stated in a PDC lecture that a thetan is “in a very, very small amount of mass.” And to me, that seems intuitively correct. Consistent, even. 🙂
Vin: “A simple (not complex) body may be accompanied by a simple viewpoint.”
According to some spiritual teachers, the “simple viewpoint” is considered to be “consciousness.”
Vinnie, the reply I just posted disappeared from my screen after I hit the “Send” button. Did you receive it?
Oh, I think I know what happened. I switched over to Windows 10 today, and that is probably why my name showed up here as “Anonymous.” I needed to fill in my name and email address again, I think. Here goes…
Vin: “But there might still be a very simple energy body.”
Marildi: (Then you should qualify the word “body,” because in everyday language the reader will think you mean the usual physical body.)
There are others who also have the idea that there are energy bodies – including Hubbard, it would seem, as he stated in a PDC lecture that a thetan is “in a very, very small amount of mass.” And to me, that seems intuitively correct. Consistent, even.
According to some spiritual teachers, the “simple viewpoint” is considered to be “consciousness.”
.
Vin:
Per MP4, there seems to a confusion between the physical and spiritual dimensions.
Scientology Filter #3: It is an arbitrary assumption in Scientology that kinetic has physical dimension only, and no spiritual dimensions.
The truth is that energy (electromagnetic field) is physical. It’s spiritual counterpart is consciousness.
The outer form of consciousness is energy. The inner essence of energy is consciousness.
The outer physical form is called the body. The inner spiritual essence is called the viewpoint.
So, my definitions of body and viewpoint are evolved to handle the confusion between physical and spiritual dimensions.
.
Per MP4, MEST is the outer physical form (body) of the universe. The inner spiritual essence (viewpoint) of the universe is ICAD.
.
Vin: “Scientology Filter #3: It is an arbitrary assumption in Scientology that kinetic has physical dimension only, and no spiritual dimensions.”
Actually, here’s a quote from 8-80:
“The preclear is static and kinetic, meaning he is no-motion and motion. These, interplaying, produce electrical flow.”
And “preclear” is defined as “a spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear…”
Have you read this MP series? What don’t you understand about it?
Maybe I don’t understand your last comment, where you stated that per “Scientology Filter #3” kinetic has no spiritual dimensions. Can you quote a Scientology reference for that?
The MP series have relevant quotes.
How hard is it to just quote one that relates directly to my question? I would be more inclined to have discussions with you if you didn’t send me off on a reading assignment – and I might even get interested in reading more.
Sorry, this is a deep subject, and I question Hubbard’s authority. This would be evident to you if you don’t just pick and choose your reading materials.
Yes, I can see you are questioning Hubbard’s authority and I think that’s good. Believe it or not, I am willing to do so as well. However, I am not willing to accept someone else’s authority on Hubbard’s ideas either. That’s why I’m asking you for a quote that supports your statement. It’s a simple discussion request.
And I told you you what to do. You don’t have to accept any authority. You just have to follow the reasoning.
You can always question that reasoning and I shall respond to it.
Again, in a discussion I don’t expect to be told to read a whole series of articles in reply to a question. Anyone who has a clear idea about something – especially if it’s his own idea – should be able to give a short and simple answer of some kind. And, as I say, it might get the other person interested in reading more.
Whatever.
Don’t you think that’a a little bit arrogant, Vinnie?
Arrogance is a barrier to a successful blogger – not to mention a successful scientist. Just sayin’.
Sorry, you demands for quotes is a discussion stopper because it is trying to short circuit reasoning.
That’s not logical, Vin. You are basing your reasoning on what you claim are Hubbard’s statements. Yet you are unwilling to quote those statements – even when direct quotes of Hubbard’s are posted that contradict your claims.
From Scientology 8-8008, section THETA-MEST THEORY:
“In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST…”
kinetic = MEST = the physical universe.
This is so obvious that it makes me wonder if you are asking for quotes just to harass me.
.
Viewpoint is a frame of reference. It is the fixation of viewpoint on the body that is the primary target in Scientology. Individual viewpoint springs from the complex awareness of the human body. It perishes with the body; therefore, for the individual viewpoint survival of the human body is important.
Broader viewpoint is possible, for example, in ant colonies, the viewpoint seem to be tied to the whole colony. But, in case of ants, the individual viewpoint is not as complex as in case of humans. So, a community viewpoint is possible for humans, and so is a racial viewpoint, or a viewpoint as mankind.
Ultimately, a universal viewpoint is possible.
Physical viewpoint is only one category of viewpoints that can be obtained in many interesting ways such as through flying drones.
From Scientology 8-8008, section THETA-MEST THEORY:
“In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST… It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”
The above statement from Scientology asserts that MEST is a product of theta. It does not say that theta transforms into MEST. That means, theta remains theta while it produces MEST. In other words, static remains static, while it produces kinetic. But we note that the moment static is disturbed, it transforms into kinetic. In a spectrum one end gradually transforms into the other end.
Therefore, the idea, “MEST is a product of Theta” is inconsistent if Theta and MEST are considered the opposite ends of the spectrum of motion.
Scientology Filter #1: It is an arbitrary assumption in Scientology that the kinetic (MEST) is a product of the static (Theta).
The scientific truth is that static transforms into kinetic the moment it is disturbed. The kinetic then gradually increases across the spectrum of motion.
From Scientology 8-8008, section THETA-MEST THEORY
“Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion…”
“Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual. MEST stands for matter, energy, space and time, and is a composite of the first letter of each. The word MEST appearing all by itself denotes the physical universe. MEST with a designation word after it designates another’s universe.”
In Scientology, Theta (static) is associated with spirituality, and MEST (kinetic) represents the physical universe. It, therefore, implies that spiritual reality produces the physical reality. This parallels the philosophy of Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that God created the world.
But, then, motion is given both spiritual and physical aspects in Scientology. Motion is implied to be spiritual at lower frequencies and physical at higher frequencies. This is not so.
Scientology Filter #2: It is an arbitrary assumption in Scientology that spiritual (Theta) and physical (MEST) lie in the dimension of motion.
.