PHOENIX LECTURES: Chapter 9

Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 9 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.

.

THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE (Part 3)

The four conditions of existence are actually variations of existence itself. They are certain attitudes about existence, and they are the basic attitudes about existence. Now we could include a great many more attitudes, and we would find that we were deriving them all from these four. But we could take these four and find out that we were deriving them all from one — Is-ness, or reality.

The basic condition of existence is Is-ness, or reality.

There has to be an Is-ness before you can do an Alter-is-ness. There has to be an Is-ness before you can do a Not-is-ness — unless of course you want to postulate it in reverse.

But we are talking now about this particular universe and how it got here and we discover as we look along the track, that these four conditions of existence, that all existence, presupposes the postulate known as TIME.

Now time is just a plain ordinary postulate which says that out of a non-consecutive beingness, which doesn’t exist forever, we would get then a parade of time. A time continuum.

TIME is the endurance characteristic of Is-ness.

There’s no forever, it would just be there — no forever, no instant involved. There just isn’t any consecutive existence at all. And then out of this we would have to make a postulate that there would now be consecutive existence, existences, or a consecutive series of states.

There is a continuity of varying states of the same thing, with those states having durations.

Now an individual who is simply occupying space without any energy involved whatsoever doesn’t have a good feeling about this. Without any space he could have a good feeling about it. No space, no energy, no continuum — he could have a fairly good feeling about this, but when he gets into the occupying of a space, now he has this feeling of foreverness unmocked. He makes that uncomfortable for himself, so he will now go on creating consecutive states of existence. He can have a game. Space is necessary to start this game but when you’ve just got space and nothing else, it’s rather unbearable. You’re already occupying, so there is an existence there, but it isn’t an existence which has any consecutive difference of state. And that’s real poor. This is a kind of feeling you run into in space-opera.

Nothing can occupy space without energy involved because space is the EXTENT of energy. If an individual is occupying space, then that individual must consist of energy. Space without energy is an inconsistency. The feeling of “foreverness” is really the feeling of nothing (no energy, no time, no space). To occupy space the individual must identify with some energy, which gives him duration. To have the feeling of forever, this duration must be infinite. To have infinite duration that energy must continue to exist in one shape or another. Thus, come about phenomena. The feeling of “space-opera” is a single cycle of infinite wavelength and infinite duration.

Here we have, then, a state of existence being conditional upon a time postulate which would include a space-energy manifestation, and this would be a simultaneousness.

Energy-space-time must be simultaneous. This must be so for physics too.

There would be no question about whether you made the postulate for space and energy before you made the postulate of time. There is no question of any postulate before or after because you have not postulated the postulate which causes a before or after, and that postulate would be time. So actually, to have a game, there must be a simultaneous action whereby you postulate space-energy-time — space, energy, continuous existence. Which is an As-is-ness of space — altered, energy — altered, time — altered. So these items have to have the time postulate with Alter-is-ness in them in order to get a persistence. That’s how it’s done in this universe. You don’t “just have to do this all the time”. But when those three consecutive postulates are made simultaneously, why we then have a continuum of existence, demarked by differences of position of the particle in the space and we have time being marked out for us very neatly. We have to alter positions in order to get a continuousness. We have to say it is here, now it’s here, now it’s here, now it’s here.

All three, energy-space-time, must maintain continuity at the fundamental level.

There’s another way of making time come true. We say space, no space, space, no space, space, no space, space, no space. You’re postulating, however, that you can do this before you can say space, no space, space, no space. Well now, this postulate is so easy for a thetan to make, it might be considered a native part of his makeup. So, we have before this an ideal state, that is to say an idealized or theoretical state. We have this theoretical state whereby we merely have a Static which has no space, no mass, no wavelength, no motion, no time, which has the ability to consider, and we are dealing with the basic stuff of life. Just by definition.

Buddha’s concept of EMPTINESS goes deeper then Hubbard’s concept of Static, because it is empty of thought (THETA) too, which Static is not. THETA (thought) and MEST (matter, energy, space and time) are not separate, but are integrated together. They cannot exist without each other. THETA-MEST are simultaneous and continuous. They have no beginning or end.

It is very peculiar that: “We, mixed up in all of this energy and so forth and way on down the track from the time this postulate was made” — do you see anything specious about the way that remark hangs together — “Way on down the track from the time this postulate was made” — “Very difficult and very strange that we could even discuss this higher state of existence which was made trillions of years ago”? No. You see, it must have been concurrent with this, right here, and so we don’t use the word existence, we use the word “is”. We don’t use the word “then” or “will be”, we don’t go back into the past or go into the future for this continuousness at all. It just is.

There is no one making postulates. There are simply certain principles that seem to underlie the structure of this universe.

Now, in past ages it was just: “Well, reality is reality and you’ll have to accept it. There’s nothing more you can know about it than that.” Oh yes, there is a lot more you could know about reality than simply, it is.

So, is is not a complete and embracive definition of reality. It’s not complete and embracive because reality has a certain mechanical structure and that structure is composed of these four states of existence. And it would actually take all these four states of existence to make the kind of existence which we are now living and that is to say, we would have to have Is-ness then Not-is-ness and Alter-is-ness and did it strike you before that we might have forgotten and might never have known about and it might not have had called to our attention directly, this other state? We’ve always had these three states, Alter-is-ness, Not-is-ness and Is-ness.

Alter-is-ness and Not-is-ness, of course, are variations of Is-ness and depend upon Is-ness. But there is a fourth one and that is As-is-ness. And that condition natively exists at an instant of creation, yet it also can be made to exist again any time anybody wants to make it exist again, simply by saying AS IS. If anybody had truly and actually accepted reality and had got all of his fellow beings to simply accept reality, we wouldn’t have any. But whose reality? Whose reality in each case? Somebody else’s. So, this reality was actually another condition, other-determined As-is-ness. Other determined. Which is Not-is-ness!

There is a certain Is-ness associated with each point on the Know-to-Mystery scale. That Is-ness moves upwards on the scale when As-is-ness is practiced. It moves downward on the scale when Alter-is-ness is practiced.

Too much Alter-is-ness results in Not-is-ness. It produces the unreality of total subjectivity. In the opposite direction, too much As-is-ness results in the Universal viewpoint, which produces the reality of total objectivity.

The way you get Not-is-ness is to say “as is created by you”. That’s an awful one, that’s a big curve, and that is Not-is-ness. It’s an As-is-ness created by somebody else, which of course isn’t an As-is-ness at all. It’s a very specious As-is-ness, and naturally the world would sort of look unreal to everybody if Joe Blow and Doctor Stinkwater and the Heavily Laden Order of Pyramids all said “This is reality and this is As It Is and you’d better accept it.” That’s a Not-is-ness, isn’t it?

So if everything starts to sort of dim down on you and you kind of find things going out, and getting sort of resistively thin — all transparent-but- they’re-there, or, they’re “all hung with black sheets” — you must assume at that time that you have faced up to too many As-is-nesses which somebody else created.

Not-is-ness is putting responsibility elsewhere, whereas, As-is-ness is taking responsibility. The two are opposite of each other.

Somebody else says, “This is the way things are.” And you’ve had that. You get that operation in conversation: “And yesterday you said to me, just when I got up, you said to me, you never work, you are a dirty loafer, you remember that, don’t you?” I think every familial unit of thetans should always have, not a Bible, but so and so’s Rules of Evidence, lying right there to be resorted to at any time, and there ought to be a Court in every neighborhood to which you could repair and decide whether or not this was an As-is-ness or a Not-is-ness.

Now what is a Not-is-ness? A Not-is-ness comes about in that exact manifestation, or simply by the separate postulate: “Well, it is and I regret it. It isn’t.” You know, you could have made it and then said it wasn’t. Oddly enough, if you made it and you know you made it, you have a special case of being in a position to say any time, “It doesn’t exist now,” and it won’t — if you have also accepted responsibility for having created something and said, “I made it.” So we see that there are two different conditions of Not-is-ness.

One is just vanishment.

The other one is an Is-ness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying “It isn’t.”

Not-is-ness, the way it is being used here, is not vanishment.

A Not-is-ness, in our terminology, would be this second specialized case of an individual trying to vanish something without taking responsibility for having created it. Definitive, positive and precise definition.

And the only result of doing this is to make it all unreal. To make it forgotten. To make it “back of the black screen”. To make it transparent. To make it dull down. To give it over to a machine. To wear glasses. Anything that you could possibly do to get a dimming- down of an Is-ness.

And that is done by saying just this, just this precise operation and no other operation: “I didn’t make it. It isn’t.” “I didn’t do it, so it doesn’t exist.’,

And that will always bring about this second condition, the one we give the term of Not-is-ness.

“I didn’t create it. I had nothing to do with it. I have no responsibility for this at all, so it doesn’t exist as far as I am concerned.”

An individual doesn’t have to operate on these postulates at all, but he is running on this makeup of postulates. He, of course, then will trigger in all the rest of his postulates and they’ll cross-reference in to sticking him right there with it. He’s Not-ised it and he’s got it.

Now he thinks the only way he can get rid of it is to dim it down, dim it down.

Not-is-ness by force simply dims down the Is-ness.

You can process a preclear on a gradient scale of change on something — and this is of great interest to us — if the gradient scale is back toward his acceptance of responsibility for having created it. It would not be far enough to go, as in Dianetics, simply to find out that your mother did it, that “it was what your mother said”. That wouldn’t be far enough to go. This is built into the woof and warp of the track, the very composite of postulates on which an individual is running.

You would have to go back this far: you would have to postulate: (1) that the time Mother said it was NOW, and, (2) that the time when Mother said it caused the time when I said it (a million or fifteen billion years ago) to key in. (key in (Verb): An earlier moment of upset or painful experience is activated, restimulated, by the similarity of a later situation, action or environment to the earlier one.)

To take responsibility means to sort out the situation objectively.

Every time somebody else can put one of your own pieces of mental machinery or one of your engrams into restimulation, it is only because he can work on something which was natively created by yourself. All things carry the germ of their own destruction.

So, any engram, as we were operating with it in Dianetics, was actually a key-in. When I discovered that the whole track ran back, back, back, back, BACK, it was, “Oh! We’re back to where the guy did it in the first place!” Well, that was very interesting, and one result was the essay on responsibility in Advanced Procedure and Axioms.* The essay on full responsibility.

When you are blaming the situation on somebody else you are not taking the responsibility for sorting it out to find the right cause. It doesn’t matter if you created that condition millions of years ago.

Well, a fellow did. He created the condition from which he is now suffering, and he didn’t even create it in other wise than he is now suffering it. But it has been keyed in and he has consented even to its being keyed in.

Nothing really is sneaking up on anybody. That’s a horrible thing, isn’t it? People haven’t even made it worse. But we’re having a good game. If that game is a game called psychosomatic illness, bereft lover, neglected baby, it’s still a game. And as such, the individual is still playing all roles.

A condition is created by certain factors coming together in a certain way. This is what needs to be sorted out.

Now what happens is that as an individual goes along the line, he starts identifying himself with the source point and receipt point of the communication line. As a child, he identifies himself as the one who is talked to. Very seldom do you discover a little child giving mother a good lecture. If you had, you probably would remember with great satisfaction, the good lecture you gave your mother.

Here is a condition in which the individual has identified himself with a continuous effect point, or a continuous cause point, and having said “I am now on this point,” he now makes his considerations below the level of that point. He has considered he is on that point. Henceforth all further considerations are monitored by this consideration that he’s on the point, as long as he considers he’s on that point. And he would have to recognize that he was on the point (an As-is-ness) before he would come off the point.

A process immediately occurs to us on such a level. If you just simply ask an individual a question such as this over and over and over and over:

“Where could you be, where you would be willing to recognize and realize that you were?”

And you would just run a gradient scale all the way back up the line, to the point where the individual recognizes, finally, “You know, I’m sitting right here!” There wouldn’t be any mysticism involved in this.

One simply has to take a pan-determined view to resolve a situation.

Now, these conditions of existence are composited up in an inter-dependency one upon another. An Is-ness exists only because of As-is-ness. As-is-ness took place in the first place. It got created. Then we had to alter it slightly to get an Is-ness. We had to give up some responsibility for it and we had to shift it around. A Not-is-ness then exists in order to provide a game.

Things are what they are. We just have to recognize them for what they are. That is As-is-ness. If we refuse to recognize them for what they are, then that is Not-is-ness.

A game is an Is-ness which is being handled by Not-is-nesses. A football game could be added up in terms of these conditions of existence. One side has the ball and the other side must Not-is the side that has the ball, and the side that has the ball has to win — in other words, has to arrive at a receipt point.

A game is simply a contest of skills to reach a goal.

We get the communication formula itself as being below the conditions of existence and we get affinity, reality and communication as simply being the methods by which existence is conducted. It is not the interplay of existences. So, we’re dealing with a higher echelon than ARC right now.

Affinity really is merely the consideration of how well it’s going. In the agreement or reality, itself we’re talking about Is-ness and that is the corner where we enter this ARC triangle. We just slide into that triangle of Affinity-Reality-Communication on that Is-ness point of reality, and then it is modified by affinity and communication, which of course come in simultaneously with it. We discover then that these conditions of existence would add up to all manifestations of behavior. There would be a great many of them. There would be a finite number, however. It would be the number of possible combinations, singly, doubly, trebly or quadruply, of these four conditions of existence. We get this individual who in only 75% of his life is trying to say Not-is to, another 10% of his life he’s giving an Alter-is, one hundredth of one per cent he’s giving an As-is, or trying to give an As-is to — and the remainder is Reality. Acceptable reality. And that would be just one makeup of a personality.

If we say that there is a gradient scale of Is-ness, a gradient scale of Alter-is-ness, a gradient scale of As-is-ness (which there isn’t) and a gradient scale of Not-is-ness, why we can see then that you could take these gradient scales and in one combination and another, have a character composited from them.

It is not true that there isn’t a gradient scale of As-is ness. A person goes up the Know-to Mystery scale toward the Universal viewpoint on a gradient of As-is-ness.

Characterization must be made up, in great degree, from these conditions of existence. Some space, some energy, and his considerations of Is-ness, Not-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. We would not say that any part of his characterization was made up of As-is-ness, because if it was it wouldn’t be there.

Characterization is made up of the position on the Know-to-Mystery scale.

One also has been trained to believe that loss is bad. This is just a reverse postulate, made just to keep life interesting. Loss is bad, therefore he has a tendency to avoid As-is-ness. Therefore, he will avoid duplication — he’ll avoid all kinds of things. He’s afraid he’ll unmock. He’s afraid he’ll vanish. Here he is struck in, eighteen feet thick, and you couldn’t get him out with a pneumatic drill, all scheduled to go back to the between-lives area (Between-lives area: The experiences of a thetan during the period of time between the loss of a body and the assumption of another. See A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard) and pick up another baby. Silly, isn’t it? But it doesn’t matter too much. Any life or continuance, to him, has begun to be better than no life at all.

Such manifestations are part of Know-to Mystery scale that prevent a person from rising up the scale.

You could say, well then why would you process somebody? Well, let’s look at that. In order to accomplish a two-way communication, just after the basic and most rudimentary chitter chat, I would start asking somebody why he was being processed. And you know, I’m just wicked enough to go on asking the person why he is being processed for hours. Until he can at least find one reason why he is being processed. It’s a very interesting process. A preclear comes in saying, “Process me,” and you have always supposed they knew. Well, at this point they don’t have any idea at all why they want to be processed.

The desire to be processed goes against the desire to maintain status quo. Just sorting out this inconsistency may lead to some interesting results.

A process which would be quite powerful would be: “What wrongness or what wrong thing would you find other people would accept from you?” or “What could you do that was wrong that other people would accept?” and then “What wrongness could you accept from other people?” — back and forth and back and forth. Here goes the guy’s manners, his social pattern, his behavior pattern, and everything else will just go by the boards running that process but he won’t be able to tell you, first and foremost, why he’s being processed.

Processing resolves a person’s fixations, but the person is not aware of that.

He won’t be able to tell you he wants to feel freer. He won’t articulate any of these things. He’ll just sit there and want to be processed. What toward? Until you’ve gotten him to put a little time on the track, he will use “forever” in processing, because he’s sitting in forever.

The person just wants to be processed forever.

He isn’t moving on the time continuum. Well, if you can’t get him processing toward some goal or other or in some direction, he just makes processing the end all of everything and he’ll just go on being processed forever. But if he’s going to be processed forever, he’ll have to hold onto his aberrations forever, otherwise he couldn’t be processed forever, could he? And that’s why some cases stay so long in processing. It’s actually as elementary as that.

And so, he wants to hold on to his aberrations forever.

So, I have been sorely tempted to alter that early auditing step to just this: “Well now, give me some goals you have in processing.”

And just keep it up until it’s no longer forever, and the preclear has a future.

The person must have a goal in processing to have a future.

.

FINAL COMMENTS

The basic condition of existence is Is-ness, or reality. Time is duration of Is-ness. Space is extents of Is-ness. Thus, space is occupied by is-ness. Is-ness consists of energy.  If an individual is occupying space, then he is part of this is-ness, and he has the characteristics of energy.

The feeling of “foreverness” is really the feeling of nothing (no energy, no time, no space). To have the feeling of forever, the individual must continue to exist as energy in one shape or another. Energy-space-time are simultaneous and continuous at the fundamental level. Going deeper, THETA-MEST are simultaneous and continuous with no beginning or end.

There are certain principles that seem to underlie the structure of is-ness. When alter-is-ness is practiced, the is-ness moves downward toward Not-is-ness of unreality on the Know-to-Mystery scale. And, when As-is-ness is practiced, the is-ness moves upward toward a Universal viewpoint of objectivity. As-is-ness is taking responsibility whereas, Not-is-ness is putting responsibility elsewhere.

A condition is created by certain factors coming together in a certain way. To take responsibility means to sort out those factors objectively from a pan-determined viewpoint. It doesn’t matter if you created that condition millions of years ago. Things are what they are. We just have to recognize them for what they are. That is As-is-ness.

Processing resolves a person’s fixations, but the person is not aware of that. The person simply wants to be processed forever, and so, he holds on to his aberrations. Therefore, a person must have a goal in processing to have a future.

.

February 28, 2020 – 7:38 AM Categories: Scientology | Comments (2)

PHOENIX LECTURES: Chapter 8

Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 8 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.

.

THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE (Part 2)

There are extremely elemental processes we discover could be designed when we look at the various factors in Scientology which we would call very upper echelon factors.

How much in the way of processes could we get just out of the concept of Is-ness? Just that one datum. Well, actually we could get a very great many.

We could get very many processes just out of the concept of Is-ness.

But let me call your attention abruptly to the singular fact that to give a thetan exercise in getting ideas is of minimal use. A thetan can always shift around his considerations one way or the other, but it all depends upon the scope he is willing to shift them around on.

An individual on one point, let’s say the receipt point in the communication formula, would feel himself limited to the degree that he had to be on receipt point. So, he would then feel that the consideration that he was on receipt point or was being the effect of existence would monitor his ability to make considerations.

That is to say: he would not feel then that he was free to make any other considerations above the level of the fact that he was on receipt point. And all of his other considerations would fall below this level.

A person who is being at effect would feel constrained by that basic consideration.

The formula of communication — “Cause-Distance-Effect” is the most elementary statement of it — “and involving attention and duplication”. We would discover that if an individual were monitoring himself with one basic consideration, his considerations would then fall below, and his ability to change his mind would then fall below, that basic consideration.

A person is monitored by his basic consideration.

A basic consideration could be “I am on an effect point. I am being the effect of many blows” — and messages and that sort of thing — “and this is very bad”. His considerations are various. “I must get off this point”. Or, “I am on this effect point and I do not like this”. Therefore, he makes the consideration that he must get off of this point. Well, what is monitoring the consideration that he must get off that point?

The fact that he’s on it, of course.

All his considerations are subject to that basic consideration.

Now let’s take it reverse end to, and let’s get an individual who finds himself on source point. There he sits on source point and he’s being cause. He’s being the source of the impulses or particles which are going across the distance and hitting effect point. And then this individual is saying: “Well now I mustn’t cause anything bad. I must cause only good things” and he must do this and that for this or for that.

And what is this host of considerations being monitored by? Of course, the fact that he is on a cause point. He’s on a source point of a communication. (Synonymous here: cause and source, effect and receipt.) And if he discovers himself suddenly on the receipt end of something, this fellow is really dismayed. Here he has this basic consideration that he’s being cause point, and then all of a sudden, he receives something! Now that would be a breakdown — basically and primarily — of his Is-ness. His reality.

If a person’s basic consideration is violated it would be a breakdown of his Is-ness.

He then can have a break of reality only to the degree that other-determinism brings into question the postulate on which he is operating. You see, you could have a break of reality only to the degree that other-determined-hammer-pound brings about an invalidation of the postulate on which he is basically running.

There is other-determinism that brings his basic consideration into question.

He says, I am cause and I am being a good fellow and I am doing this and doing that — and all of a sudden, he gets jailed. My, this is upsetting. But what is his basic consideration? That he is occupying a cause point.

This can be very upsetting.

Let’s take the example of somebody who is in a condition and who is trying to change this condition. Now we’ve entered into another level. We’ve entered into Not-is-ness and then we’ve entered into Alter-is-ness, you see. He has a terrible ill. He has this mental difficulty. He has some other difficulty or other and he now says it mustn’t exist. And in his next statement he says, all right now, don’t exist.

Well, what do you know, it keeps on existing. Well, all right, he says, I’ll change it on a gradient scale. I’ll chip away at the corners of it.

He’ll at length decide that he can’t do anything about it.

One of the actions that he would finally do would be to draw a black curtain over the whole thing. That’s one of the basic reactions of Not-is-ness. He says, Now, look, I can’t change it at all, so he’s trying to affect a Not-is-ness by using Alter-is-ness. Not-is-ness would not take place by a postulate, he discovered (or thought he discovered), so the basic thing he must do immediately then is start changing it on a gradient scale, which is to say Alter- is-ness — and it just stays right there. And he is already running on a failed postulate of Not-is-ness. His activity of change is then proceeding from the basic postulate that it must not be, which is proceeding from another basic postulate that it is, which is proceeding from the basic postulate that he’s there in the first place. You see that we’re just proceeding from the basic postulate that there must be a there for him to be at.

So, we trace back these basic postulates and we discover a little rule here. An individual has a condition and the condition continues to exist as long as the individual has a condition. It sounds like an idiotic little rule but it’s a very, very true little rule. It will continue as long as he has a condition. So, every time you find a condition? He must have a postulate about the condition before he has the condition. So, every time you find a condition there’s a postulate.

In order to get over something you have to have postulated that you have it. In order to recover you must postulate that you have something from which to recover. In order to go through the actions of emptying a pocketbook you had to have postulated that it was full and should be emptied.

Every time you find an unwanted condition there is a postulate that is keeping that condition there.

One is all too prone to look at existence and say, well, there’s existence there and now we’ll make some postulates. No. This is not quite the direction of drift. You’d have to make the postulate to have existence there so that you could make some postulates to recover from having the existence there. And any condition to have any existence or persistence must be based on time of some sort. There must be a time postulate.

And we find that an individual doesn’t have time unless he continues to postulate it and ceases to have time to the degree that he ceases to postulate it.

When I say cease to postulate time, I wouldn’t want you for a moment to get the idea that there is any witchcraft involved, that you have to go out with spider-webs and mix them up with four quarts of morning sunlight and stir them all up with a whisker. There’s no witchcraft involved in making this postulate. It’s simply this kind of a postulate: Continue: Just get the notion of continuing something and you’ll have a time continuum. Get the idea of a piece of space out in front of you and have the notion, Continue, about this piece of space. That’s making time. You’ve made time. That’s all the postulate there is. There isn’t even the words, “Now I am going to make some time and I am going to cause the time to persist and continue.” No, its just continue. You didn’t say continue.

Any condition is enduring because it is somehow being postulated continually.

This time continuum is a tremendously interesting thing particularly in view of the fact that so many people have agreed upon it, but their apparent agreement with it leads them to depend on other people, finally, to carry on the agreement while they just sit there. And what do you know, eventually they do just sit there. You’ll find many a person in this state, simply sitting at home in his bedroom, just sitting there. Well, he couldn’t have any motion, he says.

Motion consists of this: consecutive positions in a space. He’d have to conceive that he had some space, and that he’d have consecutive motions in it.

That continual postulate has become automatic. It has become integrated into a system.

If you could just ask such a person to go out and trim the hedge, just no more and no less than that, or if you asked him to go out and put pieces of chalk on the sidewalk all the way around the block every five feet — you would see considerable recovery in his case. Why? Well, he knows that he’d have to go all the way around the block or he knows that he would have to finish trimming the hedge, or he would have to come around to his door again in the block, or come around to the other side of the yard. In other words, he can continue to postulate a time continuum against the objects that are already there.

You could just say to this fellow, Get the idea of moving this dish. Now move it. Now get the idea of moving this dish again. Get the position you’re going to move it to now. Now move it. Now get the idea of moving this dish, now get the place you’re going to move it to and move it. Surprisingly enough an individual will sometimes turn on a violent body reaction on this.

By actively doing something different a person is departing from that condition of automaticity.

What’s kicking back there? It is the thetan’s agreement with the body, to the point where he’s saying he is the body, the body is himself — therefore everything that happens to the body is what happens to himself and everything that happens to himself happens to the body. In other words, he’s in a super-identification. And he would come through this to where he could have some future.

He is up against the automatic system.

What postulate is this individual already riding with? Let’s take a look at the Is-ness of this. He has to conceive that he has a body before he can recover from one.

And we get the salient and horrible fact that this whole thing is monitored by Is-ness. No matter how much Not-is-ness is taking place, you see Not-is-ness always pursuant to Is-ness. No matter how much Alter-is-ness takes place — you’ve got an As-is-ness, then Alter-is-ness has to take place to get an Is-ness. Is-ness is something that is persisting on a continuum. That is our basic definition of Is-ness. As-is-ness is something that is just postulated, or just being duplicated — no alteration taking place.

That automatic system is the Is-ness. It is the background fixation.

As-is-ness contains no life continuum, no time continuum. It will just go — every time you postulate a perfect duplicate for anything: same space, same object, same time — boom! If you postulated it all the way through, without any limiter postulate hanging around at all, it would just be gone and that’s all there is to it. It would be gone for everybody else, too.

As-is-ness makes the fixations disappear.

Now this, then, Is-ness, is your monitoring postulate. An individual couldn’t possibly get into trouble with As-is-ness. Unless you considered losing everything trouble — but it would be losing things which you either now didn’t want or had just postulated into existence.

Is-ness is the basic consideration of the individual that is monitoring his reality.

All As-is-ness is doing is merely accepting responsibility for having created it, and anybody can accept the responsibility for anything. That’s all As-is-ness is, when it operates as a perfect duplicate.

As-is-ness is taking responsibility for your actions.

There are two kinds of As-is-ness:

There is the As-is-ness where you postulate it in the space and time — you postulate it right there, and there it exists.

And then there is the As-is-ness where you re-postulate it. You just postulate it again.

As-is-ness comes about when you take actions in a responsible way, and also bear responsibility for the actions you have taken.

The object already exists, there is an Is-ness being approximated as an As-is-ness, and then it becomes an As-is that isn’t. It becomes, then, an actual Not-is-ness. So, if you created it, if you just created it as an As-is-ness, unless you altered it rapidly, you’d get this Not-is-ness. And if you exactly approximated an Is-ness as an As-is-ness, you would again get the same result. Same result both times — Not-is-ness. As-is-ness, perfectly done, if not followed by Alter-is-ness, becomes a Not-is-ness. Quickly and immediately. You’ve seen that as an auditor, erasing parts of the reactive bank — facsimiles, etc.

As-is-ness, perfectly done, if not followed by Alter-is-ness, becomes an actual Not-is-ness in terms of disappearance.

It hasn’t occurred to anybody yet, fortunately, to simply exactly approximate the body! Treat the body as an As-is-ness and go your way. Well, you say the body has a lot of facsimiles and so forth. Alright, treat them as the same As-is-ness, all in one operation — boom. Of course, you had to assume you had a body before you could possibly As-is it.

The body, in a way, represents the core of a person’s system of considerations.

Now, existence goes this way — this is the only error you could make, and this is another method, slightly, of getting a continuation, because it is an Alter-is-ness. There is an Alter-is-ness right there between Is-ness and Not-is-ness. The moment you say, “There it is, now I don’t want it and it doesn’t exist”, you’ve postulated that you’re changing it. It’s a very abrupt and particular kind of Is-ness — it’s a Not-is-ness.

If instead of following Is-nesses with Not-is-nesses, we followed them with As-is- nesses, nobody could ever possibly get into any trouble. The way you get into trouble is to follow an Is-ness with a blunt, thud, Not-is-ness. (1) There it is. (2) I don’t want it. (3) It isn’t. Oh ho! What’s the difference between these two operations? It’s a very interesting difference:

You’ve got an Is-ness. You have an ash tray, you don’t want the ash tray anymore, so the one operation, a correct one as far as you are concerned if you just really didn’t want it anymore, would be simply to do an As-is-ness. A perfect duplicate. Gone. You haven’t got an ash tray anymore. To follow an Is-ness with an As-is-ness, brings you into an actual Not-is- ness right there.

To follow an Is-ness with an As-is-ness, brings you into an actual Not-is-ness right there.

Or, on the other hand, you didn’t do an As-is-ness. And you’ve done what? You have refused the responsibility for having created it, and you have said, somebody else creates it and I don’t want it. You’ve said somebody else. You’ve postulated the existence of somebody else with regard to this thing and you’ve said, “Another determinism is placing this thing before me and therefore I don’t want it, so I’m going to say that it isn’t, but it really belongs to somebody else. We have to postulate another determinism, which is to say, refuse the responsibility for having created the object, before we can get such a thing as a Not-is-ness.

When you practice a large amount of Alter-is-ness, an unwanted Not-is-ness comes about.

Now, an individual can fail utterly. This is a very curious lot of phenomena that we are looking at here, and of course, we had no serious intent with this phenomenon, which is a fortunate thing. Otherwise, somebody realizing exactly how this is done, would sooner or later perhaps unmock the Republican Party or Russia, leave a hole, and of course to do that, you would have to accept the viewpoint of 200 million Russians. You could unmock Russia if you did that, but you would have to take full responsibility.

What is full responsibility? Full responsibility merely says: I created it. When you ask somebody to make a perfect duplicate of it, he’s going through the mechanics of creating it, therefore it disappears. He knows, unless he throws some other-determinism in on the thing, in other words practices some Alter-ism on its creator, that it’s not going to exist at all.

Full responsibility merely says: I created it.

The physical universe as we look at it right around us here is an Is-ness for one reason only. We all agree that somebody else created it, whether that is God or Mugjub or Bill. We agree that somebody else brought these conditions into existence, and so long as we are totally agreed on this, boy have we got everything solid. And the moment we agree otherwise, and we say, Well, we made it — it starts to get thin. This will worry a preclear for a moment. It’s just as if he feels he could never make another one. It’ll get thin.

The universe is not just physical. It is everything. The “physical universe” is a created consideration. That is the Is-ness for most people in the West.

In the processing of reality, then, if you handled Is-ness all by itself, you would simply have an individual start looking at what he considers to exist. And the most solid manifestation of that would be the space in the vicinity, the walls in the vicinity, and so on. That would be the most elementary process that we could do. Just start spotting spaces and walls and let what happens happen. That’s all. Just ask the individual to keep on spotting things, very permissively. Suppose he kept on looking at them with his physical vision — we find that he would get up to a certain level and then he’d start to have body somatics (Somatics: perceptions, stemming from the Reactive Bank, of past physical pain or discomfort, restimulated in present time) because making the body do this continually is actually processing a reality vaguely in the direction of an As-is-ness. It’s not bluntly or sharply in the direction of As-is-ness. It’s just asking them to process it a little bit in that direction:

“Let’s take the spaces around here just as you see them.” And of course, after a while, the walls are going to get brighter and brighter and duller and duller and — gone.

The most elementary process would be to compare your Is-ness (what you consider to be there) to what actually exists around you. Just start spotting spaces and walls and let what happens happen. That’s all. That will take care of a lot of your fixations.

Well, when they get brighter, that’s all right. The body will still feel all right, but when it starts dulling down the body doesn’t like this. It does not think this is the best thing to do. It would not recommend this as subject matter for an article in a body-building magazine. Because the body knows it will fall if it stands in space. Therefore, this very, very simple process would not necessarily have to be completed by remedying havingness, but just by getting the fellow to close his eyes, and spot anything he could see, no matter how vaguely, as a thetan. Just spot anything he sees. If he sees a nothingness, O.K., if he sees a somethingness, O.K. Just get him spotting. We don’t care what he sees. We might indicate various directions but we would make a very bad mistake if we indicated them as body directions. On your right. On your left. Above your head. Oh no, no. We just ask him to look around, and what he sees, spot a couple of spots on it. Did you do that? Now something else, spot a couple more spots on that. Well, we know already that if we’ve run it permissively in the environment, he’s had to point them out and walk around to them. He will obey orders. Now that we’ve got him to a point where he will physically obey commands we can trust him to close his eyes and spot spots or spot spaces or spot anything he wants to spot with his eyes closed. We just simply keep on spotting them, and that would be the most elementary process there is in Scientology.

Simply have him close his eyes and start spotting whatever is there in the space around him (not in any direction). These things would be his Is-ness mostly.

.

FINAL COMMENTS

The automaticity of life is composed of all your considerations locked together forming a system. This system is your Is-ness that monitors your reality.

Every time you find an unwanted condition there is an automatic postulate that is keeping that condition there. When you actively do something different you are departing from that condition of automaticity. As-is-ness comes about when you take actions in a responsible way, and also bear responsibility for the actions of the past. It makes fixations disappear.

The most elementary process would be to compare your Is-ness (what you consider to be there) to what actually exists around you. Just start spotting spaces and walls and let what happens happen. That’s all. That will take care of a lot of your fixations. You may also close your eyes and start spotting whatever is there in the space around you.

.

February 27, 2020 – 12:24 PM Categories: Scientology | Post a comment

Starting Step (old)

Please see Clearing of Subject Titles

The starting step of SUBJECT CLEARING is obviously clearing up the meaning of the names used for various subjects.

The first key word list you start with should be the names of all different subjects that you have heard of. In other words, you are starting out with the subject of KNOWLEDGE itself. Add the word “Knowledge” to this word-list.

Clear up this whole key word list until you end up with a sequence of names starting from the earliest subject.

Then pick up a comprehensive text on that earliest subject and start subject clearing it. Alternatively, you may start subject clearing a subject of your interest and gradually make your way back to the earliest subject on your list.

.

February 24, 2020 – 7:55 AM Categories: Mindfulness | Post a comment

Static & The Unattached Viewpoint

STATIC is the most fundamental concept in Scientology. It is contrasted from MEST (matter, energy space and time), which is considered KINETIC. “Static-kinetic” is a dichotomy that may be expanded as a scale of infinite gradients.

A pendulum stops at either end of the swing for a fraction of a second. That condition is considered static. The pendulum has maximum velocity in the exact middle of the swing. That condition is considered kinetic. The total energy of the system is constant per the Law of Conservation of Energy. That energy is considered “potential” when the pendulum is static, and “kinetic” when the pendulum is in full swing. In between the energy is converting either from potential to kinetic or from kinetic to potential.

From the viewpoint of the example above, the STATIC of Scientology shall represent the totality of energy of the universe in potential form.

We may consider this to be the state just before the “Big Bang”. MEST, then, is the state where this STATIC is in the process of becoming KINETIC. This may be looked upon as the expanding universe.

.

MEST

MEST is an acronym made up of the first letters of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. It is a form that has not yet become fully KINETIC. Here Matter is the condensed form of Energy that has become relatively static.

Matter is expanding into the the electromagnetic spectrum of physical energy and vice versa. There is a state of equilibrium there.

One may view this state of equilibrium in the atom where matter appears as the central nucleus, and the physical energy spectrum appears to be surrounding it.

Space represents the EXTENTS of energy-matter. Time represents the DURATION of energy-matter. Neither space nor time exists in the absence of energy-matter. Therefore, “space-time” are essentially the characteristics of “energy-matter”.

.

Expansion of Universe

The expansion of the universe shall mean that more matter is de-condensing back into energy then energy is condensing into matter. Energy occupies much greater space than matter. It also has much less duration than matter. Therefore, net de-condensing of matter into energy appears as expansion of the universe.

.

Awareness

We cannot deny the presence of thought energy. It is just that it is not acknowledged in the science of Physics. The reason for this is the arbitrary division of reality by Greeks into “thought” and “physical universe”. Science of Physics then deals with the “physical universe” only.

But there should not be any arbitrary separation between thought and the physical aspects. Thought is a form of energy just like light, heat and electricity are.

The thought would also be potential in the STATIC at the beginning of the universe. Therefore, we may consider the STATIC to be self-aware. With this awareness the STATIC starts to change into kinetic on a gradient basis. Nothing affects the STATIC but itself through this awareness. This is the origin of Big Bang.

NOTE: In Scientology, the STATIC is represented by Dynamic 8.

.

Energy

We perceive energy as having the characteristic of motion. When matter expands it appears as physical energy. It may be postulated that when physical energy expands it appears as “thought energy” (THETA). This is happening within life forms. A human form is most efficient in expanding physical energy into thought energy.

Matter expands into the spectrum of physical energy, which we know as the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum in physics. Physical energy expands into the spectrum of thought energy, which is represented by the Tone Scale of Scientology.

Matter together with physical and thought energy appears as life. We then have the spectrum of life represented by minerals, cells, plants, animals and humans.

NOTE: In Scientology Energy is covered by Dynamics 7, 6 and 5.

.

Viewpoint

In life, the manifestation of thought energy may be viewed as VIEWPOINT. The viewpoint represents awareness, perception as well as the interpretation of that perception through thought and activity. The latter is considered to be the “function of the mind”, but it is part of the viewpoint. The viewpoint in humans is the self. Scientology refers to it as the THETAN. But we may conceive animals, plants, cells and minerals to have their own version of viewpoint.

In humans, the viewpoint appears as being made of very fine considerations. The animal viewpoint may be made up of coarse considerations. The viewpoint of plants, cells and minerals may consist of considerations that are coarser still.

The considerations of the viewpoint actively combine in infinitely varied ways to produce the human activity. Therefore, the activities of the mind and body express the viewpoint. When there is an inherent change in the character of these activities, we may identify that as change in the viewpoint itself.

In humans, the viewpoint may rise from lower levels up through THINKING, EFFORT, EMOTION, LOOKING, KNOWING ABOUT, NOT KNOWING and KNOWING; in animals, it may rise only to the level of EATING-NESS: in plants, to the level of SEXING-NESS; in cells, to the level of WAITING and MYSTERY; and in minerals, the viewpoint may be considered to stay at the level of UNCONSCIOUSNESS. These levels, together, are referred to as the Know-Mystery scale.

.

Memory

Memory is a characteristic of energy. It is stored in the changing forms and condensations of energy. The more the energy becomes solid as a result of condensation, the more its memory appears in the form of mental image pictures. As the energy expands and becomes finer, the memory characteristic take on the form of a data matrix.

Therefore, memories may be concentrated in the brain cells but they exist throughout the cells of the body and in the electromagnetic field surrounding the body.

.

The Unattached Viewpoint

It is a misconception to think that as a person rises, he reaches the state of STATIC. STATIC is the state of total potential energy of everything including THETA and MEST.

The highest state that a person reaches is the state of KNOWING at the top of the Know-to-Mystery scale. This state may be called the “Unattached Viewpoint”.

Once a person acquires the unattached viewpoint of KNOWING he perceives all things, physical and spiritual, completely objectively. A person’s interpretations are optimum on all eight dynamics only when his perceptions are unattached (objective).

.

February 21, 2020 – 8:06 AM Categories: Mindfulness, Scientology | Post a comment

Subject Clearing (old-5)

Please see The Book of Subject Clearing

Subject Clearing is the most powerful tool currently available to bring clarity to the mind on any subject. It not only brings about a much better understanding of a subject but also helps detect the basic postulates, assumptions and erroneous ideas present in that subject.

The basic postulates help one understand the grounds on which a subject stands. Ideas based on these postulates must be demonstrable. There must not be inconsistencies among these postulates, ideas and reality.

If assumptions and erroneous ideas are not detected and isolated, it can cause serious problems with the application of the subject. Such erroneous ideas can be very pervasive, and may even enter the definitions of words provided in dictionaries. It is, therefore, very important not to miss them in your study. 

The true purpose of study is to resolve inconsistencies (things that do not make sense) as you come across them in a subject or in life. This develops clarity of mind and the ability to think fast on your feet.

Since additional information on a subject may easily be accessed through Internet these days, the purpose of study is to not memorize but to improve critical thinking.

.

The Steps

Here are the steps to Subject Clearing:

1.    Make a list of key words in the subject.

Every subject has its own vocabulary. It may even use certain common words in a special meaning. Start making a list of key words used in that subject. If you are familiar with the subject you may already know some of those words. Otherwise, skim through the chapter that you are going to study, and obtain some key words from it. Put that list on an Excel worksheet. This list may grow as your studies get deeper into the subject.

2.    Enter the broad concept on a worksheet next to the word.

Look up the word in good dictionary. Read the ‘history’, ‘origin’, and/or ‘derivation’ for that word. Simply work out the broad concept underlying that word and write it down on the worksheet next to the word. Do so for each word on the list. Here are some broad concepts associated with some words.

STUDY = “eagerness, intense application”.
MATHEMATICS = “something learned”.
ARITHMETIC = ARITHMOS number + TECHNE skill = “number skill”.

3.    Read the subject material one paragraph at a time.

Procure the study materials in the form of an editable file on the computer. Study the materials of the subject one paragraph at a time. If the paragraph is too big, break it down into chunks of reasonable size.  If the paragraph is too small, and the thought continues to the next paragraph then read the two paragraphs together. Go over the paragraph as many times as necessary to understand the main thought.

4.    If the paragraph is fully understood, write down your understanding of its main thought along with your comments.

Make sure you fully understand the paragraph. If not then go to step 5. Once you have fully understood the paragraph, then summarize its main thought in your mind and look at your reactions to it. Write down below that paragraph your understanding of its main thought along with any comments. Treat this action as having a conversation with the author. Then go to step 7 below.

See examples of such comments at Comments on Books.

5.    If the paragraph is difficult to understand then look for the first word not fully understood.

If you find your mind going blank as you read the paragraph, something in that paragraph is not fully understood. Trace that sense of confusion to the earliest sentence in that paragraph, and to the earliest word in that sentence that is not understood. Here you have to be very careful because the misunderstanding can come from having assumed the wrong definition for a simple word like “on”, “of”, “in”, et cetera. Usually there is an obvious word, whose meaning you may have guessed in the past, but never actually looked up in a standard dictionary. At least there is some uncertainty in your mind about how that word is being used in the given context. We shall call it MU (misunderstood) for short. Write that MU word down on a sheet of paper. 

NOTE: If it is a key word in that subject, then see if its is defined in that paragraph or in the glossary of that book. Then write its definition down on the Excel worksheet of Step 1 above.

Do not look for anything else in that paragraph until you have cleared up this MU. You must be very honest with yourself in keeping this discipline.

6.    Clear up the MUs in that paragraph until that paragraph is fully understood.

(6a) Look up the MU word in a standard reference — This reference could be a standard dictionary or an Internet resource, such as, Wikipedia and Google Images.

(6b) Understand the concept underlying the word — Per step 2 above.

(6c) Look up the definitions of the word — Look up the definitions of the word. Visualize the definition in the context in which that word is used. If it doesn’t fit go to the next definition. You may visualize a definition better if you make a few of your own sentences, or examples from your experience, with that word. Some words may require the use of “Google Image.” Always keep the basic concept in your mind that underlies the word . It is best to check out all definitions this way until you find the definition that clarifies the MU. 

(6d) Look up MUs in the definition — If a definition contains an MU then look it up per this procedure. Write that MU down below the earlier MU. This may sometime get you in a long chain of MU words. Keep an account of these words on the list as you add them or cross them out after clearing them. It is okay to look up the same word again several times. Each time you look up the same word you get a deeper understanding of its meaning.

(6e) Review the original sentence — Review the sentence in which the original MU was found. Make sure that it now makes sense. If not then there may be another MU word in the sentence. Repeat the above procedure until that sentence is understood.

(6f) Review the paragraph — Once the sentence is cleared up, go back to step 4.

7.    Check the paragraph for key words/definitions.

Check the paragraph for key words and/or key word definitions that do not already appear on the Excel worksheet. If a key word definition is expanded upon then add it to the Excel worksheet.

8.    Continue with subsequent paragraphs per steps 4 to 7 until the end of chapter.

Continue as above with rest of the chapters building up the key word list on the Excel worksheet.

9.    Gradually build up the key word list for that subject.

Build up the key word list, with broad concepts and meanings, as you study the subject chapter after chapter, and book after book. Note down any additional concepts and meanings next to the appropriate word on the Excel worksheet. Also note down the questions that may arise in your mind about the key words or the underlying concept.

The broadest case would be the subject of religion. You may first make a key word lists for Judaism by studying the scriptures and commentaries. Then you may make key word lists for Christianity and Islam respectively. Then you may combine these lists to generate a key word lists for Abrahamic religions. Similarly, you may combine the key word lists for the Vedas, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc., and generate a key word list for Eastern religions. Finally, you may combine all these word lists to generate the key word list for religion.

Here you may find many different definitions for the same key word, such as, God, all written down in one place. You may also find different words used in different religions for the same fundamental concept.

As you work on this step for a subject you will have many realizations along the way. This is a continuing step. So, you continue with the subsequent steps as well.

10.    Arrange the key words in sequences appropriate for understanding.

The concepts in a subject always evolve in some sequence. This sequence may be linear at first but then it branches out in different directions like a network or a matrix of concepts. This can easily be seen in Mathematics and Science.

In Excel, you may separate the key words on two different worksheets categorized as “fundamental concepts” and “derived concepts”. Then arrange the concepts in each worksheet in the order they evolved.

Since the sequence of the evolution of these concepts is multi-dimensional, you may set up the Excel worksheet to sort out these key words in different sequences. To do this you may create different “priority columns” in the worksheet. In each “priority column” assign a unique number to the key word so it sorts out in the order you want. The whole idea is to arrange these words in different ways to examine the connections among them.

11.    Note any inconsistencies among the concepts and clarify them.

As the study of the subject progresses, you’ll be collecting more data to describe each key word. Resolve any inconsistencies among that collection of concepts and meanings for each word through careful examination and contemplation. Once resolved, express the broad concept for each word in your own words. There may be one broad concept but several distinct meanings for a word. If so, then express the multiple meanings by numbering them. You are creating your own glossary.

Next, examine the evolution of the key words by arranging and rearranging them in different sequences. You are looking for inconsistencies that do not make sense. Here it is very important that you do not inject justifications in your examination. There may just be holes among those concepts that need to be filled. Be wary of arbitrary notions, assumptions and beliefs that may be covering those holes. Isolate the areas of inconsistency. Trace existing ideas in the area of inconsistency one by one for arbitrariness. 

Deeper research may be required to clearly identify the holes among the concepts, and then fill them. First review your study materials to clarify such inconsistencies. If it does not clarify easily then note it down on the worksheet; and research through other materials in the library, or on Internet, until the inconsistency is resolved.

12.    Clarify the fundamentals of the subject as a priority.

The consistency of the fundamentals determines the consistency in rest of the subject. Any inconsistency at the fundamental level must be handled as a priority. For example, a unified theory is desperately being looked for in the subject of Physics, which could bring the fundamentals of Newtonian Physics, the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics in line. This means that inconsistencies exist in our understanding at the fundamental level of physics

There are likely to be many contributors to a subject who may use different words for the same concept. This is the case with religious knowledge from different cultures. Group such words together to discover inconsistencies among concepts.

Study of inconsistencies may lead to discovery of arbitrary beliefs that were advanced in the absence of knowledge, or you may find erroneous observation, or simply some notions that are taken for granted. This may reveal gaps in the subject itself. Develop your own understanding by seeking consistency among the fundamental concepts in a subject.

13.    Make the subject as complete as possible.

There are many examples in the subject of religion where gaps in knowledge are hidden under fixed beliefs and dubious explanations. This may be the case with any subject where inconsistencies abound. Follow up on inconsistencies, which may then reveal gaps in the subject. Real progress then becomes possible.

Fill gaps in the subject with wider research. Make the subject as complete as possible through direct experience and experimentation.

14.    Keep your viewpoint as objective as possible when you research a subject.

This step is done after one has acquired a good bit of experience with subject clearing. This is an advanced step that consists of doing the following: Meditation from Mystery to Knowing.

.

Summary

These are the steps of SUBJECT CLEARING. You do them again and again for the same or different subjects. These steps lead you to wonderful realizations that keep coming. As you assimilate those realizations your viewpoint moves up toward KNOWING on the Know-to-Mystery scale.

You may find examples of NOTES & COMMENTS resulting from Subject Clearing below.

Comments on Books

.

February 18, 2020 – 11:51 AM Categories: Education, Mindfulness | Comments (14)