Vinaire's Blog

The theistic viewpoint germinates from viewing one as a self separate from others and imagining God on the same basis. The theistic view is, therefore, a self-centered view.

The view of self starts from fixation on the body. It comes from a condensation of the universal view. Instead of looking at the universe as a single, vast entity or body, one’s viewpoint condenses by first separating mankind from all other forms of life, and then separating mankind into groups, and then separating groups into individuals.

The idea of self comes from this fixation on individuality. It is then projected back into the idea of divinity as God.

This is the theistic viewpoint. It is self-centered.

To me the theistic viewpoint is an aberration. It views God as a being.

The atheistic viewpoint does not deny God. It only objects to viewing God as a being.

May 13, 2014 – 7:17 AM Categories: Scientology | Comments (2)

Reality

Here is how the concept of reality is twisted in Scientology.

Reality is not looked at as “objective” by Hubbard. It is certainly observable, yet not necessarily objective. Each observer takes his own viewpoint… In any case, when we talk about reality, we talk about agreement. “Reality is the agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. (All we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality.” (Dn Ax. 113)

But…

The reality is what is out there. It does not consist of agreements or disagreements.

Hubbard equates reality with agreement, because reality can be changed by changing one’s agreements. Hubbard drew this conclusion from his experience with black magic. He could change a person’s reality by hypnotizing him.

But this is similar to changing the properties of light by filtering it. Hubbard was changing the reality of a person by installing agreements that acted like a filter.

Whether agreements are generated through hypnotism, or in more subtle ways, they act like filters. They take the form of beliefs, speculations, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, etc., and they filter the reality.

The common denominator of such filters is that they generate inconsistencies in what is perceived. By becoming aware of inconsistencies one may then track down the filters that are influening one.

The true reality is the unfiltered reality. It does not consist of agreements or disagreements. And it is achieved by becoming aware of one’s filters and reducing their influence.

May 12, 2014 – 7:35 AM Categories: Scientology | Comments (7)

Affinity

I had this realization on how the concept of AFFINITY got twisted in Scientology.

Hubbard defines affinity in terms of reaching. One reaches for something in order to have it close to one. Lack of affinity would be expressed in a withdraw. “Affinity is a phenomenon of space in that it expresses the willingness to occupy the same place as the thing which is loved or liked. The reverse of it would be antipathy (. . .) which would be the unwillingness to occupy the same space as or the unwillingness to approach something or someone.”

But…

True affinity would be the degree of comfort within oneself as one perceives the universe. And this makes one be inclusive of others and their viewpoints.

Affinity is just there, it is not created or enforced on oneself. One is already being.

Affinity has nothing to do with whether one can assume the beingness of another or not. The latter would require the ability to be a good actor. Just because an actor can pretend high affinity, it does not necessarily mean that he has high affinity.

Affinity is the degree to which one is comfortable within oneself and willing to look and perceive.

The point is that affinity cannot be forced on oneself. It just is, and it comes from being free of inconsistencies in one’s makeup.

May 11, 2014 – 11:47 AM Categories: Scientology | Comments (12)

FED UP

US documentary calls for laws to limit consumption of harmful sweeteners hidden in ‘healthy’ food

The film-makers say it is not in the interest of food, beverage or pharmaceutical companies to reduce sugar content. “It’s too profitable,” says Lustig. The pharmaceutical industry talks of diabetes treatment, not prevention. “The food industry makes a disease and the pharmaceutical industry treats it. They make out like bandits while the rest of us are being taken to the cleaners.”

Lustig says laws are needed. The model for regulation is alcohol since alcohol metabolises as sugar and produces many of the same chronic diseases while fat metabolises differently.

But Lustig believes that education or government guidelines alone are inadequate to address substance abuse problems. “What’s necessary is to limit availability to reduce consumption and reduce alcohol-related health problems,” he says.

Proposals include putting health warnings on soft-drinks cans, giving equal advertising time to marketing fresh fruit and vegetables and voluntary agreements to reduce sugar content.

Lustig says: “If the food industry continues to obfuscate, we will never solve this and by 2026 we will not have healthcare because we will be broke. Food producers are going to have to be forced. There’s only one group that can force them, and that’s the government…”

Can it?
.

May 11, 2014 – 6:04 AM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (2)

Simply Do What You Want To Do

May 9, 2014 – 4:15 PM Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (2)