What's new

Oh! God!!!

Vinaire

Sponsor
I think we manifest in this place as attention, love and understanding. One can make a harmonic comparison of all three with any relative situation. So intention is a harmonic of attention, a partial "amount" in a sense. With full attention one has full understanding. With intention one has partial attention, partial understanding. Having "intention" is the placing of attention on something, possibly to begin the process of fuller understanding. It is looking at something. Intention in Scientology is not necessarily the same thing, IMO. Postulate would be closer. But looking is simply looking no matter what it is called.


INTENT has the sense of “stretching out.” I think that DESIRE creates an internal stretching out, and that is intention.

ATTENTION has the sense of “to bend to, extend.” I think that intention then bends attention to its WILL. It serves to focus the attention. “Will” determines the intensity and steadfastness of that focus.

Attention seems to be equivalent to LIGHT in the physical universe. Attention creates space for the postulates to manifest themselves. These postulates may already exist “out there” as potentials, which then return PERCEPTION back to the VIEWPOINT.

LOVE seems to be the harmony among desire, intention, attention, will, postulates, etc.

UNDERSTANDING seems to depend on the wavelength of attention as determined by the WILL.

At this stage these are just some speculations on my part. I am rushing at the moment.

More later.

.
 
Last edited:

fnx3

Patron with Honors
An experience to share ...

I think we manifest in this place as attention, love and understanding. One can make a harmonic comparison of all three with any relative situation. So intention is a harmonic of attention, a partial "amount" in a sense. With full attention one has full understanding. With intention one has partial attention, partial understanding. Having "intention" is the placing of attention on something, possibly to begin the process of fuller understanding. It is looking at something. Intention in Scientology is not necessarily the same thing, IMO. Postulate would be closer. But looking is simply looking no matter what it is called.

Just read thru the last few posts & I feel I will share this experience that I had some years ago as confirmation of quite a few points:

One day in an R3R-style auditing session I found myself right at Source in the most perfect stillness but then there was a flow out of that stillness with the postulate "to be" & the creation of "I" - the only way to achieve the goal "to be" was by the creation of a 2nd pole & the only way to achieve that pole was by a flow & the only way to describe that flow would be the word "Love" - there was quite a poignant feeling in the separation to the 1st viewpoint.

I found that I could most efficiently describe it as thus:
if 0 is Source, 8 is the infinitely looping flow (of love) & 1 is the 2nd pole or position from which to view then it works like this - 081.

(postcript - I was so impressed by this experience that I continued to receive the auditing however it resulted in massive overrun with very deleterious results - someone should have known when to stop :wink2: )

And just as a side note - for me Attention is Consciousness observing itself.

And when Nexus mentioned "meditation" I thought I would share this super simple meditation that I have evolved to after 6 months - you just close yr eyes & look at an area of blackness in front of you, without any considerations, innocently - when you find that your attention has gone off that area & into "thinking" you just bring it back again - oh so lightly - after about 10 minutes you will feel a definite change in yr mental perceptions, kind of like a drop in an elevator & then you only really need to remain meditating for another few minutes to reap the most wonderful benefits for your whole self - body, mind, spirit.

 
Last edited:

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ruminations on attention

This thread is closing in on something that I find very engaging and positive. My heartfelt thanks to all! :)

As regards attention, mine in particular, I find that my abilities handling "it" vary significantly depending upon various things.

Fatigue, hunger, thirst, pain and such things inhibit my handling of this quality/quanty :confused2: "attention" which I will simply refer to as "it".

Alcohol, which I have always enjoyed in many forms, but can easily do without, seems to narrow the span of "it" and soften things up a bit allowing easy communication - particularly where there is already agreement with other terminals. Alcohol does not expand or strengthen "it" in my experience, though I do find it comforting for whatever unknown reasons.

My only experience with Marijuana was profound and (it seemed) "it" was enormously expanded in scope, breadth, depth of field and not only much more controllable, but also much more powerful, pervasive and penetrating. Oddly enough, I have had little or no desire to recapture this experience.

Substances such as caffeine, dexedrine and "speed" in the few instances I have used them strengthened "it" to the benefit of staying awake longer, processing input more quickly - but seemed to result in a "crash" later and not really worth the effort.

I recall LRH in "The Secrets of the Mest Universe" tapes (I think) remarking that he had to really reach and make an effort to be "there" because he was so exterior.

Uniquemand on another thread posted about LRH and the subject of his use of benzedrene and other substances is somewhat covered and discussed there.

I am getting around to the automotive analogy of running your car on enhanced fuel such as nitromethane to get a tremendous boost in power output at the price of a short engine life and lots of internal problems prematurely compared to a similar vehicle burning the fuel it was designed to use.

Was LRH running virtually all the time with a significant amount of "boost"? And would this explain anything we do not already know.

Did he (LRH) in fact find data that is available by enhancing his handling of "it" (his attention) beyond what could be described as "normal".

Does this resonate at all? I am not sure I've said, in this ramble, what I meant to say, but will post it anyway and if it's TL/DR, that's OK folks!

EP
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
A couple of comments

QUOTE=EP - Ethics Particle;323957]This thread is closing in on something that I find very engaging and positive. My heartfelt thanks to all! :)

As regards attention, mine in particular, I find that my abilities handling "it" vary significantly depending upon various things.

Fatigue, hunger, thirst, pain and such things inhibit my handling of this quality/quanty :confused2: "attention" which I will simply refer to as "it".

Alcohol, which I have always enjoyed in many forms, but can easily do without, seems to narrow the span of "it" and soften things up a bit allowing easy communication - particularly where there is already agreement with other terminals. Alcohol does not expand or strengthen "it" in my experience, though I do find it comforting for whatever unknown reasons.

My only experience with Marijuana was profound and (it seemed) "it" was enormously expanded in scope, breadth, depth of field and not only much more controllable, but also much more powerful, pervasive and penetrating. Oddly enough, I have had little or no desire to recapture this experience.

Substances such as caffeine, dexedrine and "speed" in the few instances I have used them strengthened "it" to the benefit of staying awake longer, processing input more quickly - but seemed to result in a "crash" later and not really worth the effort.

I recall LRH in "The Secrets of the Mest Universe" tapes (I think) remarking that he had to really reach and make an effort to be "there" because he was so exterior.

Uniquemand on another thread posted about LRH and the subject of his use of benzedrene and other substances is somewhat covered and discussed there.

I am getting around to the automotive analogy of running your car on enhanced fuel such as nitromethane to get a tremendous boost in power output at the price of a short engine life and lots of internal problems prematurely compared to a similar vehicle burning the fuel it was designed to use.

I don't know about LRH, but this is a perfect description of Yvonne Gilham Jentzsch, the Founder of Celebrity Centre in Los Angeles. She was runing on nitromethane fuel, never stopping, almost never sleeping (those in the know say only about 2 1/2 or 3 hours a night), never doing anything else such as a hobby or a day off. I remember that when she married Heber Jentzsch, around late 1972, the staff pitched in from their meager $10 a week salary and bought her and Heber a week's vacation,all expenses paid in Tahiti. The two of them left by plane and in about 2 days, there was a call to pick them up from LAX. The story was that Yvonne was so dedicated that she could not stand being in Tahiti the first day and told Heber that they had to catch the first plane back to L.A. and get back to work. The result, dead of brain cancer at age 47. Of course she never had any medical check ups either.
Was LRH running virtually all the time with a significant amount of "boost"? And would this explain anything we do not already know.

Did he (LRH) in fact find data that is available by enhancing his handling of "it" (his attention) beyond what could be described as "normal".

Does this resonate at all? I am not sure I've said, in this ramble, what I meant to say, but will post it anyway and if it's TL/DR, that's OK folks!

EP[/QUOTE]

On my "Aboard the Apollo in 1973" personal website, I state that LRH was a combination of P.T. Barnum, Howard Hughes, Captain Ahab, Bluebeard the Pirate, Buddha and Mark Twain. He had the P.T. Barnum thing going his whole life, at least from 1947 on and when it was combined with Howard Hughes, Buddha and Mark Twain, that was a great LRH. Later in his life it seemed that Captain Ahab and Blue Beard the Pirate took over and LRH's life ran aground, at least that is a good analogy for the way I see it. Added 2 days later on Nov 3rd. Another valence which can be added is "The Wizard of Oz"., this is the smoke and mirror guy who awes people with supposed demonstrations of great wisdom and know how but one day, just by chance, someone pulls the curtain back while doing some housecleaning and all or most ot the wisdom and know how is revealed to be "smoke and mirrors, in effect a magicians trick! This valence, like Barnum's was there also from 1947 on, but in the beginning there was more than just smoke and mirrors, in my opinion, and the smoke and mirrors grew towards the very end and ultimately consumed the subject as is trying to be accomplished today with the phoney SuperPower building and the off policy Ideal Orgs with all their attractive MEST trappings.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

fnx3

Patron with Honors
OT - "Gilham"

I don't know about LRH, but this is a perfect description of Yvonne Gilham Jentzsch, the Founder of Celebrity Centre in Los Angeles.

Just something Off Topic - a nice coincidence - I was just opening my shipment of Peter Gillham's "Natural Calm" fr the U.S. (to Australia), when I read yr post with the name "Yvonne Gilham Jentzsch" in it - would she be related to Peter Gillham at all? I know he was a scientologist - I wonder if he is still - a church member that is?
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
This thread is closing in on something that I find very engaging and positive. My heartfelt thanks to all! :)

As regards attention, mine in particular, I find that my abilities handling "it" vary significantly depending upon various things.

Fatigue, hunger, thirst, pain and such things inhibit my handling of this quality/quanty :confused2: "attention" which I will simply refer to as "it".

Alcohol, which I have always enjoyed in many forms, but can easily do without, seems to narrow the span of "it" and soften things up a bit allowing easy communication - particularly where there is already agreement with other terminals. Alcohol does not expand or strengthen "it" in my experience, though I do find it comforting for whatever unknown reasons.

My only experience with Marijuana was profound and (it seemed) "it" was enormously expanded in scope, breadth, depth of field and not only much more controllable, but also much more powerful, pervasive and penetrating. Oddly enough, I have had little or no desire to recapture this experience.

Substances such as caffeine, dexedrine and "speed" in the few instances I have used them strengthened "it" to the benefit of staying awake longer, processing input more quickly - but seemed to result in a "crash" later and not really worth the effort.

I recall LRH in "The Secrets of the Mest Universe" tapes (I think) remarking that he had to really reach and make an effort to be "there" because he was so exterior.

Uniquemand on another thread posted about LRH and the subject of his use of benzedrene and other substances is somewhat covered and discussed there.

I am getting around to the automotive analogy of running your car on enhanced fuel such as nitromethane to get a tremendous boost in power output at the price of a short engine life and lots of internal problems prematurely compared to a similar vehicle burning the fuel it was designed to use.

Was LRH running virtually all the time with a significant amount of "boost"? And would this explain anything we do not already know.

Did he (LRH) in fact find data that is available by enhancing his handling of "it" (his attention) beyond what could be described as "normal".

Does this resonate at all? I am not sure I've said, in this ramble, what I meant to say, but will post it anyway and if it's TL/DR, that's OK folks!

EP

I think understanding is ultimately perspective. One sees a space accurately. That perspective, which amounts to understanding. would not mean one could not control oneself in that space. One might not be interested in much smaller particles but they could be approached simply by looking.

Scientology in my opinion has the effect of taking one into spaces far outside present reality. This is not because Hubbard was "advanced'. Far from it. A reasonable approach, one that works for anyone, is to go at your speed and look at what is next on your path. Going too far too fast makes understanding difficult.

People in the dark can get fearful, even paranoid. They can't see the next step. This can happen in your own house. Imagine being in a far place with no reality, not knowing where you are or how got there, in the dark, repeatedly. At best one would rig up some means of dealing with it other than seeing it for what it is. At worst one becomes very unhappy, to the point death is preferable to existence. This is Scientology in a nutshell.

Hubbard went mad, many OT's went mad, most PC's left, because they weren't on their path, at their pace, within their reality. The darkness overwhelmed them. There is no good reason to accelerate past the path where one has an acceptable next step, my opinion. Hubbard and Marty and Heber and Yvonne and all those characters are great examples of why not to do so.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: The Gillham family

Just something Off Topic - a nice coincidence - I was just opening my shipment of Peter Gillham's "Natural Calm" fr the U.S. (to Australia), when I read yr post with the name "Yvonne Gilham Jentzsch" in it - would she be related to Peter Gillham at all? I know he was a scientologist - I wonder if he is still - a church member that is?

Yes, Yvonne was Australian and met and married Peter, Sr. there. They married and had 3 children, two girls and a boy. The girls are Janice, now Janice Grady and Terri. The boy is Peter, Jr.. I think all of the children were Commodore's Messengers aboard the Apollo and they all are no longer in Scientology. Janis posts on XSO and wrote me two reply messages on my personal story thread, "The Old Days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973" I just added 6 more chapters as a prequel to my story, about being aboard the Apollo, which I wrote in March. 2007.

Peter Sr. is still in although I can't figure for the life of me why he has decided to remain in the Church. He used to publish and sell a fine book on Dissemenation, called "Tell it Like it is." I still own a copy. He had all the proper issue authority from Scientology World Wide headquarters but in the early 1980's all non LRH books were confiscated and taken out of the Orgs and the authors were treated extremely harshly by RTC, I know this for an absolute fact. Ruth Minshull was another other who wrote "How to Choose Your People" and "Miracles for Breakfast", one book on the tone scale and the other I believe was on raising children using Scientology. Both books were excellent but were suddenly yanked out of Orgs one day and the authors were treated like a criminals.

It s amazing how everytime something is mentioned on this thread, the next day you seem to encounter a derivative of it in your life. What have you got going here? A lot of guys used to have wins such as these after doing the old Grade 5 Power and Grade 5a Power Plus. Lets try it and see if it works tomorrow, I will mention FSM's Wendy Etrix, Joanne Schnitzer, Barry klein and Ty Dillard as well as Tori Bezazian Christman. Let's see if any of these names are in your mail or phone messages for tomorrow. Let me know.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

It is attention playing on potentials that creates space. What are those potentials? How are they created? That would be an interesting subject to investigate.

.

It seems that as soon as a postulate is created, an aspect of it gets established “out there” as a “potential;” and another aspect of it gets established “within” the viewpoint as “programming.” It is probably viewing that potential through that programming which creates “perception.”

That act of programming coming in close contact with that potential will probably annihilate both of them. All the apparency would vanish… total understanding will come about… and total love would be established.

It reminds me of an electron and positron coming in contact and annihilating each other. This is all a speculation, by the way.

It is also the annihilation of DESIRE, because it is desire which creates that potential (to be viewed) and programming (viewpoint) and the separation between them.

So “fnx3” is sitting right at Source in the most perfect stillness, and the desire “to be” comes about. It establishes a potential (a goal “to be”) out there, and a programming (a viewpoint “I”) at the Source. This separation is poignant but that is the cost, which that desire extracts. There is a tension for ending that separation which is felt as LOVE.

This may be all bullshit, but it seems that

(1) The goal “to be” and the viewpoint “I” must come about simultaneously out of total stillness in a form of an explosion or shock... or maybe not.

(2) The goal “to be” acts as a “potential” out there.

(3) The viewpoint “I” acts as the most basic “programming.”

(4) Desire is the establishment of the potential “to be” and programming “I” as a game.

(5) “Love” is the longing of “I” to merge back with the goal “to be.”

(6) “Total Understanding” is the merging back of “I” with “to be” for return to original stillness.


Is LOVE opposite to DESIRE? Do they counterbalance each other? Is there love if there is no desire?

.
 

fnx3

Patron with Honors
It seems that as soon as a postulate is created, an aspect of it gets established “out there” as a “potential;” and another aspect of it gets established “within” the viewpoint as “programming.” It is probably viewing that potential through that programming which creates “perception.”

That act of programming coming in close contact with that potential will probably annihilate both of them. All the apparency would vanish… total understanding will come about… and total love would be established.

It reminds me of an electron and positron coming in contact and annihilating each other. This is all a speculation, by the way.

It is also the annihilation of DESIRE, because it is desire which creates that potential (to be viewed) and programming (viewpoint) and the separation between them.

So “fnx3” is sitting right at Source in the most perfect stillness, and the desire “to be” comes about. It establishes a potential (a goal “to be”) out there, and a programming (a viewpoint “I”) at the Source. This separation is poignant but that is the cost, which that desire extracts. There is a tension for ending that separation which is felt as LOVE.

This may be all bullshit, but it seems that

(1) The goal “to be” and the viewpoint “I” must come about simultaneously out of total stillness in a form of an explosion or shock... or maybe not.

(2) The goal “to be” acts as a “potential” out there.

(3) The viewpoint “I” acts as the most basic “programming.”

(4) Desire is the establishment of the potential “to be” and programming “I” as a game.

(5) “Love” is the longing of “I” to merge back with the goal “to be.”

(6) “Total Understanding” is the merging back of “I” with “to be” for return to original stillness.


Is LOVE opposite to DESIRE? Do they counterbalance each other? Is there love if there is no desire?

.

Gosh Vinaire - that's GOOD! Interesting that you mention the separation as possibly containing "shock" - the original "shock" moment ... :wink2:

I really appreciate yr description of postulates, potential & programming esp. of "I" in points 3 & 4.

You do capture the emotion of the flow really well i.e. point 5 although "I" desires to return or merge with Source - perhaps "I" does then have a postulate "to be Source"...? & the carrier wave is always *~Love~* - always there!

I think Desire is first cause or origin of a postulate (you have to "want" something in order to form an intent of achieving it) - at Basic Basic Love is the carrier wave of first intent or Desire To Be & hence the original or Basic Basic of emotions.

Once the goal "to be" is established/achieved I would describe this original state as "Being" & thus 081 = Being.

This is fascinating dissecting it like this & putting it under all the different magnifying glasses of your viewpoints including my own :happydance:

 

Learner_Teacher

New Member
Gosh Vinaire - that's GOOD! Interesting that you mention the separation as possibly containing "shock" - the original "shock" moment ... :wink2:

I really appreciate yr description of postulates, potential & programming esp. of "I" in points 3 & 4.

You do capture the emotion of the flow really well i.e. point 5 although "I" desires to return or merge with Source - perhaps "I" does then have a postulate "to be Source"...? & the carrier wave is always *~Love~* - always there!


<entire post deleted>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Bullshit? Don't judge yourself too harshly

It seems that as soon as a postulate is created, an aspect of it gets established “out there” as a “potential;” and another aspect of it gets established “within” the viewpoint as “programming.” It is probably viewing that potential through that programming which creates “perception.”

That act of programming coming in close contact with that potential will probably annihilate both of them. All the apparency would vanish… total understanding will come about… and total love would be established.

It reminds me of an electron and positron coming in contact and annihilating each other. This is all a speculation, by the way.

It is also the annihilation of DESIRE, because it is desire which creates that potential (to be viewed) and programming (viewpoint) and the separation between them.

So “fnx3” is sitting right at Source in the most perfect stillness, and the desire “to be” comes about. It establishes a potential (a goal “to be”) out there, and a programming (a viewpoint “I”) at the Source. This separation is poignant but that is the cost, which that desire extracts. There is a tension for ending that separation which is felt as LOVE.

This may be all bullshit, but it seems that

Bullshit, it does not seem that way to me! The entire section above seems totally brilliant and spot on. At its worst, it is first class speculation and theorizing, what I like to call "Vintage Vinny". Do you have any comment to make on gut reaction? or "knee jerk reaction"?

You know, the kneecap is struck and the knee jerks. Doctors perform this test to check for good fuctioning of one's body. When I run into some new material such as your summary above, I always have a knee jerk reaction to it. I value this reaction and feel it is similar to an e meter read,a reaction much deeper within me than I can consciously "see" or look. I use it as an indicator to signal an area to probe deeper. With Nexus new book, plus my recent exposure to Idenics, I think that gut feelings CAN BE POTENTIAL valuable aides in locating areas to look at, through meditation or some other means


(1) The goal “to be” and the viewpoint “I” must come about simultaneously out of total stillness in a form of an explosion or shock... or maybe not.

(2) The goal “to be” acts as a “potential” out there.

(3) The viewpoint “I” acts as the most basic “programming.”

(4) Desire is the establishment of the potential “to be” and programming “I” as a game.

(5) “Love” is the longing of “I” to merge back with the goal “to be.”

(6) “Total Understanding” is the merging back of “I” with “to be” for return to original stillness.


Is LOVE opposite to DESIRE? Do they counterbalance each other? Is there love if there is no desire?

.

The comment I wanted to make is above in bold type.
Lakey
P.S. After writing this reply, I just read Learner Teacher's post to you, just above. No need to spell out my knee jerk reaction to that post, I think you can figure that out! Well one thing, that person just joined ESMB in November and right now it is only 6:00 AM on November 3. Learner Teacher must be a very quick study to have read the 148 pages of text on this thread so as to analzye it and come up with his or her sage conclusions.
 
Last edited:

Doom

Lurking.
Gosh, gosh, gosh !!! Wank, Wank, Wank !!!

Sad little wanker Vinnie so desperately searches for a God that might acknowledge his self-indulgencies as being something remotely meaningful. That's why he so weakly bought into LRH's mutual wankfest thing.

If anyone who wants to know about how lost and clueless one can be, and he who may want to become as sad as Vinaire is , that is -- as meaningless and 'gnostically' worthless as he ... just read his endless dribbling here..

It'd be under the headings of "God and my sad little fucked-up thoughts (paraphrased...) about things that are way, way, way beyond my grasp.


Seriously, honestly, Vinaire-the-wanker .. you're a wack-job !!


Put your "L" plates back on, youre gonna have to re-sit the test because you just failed.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Is LOVE opposite to DESIRE? Do they counterbalance each other? Is there love if there is no desire?

"Love" is too general of a term. It means different things, with different flows, at different times.

Love #1 - Inflow Love. Such as "I love shrimp", "I loved that gorgeous sunset, "I love having sex", or "I love the Beatles". In all of these cases, it is primarily about what YOU feel or receive as a sensation. It is entirely based on GETTING something from "out there". I would expect that for THIS type of love, yes, there is no love without desire. In ALL cases of INFLOW type "love" one WANTS or NEEDS the energy that is coming in at the person. It is all ego-based. Or at least, "me-based". Let her rip! Bring it on! Give me them YUMMY sensations (sex, food, taste, feelings, perceptions of beauty, drug euphoria, etc)! It requires separation from all that is, with an identity and viewpoint to cause isolation and thus be able to "receive" energy as an effect from everything else "out there".

Love #2 - Outflow Love. Such as "I am filled with the Love of God", "I love my children and would do ANYTHING for their happiness and betterment", "I feel love for all mankind", etc. This is the "unconditional love" of New Age philosophies, the "Grace of God" that shines down infinitely upon all that is, the "spiritual light of total giving and benefit to all that is", etc. This "love" is non-ego-based, and flows out upon the target without reservation, without qualification, and without ANY attention on "getting anything back" for what you give out freely and compassionately. Some would say Jesus "lived" this energy and viewpoint in some ways.

Using THIS second definition and type of love, YES, love could be viewed as OPPOSITE to "desire". But, I think that is a stretch, and requires very specific meanings of the terms. In a higher sense, ALL stems from LOVE, including creation in all forms, and all that is, including that which makes up "desire". Some have the opinion that "love" is the highest energy right before the pure intention to create. I don't know. Could be. Sounds good though. But, THAT sort of love, that which sets the entire universe into motion, is way different and "above" normal human desire or "needful love"

I think that "love" and "desire" are two different things, that each cover widely different types of energies, and they in no way "counterbalance" each other. It would be like saying that an orange could counterbalance 3 pounds. Total different type things; there is no way to put these into an equation where one would "balance out" the other. From a "high spiritual view", it might seem that "Love" (higher, egoless type) would "counterbalance" desire (being of the ego). But, that wouldn't really be what was happening - though from a limited perspective it might seem that way.

But also, it could be viewed that the "desire of God" put all that is into motion. But, "intention" is probably a better word than "desire". I don't know if the term "desire" makes sense without the "desirer" existing as a viewpoint with an inflow ability to receive sensation and feelings.

But really, I don't know. I, like most people, am familiar primarily with IDEAS about these things. I read once that at any time on Earth, that there are only SEVEN fully enlightened beings. Like Meher Baba, Babaji and others. Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't.

I would expect that if that is true though, that any answer to these questions would ONLY be able to be answered by them, and it is debatable whether any of them could really tell you anything that you could understand (since it would apparently be SO greatly outside of your current reality and EXPERIENCE). Maybe that is why Meher Baba stopped talking entirely for the last 40 years of his life. Possibly, while he may have "known it all", there wasn't a thing he could "say" to anyone who would be able to "hear it". Like in the movie Matrix, at the end, when Neo is standing in the hallway with the three agents shooting at him, and he SEES REALITY for what it is, in a way that few or no others do or can, and he simply raises his hand, say "no", and the bullets stop and drop. His experience and involvement with reality, being of a much "higher" and more "aware" nature is entirely different than everyone else's. "Nobody can tell you about the Matrix, you must experience it for yourself". (Morpheus) Or in the words of Lao Tze, "the Tao that can be spoken of is NOT the true Tao".


On "gut feelings", I have seen MANY cases with many people where the source of "gut feelings" was NOT at all "intuition" or "higher perception", but more often based on vague or unclear "wishful thinking", "delusion", "fears", or "surges of dubious information from the subconscious".

I think that there may be a "power of intuition" that can be nurtured, developed and appealed to, BUT, how many actually do THAT as opposed to "delusion" is anyone's guess.

Like with Scientology, and many people's involvement with it, the DESIRE for an answer, the DESIRE for sense, the DESIRE for truth, and the desire for an "explanation", may play a FAR greater part in what is thought about and accepted by any person than anything else. Also, all or most of what has been posted on this thread. People BELIEVED he or she "found the truth" in Scientology, and to the degree ANY person still remains with any such notion that "I NOW have found the truth" means that this person is STILL in exactly the SAME spot as before (you have just changed the CONTENT of what you now accept, assert and claim to be TRUTH). Believers and pushers of beliefs (viewpoints) are in no short supply!

It is interesting how many people, once a member of one cult, jump ship and simply adopt some new and different set of beliefs. It is the mechanism that remains the same - looking for and adopting BELIEFS about "the nature of truth and reality". For me, I suppose I aspire to agnosticism. I just have no clue! I treat almost all as theories and opinions - and then there is what I experience. All else is moot. And sadly or strangely, what I experience, CHANGES day by day, hour by hour, and even moment by moment. So much for "stability" by hooking onto "reality"!
 
Last edited:

fnx3

Patron with Honors
Hi Gadfly,

Well ... "love" was the only word that I could find that came close to describing the feeling of that original flow out from Static ... it's definitely not a solid label at all as per the use of the word in most MEST applications.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
"Hail, Hail, the gang's all here!

"Love" is too general of a term. It means different things, with different flows, at different times.

Good Point.

Love #1 - Inflow Love. Such as "I love shrimp", "I loved that gorgeous sunset, "I love having sex", or "I love the Beatles". In all of these cases, it is primarily about what YOU feel or receive as a sensation. It is entirely based on GETTING something from "out there". I would expect that for THIS type of love, yes, there is no love without desire. In ALL cases of INFLOW type "love" one WANTS or NEEDS the energy that is coming in at the person. It is all ego-based. Or at least, "me-based". Let her rip! Bring it on! Give me them YUMMY sensations (sex, food, taste, feelings, perceptions of beauty, drug euphoria, etc)! It requires separation from all that is, with an identity and viewpoint to cause isolation and thus be able to "receive" energy as an effect from everything else "out there".

The state of conditions mentioned in your last sentence of the above paragraph is not all bad, in fact I would be satisfied with having an identity and viewpoint and listening to a piece of classical music by a great Master such as Mozart, Beethoven or Bach. Even better would be if I could create such divine music myself and experience it being played and enjoyed by others. This type of activity, at 6.0 to 8.0 on the tone scale is pretty high toned and if that was all that could be achieved in life on Earth, I would be happy with that. For others, they might experience similar feelings with a different genre of music.

Love #2 - Outflow Love. Such as "I am filled with the Love of God", "I love my children and would do ANYTHING for their happiness and betterment", "I feel love for all mankind", etc. This is the "unconditional love" of New Age philosophies, the "Grace of God" that shines down infinitely upon all that is, the "spiritual light of total giving and benefit to all that is", etc. This "love" is non-ego-based, and flows out upon the target without reservation, without qualification, and without ANY attention on "getting anything back" for what you give out freely and compassionately. Some would say Jesus "lived" this energy and viewpoint in some ways.

Mother Teresa also lived this energy and viewpoint in more modern times, right?

Using THIS second definition and type of love, YES, love could be viewed as OPPOSITE to "desire". But, I think that is a stretch, and requires very specific meanings of the terms. In a higher sense, ALL stems from LOVE, including creation in all forms, and all that is, including that which makes up "desire". Some have the opinion that "love" is the highest energy right before the pure intention to create. I don't know. Could be. Sounds good though. But, THAT sort of love, that which sets the entire universe into motion, is way different and "above" normal human desire or "needful love"

I think that "love" and "desire" are two different things, that each cover widely different types of energies, and they in no way "counterbalance" each other. It would be like saying that an orange could counterbalance 3 pounds. Total different type things; there is no way to put these into an equation where one would "balance out" the other. From a "high spiritual view", it might seem that "Love" (higher, egoless type) would "counterbalance" desire (being of the ego). But, that wouldn't really be what was happening - though from a limited perspective it might seem that way.

But also, it could be viewed that the "desire of God" put all that is into motion. But, "intention" is probably a better word than "desire". I don't know if the term "desire" makes sense without the "desirer" existing as a viewpoint with an inflow ability to receive sensation and feelings.

But really, I don't know. I, like most people, am familiar primarily with IDEAS about these things. I read once that at any time on Earth, that there are only SEVEN fully enlightened beings. Like Meher Baba, Babaji and others. Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't.

I would expect that if that is true though, that any answer to these questions would ONLY be able to be answered by them, and it is debatable whether any of them could really tell you anything that you could understand (since it would apparently be SO greatly outside of your current reality and EXPERIENCE). Maybe that is why Meher Baba stopped talking entirely for the last 40 years of his life. Possibly, while he may have "known it all", there wasn't a thing he could "say" to anyone who would be able to "hear it". Like in the movie Matrix, at the end, when Neo is standing in the hallway with the three agents shooting at him, and he SEES REALITY for what it is, in a way that few or no others do or can, and he simply raises his hand, say "no", and the bullets stop and drop. His experience and involvement with reality, being of a much "higher" and more "aware" nature is entirely different than everyone else's. "Nobody can tell you about the Matrix, you must experience it for yourself". (Morpheus) Or in the words of Lao Tze, "the Tao that can be spoken of is NOT the true Tao".

I have no interest whatsoever in studying or learning about wise enlightened individuals who cannot express or communicate their wisdom to others. I infinitely prefer to interact with my peers in an enlightened panel such as this or engage in some formal practice such as meditation, Idenics, or Scientology where I can make an attempt to expand my knowledge. You are very good expressing the wisdom which you have, Vinaire has that ability, Nexus, Roger B, SP Bill, Sweetness and Light and many others are able to put their wisdom into words or allegories so as to pass the knowledge to others. It is a real skill to know something or have a theory and devise a means to impart that knowledge to others. Often the person trying to formulate his knowledge in words comes to understand it better himself while communicating it to others. If someone has great wisdom and can not express it, then what good does his wisdom do?


On "gut feelings", I have seen MANY cases with many people where the source of "gut feelings" was NOT at all "intuition" or "higher perception", but more often based on vague or unclear "wishful thinking", "delusion", "fears", or "surges of dubious information from the subconscious".

I think that there may be a "power of intuition" that can be nurtured, developed and appealed to, BUT, how many actually do THAT as opposed to "delusion" is anyone's guess.

I agree with your analysis of gut feeling.. Lately, I feel I have been honing my ability and improving it in this area. My gut feeling, though far from infallible, seems now to be right much more often than wrong

Like with Scientology, and many people's involvement with it, the DESIRE for an answer, the DESIRE for sense, the DESIRE for truth, and the desire for an "explanation", may play a FAR greater part in what is thought about and accepted by any person than anything else. Also, all or most of what has been posted on this thread. People BELIEVED he or she "found the truth" in Scientology, and to the degree ANY person still remains with any such notion that "I NOW have found the truth" means that this person is STILL in exactly the SAME spot as before (you have just changed the CONTENT of what you now accept, assert and claim to be TRUTH). Believers and pushers of beliefs (viewpoints) are in no short supply!

It is interesting how many people, once a member of one cult, jump ship and simply adopt some new and different set of beliefs. It is the mechanism that remains the same - looking for and adopting BELIEFS about "the nature of truth and reality". For me, I suppose I aspire to agnosticism. I just have no clue! I treat almost all as theories and opinions - and then there is what I experience. All else is moot. And sadly or strangely, what I experience, CHANGES day by day, hour by hour, and even moment by moment. So much for "stability" by hooking onto "reality"!

Remember the old 1915 song, "Hail, hail the gang's all here!" Well you are back. I noticed you read my education and study thread two days ago and so I thought we might be hearing from you. As to your last paragraph, I have witnessed this phenemena often, especially here on ESMB. For a lot of people here, they do not shift always to some new and different beliefs, instead their new mantra and "raison de etre" is just to bash Hubbard and Scientology with vulgar language, four letter words amd sick jokes, instead of finding another path to follow.
 
Last edited:

finishedman

Patron with Honors
Yes, if desire got one into trouble initially, then a "desire" to return to the original state won't work..

Are you saying no desire of any kind will work?

Are you saying all desire to return to the original satate should be eliminated?

Is there a returning to the original state?
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Are you saying no desire of any kind will work?

Are you saying all desire to return to the original satate should be eliminated?

Is there a returning to the original state?


As I see, "desires" are additives to the original stillness.

As long as any desire is present (including the desire to return to original stillness), the original stillness will not be there.

.
 
Top