Why Scientology seems to work up to Clear?

[Claire Swazey]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...YOUR-FAULT-!!!&p=965420&viewfull=1#post965420

 

[Gib]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...YOUR-FAULT-!!!&p=965420&viewfull=1#post965420

But you didn't answer the question.

You can't admit there is no such thing as a clear.

You only state the concept is possible, as stated by hubbard.

Which implies there is a reactive mind.

Do you believe there is a reactive mind?

Yes or no?

 

[Claire Swazey]

But you didn't answer the question.

You can't admit there is no such thing as a clear.

You only state the concept is possible, as stated by hubbard.

Which implies there is a reactive mind.

Do you believe there is a reactive mind?

Yes or no?

I provided that link because, yesterday, you made what appeared to be some accusations and claims -unless "you" was being used to mean people in general who might be doing those things. I answered and you didn't acknowledge or respond. Well, you don't have to, but, you know, in that case you might not want to feel too strongly about responses you didn't receive...

 

[F.Bullbait]

I can't say I really grasp Zen...

Grasping Zen is like grasping water.

 

[Demented LRH]

I am fully aware that this is an anti Scientology site. But the majority of you have done some services in Scientology in the Church or out of the Church. From your communications on this site I do understand that you have not achieved the end phenomena of some very important steps of Scientology Technology. Here are the points: 1. Clear . RTC Clear (= in the Church after the takeover): you feel very good but you are aware that there is a black screen a few centimetres from your face and you do not dare to explore it. 2. Clear outside the Church after the takeover: you feel good, the black screen is there but a few meters away from you. 3. The reason the wall is so near for those who attested Clear in the Church are the Sec checks you do in the Church. The Sec checks are there only to mess up your case and mess up your wallet. There are other reasons but these are off topic from what I want to say here. 4. OT III in the Church after the takeover: you know that you did not finish. You know there is much much more of that stuff and it is in restimulation (from those infamous sec checks). 5. OT III outside the Church: you feel content and the NOTs case is not in restimulation. 6. NOTs completion in the Church after the takeover: you are hoping that nothing else comes back and you feel pressures around your body on and off, you may feel afraid on and off, you have at best some meters of space around you. You know that there is something not right but you are hoping that you are okay. Your solution is to build a screen around yourself to keep what you got in and what is out out. This works most of the time and you think that this is normal and that on the next level or with time it will go away. It will not, because the cycle is not completed. 7. OT VIII in the Church after the takeover: You feel not better than before and the stuff starts to come up again. 8. NOTs in the field after the takeover: You know that all that stuff is gone gone gone gone .Your space is huge, you know that it does not come back. Year after year after year. 9. I hope this may help you to figure out why Scientology works below and at Clear but seems not to work on the OT levels.

Unfortunately, LRH disagrees with you. In his highly acclaimed book, The Creation of Human Ability, he wrote that the "difficulty" with Dianetics is caused by its inability to erase the engrams completely. He wrote that, in order to erase an engram, you must create a perfect duplicate of it. You might still believe that you can create perfect duplicates of objects, but this is not Dianetics auditing. Now, count all your money that you spent on Dianetics auditing and decide whether you need more Dianetics sessions.

 

[gbuck]

There's something called the Clear Cognition, which you're supposed to get (but I never did) if you actually go Clear.

I've just now remembered getting pissed off ( bored ) with auditing after about two intensives in the middle seventies, and also having discovered how to make the needle float it seemed only reasonable to attest to clear!
I then signed up to the SO, moronic it seems now, and that's exactly what it was!

 

[gbuck]

I like it. What it says to me is that a Clear CAN be at cause.....of his OWN mental image pictures.

I'm assuming that the 'clear' and the 'thetan' are the same thing?

Are we assuming that there is a person whether that is a 'clear' a 'thetan' or a 'spirit' that is seperate from his mental image pictures ( thought )?

Or do the mental pictures (thought) establish the person? Are they a joint phenomena?
This stuff isn't casual. It's where we live. Is the thinker the thought?

In fact is the 'Thetan' only a reassuring and comforting idea, in fact another thought ( a mental image picture ) ?

If that is the case, that the thetan is not seperate from his thought, then another of Hubbards 'teachings' can finally be put to rest, as having no basis in reality.
What's to lose?
I think that this question cannot be answered by knowledge, because knowledge is mental image pictures, but can only be observed by actual awareness of the processes taking place as ourselves.

I suspect that there is some Hubbardian doublespeak inserted into the tek that is designed to confuse, and take our eye off of the ball on questioning this area, that will provide ready made answers and so stop inquiry?

This is in no way meant to be personal, but I like to question assumptions, because they will inevitably lead thought in a particular direction following that assumption which may be far from the truth.
The first step sets the path. Assumptions are steps. ( lest we forget! )

 

[strativarius]

I'm assuming that the 'clear' and the 'thetan' are the same thing?

Are we assuming that there is a person whether that is a 'clear' a 'thetan' or a 'spirit' that is seperate from his mental image pictures ( thought )?

Or do the mental pictures (thought) establish the person? Are they a joint phenomena?
This stuff isn't casual. It's where we live. [highlight]Is the thinker the thought[/highlight]?

In fact is the 'Thetan' only a reassuring and comforting idea, in fact another thought ( a mental image picture ) ?

If that is the case, that the thetan is not seperate from his thought, then another of Hubbards 'teachings' can finally be put to rest, as having no basis in reality.
What's to lose?
I think that this question cannot be answered by knowledge, because knowledge is mental image pictures, but can only be observed by actual awareness of the processes taking place as ourselves.

I suspect that there is some Hubbardian doublespeak inserted into the tek that is designed to confuse, and take our eye off of the ball on questioning this area, that will provide ready made answers and so stop inquiry?

This is in no way meant to be personal, but I like to question assumptions, because they will inevitably lead thought in a particular direction following that assumption which may be far from the truth.
The first step sets the path. Assumptions are steps. ( lest we forget! )

gbuck, my head is spinning just trying to get a grip of what you're saying. The thinker is the thought? I think, therefore I am?

Trying to reduce things to first principles, Hubbard spoke of an 'Awareness of Awareness Unit.' Doubtless he purloined that from somewhere else. In a way I can relate to that inasmuch as I'm aware of being aware. Much further beyond that I'm afraid I'm unable to progress.

Robert Kaufman, the author of 'Inside Scientology' relates in his book that his doctor told him he had a 'weak mind'. I'm afraid he and I have that much in common it would seem.

 

[gbuck]

gbuck, my head is spinning just trying to get a grip of what you're saying. The thinker is the thought? I think, therefore I am?

Trying to reduce things to first principles, Hubbard spoke of an 'Awareness of Awareness Unit.' Doubtless he purloined that from somewhere else. In a way I can relate to that inasmuch as I'm aware of being aware. Much further beyond that I'm afraid I'm unable to progress.

Robert Kaufman, the author of 'Inside Scientology' relates in his book that his doctor told him he had a 'weak mind'. I'm afraid he and I have that much in common it would seem.

40 years ago I took drugs to get the effect you described!

The 'I think therefore I am' quote is from Descartes and actually left me cold when I first heard it, my response was: And?, it seems clever but useless, a bit like Ronnie.
His 'first principles' also have that effect on me, because they are lies, I reckon.
But they are the bedrock of his system of confusion.
Ill quote the passage that has always intrigued me for it's suggestion ( careful ) of enquiry into absolute basics ( can I use those words! )
We take so much for granted, and really, if we are serious, we need to get to the basics.
Without being simply told what they are, Scientology never,ever, encourages investigation by the individual, in fact it regards it almost as a 'crime'.
It also attempts to copyright 'Truth' and you pay to have that truth embedded by tek as a constant companion.
The following is not 'truth' but it may point a finger at truth, it's up to you or me to have a look or not.

The thinker is thought
Now, if we see the truth of that - that the thinker is thought, that there is no thinker separate from thought, but only the process of thinking - , then what happens? If we see that there is only thinking and not a thinker trying to modify thought, what is the result? I hope I am making myself clear. So far, we know that the thinker is operating upon thought, and this creates conflict between the thinker and the thought; but if we see the truth that there is only thought and not a thinker, that the thinker is arbitrary, artificial and entirely fictitious - then what happens? Is not the process of conflict removed? At present our life is a conflict, a series of battles between the thinker and the thought - what to do and what not to do, what should be and what should not be. The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside. When we remove the entity that creates conflict, surely then there is a possibility of understanding thought. When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end.


Paris 2nd Public Talk 16th April 1950 , Collected Works J Krishnamurti

 

[phenomanon]

I'm assuming that the 'clear' and the 'thetan' are the same thing?

Are we assuming that there is a person whether that is a 'clear' a 'thetan' or a 'spirit' that is seperate from his mental image pictures ( thought )?

Or do the mental pictures (thought) establish the person? Are they a joint phenomena?
This stuff isn't casual. It's where we live. Is the thinker the thought?

In fact is the 'Thetan' only a reassuring and comforting idea, in fact another thought ( a mental image picture ) ?

If that is the case, that the thetan is not seperate from his thought, then another of Hubbards 'teachings' can finally be put to rest, as having no basis in reality.
What's to lose?
I think that this question cannot be answered by knowledge, because knowledge is mental image pictures, but can only be observed by actual awareness of the processes taking place as ourselves.

I suspect that there is some Hubbardian doublespeak inserted into the tek that is designed to confuse, and take our eye off of the ball on questioning this area, that will provide ready made answers and so stop inquiry?

This is in no way meant to be personal, but I like to question assumptions, because they will inevitably lead thought in a particular direction following that assumption which may be far from the truth.
The first step sets the path. Assumptions are steps. ( lest we forget! )

Sorry. I don't follow your "assumptions" at all. Can you re-state whatevah it is you are saying?

 

[gbuck]

Sorry. I don't follow your "assumptions" at all. Can you re-state whatevah it is you are saying?

I'll try.

We assume that we are a spirit. (Thetan, soul, bunch of neurones, what you like)

We may or may not be.

Why do we assume?

What is the truth?

And can we discover the truth?

 

[gbuck]

my family geneaolgy is traced all the way back to the bloody domesday book, i'm a scion of a long line of knights of the bloody realm and i'm bloody well pleased to know there always be an england...

My family genealogy can be traced back to the Rift Valley Africa, yours too I believe.

 

[strativarius]

40 years ago I took drugs to get the effect you described!<snip>

Ahhh, you were takin' the wrong drugs me old china!

Yes, I was aware of the fact that it was Descartes who supposedly said 'I think, therefore I am' (although he is more likely to have said 'Je pense, donc je suis', him bein' a frog and all that), but what his first principles were I have not the faintest idea.

I'm not trying to pick holes in what you are saying gbuck, but even if I wanted to I'd have to understand it more thoroughly first, and I'm finding it tough going.

Yes, it's convenient to have removed the cause of conflict by removing 'the thinker' or the 'me' as you put it, but it's 'being choicessly aware of thought' but at the same time 'not observing thought from the outside' that has me stumped at the moment.

Right now I'm wondering who's posts demand that you sit still and bloody well pay attention more right now, yours or mockingbird's. It's hard fuckin' work this you know, especially if you have a weak mind like mine!

Any help on that one much appreciated, or on the other hand you may consider attempting to enlighten me a step too far, in which case I will henceforth STFU on the subject.

Either ways, sooner or later we're all going to the same place.

 

[gbuck]

Ahhh, you were takin' the wrong drugs me old china!

Yes, I was aware of the fact that it was Descartes who supposedly said 'I think therefore I am', but what his first principles were I have not the faintest idea.

I'm not trying to pick holes in what you are saying gbuck, but even if I wanted to (which I don't) I'd have to understand it more thoroughly first, and I'm finding it tough going.

Yes, it's convenient to have removed the cause of conflict by removing 'the thinker' or the 'me' as you put it, but it's 'being choicessly aware of thought' but at the same time 'not observing thought from the outside' that has me stumped at the moment.

Right now I'm wondering who's posts demand that you sit still and bloody well pay attention more right now, yours or mockingbird's. It's hard fuckin' work this you know, especially if you have a weak mind like mine!

Any help on that one much appreciated, or on the other hand you may consider attempting to enlighten me a step too far, in which case I will henceforth STFU on the subject.

Either ways, sooner or later we're all going to the same place.

Strat, talking to you is like talking to meself, I also find it hard going. Trying to enlighten you is like trying to enlighten myself, which is probably impossible, but, before we all go wherever we are going,
I've got questions that I want to resolve.
I'm naturally lazy, or is it laid back?
My boots get in the way of my mouth, and I trip over words!
This may be too simple to get, I hope that's what it is.
but as usual I'll pass it over to the other guy, he may well have sussed out something useful,

Thought creates the thinker
Thought is verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory, the word, the experience, the image. Thought is transient, changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the thinker, who then becomes the permanent; he assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the molder of thought. This illusory permanent entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity is thought; without thought he is not. The thinker is made up of qualities; his qualities cannot be separated from himself. The controller is the controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till the false is seen as the false, truth is not.


J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

so.....
Thought is attempting to control itself?

 

[gbuck]

Yes, it's convenient to have removed the cause of conflict by removing 'the thinker' or the 'me' as you put it, but it's 'being choicessly aware of thought' but at the same time 'not observing thought from the outside' that has me stumped at the moment.

<snip>

Strat I never answered your query, I don't know why you're stumped! I know why I'm stumped!

shit I hate going to 'source' haha

"The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside."

It is tricky, and slippery,
The bit about does 'not as the thinker observing thought from the outside' make sense?
Thought separates itself from life as in independent reality? And as being separate from the thinker?
It puts itself outside?

if we are choicelessly aware, we don't introduce more thought to stir things up? We don't meddle.
So simple observation of thought is possible?
You are actually helping me to get this!

 

[strativarius]

<snip>

Strat I never answered your query, I don't know why you're stumped! I know why I'm stumped!

Ha ha, you kill me gbuck.

"The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside."

It is tricky, and slippery,
The bit about does 'not as the thinker observing thought from the outside' make sense?
Thought separates itself from life as in independent reality? And as being separate from the thinker?
It puts itself outside?

if we are choicelessly aware, we don't introduce more thought to stir things up? We don't meddle.

So simple observation of thought is possible?

Here again, observation implies a subject and an object. Doesn't it? To be honest, I think I'm losing track of what it is I'm trying to understand.

You are actually helping me to get this!

Well, I'm happy about that, it would be awful if this was all a waste of our time!

Let me mull this over for a while, I'm still finding some 'cognitive dissonances' (as our american friends like to say) here.

 

[gbuck]

Here again, observation implies a subject and an object. Doesn't it? To be honest, I think I'm losing track of what it is I'm trying to understand. I told you it's slippery.
Observation implies awareness? period ( Americanism, not the English version)
That's tricky?

An implication is a mechanical response by a pattern of thinking, isn't it? It's an answer or sometimes a blind-alley that is usually supplied by thought, a short cut to actual experiencing or investigating?
Observation implies observation only.

Let me mull over this for a while, I'm still finding some 'cognitive dissonances' (as our american friends like to say) here.
Does cognitive dissonance imply trying to reconcile opposites? That's a no brainer, can't be done, but
if an idea is held firmly, then any attempt to shift it, or to consider an alternative, will produce resistance or dissonance?
A bit of word or idea, clearing ( literally, not scientologically) might be in order? LOL

 

[strativarius]

Here again, observation implies a subject and an object. Doesn't it? To be honest, I think I'm losing track of what it is I'm trying to understand. I told you it's slippery.
Observation implies awareness? period ( Americanism, not the English version)
That's tricky?

Never mind the last two paras. for the time being.

Yes, it is tricky. To me observation requires an observer and something to observe. Or something to be aware of. You speak about trying to eat your own mouth. We seem to be heading in that direction here. Sorry gb, I'm just not getting it.

 

[F.Bullbait]

"No Brainer"...heh,heh...me like

 

[Gib]

I'll try.

We assume that we are a spirit. (Thetan, soul, bunch of neurones, what you like)

We may or may not be.

Why do we assume?

What is the truth?

And can we discover the truth?

well, according to this scientology promo piece, the auditing (hypnosis) command at the beginning is "You are a spirit, you are your own soul"

at 13 seconds into it. It's the OT1 Counting bodies video on Tony O's blog.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/10/scientology-ot-videos/#more-16755