I guess that proves it's true that everything in the universe can be put in a lady's purse.
"One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition."
Thetan is identical with the concept of self (atman). Buddha contemplated on the subject of ATMAN and came up with the realization that even atman is impermanent. NIRVANA is the state of final dissolution of even atman.
Atman underlies all other identities. But, according to Buddha, it itself is impermanent, and finally dissolves, as other identities do, when the state of nirvana (native state, Brahma) is reached. So, I look at self, atman, or thetan as the basic identity. It is the identity that underlies all other identities.
LRH, apparently, disagreed with Buddha; because he stated in Scientology 8-8008:
However, I would go with Buddha here. Nirvana doesn't mean becoming one with rest of the universe. At the level of Brahma, there is no universe. There is only an "absolute potential of nothingness."
I do believe that LRH had misunderstood Static, Brahma, or Nirvana. He never reached the enlightenment that Buddha did.
.
Thetan is identical with the concept of self (atman). Buddha contemplated on the subject of ATMAN and came up with the realization that even atman is impermanent. NIRVANA is the state of final dissolution of even atman.
Atman underlies all other identities. But, according to Buddha, it itself is impermanent, and finally dissolves, as other identities do, when the state of nirvana (native state, Brahma) is reached. So, I look at self, atman, or thetan as the basic identity. It is the identity that underlies all other identities.
Snip....
Vinaire - I have been wrestling with these two paragraphs all day today. I like paragraph one except the last sentence scares me. Paragraph two sends me mixed messages. If I get it right, you are saying that atman or thetan is the basic identity, the identity that underlies all other identities and that it will finally desolve in the state of NIRVANA.
I like parts of this concept but other parts cause me to feel very sad. I don't fully understand where the feeling of sadness arises and perhaps that would be a good topic for an Idenics session
All my focus has been on finding my basic identity and being comfortable with myself and within myself. I have nostalgia for many of the beings who I have encountered on the long road of being alive and the times we have shared together, the set backs we have endured and the triumphs. I am looking at the American Revolution, Thermopolae when the Spartans fought the Assyrians, at the salons of the Aristocracy in Vienna in the late 18th Century. where great music was on display and talks of emulating the American model of government for Europe were discussed. I am trying to hold on to these times. but if what you say is true, there must be a final dissolution where all of what I am treasuring and trying to hold on to must be let go so that it may dissolve
If this is true, what lies beyond the dissolution awaiting all us dissolved identities in Nirvana. Is there a new game or just a void or what? Can it be that there is thereafter non existence or are we still existing as some sort of potential, available to start a new game. The concept that our ending is a dissolution into the state of Nirvana means which means we have no further identity and contemplating that just leaves me with profound emptiness and sadness whereas I had believed that contemplating Nirvana would bring one unlimited joy and peace.
Lakey
Vinney,
You are assuming that there is such a thing as "static" in spiritual terms.
Can you direct me (links) to some scientific proof of this?
Let me consolidate my understanding of Brahma, Nirvana, or Static:
(1) I shall use the word STATIC for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn't really matter what word I use because word is not the "thing."
(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly... from where... that is impossible to know .
(3) We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly CONSIDER what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.
(4) Thus, we can only know the considerations and not the Static. As we dig deeper for the Static we shall simply find more considerations.
(5) Actually, as we dig deeper for the static in our attempt to describe it, we may describe our own hidden considerations as we uncover them.
(6) Thus, Static is nothing more than a carrot, to help uncover the additives (considerations) that may be lie hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.
Furthermore:
(7) Static is the core of beingness. It is not the beingness itself. When we think of beingness we think of the thetan.
(8 ) Whether thetan dissolves into Static or not is neither here nor there. At the level of Static there is no time. So, whether one is Static for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.
(9) We would never know if we had ever dissolved into being a Static or not. All we would ever know at the highest level is being a thetan in its simplest form.
(10) As far as we are concerned, the ideal of Static is simply there to help us uncover the deepest of our considerations.
And beyond this:
(11) A thetan can be constrained only by its own considerations. Total freedom would mean not constrained by one's own considerations.
(12) Only those considerations would constrain a thetan that are being generated unconsciously.
(13) A thetan may enjoy life fully, participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.
(14) That would be Nirvana... that would Static... that would be attaining Brahmahood; for this doesn't mean forsaking of life and adventure.
(15) Nirvana, or total freedom, simply means absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It means total command over oneself. The concept of Brahma, as built into the process "neti, neti," helps one move in that direction.
(16) Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then destroy that consideration.
(17) Nirvana does not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana simply means total control over one's considerations. One can attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one's enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana.
(18) Buddha lived to a grand age of 90, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana.
I think this sums it up for me. Thank you for all your help.
Neti... neti...
.
Vinney,
You are assuming that there is such a thing as "static" in spiritual terms.
Can you direct me (links) to some scientific proof of this?
(1) I shall use the word STATIC for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn't really matter what word I use because word is not the "thing."
(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly... from where... that is impossible to know.
One of the problems I had with the word static was that it was essentially a MEST universe word. It implied lack of movement (in one sense) or enharmonius vibration (in another sense), and both are aspects of energy and space.
(1) I shall use the word STATIC for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn't really matter what word I use because word is not the "thing."
Vin - I am surprisingly tracking your post very well. I like your conclusions reached in #5 and #6.!
On #7 to #10 I also track very well. We are not used to thinking without time passage but it is possible and when one adds that to his bag of tools for understanding life, it is a powerful tool. That's why I brought up the analogy of a start up corporation. I find it so helpful in thinking without time passage. A person and/or a Board of directors must exist before the start up time of the corporation and must make declarations as to when the corporation will go "on line" Prior to that declared start up date, all time is equal wheter it was the day before incorportation or billions of years before.
#10 to #17 are equally lucid and seem to be self eveident, once they are pointed out. #12 is the key to understanding the entire mix. I think Freud touched on this point and Hubbard greatly expanded it, including a handbook of proposed procedures to mitigate this fact.
A new term should be coined to express the concept of encountering a concept which one never thought of on his own but then after it being revealed to him by another, it seems self evident.
#14 and #17 address my questions which you responded to. I love to "play the game "and find out new discoveries so after reading #14 and #17, waves of joy and happiness reverberated throughout my beingness. Perhaps for just a smidgeon of time, I got a taste of Nirvana. That is a lot to say because Nirvana is timeless, so if you've tasted it you know ti.
#18 is your tribute to a man who probably had this all figured out 2,500 years ago and lived its precepts and tried to spread them to others.
To me, #11 answered a long standing question for me. Can we be free of the restraints of the physical universe once we attain a high enough awareness or do we have to stick around and help others achieve a similar level before we take our freedom. FROM WHAT I GET FROM READING #11 IS THAT IT IS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE THAT CHOICE! That concepts also invokes a feeling of joy in me.
Vin - If this is the end of your moderating this thread, which is how I took your concluding remarks, then I want to ACKNOWLEDGE YOU for all the effort you made to get this information out to the public and all that you have done and given of yourself to create this amazing thread. I for one, have changed greatly for the better by participating here. THANK YOU !! If you decide to continue posting here and I am wrong, I still want to acknowledge and thank you so no harm done. I am fond of my personal history with you. We met for a few seconds around the beginning of 1972 aboard the Sea Org vessel, the Bolivar, and merely smiled at each other and energetically shook hands. Thirty seven years later, I hook up with you over the internet on ESMB and you become a mentor of mine. The story would make a good movie. The story is not done yet, I will see you up the line on other threads and possibly other web sites.
Lakey
One thing that is really opening up a new world for me at the moment is the following post from Alan Walters describing the Ho`oponopono process:
http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=70804&postcount=1
I hope you are having fun, Alan.
.
<entire post deleted>
ESSAY #6: THE NATURE OF GOD
Please refer to Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
The desire to know the unknowable produces visualization or thought. That thought manifests itself, and can be known. Thus, one seems to overcome one’s uneasiness about the unknowable to some degree; even though the unknowable still remains unknowable.
Thus, one uses the term God for unknowable, and says,
God is unknowable.
This is fine; but then someone comes along and asserts, “God is a Being, and we are created in his image.” He then projects human attributes into God to a superlative degree. This action makes one feel more comfortable about unknowable; even though the unknowable still remains unknowable.
“God is a personal being” is a speculative thought. The unknowable still remains unknowable.
There is an intense desire to know how this universe came about. The universe is manifested alright, but how it got manifested is an unknowable that makes one uncomfortable. So another thought is produced, “God created the universe.”
“God created the universe” is a speculative thought also. The unknowable still remains unknowable.
These two thoughts form the basis of Semitic religions, such as, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other religions derived from them.
A religion is essentially a system of thought created to help a society organize itself for extended survival. A belief in the two thoughts about God as above has produced a culture in the west that is quite different historically from the culture in the east.
The Vedic religions of the east, such as, Hinduism and Buddhism do not entertain beliefs based on the two thoughts about God described above. Even when terms like Brahman and Nirvana are used for the unknowable, they are not further associated with the idea of a personal being.
This essay simply points out that terms like YHVH, GOD, ALLAH, BRAMHAN, NIRVANA, etc., are labels for the unknowable. Some of these labels have further significances attached to them. These labels and significances are thoughts, which, by their very nature, are speculations about the unknowable. These thoughts become reality to those who believe in them.
Attaching such significances to the unknowable and acting on them, unfortunately, has contributed to deadly conflicts in the past and also in the present. There is nothing wrong with the belief in YHVH, GOD, or ALLAH as long as we understand that the true significance underlying such belief is unknowable by its very nature.
May the understanding of ”God as unknowable” help bring about cessation of conflicts around the world!
That is my hope.
.
GOD: [related to Sanskrit HAVATE call, 'that which is invoked']
As declared in most religions, God is the Creator of this universe. From the viewpoint of Science, there has to be an 'Ultimate Cause' responsible for the origin of this Physical Universe, and which is responsible for keeping this Physical Universe there at this moment. If we regard this 'Ultimate Cause' as God, the following arguments may be offered:
The Physical universe is made up of Space, Time, Matter, and Energy. Each of these are created entities - created by God.
God created Space in which all material exists. Not subject to Space, God has no location in Space. Though God may locate Itself, but only in terms of what It creates.
God created Time which is the persistence of space and objects. Not subject to Time, God has no physical persistence or manifestation that can be objectively perceived. Though God may manifest Itself, but only in terms of what It creates.
God created Matter and Energy, which make up all physical things and their activities. Not subject to Matter and Energy, God has no form, shape, or physical identity. Though God may assume any identity, but this identity would be a created thing.
God is the Creator of the universe or the 'Ultimate Cause' which brought about this physical universe, and which maintains it right now. Beyond this, the description and understanding of God depends on one's own system of religious beliefs and experiences.
.