How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)

[Vinaire]

So, what is ego, Nexus?

.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes... we have at least three egos here... may be more.

How many do you see?

Look at me!!!!! Can I be the 4th?

Or maybe the 4th, 5th and 6th? :confused2:

I can be interesting . . . .

I can be interested . . . .

I can be . . . . . I can be . . . .

I can . . . . . I can . . . .

I . . . . . Aye . . . . . . . . Eye . . . . ................... Eyie!!!!!!!!!!

. . . . . . . .

 

[Vinaire]

FACTOR 1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

(1) Manifestation of these considerations makes us consider a Cause or origination point.

(2) These considerations are then origination from that point, or effect of that Cause.

(3) Both cause and effect are considerations that are tied to each other, and to other considerations, in a certain way, which determines their significance or meaning (logical association).

(4) The whole scope of Cause is defined by the effect.

(5) “Beginning” is related to Time, and it is the first component of a cycle of action.

(6) The whole scope of Time is defined by the cycle of action.

FACTOR 2: In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.

(1) The consideration “to be” comes about, the moment any manifestation comes about.

(2) Thus, “to be” is a consideration that is a part of all considerations.

(3) “Beginning” starts with the manifestation of the prime consideration.

(4) The prime consideration lasts until it is as-ised in its totality. At that point it disappears.

(5) The consideration of Time is a part of that prime consideration.

(6) Thus, Time lasts as long as that prime consideration lasts. This time is “forever” from the viewpoint of that prime consideration.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Q 2: Definition of self-determinism: the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter, also the ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy and matter.

(1) The ability to create space and time is basically the ability to assume a beingness and making it persist.

(2) The beingness is a basic viewpoint within the confines of which one postulates, creates considerations and holds opinions.

(3) Energy is the basic activity of postulating, perceiving, communicating, moving considerations around, generating new considerations etc., which is driven by attention.

(4) Matter is the arrangement and/or combination of considerations that is solidified as such.

(5) Self-determinism is the unlimited uniqueness to assume any beingness, making it persist, and from that beingness advancing any postulates, considerations, opinions, and any combination thereof to any degree of complexity and solidity.

.

 

[Vinaire]

"I" is a creation.
I, who is BRAHMA (is that so?)
Creates "I"
If that makes any sense.

.

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire,

Of course, it is ego!

I see an ego as evolving, as growing, but it remains the same ego even though it takes on various identities. At the same time, I do consider the "spiritual" as separate, as it is suppressed with the emergence of the "physical" ego, and if you like, it is very much an observer of the "physical" ego.

On the death of the body, the "spiritual" ego takes on the "physical" ego's experiences, as its own.

If that all makes sense.

Regards, David.

Individuality springs from Nirvana (or Brahma) with the first independent consideration generated. It is the consistency of that independent consideration throughout its subsequent morphing that shines forth as individuality. It morphs into different identities, and then into different physical bodies too.

This is the path of ego as I see it. It grows like an onion acquiring layers after layers.

It collects labels on its way too , such as,

David_Graham
Ex-Scientology-Kids
Ex-Sea Org
Ex-Class IX Solo NOTs C/S,
Ex-Universe Corps
Ex-QEI & D/QEI
Ex-FSO
Ex-SO
Ex-Scientologist
Declared SP

[Joke ]

But one may reverse the process back to Nirvana (no-self).

 

[Minuet #1 in G]

Individuality is the last bastion of EGO. Scientology promotes individuality.

What has OT Levels given us but STATUS THINK besides whatever improvement one got.

That STATUS THINK is there among OTs no matter how subtle it may be. STATUS THINK is what IAS is all about. STATUS is a good seller for it appeals to the EGO (individuality).

That same improvement as in those OT Levels can be gotten through Vipassana Meditation of Buddha, which I am essentially documenting in the following issues.

LOOK & NOTICE

EXPERIENCE

ATTENTION

.

Vin

Interesting to see this thread just after reading this material from you:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=369818#post369818


This looks very similar to what is outlined in your issues in terms of non-evaluative experiencing of mental phenomenon. The OT gobblegook can be safely ignored as it doesnt add much to the process as an explanation. Just need to focus upon the technique. Would you think that use of a meter to direct attention would be a useful? This seems to be the only real difference from the meditative technique you are describing.

 

[Panda Termint]

Was Cause cause before Cause caused anything?
I propose an ammendment (courtesy of Terry Pratchett).

Before the Beginning was The Drawing of The Breath...
Before the Beginning was The Clearing of The Throat...
Before the Beginning was The...

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire,

Of course, it is ego!

I see an ego as evolving, as growing, but it remains the same ego even though it takes on various identities. At the same time, I do consider the "spiritual" as separate, as it is suppressed with the emergence of the "physical" ego, and if you like, it is very much an observer of the "physical" ego.

On the death of the body, the "spiritual" ego takes on the "physical" ego's experiences, as its own.

If that all makes sense.

Regards, David.

Hi David,

Sooner or later I shall help bring this thread back to its original topic. But for now, let's talk about EGO.

I feel that EGO is the "independent" characteristic of a consideration.

Independent means "autonomous, free, thinking or acting for oneself." This characteristic, not some substance of that consideration, is EGO. It takes on many colors or layers. But at the core it is independence.

This cannot be looked upon as aberration. It is a positive quality. It may gather aberration to itself. But it is still an ADDITIVE to Nirvana or Brahma.

I have never looked at EGO so deeply before, but this seems to make sense to me. It is a phenomenon of space because it thrives on the key characteristic of space, which is "separation."

Lack of "separation" at the top simply means lack of space. It does not mean "oneness with the universe" because there is no universe to be "one" with without space.

At the bottom of the scale we have IDENTIFICATION, which also has an apparency of "lack of separation" but it is not the same thing. Here we have a very condensed universe. LRH mistook Nirvana as this bottom point of scale.

Independence or individuality may be the top of the scale of EGO, but it is still EGO.

Nirvana or Brahma goes still higher. It reminds me of the last scene of the movie "2001: The Space Odyssey" where a fetus in a bubble is looking at earth in space. But I don't know how it relates to the state of Nirvana. Maybe it is the tail end of Nirvana where one is contemplating the creation of space.

Oh! well!

.

 

[Vinaire]

Maybe, OT VII is dangerous because it is putting there simultaneously what it is trying to eliminate.

I have to look at that thought more closely.

It is like trying to create a perfect vacuum instead of getting rid of the consideration of vacuum altogether.

Or, it is trying to reach an absolute instead of getting rid of the consideration of absolute altogether.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

While you're looking at it, Vin, consider the concept of a Being's ability to create "theta/life" and invest life where none or something else formerly existed.

I found no particular danger in auditing OTVII as long as it was done with a modicum of understanding of the basic principles involved. Others have obviously not been so fortunate.

 

[RogerB]

Joking and degrading, eh! What is the purpose of it? Entertainment?

Entertainment of what?

Nexus... do you see it now?

.

What a disappointing response. I thought better of you than that, Vin.

Seems you are not taking your good wife’s advice, “To be kind to Roger.” Instead you resort again to insult as you did the last time I tried to have you look at your propositions (and used a little humour and levity there also).

I made the reference to science’s lack of definition of what energy actually is because it is a comparable lack of definitive articulation of a needed point of knowledge. I thought, as a scientist, you’d have seen and appreciated the parallel circumstance.

Alan once said this of you (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6518&page=4):

Your usual dismissive inability to confront CHARGE, FORCE or MASS Vinny babe -

And incredibly evaluative as usual.......

I would delete the reference to “Charge, Force and Mass,” though they do apply here, and say, “the inability to confront the truth needed to resolve what you are only ruminating about.” I observe you again to be talking around in circles.

I see today you have still not addressed any understanding of what “ego” is actually comprised of as in what is the stuff of it?

You used it, define what it is and the meaning you intend.

And don’t ask me to tell you . . . it is not a word I use as it is too junky a word and too messed up as to concept and meaning by others; though I do have a clear view of what it is.

What is disappointing about this thread is that Mate posed a brilliantly put, very important issue for us to look and discuss . . . . and what have you done? You have deviated that action away into the irrelevance, again, of your ruminations on the belief in Nirvana, Brahma et al.

How many times do you have to ram this stuff into every suitable thread before you think we’ve got it?

RogerB

 

[Vinaire]

What a disappointing response. I thought better of you than that, Vin.

Seems you are not taking your good wife’s advice, “To be kind to Roger.” Instead you resort again to insult as you did the last time I tried to have you look at your propositions (and used a little humour and levity there also).

I made the reference to science’s lack of definition of what energy actually is because it is a comparable lack of definitive articulation of a needed point of knowledge. I thought, as a scientist, you’d have seen and appreciated the parallel circumstance.

Alan once said this of you (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6518&page=4):



I would delete the reference to “Charge, Force and Mass,” though they do apply here, and say, “the inability to confront the truth needed to resolve what you are only ruminating about.” I observe you again to be talking around in circles.

I see today you have still not addressed any understanding of what “ego” is actually comprised of as in what is the stuff of it?

You used it, define what it is and the meaning you intend.

And don’t ask me to tell you . . . it is not a word I use as it is too junky a word and too messed up as to concept and meaning by others; though I do have a clear view of what it is.

What is disappointing about this thread is that Mate posed a brilliantly put, very important issue for us to look and discuss . . . . and what have you done? You have deviated that action away into the irrelevance, again, of your ruminations on the belief in Nirvana, Brahma et al.

How many times do you have to ram this stuff into every suitable thread before you think we’ve got it?

RogerB

Well, it was an attempt at levity and humor on my part too. Can’t you see it? Why do you look at levity and humor as insult when somebody else uses it? Basically, I am mimicking you. So, in me you can see what you are actually doing.

Let’s look at this button of INSULT because it has come up with you several times in the past.

I have had definite disagreements with Alan. He couldn’t take disagreements very well. Since you follow Alan quite closely, I can see having the same disagreements with you as well. And you are not able to take it too well either.

Why do you have to run to the “authority” of Alan to “prove” how obnoxious I am? Why can’t you just discuss the point of disagreement upfront?

Alan had excellent ability to be evaluative while accusing others of being evaluative. This can be seen in the reference you produced above. It must have taken you some time to find it. I wonder why you went to that much length.

Mate has been very gracious to me. But you are going out of your way to show how obnoxious I am. I don’t think mate has put you up for this. It is entirely your production here of trying to prove how evaluative and evasive I am.

I have not avoided answering the question of what EGO is. Read my posts. They have been very detailed. But you may think that I have not answered the question because I have not used the words that you would like to see.

The bottom line is this: Alan didn’t like the Eastern concept of BRAHMA, just like Hubbard didn’t like the Buddhist concept of NIRVANA. Alan had put up images of eastern deities on this forum in insulting ways.

Both Hubbard and Alan have rooted for INDIVIDUALITY. For them what has mattered most is being successful in this MEST universe. The concepts of BRAHMA and NIRVANA don’t much care for the MEST universe. They go against the idea of individuality. Alan could not have it when he saw me talk about it.

Now that same subject is being discussed here, and you can’t seem to have my viewpoint.

Why can’t you just sit down and discuss, instead of throwing your “humorous” darts, and trying to put me down?

Am I hurting your ego? Isn't that what insult means?

.

 

[RogerB]

Well, it was an attempt at levity and humor on my part too. Can’t you see it? Why do you look at levity and humor as insult when somebody else uses it? Basically, I am mimicking you. So, in me you can see what you are actually doing.

Let’s look at this button of INSULT because it has come up with you several times in the past.

I have had definite disagreements with Alan. He couldn’t take disagreements very well. Since you follow Alan quite closely, I can see having the same disagreements with you as well. And you are not able to take it too well either.

Why do you have to run to the “authority” of Alan to “prove” how obnoxious I am? Why can’t you just discuss the point of disagreement upfront?

Alan had excellent ability to be evaluative while accusing others of being evaluative. This can be seen in the reference you produced above. It must have taken you some time to find it. I wonder why you went to that much length.

Mate has been very gracious to me. But you are going out of your way to show how obnoxious I am. I don’t think mate has put you up for this. It is entirely your production here of trying to prove how obnoxious and evasive I am.

I have not avoided answering the question of what EGO is. Read my posts. They have been very detailed. But you may think that I have not answered the question because I have not used the words that you would like to see.

The bottom line is this: Alan didn’t like the Eastern concept of BRAHMA, just like Hubbard didn’t like the Buddhist concept of NIRVANA. Alan had put up images of eastern deities on this forum in insulting ways.

Both Hubbard and Alan have rooted for INDIVIDUALITY. For them what has mattered most is being successful in this MEST universe. The concepts of BRAHMA and NIRVANA don’t much care for the MEST universe. They go against the idea of individuality. Alan could not have it when he saw me talk about it.

Now that same subject is being discussed here, and you can’t seem to have my viewpoint.

Why can’t you just sit down and discuss, instead of throwing your “humorous” darts, and trying to put me down?

Am I hurting your ego? Isn't that what insult means?

.

You're still in your box, Vin, and you're actually not answering the actual question. It is, however, interesting to observe that you think you have.

Rog

 

[Vinaire]

Why do people get so upset about another person not answering their question?

I am looking for answers like anyone else. I am not the source of someone else's knowledge. Each person is the source of their own knowledge.

But I am the source of my own knowledge and I am documenting it the best way I can. Others are wecome to borrow from it, or reject is as they please.

I just don't understand this accusation, "You are not answering my question." For God's sake what is preventing you from looking?

If you find "being prevented from looking" as an unwanted condition, they you may call me for an Idenics session. The sessions I give are free.

.

 

[Vinaire]

My utmost apologies to Mate.

But this subject of ego or individuality appears to be more and more relevant to OT Levels.

This is what seem to differentiate OT Levels from Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu concept of Brahma.

Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu's Brahma are on the same wavelength by the way... OT levels are not.

.

 

[RogerB]

Why do people get so upset about another person not answering their question?

I am looking for answers like anyone else. I am not the source of someone else's knowledge. Each person is the source of their own knowledge.

But I am the source of my own knowledge and I am documenting it the best way I can. Others are wecome to borrow from it, or reject is as they please.

I just don't understand this accusation, "You are not answering my question." For God's sake what is preventing you from looking?

If you find "being prevented from looking" as an unwanted condition, they you may call me for an Idenics session. The sessions I give are free.

.

It's not my question, Vin, it is Nexus's . . . I simply concurred it is a good question for you to answer . . . . as I said, I have the answer to it, as does Panda.

All I see here is you continuing to avoid the looking you tout as the thing you do . . . . you keep throwing shit back instead of doing the looking and answering you say you are so proud of.

And as to my reference to Alan . . . he is no authority to me . . . I simply cited his statement as an accurate observation by one who did have the ability of accurate observation. But you failed to benefit from his counsel also.

You say you "look" . . . but I don't see it being done. I do see avoidance of looking at what needs be answered.

R

 

[Vinaire]

It's not my question, Vin, it is Nexus's . . . I simply concurred it is a good question for you to answer . . . . as I said, I have the answer to it, as does Panda.

All I see here is you continuing to avoid the looking you tout as the thing you do . . . . you keep throwing shit back instead of doing the looking and answering you say you are so proud of.

And as to my reference to Alan . . . he is no authority to me . . . I simply cited his statement as an accurate observation by one who did have the ability of accurate observation. But you failed to benefit from his counsel also.

You say you "look" . . . but I don't see it being done. I do see avoidance of looking at what needs be answered.

R

I believe I am looking.

But why are you getting upset if, from your viewpoint, you think I am not looking?

Am I hurting you in any way?

I really don’t understand what makes you think that I am not looking. All you really seem to be saying that you disagree with me.

If that is the case then what is preventing you from discussing the subject?

Why don’t you just set aside all this upset and tell me how your understanding of EGO is different from my understanding?

.

 

[RogerB]

I believe I am looking.

But why are you getting upset if, from your viewpoint, you think I am not looking?

Am I hurting you in any way?

I really don’t understand what makes you think that I am not looking. All you really seem to be saying that you disagree with me.

If that is the case then what is preventing you from discussing the subject?

Why don’t you just set aside all this upset and tell me how your understanding of EGO is different from my understanding?

.

Yes, well, here you are again asserting someone is upset when they are not. You keep running this wrong indication stuff on folks

The actual question asked of you remains to be actually answered. What is the stuff of it, what does it consist of?

Your first deviation from actually answering the question asked of you was here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nexus100 View Post

What is ego?

Vin response

Yes, what is an ego?

See the alteration of question away from the nitty-gritty?

Then Nexus got even more pointed with his exact question:

That's a way to look at it. But what IS ego? What does it consist of?

And then you go on and describe how it evolves in your view, how it develops and changes . . . . and you think that answers the question asked of you!

Sorry, it avoids what is there to be known.

But that is now my final word on it. I have other things to deal with.

Rog

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Well, it was an attempt at levity and humor on my part too. Can’t you see it? Why do you look at levity and humor as insult when somebody else uses it?

The difference Vin is that your "joke" directly targeted another person for deliberate mockery. Roger's joke was aimed at what he sees as the ambivalent philosophical relativism of the various Buddhist conceptions of "ego".

In re "ego" ...

Good question, the answering of which by the way I note is "long coming" . . . . asking the Buddhist think types this question is rather like asking scientists, "What is energy, as in of what is this stuff, energy, composed of, what does it consist of?"

If you want blank stares and mumblings of inexactitude and opinion, try it!

RogerB

Frankly, I think Roger is wrong about the Buddhist view. Buddhism philosophically analyzes "ego" in extended & excruciating detail. The philosophical concept of "sunyata" or "emptiness" is part and parcel of that of "ego", and neither is simple to grasp much less considered comprehendable solely through analytical means by Buddhists. No doubt all this is a major part of why it takes years to "master" Buddhist philosophy.

Still, as a joke, Roger's was humorous. Your "joke" was just a personal attack on Roger masquerading as humor. As long as your "humor" solely reflects an attack on another, it won't be regarded as either funny or necessarily well-intentioned.


Mark A. Baker