... Maybe I can focus the question by comparing it to a question about another state, namely the state of being able to swim. Being able to swim is a particular, definite state. ...
No. You're confusing things which are different.
A
state of being is different from an action or activity. It is a condition existent in itself. Actions & activities represent an alteration of state of some assumed existent being. Such actions & activities often define an assumed identity.
Per your example of 'swimming'; assuming there is
something which exists and that may be said to be engaged in the
action of swimming, moreover that that existent thing
possesses some degree of skill in the activity and may thus be viewed as having adopted the
identity of a swimmer.
The scientology ideas of 'be, do, have' are illustrated in the above in the: be = identity (i.e. swimmer), do = action (i.e. swimming), have = quality possessed (i.e. skill of swimming). These reflect the so-called 'cycles of action' and are a scientology borrowing from Vedanta's Trimurti. In the Vedantic parallel the being itself reflects the primordial Brahman, that which is uncreated and unmanifested and from which the Trimurti are themselves projected.
That which fundamentally
is is the
being itself. It is in a state of being, which is distinct from the considerations it may have concerning its state of being. Those considerations are intimately linked to its perception of its 'identity' (or ego in some traditions).
It is not the same as a swimmer, although in common speech the two are often confused. A swimmer is a logically distinct & specific identity and the being is capable of adopting many such identities (runner, reader, reaper, etc.) each bearing a measure of distinction from each other and together reflecting the qualities and skills the being displays as a
creation or
manifested entity.
You can think of the being/identity dichotomy as equivalent to the creator/creature dichotomy.
Confusion over identities is a significant spiritual & psychological difficulty as well as a common reason for difficulty in self recognition of one's own state of being.
This is not 'simply a difference of semantics'. It is the difference between a
state of being versus
activity and
identity. They are
NOT the same. Nor is it an 'insignificant difference'.
Clear is a state of being. It is not an action, activity, or skill. You do not become clear by acquiring a skill in action, activity, or by assuming an identity. Attempts to define
clear in terms of acquired skills or identities are innately flawed as the truth is closer to what is left when a being removes from 'himself' that which he perceives as unnecessary or irrelevant to himself.
Thus, the state is best understood only through a process of stripping away fixed considerations about assumed identities and perceived 'necessary' actions. It can not be understood in any other way. An individual's own personal experience of a similar releasing of fixed conditions and considerations is requisite for actually understanding
clear, both as a
goal as well as a
process. In this it is similar to the goal & practice of Buddhism.
David Mayo's essay is believed by myself as well as many others to be the most elucidating discussion of the state generally available.
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
Truly though, it can not be completely understood except through the actual experience. This is not
physics, it is
metaphysics; metaphysics as in the philosophical metaphysics which has been the basis of serious philosophic study since the time of Pythagoras & Plato. Physical models are insufficient.
Mark A. Baker
