I had a glimpse of R6 Bank

[Vinaire]

Thank you all for putting up with me. I am learning a lot through this discussion.

One can explore infinite dimensions by not pegging down the source of creation to finite characteristics. To me, the concept of BRAHMA leaves the subject of SPIRITUALITY wide open for infinite exploration, whereas, the concept of GOD limits that field of exploration considerably but putting up constraints.

I carry no jingoistic or parochial attitudes when I use the terms “Vedic” and “Semitic.” If these terms push some people’s buttons, then I would be just as happy to use alternate terms. Since the key concepts being discussed here are “BRAHMA” and “GOD,” maybe it is ok if I use the words “Brahmic” and “Godic” to refer to related concepts? This way, hopefully, we can get rid of some of these additive emotions that are non-value added.

I am glad to find Nomad tolerant in this respect. Majority of Christians I have met, have been usually quite intolerant (jingoistic and parochial as Zinj puts it so nicely), when it comes to discussing religion. I find Nomad to be quite charming in comparison. I now have much greater respect for him since he has been very tolerantly focused on this discussion.

By the way, I am not asking anybody to describe the indescribable logically. That is not my intention. Logic comes in only when considerations are put forth and associations are created among those considerations. So, I am simply analyzing the logic, which exists already to “describe the indescribable.” I am looking into assumptions involved here, which are being treated as facts. I am analyzing the “logic of faith” and factors that have led to things like manipulation and control of the masses.

This is very relevant because we have been looking at these factors in Scientology. I believe that the model for this already exists in Christianity, and studying that model may give us some valuable insights. This is a deep subject and the answer lies in those things that have been made taboo or sacred to prevent looking deeply.

So, bear with me folks. I am using BRAHMA because it is a datum of comparable magnitude to GOD, using which the considerations embedded in the very concept of God may be analyzed. This might touch upon some sensitive chords, but we all are adults and capable of controlling our emotions. I don’t mind you telling me when I am out of line. I am capable of reigning myself in. Please keep in mind that we are traversing dangerous, uncharted territory full of unseen mines.

We shall keep it light and avoid getting into the game of blame and guilt. People get into blame and guilt only when they start getting very serious. So, let’s not get serious here. I am very willing to explain my thinking. You are welcome to question it. I just request you to be specific when you question, and have the intention of honestly seeking clarity, instead of suppressing investigation. If we heed these few cautions, we may be able to avoid those dangerous minefields.

Respectfully,
Vin

 

[Nomad]

Perhaps my tolerance is based somewhat on my background, between spending years of my youth working on civil rights and trying to help people get allong, and then spending a number of years in Scientology, and then after words, spending some time looking at a number of other beliefs, I have more understanding of differing beliefs, than many of by brothers.

It is also a fault of many churches to push their own agenda and work to build a powerbase, than to seek to serve Gods mission.

 

[Vinaire]

S&L, let’s see if I can clarify your confusion regarding my “labeling.”

UNIVERSE: To me the universe is an observable phenomenon to be studied. It exists so we postulate that there must be some source of its creation.

ME: To me, the simplest way to look at “me” is as the OBSERVER of the universe without any further additives.

So, I start with positing a UNIVERSE, which is being observed, and OBSERVER, which observes that universe. Does anyone have any questions about this?

Next I posit that creation is the process of manifesting what was not manifested before. What is manifested can be observed; and what is not manifested cannot be observed. Therefore, anything manifested must have been created.

Now I posit that the “source of creation” is the source and not the effect of creation. Only the effect of creation is manifested. Therefore, the “source” is not itself created or manifested and cannot be observed and described. Furthermore, I posit that THAT, which creates must know about its creation in its entirety at the inception of creation. OK, so far?

Now, THAT, which creates can observe its creation. Observing that creation in its entirety brings back the knowledge how it was created from a non-manifested state. With that knowledge the creation may be reduced back to its non-manifested state.

THAT, which observes, does not have to be manifested in order to observe. Thus, the source of observation is inherently non-manifested similar to the source of creation. However, the sources of creation and observation may make themselves visible by identifying themselves with what is created and manifested.

If you have any questions so far, please let me know.

.

 

[Nomad]

And I would point out to my side, you have some additions in your definition of Universe. To me the Universe is simply the sum total of all that is. It is not necessarily all observable, especially to a given ME.

I can mostly take your definition of ME, except that that there needs to be a distinction between ME and YOU.

Creation in my view is the bringing into existence, that which was not, which I think is similar to your manifesting, but is not dependent on being directly observable, especially to a given ME.

I would also not take as a given that ANY creation may be uncreated simply by fully observing it, and deciding to unmanifest it. This is due to the fact that that not all causes have unlimited power to be at cause, but it is quite possible that the effect created is no longer within the power of that creator to undo.

I will not say that you can not use your definitions, I do not think they model what is reality, and includes in them an unnatural bias to the observer.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Understanding...

Thank you, Vinnie, for your clarification. Thanks, Nomad, for carrying water on this thread (zen referenece I think you'll understand). You and I probably have a lot in common in terms of our life experiences.

Vin, I differ in defining "Universe" and "me", but I do understand you and I am willing to go forward with the discussion along the lines you lay out here.

Thank you for your willingness to be sensitive to others feelings, I respect that. My nose matches Zinjis... Keeping it light is great so long as we laugh with each other and don't give the appearance of laughing at one another.

I see source as manifesting, but I also see myself as manifesting, so I don't see the identities as being quite as divided as you seem to. Power being shared, not quite so one-up and one-down as you portray it to be.

Also, I'm a little put off by the observer role, as opposed to the experiencer role, but this seems to me to be maybe a scientific "look at" approach, so it's o.k. as long as we are clear that I do not see the Universe or my place in it in the way that you are describing in your take on things. I have already elaborated mine. With that caveat, I am perfectly willing to look at the Brahmic versis the God view of things!

How about if I say that I exist therefore I postulate that there is some source of my creation? And that I'm developing and exploring my relationship with the same?

Let's carry on! I think I understand you Vin... We are making a worthwhile effort here, anyway!

 

[Vinaire]

Thanks for the wonderful feedback. I get feedback at this end from my wife too. As you know, she has been keeping a very close eye on me since last December. She reads everything I write on ESMB. Her most recent observation has been, “You are pissing off people again. Now you have pissed of Roger who has been so nice to you.” And when I say, “Honey, I wouldn’t know who I am unless I am doing such things,” she just gives me a funny look. That look tells me exactly what she thinks of me. I wouldn’t go into any more details here.

Anyway, based on the feedback I am getting, let me break down my viewpoint further as bullet points. Let me know the points that you disagree with, or have difficulty understanding. The following is presented from my viewpoint as a human being.

(1) The questions about EXISTENCE arise because of AWARENESS of existence.

(2) The questions arise because one wants to UNDERSTAND existence. I do not know if such questions arise in plants and animals.

(3) The beginning of any religion has come from an AWARENESS of existence, and from a desire to UNDERSTAND.

(4) Both “Brahmic” and “Godic” approaches were advanced to understand the awareness and experience of existing.

(5) The starting point is awareness: “I AM AWARE THEREFORE I AM.”

(6) One becomes aware not only of the existence, but also of one’s experience with existence, and of the explanations that arise out of that experience. Some of these explanations get incorporated as religious ideas.

(7) But the starting point is AWARENESS. The heart of awareness is OBSERVATION.

(8) One OBSERVES whatever is there in order to become aware. Thus, one finds oneself in the role of the OBSERVER.

(9) Thus, the most basic activity for a human being is OBSERVATION accompanied by the awareness that he is OBSERVING. This particular self-awareness may or may not be there with plants and animals.

(10) According to Hindu philosophy one goes through 8,400,000 different forms to finally attain the human form. So, there is a possibility that plants, insects and animals have increasing degree of self-awareness, however minute.

(11) However, the be-do-have of human consciousness is OBSERVER – OBSERVATION – AWARENESS. But this may not be as linear as it appears. There is something circular about it.

Okay, so take a good look at these points and criticize away to your hearts content.

.

 

[Nomad]

(1) The questions about EXISTENCE arise because of AWARENESS of existence.

And this is where the logic diverge. While our QUESTIONS about Existence, it does not mean that EXISTANCE itself arises through that.

You logic is not a logic about EXISTENCE, but about AWARENESS, and seems to presume that the purpose of Existence is to be something to be Aware of. It places Thought over Substance.

My logic is a logic about EXISTENCE, and includes AWARENESS, but does not depend on it.

Your logic accepts that Creation happened (you said something like the Universe is, so we presume is was created), but doesn't look at or even care about that creation (since that which creates is not observable unless it does something to be observable), but deals with observing what is now here. It doesn't deal with how ME arised, I guess since it isn't concerned with the initial creation. It also seems to assume that we are in a sense "above" creation.

My logic seeks to understand the Universe by looking at the Creation and the Creator to seek the purpose in things. We can learn of the Creator by looking at his Creation and the signs he placed in there that point back to him. Part of that search, is a search for our own purpose as part of that Creation.

So part of the issue with you understanding GOD, is that your logic doesn't deal with that part of what is, but in fact seems to assume that it is likely unknowable.

 

[Vinaire]

And I would point out to my side, you have some additions in your definition of Universe. To me the Universe is simply the sum total of all that is. It is not necessarily all observable, especially to a given ME.

...

I believe by "additions" you mean "additives," which are, things that are added, and which are not an inherent part of what is being observed.

I want to take any speculation, or assumption, out from the definition of UNIVERSE because I can only speak for myself and not from anybody else's point of view.

From my human point of view, my UNIVERSE is made up of what I am capable of observing. Is there anything out there beyond my observation? I don't know.

I get told so many things. Hubbard told me all those things when I was in Scientology. But do they really exist?

So, if I discover something new I shall add it to my universe. But, until I discover it through my own observation it is not a part of my universe as such.

What others tell me go into the category of "this may possibly exist, but it does not exist for me until I observe it for myself." This category also exists in my universe.

So, my universe consists of:

(1) What I have observed.

(2) What I am told to exist, but which I have not yet observed for myself.

(3) My ideas about what I have observed.

(4) My ideas about what I am told to exist.

(5) All my other thoughts, postulates, considerations, opinions, etc.

I make sure that I am aware of these different categories that make up my universe.

Because, I can observe things belonging to each of these categories, my simple definition of UNIVERSE is: OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON.

So, if there is something which is not yet observed directly by me, it exists for me as a "speculation" in my universe. I can observe it but only as a speculation.

.

 

[Vinaire]

And this is where the logic diverge. While our QUESTIONS about Existence, it does not mean that EXISTANCE itself arises through that.

You logic is not a logic about EXISTENCE, but about AWARENESS, and seems to presume that the purpose of Existence is to be something to be Aware of. It places Thought over Substance.

My logic is a logic about EXISTENCE, and includes AWARENESS, but does not depend on it.

Your logic accepts that Creation happened (you said something like the Universe is, so we presume is was created), but doesn't look at or even care about that creation (since that which creates is not observable unless it does something to be observable), but deals with observing what is now here. It doesn't deal with how ME arised, I guess since it isn't concerned with the initial creation. It also seems to assume that we are in a sense "above" creation.

My logic seeks to understand the Universe by looking at the Creation and the Creator to seek the purpose in things. We can learn of the Creator by looking at his Creation and the signs he placed in there that point back to him. Part of that search, is a search for our own purpose as part of that Creation.

So part of the issue with you understanding GOD, is that your logic doesn't deal with that part of what is, but in fact seems to assume that it is likely unknowable.

Nomad, I understand your point to be, “There is existence beyond awareness.”

To you this is BELIEF simply because you cannot be directly aware of what is beyond your awareness. To me it is SPECULATION.

A belief to me is a datum that one uses to align other observations in order to reduce confusion and make sense out of them. So, a belief is not directly observed but it becomes valuable to one to the degree it explains all other observations for one.

This datum, called belief, is a product of logic. It does not exist independent of logic; though one may believe it to exist all by itself.

Such is the power of belief.

.

 

[Vinaire]

CONDITIONING operates on the same principle as BELIEF.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having a belief.

A belief is very valuable as STABLE DATA. It stabilizes one.

What is wrong is getting ATTACHED to that belief, thinking that everyone else should have that belief, and enforcing that belief on others.

It is like pushing one's case on others. This is what conversion is all about. This is what Christianity has been doing in India.

It is NOT waking people up. It is indoctrinating them.


From BELIEF to CONDITIONING is a very slippery slope. Please see:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=301814&postcount=366

.

 

[Björkist]

I think that groups of men corrupt spiritual ideas.



Thus, you get cult leaders and religious wars coming from the idea that "God loves you."

That's why I am, and always have been, a mystic.

Mystics seek direct communion with the Divine. There are no human intermediaries needed when you are a mystic.

Hear ye, hear ye.

That's what has intrigued me about one of Earth's most ancient "religions", Shamanism. (which many Christians and, apparently, many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists are anti-Shaman...and understandably so since someone who has direct contact with the divine is far less likely to get sucked into any kind of cult, giving away his time and money (energy), for any extended period of time...and so Shamanism and its tools are the enemy; "Shedule I", harsh and unreasonable laws, propaganda booklets, etc.)

Being that we are part of nature, it's utterly facinating to me that we can utilize nature to open forcefully shut doors* and communicate with oneself and others in very unusual and exciting ways.

Look around at how disconnected form nature a large % of humans are. Dirty cement boxes, contributing to the torture and murder of animals, criminalizing and caging modern shamans, wearing shoes and clothes all the time, imbibing test tube chemicals (where the positive effects have been largely removed and negative/destructive effects remain or are emphasized) and watching TV for hours...

Also, there are no human mediators needed, ever.

The trick was to convince uneducated people that they were inherently evil, that they needed "saving" and only the mediator was, in fact, in direct communication with his holiness, God *him*self. (Christian theology is also well known for being used to subjugate women)

A malicious priesthood artificially placed between individuals and the direct experience of God which actually prevents them from experiencing it and only tries to control them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqW714IN0Cg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZpOXj6u78

 

[Nomad]

Nomad, I understand your point to be, “There is existence beyond awareness.”

To you this is BELIEF simply because you cannot be directly aware of what is beyond your awareness. To me it is SPECULATION.

Again, here is the difference, and I think the problem with you understanding it is because it is an idea your logic can not represent.

My IDEA that “There is existence beyond awareness.” my be a speculation, but that existence is not, either it IS or it ISN'T, independent of if I know for sure about it or not. I can think about this as Existence is superior to Knowingness. I can deal with this, as I admit to things superior to me. I do not insist that other take on my speculation, but irregardless of there belief, I think that existence will still have impact on their existence.

An small scale example, to perhaps help illuminate. You are deep in a building and an explosion happens. It may be that something has now blocked some of the exit routes, but from where you are now, you can not tell as currently you have no way to perceive this. You will need to speculate on what you think reality is, and likely act on that speculation. Irregardless of what you consider, those exits will or will not be blocked, so here we have a case of an existence that is at least temporarily beyond your awareness.

On another thought, an interesting question came to me. In your logic you have a Universe to observe that is assumed to have been created, and you have an Observer, did the Observer exist prior to the Universe being created, and if so, what was it, since it had nothing to Observe?

Björkist,
Interesting observation, I guess I am also a mystic Christian, as I believe I have no intermediatary between me and the Divine. My Church has no priests, or ministers that act as intermediaries. There are Teachers, but their function is NOT to tell the member what to believe, but to simply present what they have learned and ask the member to think about these and come to there own convictions about what is true.

One interesting though experement, if you are able to handle with it

 

[spbill]

What will that tell me?

Why you are such a lightweight! Read it!

Note the power of reasoning that nearly fifty years of immersion in Scientology and subsequent developments imparts.
Paul

We should not blame Scientology for the remark of one ex Scientologist any more than we should blame Christianity for the hurtful comments of Christians.
Bill

 

[spbill]

I'm starting to think that NO idea can be imparted on a message board without creating some misunderstanding, but I'm really glad that we are looking at this and talking about it (with more or less civility)!

Amen!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Jai Ma Mrs. Vinaire!

I sensed there was a guardian angel hovering over this thread Vin, (more than one, actually) but had no idea it was your sweet and very wise wife! So jai Rani Mrs. Vinaireji! Listen to her feedback, Vin, it's valuable to you!

I am o.k. so far with your bullet point break down for us, and have discovered that I am rejecting the observer role, as that seems to me to be about just looking, whereas I use perceiving, experiencing, sensing, appreciating, tasteing etc. (not to mention manifesting!!!) which seem to me to be more active roles, but I think in essence we are describing the same thing. I don't think it's a one way street. Something exists, we observe it. I think it exists in part because we are aware and interact with it, and we exist in part becasue it is aware and interacts with us. I am just responding to not wishing to be a passive observer of my life, the universe, or anything. I am a mover and a shaker...I am at cause in many, many ways. So it's hard for me to use the same language you use to describe the process of becoming aware and reaching for understanding, but I really do think we are on the same page here.

There are many layers to awareness, and some very subtle shifts can have powerful effects!

Bjorki, I hear what you are saying, and that has been true for much of Christian history and many Christians now. But not for all. It is not true for me, and Nomad has identified that is is not true of him and his church, so maybe we can acknowledge that both realities exist?

Many of us Christians are free within our religious beliefs, to explore, not bound by dogma, and are mystics. I myself have spent several years exploring and learning from Shamanism from four distinct different cultures, and yet have remained a Christian believer the whole while. I learned much that was good and true and useful from my experiences with Shamanism, it only enlarged my understanding. I am still a Christian in good standing, LOL! I am just one who seeks to understand, everything! I have nothing but love and respect for Shamans who practice what they know for the common greater good, and work within the light.

Roger, your thoughts and contributions to this thread are both wanted and needed. We just all have such different styles of speaking our minds. Vinnie respects you, which gives you an opportunity to reach him where others might not. Please stay with us here. Perhaps Vinnie was only trying to say, I didn't understand it, when he said look what happened with Roger. From our cultural point of view, those did seem like "fighting words"! I don't think he meant it that way.

I sense that we are all doing our best to communicate clearly and with respect and affinity for one another, and we will get better at this with practice! Let's keep going...

And this is a hard topic, it's not as if we're talking about buying new tires here! This is argueably the most challenging discussion topic there is!

So we're doing good, carry on, everyone!

Vin, you do seem to miss some of the subtle implications of negative criticism, which can mistakenly imply ill will, lead to confusions, misunderstandings, hurt feelings and frusteration. I am so glad that you are making an effort to be clear with your intentions, and continuing the conversation. We're doing fine so far!

Much Love to everyone, especially all the lurkers!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... “Honey, I wouldn’t know who I am unless I am doing such things,” ...

Maybe you should have a LOOK at that sometime during an idenics session.


Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

Sweetness, I'm here, keeping an eye on this

Vin, did you know you are married to an angel? Give her a big hug for us

I have a full plate for the moment, and since posts do take some thought and time if one is to be succinct and helpful, I've had to pause while I deal with my other stuff.

Rog

 

[spbill]

I'm starting to think that NO idea can be imparted on a message board without creating some misunderstanding, but I'm really glad that we are looking at this and talking about it (with more or less civility)!

What's really difficult is to describe some case phenomenon (to people who have that case) without restimulating it. In that respect LRH was a genius!
Bill

 

[Vinaire]

Again, here is the difference, and I think the problem with you understanding it is because it is an idea your logic can not represent.

My IDEA that “There is existence beyond awareness.” my be a speculation, but that existence is not, either it IS or it ISN'T, independent of if I know for sure about it or not. I can think about this as Existence is superior to Knowingness. I can deal with this, as I admit to things superior to me. I do not insist that other take on my speculation, but irregardless of there belief, I think that existence will still have impact on their existence.

An small scale example, to perhaps help illuminate. You are deep in a building and an explosion happens. It may be that something has now blocked some of the exit routes, but from where you are now, you can not tell as currently you have no way to perceive this. You will need to speculate on what you think reality is, and likely act on that speculation. Irregardless of what you consider, those exits will or will not be blocked, so here we have a case of an existence that is at least temporarily beyond your awareness.

On another thought, an interesting question came to me. In your logic you have a Universe to observe that is assumed to have been created, and you have an Observer, did the Observer exist prior to the Universe being created, and if so, what was it, since it had nothing to Observe?

Björkist,
Interesting observation, I guess I am also a mystic Christian, as I believe I have no intermediatary between me and the Divine. My Church has no priests, or ministers that act as intermediaries. There are Teachers, but their function is NOT to tell the member what to believe, but to simply present what they have learned and ask the member to think about these and come to there own convictions about what is true.

One interesting though experement, if you are able to handle with it

This argument is back to the idea of “source of creation.”

My logic accepts that if there is creation then there must be a “source of creation.” But that is as far as it goes. My logic says that the “source of creation” is unmanifested and indescribable. Anything said about it is a consideration generated by the OBSERVER. The OBSERVER then perceives that consideration.

My contention is that considerations, such as, “external,” “authority,” “superior,” etc. are all additives generated by the OBSERVER and attached to the “source of creation.”

My OBSERVER is also unmanifested and indescribable similar to the “source of creation.” Anything said about it is a consideration generated by the OBSERVER. The OBSERVER then perceives that consideration.

Hinduism posits that the “source of creation” and the “observer” are one and the same. All creation is MAYA. One is watching one’s own play; but out of ignorance one knows not.

.