KHTK Essays

[Vinaire]

KHTK 6A: COOPERATIVE APPLICATION

Probably the best way to get started with KHTK is to find a partner who is just as interested in applying the principles of KHTK as you are. You and your partner alternate as “student” and “guide.” You learn these principles by applying them to yourself when acting as a “student,” and applying them to your partner when acting as “guide.”


A. BEGIN WITH KHTK 1A

There are four short exercises in KHTK 1A that should not take more than a few minutes each. Do these exercises. The idea is to get familiarity with the following datum.

LOOKING DOES NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF ANY THOUGHTS ARISING IN THE MIND.

You may repeat these exercises and discuss the above datum with your partner until you feel satisfied. Make sure you clarify any inconsistencies that may come up.


B. CONTINUE WITH KHTK 1B

Understand that THINKING and LOOKING are two different activities. Each is important in its place. Thoughts and feelings arising in the mind may obscure what is there. Do the exercise in KHTK 1B is to overcome this. The idea is

SIMPLY DIFFERENTIATE WHATEVER IS THERE ONE FROM ANOTHER BY RECOGNIZING EACH IN ITSELF WITHOUT FURTHER ASSOCIATION.

You may do this exercise repeatedly until you are satisfied with the balance of THINKING and LOOKING in your routine activities.

.

 

[Leon]

I've had a few realisations on all this material that you post, Vin. Thought I'd share them with you. They come from my session of the night before last.

Firstly, the idea that before the beginning there was Static (in your own terms - Brahma, whatever) which had no beingness etc. I suppose you got this idea from the Hindu teachings - I see no necessity for it at all. As one approaches the origin and source of it all one goes pre-universe etc all the way - the idea that there was astate of "no-thing" which somehow became a postulator who started creating for the first time etc etc. This idea makes no allowance for how the no thing transformed into beingness. There is no methid of internal stimuls to trigger it nor any external stimuls nor indeed any stimulus at all. So how did it happen? And I'm not looking for a prior cause here, I'm looking for an origin of time and space.

The entire scenario of first I was nothing and then I suddenly was is steeped in implant and "Gods" "creating" us. Fact is, there is absolutely no need for postulating a state of nop-beingness as a prior state to beingness. What we could have is a system of higher harmonics of beingness etc which allow for further development in an infinite array of directions. None of this requires Time - since sequences are arbitrary and overlap and are possible in all directions (eliminating the arrow of Time). A fractal which goes through all dimensions of everything simultaneously. Our universe here being on in a series of directions which we happen to be focussing on.

But importantly - as with the food chain here on earth, so there is no top or bottom or start to the system I'm suggesting. The worm that devours my corpse is as much the top of the food chaain as is the bacteria that eats the worm. It's a cycle that turns through all dimensions of super-Time and super-Space simultaneously.

Second point. The space that we have here, that we call "space" came aboput through our shrinking away from our full beingness. At a high state we were the entire universe - that was the "body" that we had. It was our manifestation, our presence. As we denied parts of it ansd said "that's not me" we thereby created this perception of distance and seperation which eventually became the space we now have. present space is the aggregate of all beingnesses that we deny that we are.

More later.

 

[Vinaire]

I've had a few realisations on all this material that you post, Vin. Thought I'd share them with you. They come from my session of the night before last.

Firstly, the idea that before the beginning there was Static (in your own terms - Brahma, whatever) which had no beingness etc. I suppose you got this idea from the Hindu teachings - I see no necessity for it at all. As one approaches the origin and source of it all one goes pre-universe etc all the way - the idea that there was astate of "no-thing" which somehow became a postulator who started creating for the first time etc etc. This idea makes no allowance for how the no thing transformed into beingness. There is no methid of internal stimuls to trigger it nor any external stimuls nor indeed any stimulus at all. So how did it happen? And I'm not looking for a prior cause here, I'm looking for an origin of time and space.

The entire scenario of first I was nothing and then I suddenly was is steeped in implant and "Gods" "creating" us. Fact is, there is absolutely no need for postulating a state of nop-beingness as a prior state to beingness. What we could have is a system of higher harmonics of beingness etc which allow for further development in an infinite array of directions. None of this requires Time - since sequences are arbitrary and overlap and are possible in all directions (eliminating the arrow of Time). A fractal which goes through all dimensions of everything simultaneously. Our universe here being on in a series of directions which we happen to be focussing on.

But importantly - as with the food chain here on earth, so there is no top or bottom or start to the system I'm suggesting. The worm that devours my corpse is as much the top of the food chaain as is the bacteria that eats the worm. It's a cycle that turns through all dimensions of super-Time and super-Space simultaneously.

Second point. The space that we have here, that we call "space" came aboput through our shrinking away from our full beingness. At a high state we were the entire universe - that was the "body" that we had. It was our manifestation, our presence. As we denied parts of it ansd said "that's not me" we thereby created this perception of distance and seperation which eventually became the space we now have. present space is the aggregate of all beingnesses that we deny that we are.

More later.

This is going to be a quick response as I am on a break at work.

BEINGNESS = EXISTINGNESS
BEING = IDENTITY THAT EXISTS

To me the core of all illusion is identity and this includes the idea of BEING or SOUL or THETAN.

An identity (thetan, soul, being, etc.) is a thought package.

Underlying the identity is simply THOUGHT. Please see my essay on THE NATURE OF THOUGHT. THOUGHT has no identity. Nor does thought originate from some identity.

The biggest arbitrary is to assume an identity. Assumption of identity is just that. Underlying this action is UNKNOWABLE.

UNKNOWABLE is unknowable. There is no identity there. Please see my essay on THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Probably the best way to get started with KHTK is to find a partner who is just as interested in applying the principles of KHTK as you are. You and your partner alternate as “student” and “guide.” You learn these principles by applying them to yourself when acting as a “student,” and applying them to your partner when acting as “guide.”


A. BEGIN WITH KHTK 1A

There are four short exercises in KHTK 1A that should not take more than a few minutes each. Do these exercises. The idea is to get familiarity with the following datum.

LOOKING DOES NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF ANY THOUGHTS ARISING IN THE MIND.

You may repeat these exercises and discuss the above datum with your partner until you feel satisfied. Make sure you clarify any inconsistencies that may come up.


B. CONTINUE WITH KHTK 1B

Understand that THINKING and LOOKING are two different activities. Each is important in its place. Thoughts and feelings arising in the mind may obscure what is there. Do the exercise in KHTK 1B is to overcome this. The idea is

SIMPLY DIFFERENTIATE WHATEVER IS THERE ONE FROM ANOTHER BY RECOGNIZING EACH IN ITSELF WITHOUT FURTHER ASSOCIATION.

You may do this exercise repeatedly until you are satisfied with the balance of THINKING and LOOKING in your routine activities.

.

C. DO KHTK 1C & KHTK 1D

One’s expectations may create responses in the mind. It is important to differentiate such responses from the actual response, or absence of response, to a question. Do exercises 1-6 and 1-7 until you can make this differentiation.

THE ACTUAL RESPONSE TO A QUESTION APPEARS BY ITSELF AND QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY, AND NOT NECESSARILY IMMEDIATELY.

It is as if the mind is contacting you, rather than you contacting the mind. Here you also experience the roles of “student” and “guide” in actual cooperative application of KHTK. You need not convert what you look at into language to tell the guide. No analysis is needed.



D. REVIEW KHTK 1A TO KHTK 1F

Discuss anything that appears as an inconsistency to you and sort it out thoroughly.


E. DO KHTK 2A

The exercises 2-1 to 2-5 are quite a fun to do. You may do them alone or with a partner guiding you. The idea is to get familiarity with the following datum.

UNCONDITIONAL EXPERIENCING IS THE SAME THING AS LOOKING MORE DEEPLY.

You may do these exercises as long and as often as you like. Discuss the above datum with your partner until you feel satisfied. Make sure you clarify any inconsistencies that may come up.


.

 

[Leon]

You have it wrong. BEING does not equal an IDENTITY THAT EXISTS. There is beingness without any identity at all. It mainfests when one is 'being all'.

Further - the claims you make for certain aspects of it all being UNKNOWABLE should be prefaced or qualified by stating that it only unknowable while one is insisting upon clinging to a lower viewpoint.

One can know everything and anything and also any no-thing etc etc. To know it one needs merely to fully be it. (The word/concept of 'knowing' actually does not make any sense in this situation)

 

[Vinaire]

You have it wrong. BEING does not equal an IDENTITY THAT EXISTS. There is beingness without any identity at all. It mainfests when one is 'being all'.

Further - the claims you make for certain aspects of it all being UNKNOWABLE should be prefaced or qualified by stating that it only unknowable while one is insisting upon clinging to a lower viewpoint.

One can know everything and anything and also any no-thing etc etc. To know it one needs merely to fully be it. (The word/concept of 'knowing' actually does not make any sense in this situation)

We simply differ.

In my opinion any manifestation or beingness can be known and identified. This is plain obvious. It cannot be any other way. This is where Hubbard threw the curve by misdefining "beingness" and deviated from Buddhism. Maybe this is where Western thinking differs from Eastern thinking even at the genetic level.

My understanding is clearly laid out in the essays on my blog.

.

 

[Vinaire]

You have it wrong. BEING does not equal an IDENTITY THAT EXISTS. There is beingness without any identity at all. It mainfests when one is 'being all'.

Further - the claims you make for certain aspects of it all being UNKNOWABLE should be prefaced or qualified by stating that it only unknowable while one is insisting upon clinging to a lower viewpoint.

One can know everything and anything and also any no-thing etc etc. To know it one needs merely to fully be it. (The word/concept of 'knowing' actually does not make any sense in this situation)

Anything being is EXISTING, no matter at what level.
Anything existing is KNOWABLE, no matter at what level.
Anything knowable is SOMETHING, no matter at what level.
Any SOMETHING has the characteristics of space-energy-matter and time, no matter at what level.

.

 

[Vinaire]

You have it wrong. BEING does not equal an IDENTITY THAT EXISTS. There is beingness without any identity at all. It mainfests when one is 'being all'.

...

Beingness means EXISTINGNESS.

Anything being is existing as SOMETHING. That "something" is the identity.

When one is "being all," the identity is "being all." It is the identification with the consideration of "being all."

Hubbard said,

"The most common confusion on the part of a preclear is between himself as an identified object and his beingness."

This is a remarkable statement of self-contradiction. What is a person's true beingness? Hubbard never defines it. He simply says,

Space is not necessary to the beingness of a thetan when the thetan is above the tone level of 40.0 and can create space at will. He creates space to have specific beingness. At 40.0 space and beingness can be considered to be interchangeable. Beingness can exist without any energy or matter, which is to say, without time.

If beingness above 40.0 is some ability that is yet to be manifested as "space" then how can that potential ability be associated with some preclear? It is just a potential and that's it. It cannot be identified to some preclear or to one thetan as opposed to another thetan.

Above 40.0 what differentiates one thetan from another thetan?

What does "existence" beyond space mean? What is this higher dimension? It seems to be just some speculation at best.

And that is THOUGHT. Please see,

Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT

A thetan is a "knowable", which is created by THOUGHT, just like GOD is created.

These are just labels used to identify the UNKNOWABLE. Thought itself is UNKNOWABLE.

Identification labels are knowables.

Just by giving labels you don't really make the UNKNOWABLE known. You only make the labels known.

Hubbard simply created some new labels.

.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Anything being is EXISTING, no matter at what level.
Anything existing is KNOWABLE, no matter at what level.
Anything knowable is SOMETHING, no matter at what level.
Any SOMETHING has the characteristics of space-energy-matter and time, no matter at what level.

.

I have to disagree on that last line unless you wish to define a SOMETHING as that which is made of MEST.

I am SOMETHING, but I am not MEST.

I just have to comment that your use of UNKNOWABLE irks me, every time I see you use it I want to substitute the word UNKNOWN in its place. Just because something is UNKNOWN does not make it UNKNOWABLE. If you restrict your meaning to MEST universe detection, well fine, but I don't think you are restricting it in such a fashion, are you?

The BACKGROUND is NOT UNKNOWABLE! It is BACKGROUND. There IS a background. To me that means we know about it, don't we? IS implies exits. Insistence on MEST is rather silly. Why this insistence that for something to EXIST it must be MEST? We've got a background. Now just because you cannot assign known qualities to it other than "background" still doesn't mean it is unknowable nor even that it doesn't exist. You can assign it at least one quality - "container of universe, (background)". To say one cannot know more than that about it EVER is pushing it a bit. Especially when I/We might very well be said container (and I do believe that to be the case)

Yabadabadoo

 

[PirateAndBum]

You EXIST right? Is your conscience experience a process taking place inside this universe?

Homer's "The Proof" is a brilliant piece of work.

http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/

(the Valentine's Day links on that page give a very nice explanation of things.)

and http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/cgi/show.cgi?lcc-scalar shows how you can have this universe inside a zero-dimensional container. Quite lovely.

 

[Vinaire]

I have to disagree on that last line unless you wish to define a SOMETHING as that which is made of MEST.

I am SOMETHING, but I am not MEST.

I just have to comment that your use of UNKNOWABLE irks me, every time I see you use it I want to substitute the word UNKNOWN in its place. Just because something is UNKNOWN does not make it UNKNOWABLE. If you restrict your meaning to MEST universe detection, well fine, but I don't think you are restricting it in such a fashion, are you?

The BACKGROUND is NOT UNKNOWABLE! It is BACKGROUND. There IS a background. To me that means we know about it, don't we? IS implies exits. Insistence on MEST is rather silly. Why this insistence that for something to EXIST it must be MEST? We've got a background. Now just because you cannot assign known qualities to it other than "background" still doesn't mean it is unknowable nor even that it doesn't exist. You can assign it at least one quality - "container of universe, (background)". To say one cannot know more than that about it EVER is pushing it a bit. Especially when I/We might very well be said container (and I do believe that to be the case)

Yabadabadoo

This is a very interesting response. Looks like we have Hubbard’s misunderstoods for MEST in play here.

There is thought “MEST” also. As far as I understand, we are made of MEST at thought level.

What can SOMETHING be made up of other than MEST?

Did anybody raise their hand?

Yabadabadoo

.

 

[Leon]

The statement by LRH that "The most common confusion on the part of a preclear is between himself as an identified object and his beingness." makes complete sense to me. Nothing confusing about it.

 

[PirateAndBum]

"Life is a spiritual quality. It has four basic abilities:

1. It can bring things into existence.
2. It can take things out of existence.
3. It can know.
4. It can not-know.

​

These actions are accomplished by postulates. A postulate is a causative consideration. That which is brought into existence, taken out of existence, known or not-known is called an effect.

1. The purpose of bringing an effect into existence is to make it known.
2. The purpose of taking an effect out of existence is to make it not-known.
3. The purpose of knowing is to know.
4. The purpose of not-knowing is to not know.​

The four basic actions of life each have a twin postulate structure:

1. The postulate bringing the effect into existence, and the postulate that it shall be known.
2. The postulate taking the effect out of existence, and the postulate that it shall be made not-known.
3. The postulate to know the effect and the postulate that it shall be made known.
4. The postulate to not-know the effect and the postulate that it shall be made not-known.
​

"
TROM - Dennis Stephens pg 19-20

"There Can be nothing outside of the AllThatIs!

Space and time look like they are outside of you, but in fact they are inside you. There is more space and time inside you than could ever be dreamed to be outside." - Homer W Smith

With TROM and Homer's "The Proof" the adventure is on!

V, TROM's methods and your KHTK are quite well-aligned.

I'm so happy I'm out!!!!!

 

[PirateAndBum]

This is a very interesting response. Looks like we have Hubbard’s misunderstoods for MEST in play here.

There is thought “MEST” also. As far as I understand, we are made of MEST at thought level.

What can SOMETHING be made up of other than MEST?
.

Well, no misunderstanding here. I've just used it as a shortcut to typing, you have been talking about our space-time universe using the words matter, energy space and time, MEST is just a short-cut.

And no, I don't think thought(by which I mean postulation or just plain thinking about something) is made of space-time. How can that which creates space-time be made of space-time? space-time IS a massively complex set of NOW postulates. We seem to have quite a knack for keeping enumerable balls in the air. God is a juggler. hehe

My current understanding of the way things are is: This time-space universe is a 4D projection of a zero-dimensional entity we call God which is who we are a part, the One-That-Is-Many.

Thought-MEST... too messy a concept for me. I prefer simplicities

What is watching the thoughts? What is looking at(experiencing) your conscience experience?

Can the watcher be seen?

Namaste

 

[Vinaire]

The statement by LRH that "The most common confusion on the part of a preclear is between himself as an identified object and his beingness." makes complete sense to me. Nothing confusing about it.

What you are caling "himself" is already a result of identification. Of course, there can be layers of further identification, but you are already starting with an identification in "himself" or "thetan."

"Himself" is the result of identification with thought. "Thetan" is the result of identification with thought.

.

 

[PirateAndBum]

What you are caling "himself" is already a result of identification. Of course, there can be layers of further identification, but you are already starting with an identification in "himself" or "thetan."

"Himself" is the result of identification with thought. "Thetan" is the result of identification with thought.

.

Who or what is doing all this identifying with thought?

Who be doing all this here thinking around this here place?

 

[PirateAndBum]

A process for you

"Spot thought-source."

thought-source: that from which thought arises/manifests.

Note: This is not asking for a prior cause; where the thought is causally related to some effect. It is asking you to spot Who/What manifests thought. I.e. a rock smashing on your foot is not the source of your thought "#$%^!!!"

Once you're happy with that.

Who is observing this thought-source?

Can this observer be yet observed?


When you are dreaming, who is experiencing the dream? What is lighting your dream? Are photons lighting the objects you see in your dream?

Consciousness is self-luminous.

 

[Vinaire]

Who or what is doing all this identifying with thought?

Who be doing all this here thinking around this here place?

The question, "Who or what is doing all this identifying with thought?" is based on the assumption that there should be a "who" or a "what" in the first place. It is an arbitrary assumption.

This is the most basic conditioning that there is.

.

 

[Vinaire]

For awareness to be there, there must be something to be aware of even if that something is a vague sense of "self".

Anything that is sensed has to have some dimensions, even if they are vague, otherwise it cannot be sensed.

Anything with dimensions is SPACE, no matter how vague or flimsy it is. Even Hubbard equated awareness with space. The above sequence provides an expalanation for it.

Energy is simply a play in the "fabric" of space. Thus, any play of awareness would be ENERGY at this flimsiest of levels.

As energy gets fixed into a structure as in "standing waves" we have MATTER. Thus, a relatively fixed structure of awareness that is perceived as "self" would be an example of MATTER at this flimsiest of levels.

How this space-energy-matter system called "I" behaves would produce the flimsiest of TIME in which this "I" would persist.

So there is your emergence of MEST as "thought MEST."

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

I am SOMETHING, but I am not MEST.

...

Could please explain that staement further? What are you defining as MEST? What is your definition of SPACE?

I find such statements to be speculations, or self-gereated beliefs, with which an identification exists. This identification produces a structure.

And so we have a thetan.

.