Mocking Things Up - Hubbard's Failure

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
Re: 8-8008 Defined

My all time favorite piece of zen commentary by D. T. Suzuki

http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/suzuki.shtml

Mysticism Defined by D.T. Suzuki

<snip>


8. Momentariness.
"Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori.



Thanks for the Suzuki material, Hats. Not having read this before, I find it gratifying, in a sense, in that this states my own experience of "it," for which I'd not had a descriptive name or label as such. It is exactly this which lays bare the common fallacy behind the mistaken notion of a "permanent," lasting personal enlightenment for which so many strive* in vain, until or unless they experience, and accept their experience of, that to which the label satori points.

*(including myself up to the point of experiencing this same realization not so long ago)
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I have had about 10 such "satori" experiences this life.

Two in my early twenties, in college, once on very strong LSD and once with powderized Psilocybin mushrooms.

Once, while on a 3-day meditation retreat in 1976.

The rest as a result of auditing or TR0.

With the Scientology versions, it would always occur at the end of some process, and I suddenly, very quickly, and often intensely, found myself "blown out". This NEVER came on gradually, and was always like a "smack in the face" (in a good way). "Thinkingness" on any human mental level always ceased entirely. All "talking to self" in my head stopped completely. The best way I can describe it is that I suddenly found myself "there", with nothing else other than "looking out around me through the eyes of the body". Part of that was it felt like I was "seeing the world around me for the first time".

Now, it was ONLY the time that it happened in meditation (TM) that really was "beyond words". I was on a 3-day retreat in the mountains of western Massachusetts, meditating 4 times each day, no talking, very quiet space. Suddenly it was like I "saw it all", past, present, future, how "it all works", how "it is all connected", and on and on. It was like cramming 1000 years of perceptions into a few seconds. I wasn't "thinking about anything really", was deep in meditation, and it just happened. BANG! It was very cool, and it sticks out in my memory as THE EXPERIENCE. There is very little significance attached to that even to this day.

On the Scientology experiences, they are/were probably something else, though a few were very EXTREME, and they were always very abrupt. Usually when such "blow outs" occurred, I completely "forgot" and lost "all attention" on whatever I had been "running". Sometimes I would try to "locate" whatever I had been running, even as an idea, and I couldn't do it. My realm of "thnkingness" had vanished. I couldn't "think a thought" if I tried to. My attention was totally aimed OUT, and I had no choice in the matter. Also, it felt VERY GOOD. Not like a drug, or exciting or anything, just SERENE, CALM and peaceful. Quiet. I would simply look out at the dance of life, and it was all good. Also, I didn't want to "do anything" while in these "wins". I wanted to simply "be there and watch" all around me. I had no interest in "participating". To me the terms "win" and "gain" are inappropriate. That is a trick of Hubbard's to call such experiences "wins" or "gains". Of course, Hubbard HAD to present these states as things ONLY attainable by Scientology, "Scientology wins", "Scientology gains", because if he ackwoledged that such states occurred EVERYWHERE in other practices, he would have abandoned a key notion of the Scientology trap (that ONLY WE CAN DO IT).

I think that this description might be very appropriate to Scn:

"Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori."

Scientology pushes the idea of "permanent gains". I NEVER found that ANY of these states "lasted forever", and I ALWAYS "came down from the high", though there did seem to be some leftover attitude or view that stayed, with the result that I was different in some positive way. It may be a VERY major flaw of Scientology to present the "spiritual gain" path as some ever-ascending climb up a hill. If Suzuki is correct, then the notion of "permanent gain" is somewhat incorrect. I know friends who have stated that they want to "stabilize" that "blown out" condition they remember form the Grades or Life Repair. They haven't, but they still want to.

For instance, I blew out on some processes on Grade One. I felt great. The feeling great had NOTHING to do with "being able to communicate with anyone on any subject", but because I felt so great and had been doing Grade Zero, well, of course I was sent to attest. The same with MANY other Scn processes. The association of abilities with this state of being blown out may be VERY incorrect.

I still have the theory that this is what occurs with ANY Scn process that gives the "big blow out". One is focusing attention on a specific incident or thought or idea. One continues to focus attention. The attention becomes "singular" and one's attention is not anywhere else. The focus is tight and limited to a small area. Suddenly the incident or idea VANISHES, and you are left with NOTHING. Except you and your own awareness. THAT sudden finding of yourself with the "mystic emptiness" provides the temporary feeling of "blow out". When one is focused on something, completely, and to the exclusion of all else, and that something suddenly vanishes, AND if you remain in that focus, WHAM, it is not unlike a mystical experience. Of course, Hubbard calls it something else and wraps it up with all sorts of Scio-significance.

There is no doubt that such experiences affect you, but calling such experiences "gains" seems incorrect to me. Also, it mattered little WHAT I was running as a process in Scn. When the "blow out" came it was like any other "blow out", and all significance to WHAT had been run entirely vanished.

I remember telling the D of P in an interview after one of the BIGGEST blow outs that "there is nothing better than THIS". "This is it". This was fairly early on in my Scn career. I felt no need or desire to do anything else in Scn. But, they then convinced me that the state was only "temporary" and that "Scn can make it permanent". Maybe such states are ALWAYS temporary, and they can NEVER be "permanent", possibly unless one masters full control of one's own mind and space through extensive meditations and concentration drills. Note: For me, in such states, I had very little care or concern to "get out and play ANY game of life". I was fully happy and content just "being there quietly watching everything around me".

To a degree I now live that way much of the time. But I did not get there through any application of Scientology.
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I would guess that in order to overwhelm the prevailing reality currently extant in the universe, one would have to be in charge of it.

It's one thing to be captain of ones' own ship and quite another to be able to remake the entirety of prevaiing reality which includes physics.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Here's a funny humorous song (Star Trekkin') ; its lyrics seem apropos:

(I do like this thread and am not trying to make less of it. I just think these lyrics kind of play in to what we're discussing)

Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward 'cause we can't find reverse.

Lt. Uhura, report.
There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jim.

Analysis, Mr. Spock.
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.


There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jim.

Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward, still can't find reverse.

Medical update, Dr. McCoy.
It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead, Jim;
it's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.


It's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jim.

Starship Captain, James T. Kirk:
Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
we come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men.

It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead, Jim;
it's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.

Well, it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape 'em off, Jim.

Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward, and things are getting worse!

Engineer, Mr. Scott:
Ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics;
ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.


Ah! We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;
we come in peace, shoot to kill; Scotty, beam me up!

It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead, Jim;
it's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.

Well, it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
it's life, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain.

There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;
there's Klingons on the starboard bow, better calm down!

Ye cannot change the script Jim.
Och, #!*& Jimmy.

It's worse than that, it's physics, Jim.

Bridge to engine room, warp factor 9.

Och, if I give it any more she'll blow, Cap'n!

Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward 'cause we can't find reverse.

Star Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward, still can't find reverse.
 
Re: 8-8008 Defined

... with Rons deep understanding in hypnotism, i cant see how it was anything but a grand plan of deception. ...

Correlation is not causation.

Much of what occurred early on in the church was driven by chance & random circumstances. Hubbard had more than enough, ... ahem ..., 'complexity' of character to rule out the prospect of any simple interpretation of his motives. He was an oddity and the environment in the early days was clearly not something which allowed for the implementation of 'master plans'. That sort of complexity of consideration is much more in keeping with what happened in the church after the creation of the SO.


Mark A. Baker
 
... I think that this description might be very appropriate to Scn:

"Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori."

Scientology pushes the idea of "permanent gains". I NEVER found that ANY of these states "lasted forever", and I ALWAYS "came down from the high", though there did seem to be some leftover attitude or view that stayed, with the result that I was different in some positive way. It may be a VERY major flaw of Scientology to present the "spiritual gain" path as some ever-ascending climb up a hill. ...

I don't see it as a 'coming down' but of establishing a new 'normal'. The novelty wears off, just as if one were attending a new college, or moving to a new town. The changes remain but the attitudes shift so that things seem almost if they have always been that way.


... If Suzuki is correct, then the notion of "permanent gain" is somewhat incorrect. ...

No. I find that the gain is permanent, the momentary experience of the 'high' is not. The high reflects the transition to a new state and not the state itself.

Also, sometimes its not exactly clear what has altered. As change often involves the falling away of unconsidered ideas & attitudes, that is not surprising. Often the attitude wasn't even noticed until the session where it vanishes, and sometimes not even intellectually then.


... I know friends who have stated that they want to "stabilize" that "blown out" condition they remember form the Grades or Life Repair. They haven't, but they still want to. ...

That's just 'chasing the high'. Joni Mitchell once made a remark in response to a fan's request for her to write another song just like the fan's favorite by her, it was in the vein of you can never write the same song twice. Same with cognitions, insights, 'blow outs', & satori.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding foolish, I have a comment Gadfly - have you ever considered you achieved Hubbards infinity when you achieved Santori? If you had achieved being infinite, you wouldn't have a stake in any game, and so looking at life would /could be an expression of it, could it not?:eyeroll:

If you had created (or co-created) the game, why wouldn't you kick back and enjoy watching it?

Just sayin'.....

Mimsey
(I realize Hub tossed in a lot of other baggage into the infinity state, but taken in it's simplicity...)
 

Gadfly

Crusader
At the risk of sounding foolish, I have a comment Gadfly - have you ever considered you achieved Hubbards infinity when you achieved Santori? If you had achieved being infinite, you wouldn't have a stake in any game, and so looking at life would /could be an expression of it, could it not?:eyeroll:

If you had created (or co-created) the game, why wouldn't you kick back and enjoy watching it?

Just sayin'.....

Mimsey
(I realize Hub tossed in a lot of other baggage into the infinity state, but taken in it's simplicity...)

As I see it, your statements in the first sentence betray a bit of confusion on this subject as a result of having accepted Hubbard's terms and definitions. So, let me first discuss Hubbard's ideas, and connect them up somewhat consistently (since they really aren't consistent).

Hubbard came up with the "dynamics". The Eighth dynamic is defined as "the urge to existence as infinity". Or, the "urge to survive as infinity". Hubbard talks very little of "infinity itself". At no place does Hubbard say the thetan "is infinite". He does say that a THETAN has URGES to "survive" or "exist" as various forms and ideas along the dynamics. Urges! Compulsions! Out-of-control desires that run rampant. There is nothing "good" or "useful" about ANY of these "urges". It really kills me how Hubbard slipped this by so many people. One doesn't "get audited" or "expand out" into the dynamics, not as a way to attain any sort of spiritual freedom, one must ERADICATE all of these urges or desires, or in other words, DISCARD THE DYNAMICS. Please realize that any "dynamic" does NOT signify some "area of life", but an URGE TO SURVIVE AS SOME AREA OF LIFE. MANY Scios make that error. Many. Very many. Far too many. Of course, Hubbard did nothing to dissuade anyone from accepting that notion.

If there is some "primary and basic pool of Theta", from which all "thetans" have their source or grounding, and if one conceives of "infinity" as "God", where God IS the "primary pool of Theta", then "surviving as God" seems kinda dumb (to me). REALLY dumb. See, Hubbard contradicts himself greatly on the 8th dynamic. It will come down to how any person defines "God" and "Infinity", because Hubbard defines the 8th dynamic BOTH as "the urge to survive as infinity", the "urge to exist as God". He calls the 8th dynamic the "God dynamic". The notion of infinity involves "endless quantity". It relates to and hinges on the limited - without the notion of "limited", the notion of "unlimited" would make no sense. But, "God" is beyond it all (as a concept and possibly as an actuality).

I view "God" as the actual source of all-that-is. I am not quite delusional enough to imagine that I myself am the actual SOURCE of the whole shebang (like many Scios who somehow imagine that they all got together and "agreed" the Universe into existence - the Factors nonsense) , though I do grasp that I AM the source of MY OWN universe. I view each separate viewpoint as a "tentacle" of God, or each thetan as a "tentacle" of "Theta". To me, "Theta" IS "God". The notion of a "theta universe" is idiotic. To me, Hubbard simply defines and relates these ideas incorrectly.

Hubbard's notion is to EXPAND one's universe OUT into infinity. From the viewpoint of various eastern philosophies, THAT is ass-backwards, and wrong. One opens up to infinity by LETTING GO of one's own universe. You don't expand - you need to contract. Because, it is only by letting go of this temporary, limited, and current "personal universe" that one can get a glimpse of THAT PERSONAL AWARENESS UNDERNEATH that CREATED the "self" universe in the first place. And, the dynamics of how "your awareness" relates to all the CONTENT of your awareness is similar to how "God" relates to the "big universe" (physical, and all others). In that regard, the Bible seems correct, and you WERE "made in the image of God". In how "pure awareness and unmanifested creativity relate to the things of creation and the manifest".

Most definitions of infinity involve mathematics, but in the simplest terms it means, "unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity; boundless". Of course, WHAT does that MEAN? What REALITY or THINGIE does it refer to? Outside of words and ideas? There is NO part of the physical universe that is boundless, or having unlimited time, space or quantity. There is nothing any of us can experience or observe OUT THERE that can provide an EXAMPLE of this IDEA. It is largely just an IDEA that people entertain as a significance. But, WHAT does it point to? As some "actual anything"? The ONLY thing it can point to is THAT which creates and imagines everything else into existence. Universal Mind, God, Theta, Static, Infinite Potential. And, that exists, again only as an idea, EXCEPT and UNTIL one has the direct experience through some mystical experience.

I never WANTED to "achieve" Hubbard's "infinity". What that means, exactly, is that "me", as a limited viewpoint, as a thetan, will somehow imagine myself to "survive as boundlessness". What? ANY surviving anything is limited and bound. There is no way to EXIST AS or SURVIVE as "infinity". It is simply a STUPID IDEA. Let it go. It is pure nonsense. But, THAT is Scientology.

You might IMAGINE that one is "surviving as infinity", but really, the ONLY way to "be God" is to abandon all ideas of self as a separate thingie - as a "thetan". One of Hubbard's main errors, as I see it, was coming up with the notion of some "eternal thetan", where all "thetans" together comprise "the theta universe". I see it that every thetan is simply a temporary, limited aspect of the ONE awareness known as God. I could be wrong.

Nothing can "survive as infinity". It is an oxymoron per Hubbard's own definitions. Anything that "survives" is doing so as part of the cycle of action: create - survive - destroy. "Survive" is the middle aspect. But, anything that survives eventually changes and dies. The ONLY thing that might be thought of as continuing forever is that which sets all cycles into motion. And, who knows, even THAT might be changing and evolving itself.

One doesn't achieve "spiritual gain" by "being infinite", one achieves it by losing any concern for manifesting as ANY part of anything of the Universe (physical and mental). Trying to talk about such things is nuts really, because we look around and see quantity, limited quantity, and then we create an IDEA, in our heads, called boundlessness, which doesn't "exist anywhere", and which we IMAGINE to have some reference to something actual.

The ONLY boundless "thing" is that which lies underneath and below all existence of any type, on any dynamic, which is the pure awareness and creativity of SPIRIT. And, the only way that infinity might make sense is as that POTENTIAL OF CREATIVITY RESIDING IN EACH OF US and which directly connects us to the source of all-that-is. For instance, your ability to imagine is basically unbound. You CAN imagine whatever you want. The POTENTIAL for creativity may be "infinite".

Spiritual realization is BEYOND all existence. It is beyond "being" (doing and having). It is the SOURCE of all of these things.

I don't have a stake in any game. I do sit back and enjoy it.

"Satori is sometimes loosely used interchangeably with kensho, but kensho refers to the first perception of the Buddha-Nature or True-Nature, sometimes referred to as "awakening." Distinct from kensho, which is not a permanent realization but a clear glimpse of the true nature of existence, satori is used to refer to a "deep" or lasting realization of the nature of existence.

Satori in the Zen tradition does not actually happen to an individual, rather it is a realization out of all concepts including the individual. Practitioners of Zen Buddhism, however, work to realize the true nature of existence. The student's mind often must be prepared by rigorous study, with the use of koans, and with meditation to clear the mind of all attachments to the physical world."


The "nature of existence" is BEYOND any dynamic. The spirit is nothing, other than pure potential to create in a boundless manner. The ground of all being, as pure spirit, might be thought of as "infinite" in that it contains all possibilities, but outside of THAT, "infinity" is ONLY an IDEA. And, as with all IDEAS, on the path to Buddhahood, one must let it too go.

Also, I don't know or consider that I achieved "Satori". I had some experiences that sort of had similarities to it. I am not an expert on Zen.

Lastly, with words, try to consider WHAT they actually POINT TO, as something real or actual. What reality does the word or idea aim to define or describe. I find it very difficult at times to find realities that I can view, outside of my imagination, when it comes to Hubbard's terms and words. Granted, that is also true with almost ANY "religion" and many philosophies.

One might have a desire or urge to achieve "inifnite awareness" or "god consciousness", and that desire might keep someone going until one eventually achieves it, at which point one MUST also allow the desire itself to fade. From the viewpoint of Buddhism, all urges and desires to "exist as" or "survive as" anything along any "dynamic" must go. What does the desiring? This phantasm called the "personal ego". This imaginary "thetan". If Scientology had any validity to it at all, it would act to help eradicate these CONSIDERATIONS & AGREEMENTS along each of the dynamics that keep these personal desires and urges alive. Seriously aiming to "flourish and prosper", while great for yuppies and many "normal people", is NOT part of ANY legitimate path to "spiritual awakening". As long as there is ANY "desire" or "urge" to "exist or survive as anything", as separate from all-that-is, as some "part" of any manifested "cycle" in ANY universe, then clear perception of "spirit" will remain impossible. Some may disagree. And, I may be wrong.

The above is highly "theoretical" involving primarly the IDEAS from various views. Though I have quite an abundance of experiences that indicate to me that the notions of Buddhism are closest to "the truth". All I "know" is that when I let "myself go", "all is well". The above is just "one way" of viewing this. I almost added a large addition, because I immediately entertained quite different ways of viewing some of this. :confused2:
 
Last edited:
Top