Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Some uses of the word "God" represent additives to the concept of BRAHMA.
Not all.
Not even all uses of God within the Abrahamic traditions.
God has no religion.
Neither does Brahma.
On the Subject of Knowledgism
- Thread starter RogerB
- Start date
Some uses of the word "God" represent additives to the concept of BRAHMA.
Not all.
Not even all uses of God within the Abrahamic traditions.
God has no religion.
Neither does Brahma.
Vinaire
Sponsor
Some thoughts from what Roger quoted:
Various models, such as those in Scientology, or in Knowledgism, come about in response to handling certain type of situations. The more specific a model is, the more specific is the situation it is designed to handle. Also, the more specific a model is the more assumptions it makes about the condition of the client, and directs the client accordingly.
The more brittle something is the more it shatters when impacted. Brittleness comes from rigidness and lack of flexibility.
Nothing can precede time, because the very idea of proceeding starts with the idea of time. Nothing can precede space because the very idea of awareness starts with space.
Infinitude has nothing to do with size. It has to do with limitlessness.
One may only speculate why some original intention or desire arose; but that is just a waste of time.
.
Various models, such as those in Scientology, or in Knowledgism, come about in response to handling certain type of situations. The more specific a model is, the more specific is the situation it is designed to handle. Also, the more specific a model is the more assumptions it makes about the condition of the client, and directs the client accordingly.
The more brittle something is the more it shatters when impacted. Brittleness comes from rigidness and lack of flexibility.
Nothing can precede time, because the very idea of proceeding starts with the idea of time. Nothing can precede space because the very idea of awareness starts with space.
Infinitude has nothing to do with size. It has to do with limitlessness.
One may only speculate why some original intention or desire arose; but that is just a waste of time.
.
RogerB
Crusader
HOWZIS?
Vin,
No, not invalidated. I consider you too good a friend and too much a gentleman to be invalidated by you. Just that I was being a little more demonstrative than the last time we had this conversation about “my beliefs.”
You see, it is perfectly wonderful that we do and can exchange views on all this; but we have a lot of readers following what we write, and my feeling is that what is stated should be characterized correctly for the benefit of those readers. That is why I strongly emphasized the distinction between what I have experienced and done as fact versus belief.
Certainly, I am not vain enough to expect others to accept as truth what I write merely because it is written, but what I do personally insist on is that it be correctly characterized so that others can properly deal with what is presented.
You see, I on occasion refer in my writings to my “my current view (of the point in discussion),” or “my opinion is,” or “from what I can currently see, my feeling is,” and such. These distinguish my opinions and beliefs from my findings of observable experience and fact that I invite others to investigate.
It is an important point, I feel. It enables folks to proceed on a proper basis after reading what is written.
Of course, and that is why we can enjoy our chats—and which would be far more fun and accurate in the flesh—and which others, it seems, also get a kick out of.
Ah, yes, our Albert E.
I too have a scientific background and nature. Apart from my early efforts in biology, and the functioning of the human body due to my interest as a trained athlete, my real love is physics (and relating it to the spiritual interface and derivation).
And in that vein one should look at a little of the history of the subject of physics and the point of change following the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s theories, and subsequent tests thereof. (I write about it in one of my books.)
By the way, Einstein got his Nobel for the “discovery” that light was composed of discrete quanta with mass. Guess who first stated light was composed of discrete particulates? Our friend Newton, even though he also is famous for having demonstrated a wave form of light and that sunlight is composed of a spectrum of different colored lights.
Actually, this post will get a little too long if I get into this subject here . . . . we’ve got to consider poor ol’ Paul’s scrolling finger . . . . .
What I’ll do is do a write up on the Einstein point of change in physics, and the fact that both the Russians (1970) and the US Geological Survey and US Navy (1956?) etc all have disproved Einstein’s assertion that the speed of light is a constant. Though it’s true others have shown with different experiments that, in certain circumstances, the theory holds true.
I’ll post it over on your “Oh, God!” thread where it will sit better with your dissertations on this issue.
As above I don’t. And you are a gentleman for caring that I might be.
Vin, my friend, I totally dig your viewpoint, actually. I’ve been there
As to “emotions” . . . nah, “your stand” doesn’t cause such
I dig your position and view of things and, you’ll notice, I’ve not tried to counter or characterize it . . . . I’ve only simply put an additional or alternative statement of perceptions and knowledge there for consideration.
In one of his write-ups and lectures, Alan actually gives a neat exposition on emotion: E for the effort needed to be added to get or keep an idea or communication in motion across to another, or to keep (oneself) in motion in the pursuit of an intention when being impeded. . . i.e., to get and/or keep something in motion to its destination or outcome one often has to add effort. This equals E for effort plus motion = Emotion.
I think if I reword this, you’ll find we’re actually in accord on a point
What if I said: BRAHMA exists, but has not manifested anything. Its act of manifesting brings into being changes of conditions of existence.
Of course, the big question is: Who or what is BRAHMA!
Howzat, gentlemen of the gallery of observers?
Rog
Vin,
No, not invalidated. I consider you too good a friend and too much a gentleman to be invalidated by you. Just that I was being a little more demonstrative than the last time we had this conversation about “my beliefs.”
You see, it is perfectly wonderful that we do and can exchange views on all this; but we have a lot of readers following what we write, and my feeling is that what is stated should be characterized correctly for the benefit of those readers. That is why I strongly emphasized the distinction between what I have experienced and done as fact versus belief.
Certainly, I am not vain enough to expect others to accept as truth what I write merely because it is written, but what I do personally insist on is that it be correctly characterized so that others can properly deal with what is presented.
You see, I on occasion refer in my writings to my “my current view (of the point in discussion),” or “my opinion is,” or “from what I can currently see, my feeling is,” and such. These distinguish my opinions and beliefs from my findings of observable experience and fact that I invite others to investigate.
It is an important point, I feel. It enables folks to proceed on a proper basis after reading what is written.
Vinaire said:
Of course, and that is why we can enjoy our chats—and which would be far more fun and accurate in the flesh—and which others, it seems, also get a kick out of.
Vinaire said:
Ah, yes, our Albert E.
I too have a scientific background and nature. Apart from my early efforts in biology, and the functioning of the human body due to my interest as a trained athlete, my real love is physics (and relating it to the spiritual interface and derivation).
And in that vein one should look at a little of the history of the subject of physics and the point of change following the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s theories, and subsequent tests thereof. (I write about it in one of my books.)
By the way, Einstein got his Nobel for the “discovery” that light was composed of discrete quanta with mass. Guess who first stated light was composed of discrete particulates? Our friend Newton, even though he also is famous for having demonstrated a wave form of light and that sunlight is composed of a spectrum of different colored lights.
Actually, this post will get a little too long if I get into this subject here . . . . we’ve got to consider poor ol’ Paul’s scrolling finger . . . . .
What I’ll do is do a write up on the Einstein point of change in physics, and the fact that both the Russians (1970) and the US Geological Survey and US Navy (1956?) etc all have disproved Einstein’s assertion that the speed of light is a constant. Though it’s true others have shown with different experiments that, in certain circumstances, the theory holds true.
I’ll post it over on your “Oh, God!” thread where it will sit better with your dissertations on this issue.
Vinaire said:
As above I don’t. And you are a gentleman for caring that I might be.
Vinaire said:
Vin, my friend, I totally dig your viewpoint, actually. I’ve been there
As to “emotions” . . . nah, “your stand” doesn’t cause such
I dig your position and view of things and, you’ll notice, I’ve not tried to counter or characterize it . . . . I’ve only simply put an additional or alternative statement of perceptions and knowledge there for consideration. In one of his write-ups and lectures, Alan actually gives a neat exposition on emotion: E for the effort needed to be added to get or keep an idea or communication in motion across to another, or to keep (oneself) in motion in the pursuit of an intention when being impeded. . . i.e., to get and/or keep something in motion to its destination or outcome one often has to add effort. This equals E for effort plus motion = Emotion.
Vinaire said:
I think if I reword this, you’ll find we’re actually in accord on a point
What if I said: BRAHMA exists, but has not manifested anything. Its act of manifesting brings into being changes of conditions of existence.
Of course, the big question is: Who or what is BRAHMA!
Howzat, gentlemen of the gallery of observers?
Rog
Vinaire
Sponsor
That makes me feel that I am not getting across.
If I say, "BRAHMA is beyond identity (neti, neti)" would that make sense to you?
Ah! The desire for something tangible...
Vin
.
RogerB
Crusader
Hey . . .
Hey, who's suggesting BRAHMA is an identity?
I'm saying it, as do you and I, exists . . . . and that it has the capability (or potential) of decision or postulation . . . . and when that capability is manifested, conditions of existence change.
This reminds me of physicists trying to define "energy." You know they have never defined or articulated what this stuff called energy is composed of? In essence, their definition of energy is: "That which does work." And that is the end of it!
Jeeezzzuzzz . . . but what is the stuff of it, of which it is constructed or composed? No answer!
R
Hey, who's suggesting BRAHMA is an identity?
I'm saying it, as do you and I, exists . . . . and that it has the capability (or potential) of decision or postulation . . . . and when that capability is manifested, conditions of existence change.
This reminds me of physicists trying to define "energy." You know they have never defined or articulated what this stuff called energy is composed of? In essence, their definition of energy is: "That which does work." And that is the end of it!
Jeeezzzuzzz . . . but what is the stuff of it, of which it is constructed or composed?
No answer!R
Vinaire
Sponsor
Hey, who's suggesting BRAHMA is an identity?
I'm saying it, as do you and I, exists . . . . and that it has the capability (or potential) of decision or postulation . . . . and when that capability is manifested, conditions of existence change.
This reminds me of physicists trying to define "energy." You know they have never defined or articulated what this stuff called energy is composed of? In essence, their definition of energy is: "That which does work." And that is the end of it!
Jeeezzzuzzz . . . but what is the stuff of it, of which it is constructed or composed?
R
There is no he, she, it or any other pronoun for BRAHMA. At the most "it" may be identified as the background against which anything and everything could be identified as being manifested, including the assumed identification of BRAHMA that I have stated above.
BRAHMA simply helps one identify anything that is considered, assumed, created or mocked up.
Thus, I see Alan's story of God, as something considered, assumed, created or mocked up at some level.
Let's take the often used statement, "God is all powerful." Firstly, one is trying to identify something unknown by the word "God." Secondly, one is identifying that something by postulating "all powerful."
What does "all powerful" mean? One is postulating it from the viewpint of MEST universe. "All powerful" would mean THAT which can not only control the MEST universe in any way that it wants, but even create and destroy it.
Now, this is simply a postulated ideal scene. It is something considered, assumed, created or mocked up to define the unknown "God."
Then one starts to believe in what one postulated as something permanent.
.
Last edited:
Spirit
just another son of God
Re: You Are Way Cool, EP
Roger, This is a excellent summation of Scientology. So the Super Tech of 1963 is not so super.
Last edited:
Similar threads
