The highest OT level

[guanoloco]

It'd certainly go a long way in giving a reason to investigate further.

I just recently discovered this...http://www.near-death.com/

Opposed to giving separate links of researchers I've found that most of them are on the NDE Experts section.

Also, the Scientific Evidence section is interesting.

One noteworthy part is the congenital blind people having perfect vision.

This is a good place to start for various things but may be somewhat lacking...for instance Peter Fenwick has done some experiments where he became aware of NDEs and considered them "rubbish". From there he started experiments of putting objects throughout the ER and surgery rooms that could only be seen when exterior. His research has been ongoing for 20 - 30 years and has convinced him that consciousness is separate from the brain.

I have other stuff to view but this is a [STRIKE]good
[/STRIKE] great start.

 

[lkwdblds]

Proofs and Evidence

What would constitute evidence of the soul?

Would consciousness separate from the brain suffice?

Proofs and Evidence - Things such as "Proof" and "Evidence" are manifestations of the Physical Universe. To possess tangible "evidence" there has to be duration for the "evidence" to exist in. Ditto for proof. Proof must persist to have much value.

For something to persist, it has to contain a lie. This is something LRH, among others, has said. Just because he said it, does not make it wrong. It is an important datum. In the Physical Universe, often the lie present in something is a misassignment of its ownership.

When someone insists on tangible evidence or hard proof of "the soul", it is not forthcoming because, by definition, the soul is not a physical universe object existing within the confines of the physical universe. Objective proofs are not readily available. Rather, one has to stand back and look outside the "box" or in this case, look outside the physical universe, including its time stream. Doing this, proofs emerge but they are subjective proofs.

AN ANALOGY? - A CORPORATION
A corporation is formed by one or more individuals, who become its officers. Once the corporation is up and going, it will name a Board of Directors.

There is a conundrum involved in that the Corporation requires some preliminary actions to occur BEFORE its inceptioin. Before the official start date of the Corporation a start date has to be chosen and the officers, though they are not yet officers, meet and make decisions regarding the Corporation.

Let's say the Corporation opens on July 1, 2011 so only from that date forward does it have a "time stream". Well, the originators of the Corporation had to exist, assign various titles and chose a start date before the onset of Corporate time.

The same type of set up likely occurred for the Physical Universe. One or more "officers" got together and laid out ground rules for the physical universe; things such as natural laws and constants such as the velocity of light, etc.. These entities existed prior to the formation of the Physical Universe.

Once the Physcial Universe gets rolling and its time stream is flowing, FROM INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE, ONE IS GOING TO HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME DESCRIBING THE ENTITIES WHO CREATED THIS UNIVERSE. They are not to be found within the Universe itself but they are the ones who set it up.

Oh sure, the founders of the Universe can decide to appear within it and play some games here. They exist primarily outside the Universe but can go in and out at will. If you are looking for hard, objective, tangible "proof" that they exist when you yourself are restricted to life within the Physical Universe, you are not going to find it. The proof you seek, is actually the product of the founders, namely the Universe itself. The fact that it exists is hard proof that someone or some thing put it here. Call that someone or some thing, "soul" or "souls" and that's about as good a proof as you are going to get as long as you are inside the Universe.
Lakey

 

[Ulduz]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Proofs and Evidence - Things such as "Proof" and "Evidence" are manifestations of the Physical Universe. To possess tangible "evidence" there has to be duration for the "evidence" to exist in. Ditto for proof. Proof must persist to have much value.

For something to persist, it has to contain a lie. This is something LRH, among others, has said. Just because he said it, does not make it wrong. It is an important datum. In the Physical Universe, often the lie present in something is a misassignment of its ownership.

When someone insists on tangible evidence or hard proof of "the soul", it is not forthcoming because, by definition, the soul is not a physical universe object existing within the confines of the physical universe. Objective proofs are not readily available. Rather, one has to stand back and look outside the "box" or in this case, look outside the physical universe, including its time stream. Doing this, proofs emerge but they are subjective proofs.

AN ANALOGY? - A CORPORATION
A corporation is formed by one or more individuals, who become its officers. Once the corporation is up and going, it will name a Board of Directors.

There is a conundrum involved in that the Corporation requires some preliminary actions to occur BEFORE its inceptioin. Before the official start date of the Corporation a start date has to be chosen and the officers, though they are not yet officers, meet and make decisions regarding the Corporation.

Let's say the Corporation opens on July 1, 2011 so only from that date forward does it have a "time stream". Well, the originators of the Corporation had to exist, assign various titles and chose a start date before the onset of Corporate time.

The same type of set up likely occurred for the Physical Universe. One or more "officers" got together and laid out ground rules for the physical universe; things such as natural laws and constants such as the velocity of light, etc.. These entities existed prior to the formation of the Physical Universe.

Once the Physcial Universe gets rolling and its time stream is flowing, FROM INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE, ONE IS GOING TO HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME DESCRIBING THE ENTITIES WHO CREATED THIS UNIVERSE. They are not to be found within the Universe itself but they are the ones who set it up.

Oh sure, the founders of the Universe can decide to appear within it and play some games here. They exist primarily outside the Universe but can go in and out at will. If you are looking for hard, objective, tangible "proof" that they exist when you yourself are restricted to life within the Physical Universe, you are not going to find it. The proof you seek, is actually the product of the founders, namely the Universe itself. The fact that it exists is hard proof that someone or some thing put it here. Call that someone or some thing, "soul" or "souls" and that's about as good a proof as you are going to get as long as you are inside the Universe.
Lakey

What would constitute a proof of existence of the soul? Nothing, if you're a Positivist (I am a Positivist). But if youy're an Idealist, there are millions of proofs for you all "showing" that soul exists.

 

[lotus]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

What would constitute a proof of existence of the soul? Nothing, if you're a Positivist (I am a Positivist). But if youy're an Idealist, there are millions of proofs for you all "showing" that soul exists.

Only the observer who observes the mind can be aware of the true nature of the beingness.

It can't be proove - it only can be experienced as an awareness.

 

[Ulduz]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Only the observer who observes the mind can be aware of the true nature of the beingness.

It can't be proove - it only can be experienced as an awareness.

A mind cannot observe itself because it is indivisible -- from the teachings of Buddha.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

A mind cannot observe itself because it is indivisible -- from the teachings of Buddha.

It can still look in the equivalent of a mirror.

 

[Ulduz]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

It can still look in the equivalent of a mirror.

Metaphorically speaking, it can. But then you have to define that mirror. Historically speaking, you're correct -- such metaphor exists in Buddhist texts. But I suspect it came from Hinduist texts.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

It can still look in the equivalent of a mirror.

When one looks in mirror or its equivalent one sees their face, eyes, etc. You do not see your mind at all so that just strengthens the case that the mind, the soul or whatever you want to call the essence of the person does not exist in the physical universe. Even if you could look through your skull and see your brain tissue, you would gain nothing in your search to see your soul.

The concept of looking at your soul is ridiculous. If it were possible, what would it be that was doing the looking? What would it be that was being looked at? What similarities would they have and how would they differ?

This would be a good sci fi story. I man decides to look for his soul and rigs up an apparatus where he looks into some sort of "super mirror" or clever viewing apparatus and he is able to see that which is doing the looking. In theory, the soul would "see" itself. What would happen then? The thought boggles the imagination.

My best guess, just a wild guess, is that this soul would knock out it's "viewpoint" and would no longer exist in it's previous form. Perhaps it would be transplanted to some other universe. Good SciFi material.
Lakey

 

[Gadfly]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Only the observer who observes the mind can be aware of the true nature of the beingness.

It can't be proove - it only can be experienced as an awareness.

Close.

Only the observer who observes the OBSERVER can be aware of the true nature of the beingness (and everything else).

"You" observing "yourself" with nothing else. OT TR-0 with a twist. A big twist.

That is the unmanifest having the unmanifest as its ONLY object of attentiion. Very tricky though because the unmanifest is no sort of "object" or "thingie". It is the source of all thingies.

Of course, this cannot be "proven" to anybody with objects of manifested reality (logic, words, ideas, communication, etc). It can only be experienced. And, the gulf between an actual experience and delusion is WIDE indeed, with the later probably being the more common.

Forms of very deep meditation seem to be the only tools currently available to bring about such an experience.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

"For something to persist, it has to contain a lie. This is something LRH, among others, has said. Just because he said it, does not make it wrong. It is an important datum. In the Physical Universe, often the lie present in something is a misassignment of its ownership."

Thank you ever so much for a good hard coffee spewing belly laugh !

Yes, my dear man, LRH can be right too - and Lord only knows the world needs reminded once agin of what a mighty and wonderful man that one was.

This is funny stuff.

Now remind me again how the circumstances were that that great man among mere men departed this earth.

How did that go for that giant who was so set in smashing his name into history?

LOL !

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

When one looks in mirror or its equivalent one sees their face, eyes, etc. You do not see your mind at all so that just strengthens the case that the mind, the soul or whatever you want to call the essence of the person does not exist in the physical universe. Even if you could look through your skull and see your brain tissue, you would gain nothing in your search to see your soul.

The concept of looking at your soul is ridiculous. If it were possible, what would it be that was doing the looking? What would it be that was being looked at? What similarities would they have and how would they differ?

This would be a good sci fi story. I man decides to look for his soul and rigs up an apparatus where he looks into some sort of "super mirror" or clever viewing apparatus and he is able to see that which is doing the looking. In theory, the soul would "see" itself. What would happen then? The thought boggles the imagination.

My best guess, just a wild guess, is that this soul would knock out it's "viewpoint" and would no longer exist in it's previous form. Perhaps it would be transplanted to some other universe. Good SciFi material.
Lakey

Thanks for the suggestion. I might be able to create a "religion" out of this.

RPX

 

[guanoloco]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

In theory, the soul would "see" itself. What would happen then?

As-is

 

[uniquemand]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

As-is

Anything perceived is not the self, IMO. As soon as you start looking at "it", it ceases being part of you (if it ever was).

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

All I really want to do is be able to eat BBQ spare ribs while they "hold their position in space" because of my Tone 40 intention and causative mental energy!

Will someone phone or PM me when anyone gains this (or equivalent) OTness?

I hate gettin' my fingers all sticky and CREATING smudges on the Margarita glass which ya gotta admit is pretty tacky.

Thanking everyone in advance for their cooperation,

EP

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

As-is

Yea, I was going to say that and reconsidered, trying to use some other words. I will tell you, I have been taken to task time after time for using "Scientology" words on an "Ex Scientology" message board. That is why I avoided the term "as-is".

I am trying to respect those people who are complete and full exes as opposed to those who have left the Church but still see some merit in some of the "tech".

A soul viewing it's own essence would likely "as-is" itself but I really do not even know what that means nor what would occur. To me, the soul, not being matter, can not "as-is" but the only thing about it which can "as is" is it's decision "to be" and then to assume a "viewpoint". If the decision "to be" is undone, the particular viewpoint previously occupied by that soul would now be unoccupied.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Thanks for the suggestion. I might be able to create a "religion" out of this.

RPX

Hmmm. A man decides to see his soul and rigs up a viewing apparatus. I said that would be good sci fi material and believe that to be true. Now you suggest that you might be able to create a "religion" out of this.

This is starting to sound familiar... A science firction writer starting a new religion.... I believe that was tried already somewhere around 1952! How about calling your new religion "Mirrorology - The Science of the Soul"?
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

To form a religion out of it would be fitting.

It has been done before, generated almost countless millions of dollars, gotten some people dead and some children abused and still has staunch lifelong adherents that will not be dissuaded of their own experience or any amount of hard cold facts.

Praise be to Bull Shit !

....and the endless pursuit to keep some vestige of it alive as " truth ".

 

[guanoloco]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Yea, I was going to say that and reconsidered, trying to use some other words. I will tell you, I have been taken to task time after time for using "Scientology" words on an "Ex Scientology" message board. That is why I avoided the term "as-is".

I am trying to respect those people who are complete and full exes as opposed to those who have left the Church but still see some merit in some of the "tech".

A soul viewing it's own essence would likely "as-is" itself but I really do not even know what that means nor what would occur. To me, the soul, not being matter, can not "as-is" but the only thing about it which can "as is" is it's decision "to be" and then to assume a "viewpoint". If the decision "to be" is undone, the particular viewpoint previously occupied by that soul would now be unoccupied.
Lakey

Lakey,

It was a joke. Also, I'm an ex and I use Sciontologese all the time on here...it's fun! I had completely been out of it and away from it and picked it back up reading and posting here. Who knows about any factuality on "As-isness" as a premise. I like Uniquemand's response - reminds me of an interview of Timothy Leary.

Perhaps a non-dualistic enlightenment/ego-death is factual.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

Lakey,

It was a joke. Also, I'm an ex and I use Sciontologese all the time on here...it's fun! I had completely been out of it and away from it and picked it back up reading and posting here. Who knows about any factuality on "As-isness" as a premise. I like Uniquemand's response - reminds me of an interview of Timothy Leary.

Perhaps a non-dualistic enlightenment/ego-death is factual.

And some people still have their entire thinking processes completely wrapped in scientology and, as such, are not only uncomfortable not ensconced in scientologese but completely unable to express any thought in what ( they feel ) is a coherent manner unless it is laden with cult buzz words.

They will shout at the top of their kungs until their dying day " Long live Hubbard " ! and never have a clue how dreadfully tiresome they have become to what were ( once) their friends.

 

[Ulduz]

Re: Proofs and Evidence

And some people still have their entire thinking processes completely wrapped in scientology and, as such, are not only uncomfortable not ensconced in scientologese but completely unable to express any thought in what ( they feel ) is a coherent manner unless it is laden with cult buzz words.

They will shout at the top of their kungs until their dying day " Long live Hubbard " ! and never have a clue how dreadfully tiresome they have become to what were ( once) their friends.

When I hear the word “E-meter” I wanna puke. But when I hear the words “2D” I get erection. Scientology girls used to call me “2D” because of my looks, I suppose.