TR 0 DEBUG

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
This may be a wrong usage on my part, but my usage is intended to point to a philosophic divide predominantly communicated through Semitic and Vedic languages respectively.

Actually, it does more than that. In one sense it's a 'straw man' argument reflecting your own cultural bias.

You use the term 'semitic' to contrast to your preferred 'vedic' system, which as personal, made-up words is just fine.

But then, you go on to declare all 'western' civilizaton 'semitic', which it may well be, in the *original* sense (although semitic influence is something of a johnny come lately), but, *not* in the sense that you use semitic.

It's kind of like using your dymo label maker to create a tag saying 'cat' and then define 'cat' as 'having 4 legs and being black and making mooing sounds'.

Fine. It's your label. But, if you put it on a *real* cat, your own definition becomes irrelevant.

Zinj
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Actually, it does more than that. In one sense it's a 'straw man' argument reflecting your own cultural bias.

You use the term 'semitic' to contrast to your preferred 'vedic' system, which as personal, made-up words is just fine.

But then, you go on to declare all 'western' civilizaton 'semitic', which it may well be, in the *original* sense (although semitic influence is something of a johnny come lately), but, *not* in the sense that you use semitic.

It's kind of like using your dymo label maker to create a tag saying 'cat' and then define 'cat' as 'having 4 legs and being black and making mooing sounds'.

Fine. It's your label. But, if you put it on a *real* cat, your own definition becomes irrelevant.

Zinj

There is plenty to quibble here. I agree.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
When one could have been born anywhere - east or west, north or south, - and have been anybody - a jew, a christian, a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist, etc.- in one's many, many lifetimes, then the idea of any prejudice becomes trifling. One simply wants to use a terminology that can convey an idea.

I hope I have made the distinction even though some may object to the terminology I came up with.

But can we move on to more important matters?

.
 

Entheta

Patron
I hope that my posts above, somewhat highlight the difference.

In spades, my friend!

One may say, that STATIC is what remains after all confusions have been removed.

Your statement here appears to have more in common with Buddhism than Scientology. Somehow the term STATIC annoys me; if I were to reach a state where all my confusions have been removed, I would consider myself quite dynamic, and not static. Notwithstanding, I understand this is YOUR definition of Hubbard's static; was it HIS definition, or are you filling in ?

STATIC is not a THING. STATIC is pointing to a POTENTIAL.

Life, then, is not a thing? Life is "pointing to a potential"? In such statements I can hear only echoes of more questions ... if I could just quiet my "semitic" mind, I suppose, I might accept such thinking... "accept" is the best description of what my "limited" mind would have to do. However, I find myself cursed to consider such things as empty, and tend to place them in the same category as the stuff of one's imagination.

Despite these difficulties, I do respect the amount of thought you've put into this.

The word DIMENSION comes from the basic idea of something being "measurable" (look at the derivation of the word). Anything measurable may be plotted on a scale. That scale would represent the dimension of a characteristic, whether objective or subjective.

Stop there a moment: how could a subjective characteristic be "measured" (that is, quantified objectively) without relying entirely upon the subject reporting the characteristic, thereby completely negating the validity of the measurement? you continue below:

For example, "illusion" may also be plotted on a scale because one can experience it, and therefore, it is measurable.

How, exactly, is illusion measurable? I am asking you for a concrete example of this.

And please, sir, don't respond by telling me that concrete only exists in the Semitic mind ... (that was an attempt humour, believe it or not ...)

-N
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Your statement here appears to have more in common with Buddhism than Scientology. Somehow the term STATIC annoys me; if I were to reach a state where all my confusions have been removed, I would consider myself quite dynamic, and not static. Notwithstanding, I understand this is YOUR definition of Hubbard's static; was it HIS definition, or are you filling in ?

...

I understand Hubbard as follows:

STATIC ------------ DYNAMIC
NO MOTION ------------ MOTION
POTENTIAL ------------ EXISTENCE
AS-ISNESS ------------ ALTER-ISNESS
STABLE DATUM ------------ LIFE


.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Your statement here appears to have more in common with Buddhism than Scientology. Somehow the term STATIC annoys me; if I were to reach a state where all my confusions have been removed, I would consider myself quite dynamic, and not static. Notwithstanding, I understand this is YOUR definition of Hubbard's static; was it HIS definition, or are you filling in ?

...

I don't know how much I am filling in because I always thought that when LRH wrote something he wrote it from the background of THE VEDAS. So, I have always looked at his writings from the viewpoint of THE VEDAS.

The use of the word STATIC in place of BRAHMAN is certainly a western twist. The logic appears to be as follows:

Life is dynamic. Life and MEST are all motion. Any motion is perceived relative to less motion and, ultimately, relative to no motion (static).

Now, we cannot find the condition of absolute static in MEST or LIFE. Even when we consider a MEST particle, or a stable datum, to be at rest (static), we find that it may still contain condensed or frozen motion inside it.

So, to perceive life and MEST as motion in an absolute sense, we have to have a static reference point independent of MEST and LIFE. And this is how LRH came up with the idea of STATIC.


This idea is woven throughout Scientology. Here is a quote from HCOB 2 June 1971, CONFRONTING, that demonstrates this idea.

All power depends upon the ability to hold a location. To communicate one must be able to hold to a location.

This is even true in the physical universe. You can’t move a chair unless you canhold a position yourself near the chair. If you don’t believe it, try it.

Thus the ability to communicate with precedes the ability to handle. But before one can communicate with something one must be able to be in a location near it.

STATIC is not life. It is the reference point from which LIFE could be understood in an absolute sense.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Life, then, is not a thing? Life is "pointing to a potential"? In such statements I can hear only echoes of more questions ... if I could just quiet my "semitic" mind, I suppose, I might accept such thinking... "accept" is the best description of what my "limited" mind would have to do. However, I find myself cursed to consider such things as empty, and tend to place them in the same category as the stuff of one's imagination.

...

Well, the "semitic" A = A would be LIFE = STATIC. That is not so as I have explained in my previous post.

Actually, The wording of Scientology Axiom # 1 could be confusing to a semitic viewpoint which considers a person to "have" a body, "have" a mind, and also "have" a spirit. Well, then who is "having" all these things? Apparently, that is some compound called a "person." This is pretty crazy like circular logic.

Life is basically a static. That means, the dynamics of life can only be perceived in an absolute sense from the reference point of absolute static. It is somewhat like having a ZERO on a scale.

If you don't have ZERO, the various measurements cannot be compared to each other in some coherent way.

I hope I am making some sense.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Stop there a moment: how could a subjective characteristic be "measured" (that is, quantified objectively) without relying entirely upon the subject reporting the characteristic, thereby completely negating the validity of the measurement?

How, exactly, is illusion measurable? I am asking you for a concrete example of this.

How are you recognizing "something"? By unconsciously measuring from "nothing," aren't you?

How can you measure a subjective characteristic? By comparing it to an absence of that characteristic.

The semitic viewpoint uses MEST as its reference. This is the case with the words "extroversion" and "introversion," or with the words "objective" and "subjective."

From the reference point of STATIC, the words "extroversion" and "objective" may be applied to anything and everything. There is no "introversion" or "subjective" when one is looking from the reference point of STATIC.

Don't you see that it is simply a matter of the reference point one is using.

Why am I thinking of the Theory of relativity here?

And please, sir, don't respond by telling me that concrete only exists in the Semitic mind ... (that was an attempt humour, believe it or not ...)

-N

Well, I did, didn't I? Sorry, I couldn't help it... But you are right... someday, I'll get over this betrayal of the semitic viewpoint (oops!)

.
 

Entheta

Patron
... someday, I'll get over this betrayal of the semitic viewpoint (oops!)

ha ha! thoroughly enjoyed, thanks for all the replies.

Despite that fact that I tend to disagree with a great deal of what you are saying, I nevertheless very much enjoy considering it, trying to wrap my mind around it, and I appreciate your taking the time to lay it out. I get the feeling if I were to ask you to show me proof of something, you would merely pose theories about what is the nature of proof; I would be left still feeling empty, where you find meaning and completeness. This is the chasm of which I spoke earlier.

I believe I agree that LRH substituted Brahman with Static, and in your earlier statement regarding removal of all confusions, Buddha or perhaps Bodhisattva could replace Static. I still maintain, though, that Buddhism or Hinduism would get a traveler to these places better than Scientology, less expensively, and without the threat of disconnection.

I once fell off a bicycle wearing no helmet, and for a time you were correct: the concrete was all in my "semitic" mind ... it took a doctor (a quite talented one, I believe) to remove it all, using mest-based tools for which I am quite thankful.

I highly doubt, sir, that you will be giving up on betraying the western viewpoint any time soon; you are too good at it, and I mean that with the utmost respect. However, I continue to maintain (to paraphrase another poster) only a fool brings postulation to a mest fight, and I find life to be mostly a mest fight; and still I find life very satisfying, without ever having any inner need to transcend it. And there I will have to leave it ... although I will be reading your various links and considering them, in due time.

the happiest of trails,

- N
 

Entheta

Patron
I don't know how much I am filling in ...

STATIC is not life. It is the reference point from which LIFE could be understood in an absolute sense.

It appears to my observation that you are filling in a great deal for Mr Hubbard. Your last sentence above makes FAR more sense than Hubbard's axiom, which was:

"AXIOM ONE: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive."

His definition, then, is NOT of LIFE, but rather of a reference point from which life could be perceived. This is EXACTLY why I could not, and would not, go past that axiom that life is a static. It is incorrect. I believe Hubbard borrowed from other theories and theologies, but got it all very confused and ultimately incorrect... my opinion and my "case" ends here. Best wishes,

-N
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I believe Hubbard borrowed from other theories and theologies, but got it all very confused and ultimately incorrect...

I agree with this. I think Hubbard misunderstood that which he borrowed from, and he did borrow from lots of sources.

I think thats why some scientology seems to work up to a point but them comes crashing down around ones ears. It's a mish mash of much older philosophies put through a blender and rewritten.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I agree with this. I think Hubbard misunderstood that which he borrowed from, and he did borrow from lots of sources.

I think thats why some scientology seems to work up to a point but them comes crashing down around ones ears. It's a mish mash of much older philosophies put through a blender and rewritten.

As I have said many times before, LRH material helped clarify for me what I had already been exposed to. I never studied LRH material in isolation as most of those with a Semitic background do.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
ha ha! thoroughly enjoyed, thanks for all the replies.

...

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed talking with you too. I have a better understanding of the Semitic viewpoint now.

A SEMITIC VIEWPOINT is one, which tries to understand everything (including spirituality) using this physical universe as its reference point.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
It appears to my observation that you are filling in a great deal for Mr Hubbard. Your last sentence above makes FAR more sense than Hubbard's axiom, which was:

"AXIOM ONE: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive."

His definition, then, is NOT of LIFE, but rather of a reference point from which life could be perceived. This is EXACTLY why I could not, and would not, go past that axiom that life is a static. It is incorrect. I believe Hubbard borrowed from other theories and theologies, but got it all very confused and ultimately incorrect... my opinion and my "case" ends here. Best wishes,

-N


But when I look at AXIOM ONE from the Vedic viewpoint, I understand it the way I have explained it. I do not get the impression that I am filling anything extra. This is interesting.

I do admit that I had to meditate over it for a while. But, that is a part of applying the study tech, isn't it?

.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed talking with you too. I have a better understanding of the Semitic viewpoint now.

A SEMITIC VIEWPOINT is one, which tries to understand everything (including spirituality) using this physical universe as its reference point.

.

This is a tautology. *your* definition. It has nothing to do with anything understood as 'semitic' in a cultural sense, but, only with your fairly arbitrary definition.

However, it's inherently prone to misunderstanding, since the word 'semitic' is already taken.

It *might* be accurate if you said it was the 'scientific' viewpoint, which does deal with all it deals with on the basis of physically available evidence.

However, even there, it would be inadequate to say that 'all scientists' use the 'scientific viewpoint' in all things.

It's probably also true that the 'scientific viewpoint' has had a very succesful run in 'western society', and thata 'western society' has many semitic roots; however, semitic and scientific are *not* one and the same and, there are numerous 'unscientific' elements to western society (and semitic culture) themselves.

Eg. L. Ron Hubbard, who was more into voodoo thinking than 'science', regardless of his marketing.

Zinj
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
This is a tautology. *your* definition. It has nothing to do with anything understood as 'semitic' in a cultural sense, but, only with your fairly arbitrary definition.

However, it's inherently prone to misunderstanding, since the word 'semitic' is already taken.

It *might* be accurate if you said it was the 'scientific' viewpoint, which does deal with all it deals with on the basis of physically available evidence.

However, even there, it would be inadequate to say that 'all scientists' use the 'scientific viewpoint' in all things.

It's probably also true that the 'scientific viewpoint' has had a very succesful run in 'western society', and thata 'western society' has many semitic roots; however, semitic and scientific are *not* one and the same and, there are numerous 'unscientific' elements to western society (and semitic culture) themselves.

Eg. L. Ron Hubbard, who was more into voodoo thinking than 'science', regardless of his marketing.

Zinj

You may be right. But I find this viewpoint threading through all Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as the major difference from Vedic Dharma. That is why I chose this terminology.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
You may be right. But I find this viewpoint threading through all Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as the major difference from Vedic Dharma. That is why I chose this terminology.

.

The very ideas of monotheism and polytheism are a product of the Semitic Viewpoint. It is looking at God from the reference point pf the MEST universe. Such ideas do not exist in Vedic philosophy.

Both ONE and MANY are undefined at the level of BRAHMAN or STATIC.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Hi Vinaire.

Thank you for your write up of Vipassana meditation. I am following Goenkaji's program which is based on the Burmese Sayagyi U Ba Khin tradition with U Ba Khin's encouragement. It is claimed that as Burma had been an isolated community over the centuries, indeed the millennia, their technique of Vipassana is a faithful copy of that taught by the Buddha.

Here is a brief write up of the program:

It is a ten day program conducted in a monastery/convent-like environment, in noble silence. Each student is expected to complete the ten days, as the technique is developed over the full period. Men and women are completely separated. With appropriate breaks, a student meditates for ten and a half hours each day and in addition, there is an hour and a half discourse.

The initial three days is spend on Anapana, where the student focuses his attention on his breathing. This not pranayoga where the exercise is to control the breath. In anapana the student simply observes equanimously the sensation of his breath inside his nostrils and on the section of the face below the nostrils and above the upper lip. The first day is restricted to the nostrils themselves, the second day includes the region above the upper lip, and the third day includes all sensations in the nostrils and the region above the upper lip.

On the fourth day, the student is introduced to the Vipassana technique. The student commences by observing an area about one inch (2 centimeters) square on the top of his head noting its sensation. The sensation could be a pain, soreness, pressure, tightness, itchiness, pulsing, hot, cold, wetness, dryness, numbness, anything, any sensation. Every square centimeter, every square millimeter, has a sensation. The student then proceeds to scan the surface of the top of the head, then the back of the head, then the face, then the neck, then the shoulders, then the arms then the front of the body, then the back of the body, then the legs. No part of the surface of the body is missed.When the student gets to the tip of his toes, he starts again from the top of his head, and continues to cycle through the sequence.

On the fifth day the sequence is extended to include scanning up the body as well, from the tip of the toes to the top of the head. On the sixth day, the student learns to use the symmetry of the body, to speed the process up, by scanning both arms, both legs and so on simultaneously. On the seventh day, the student learns to spot free flows where a particular sensation starts running off previous reactions (sankharas) to the sensation.

On the ninth day, detailed instruction is given, as to how to recognize when the step of the scanning of the skin is finished, and then how to address the inside of the body. And finally, what follows that. On the tenth day, the student is taught a new technique called Metta meditation, which is used at the end of the day. Students are expected to attend at least one ten day program each year, to progress, and to meditate two hours at home each day to maintain what he has achieved.

A student doing the program for a second or subsequent time, follows the same program except for the second and third days, where the anapana is used to sharpen the student's awareness.

David.

Hi David,

Thanks for providing a nice description of this program.

It is Goenkaji who has made Vipassana Meditation popular again. I really thank him for that.

V.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Many, for at least this lurking wog:

"Then I would M9 the student on TR 0 drill ..."

Perhaps you intended this for readers who have complete familiarity with the nomenclature of Scientology, but some of us outsiders are interested too... I haven't taken the time to get up to speed on all the jargon yet.

If you would take a moment, could you please explain what you meant by "debug"? Specifically, is it your position that this drill actually accomplishes what it is intended to do (as you state, "to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self.") Did you find people could actually sit without blinking for 2 hours? Personally, sitting like that would, for me, have nothing to do with attention or being there, but rather would involve some amount of hypnosis. I can't imagine why I would want this ability, or why it would lead to a greater state of "being there"; quite the opposite, it would take a HUGE amount of my attention to shut down my body's natural tendencies like that. Even when sleeping, the human body is not completely motionless.

Secondly, does the definition of life as a "static" make sense to you? Because to say "a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive." isn't really saying anything at all about what a static IS; the sentence states what this "static" POSSESSES, what it HAS, but nothing about what it IS, and gives no explanation about how a thing with no mass, motion, wavelength or LOCATION (for God's sake...) is even a "thing" at all, or how it could possibly possess anything, let alone abilities... So when this axiom is "cleared", this means the student accepts this bizarre definition of life, what exactly is accomplished by this clearing?

When I first studied Scientology, I found such definitions to be empty, and I could not ignore that, which is why I did not continue.

Obviously I am not a follower, but I am interested in the opinions of people who believe the "tech" has something to offer. To my observation, the entire goal of the tech was basically a hook into the cult, but I see there are many people who aren't currently "in" who report that they still get something out it, and I am very curious about that.

- N

I hope most of your questions here are answered by now. The meaning of the words "debug" and "M9" were explained to you.

TR0 accomplishes what it states if understood and practiced from a Vedic viewpoint, namely

(a) It accustoms an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self.

(b) Yes, it is possible to actually sit without blinking for 2 hours. I know it because I did just that.

(c) TR0 may result in hypnosis if done from a Semitic viewpoint (with attention fixated on MEST). There is no ability gained here. I wouldn't want to be hypnotized either.

(d) From a Vedic viewpoint (with no fixation on MEST) TR0 is an entirely different drill. No attention should be put on the body to shut down its natural tendencies. No attention should be put on making the body totally motionless. Both of these are a violation of TR0 from a Vedic viewpoint. If body moves by itself that, by itself, is not a violation of TR0.

(e) The definition of life as a "static" makes perfecy sense to me from the Vedic viewpoint. STATIC is simply motionlessness in an absolute sense. Any motion would be an "additive" where the STATIC is concerned. STATIC is not a thing. It is even beyond being an abstract concept. It cannot be sensed even. It is what one basically is at one's core.

(f) Before one can "understand" STATIC, one must fully understand the concepts of Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

(g) The Semitic viewpoint would look at STATIC as a thing, which it is not. It is the potential of all postulates, motion, things, etc.

(h) Word clearing should result in understanding and not in acceptance of some idea.

(i) Having a belief is not the same as having an understanding.

If there is a hook in Scientology, you have already swallowed it in the form of the Semitic viewpoint even before approaching Scientology.

The actual hook is the Semitic viewpoint. It corrupts whatever you look at .

.
 
Top