What's new

A Note for Vinaire

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
It is interesting for me to see how I am being attacked quite heavily on a personal basis .

And that is when I haven't attacked anybody personally.

I have only attacked certain viewpoints.

It means a lot of people here are identifying themselves with those viewpoints.

They can't see beyond those viewpoints. They are blind without those viewpoints.

They think they are the viewpoints.

That is because they haven't understood Axiom #1. Not only that, they actually detest Axiom # 1 because it diverges from that viewpoint.

Let me tell you, you are a lot more than a garden-variety, small and fixed viewpoint.

:happydance:

People are upset with you because of your out-comm cycle, to use a SCN phrase. You can say anything to anyone if you use really good communication. You've chosen not to, for reasons of your own.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
It is interesting for me to see how I am being attacked quite heavily on a personal basis .

And that is when I haven't attacked anybody personally.

I have only attacked certain viewpoints.

It means a lot of people here are identifying themselves with those viewpoints.

They can't see beyond those viewpoints. They are blind without those viewpoints.

They think they are the viewpoints.

That is because they haven't understood Axiom #1. Not only that, they actually detest Axiom # 1 because it diverges from that viewpoint.

Let me tell you, you are a lot more than a garden-variety, small and fixed viewpoint.

:happydance:

I don't see you being 'attacked' personally at all. Personally, I know nothing about you personally. I don't even see your 'viewpoints' being attacked; merely rejected. Which you seem to see as an attack.

I guess you're confusing yourself with your viewpoints :)

Zinj
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
People are upset with you because of your out-comm cycle, to use a SCN phrase. You can say anything to anyone if you use really good communication. You've chosen not to, for reasons of your own.

Bull shit! If one knows the real reason one is never upset.

You need to look again.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I don't see you being 'attacked' personally at all. Personally, I know nothing about you personally. I don't even see your 'viewpoints' being attacked; merely rejected. Which you seem to see as an attack.

I guess you're confusing yourself with your viewpoints :)

Zinj

That's a personal attack!

.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Certainly, some comments re Vinay recently have seemed personal to me.
Allowances for differences in communication style and culture need to be made and I guess we all draw the line in a slightly different place.

How well can you really know someone who you have communicated with solely through this forum? No voice, no body language, no evidence of what they do and how they do it or how they relate to others. Minds get busy filling in the blanks, which probably does none of us any favours.

There are no true relationships here - we are talking with terminals we have mocked up. Whether this condition can be transcended I don't know. I hope so because I don't like what I just wrote.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Certainly, some comments re Vinay recently have seemed personal to me.
Allowances for differences in communication style and culture need to be made and I guess we all draw the line in a slightly different place.

How well can you really know someone who you have communicated with solely through this forum? No voice, no body language, no evidence of what they do and how they do it or how they relate to others. Minds get busy filling in the blanks, which probably does none of us any favours.

There are no true relationships here - we are talking with terminals we have mocked up. Whether this condition can be transcended I don't know. I hope so because I don't like what I just wrote.

You mean...

this is all just....

masturbation???
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Certainly, some comments re Vinay recently have seemed personal to me.
Allowances for differences in communication style and culture need to be made and I guess we all draw the line in a slightly different place.

How well can you really know someone who you have communicated with solely through this forum? No voice, no body language, no evidence of what they do and how they do it or how they relate to others. Minds get busy filling in the blanks, which probably does none of us any favours.

There are no true relationships here - we are talking with terminals we have mocked up. Whether this condition can be transcended I don't know. I hope so because I don't like what I just wrote.

I've dealt with many East Indian people over the years during the highly emotional process of buying and selling houses. The greater part of Microsoft hiring is East Indians. They are remarkable in their directness, even keeled natures, language comprehension, and appreciation of another's work. Regardless of what else is going on here I don't believe the issue is cultural gap.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
You mean...

this is all just....

masturbation???

That's your choice of word. BTW, can you see a cat anywhere around right now? :D

A few years ago I was trying to figure out how I "knew" all about ARC breaks but I still got them. I had a cognition (Do cog's have to be true? - I guess not) that I could not ARC break with a person only with my mock-up of that person. As Byron Katie says: you can always trust another person 100% to be themselves.

Get the idea that you truly know someone in the fullest (not biblical) sense and then try to get the idea of being ARC-broken by them. I can't.
I'm not claiming this as some universal truth but it seems true for me.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
That's your choice of word. BTW, can you see a cat anywhere around right now? :D

A few years ago I was trying to figure out how I "knew" all about ARC breaks but I still got them. I had a cognition (Do cog's have to be true? - I guess not) that I could not ARC break with a person only with my mock-up of that person. As Byron Katie says: you can always trust another person 100% to be themselves.

Get the idea that you truly know someone in the fullest (not biblical) sense and then try to get the idea of being ARC-broken by them. I can't.
I'm not claiming this as some universal truth but it seems true for me.

Cheers

tanstaafl

I think it is a very good point.

This is definitely some poop with the raisins still in it!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
That's your choice of word. BTW, can you see a cat anywhere around right now? :D

A few years ago I was trying to figure out how I "knew" all about ARC breaks but I still got them. I had a cognition (Do cog's have to be true? - I guess not) that I could not ARC break with a person only with my mock-up of that person. As Byron Katie says: you can always trust another person 100% to be themselves.

Get the idea that you truly know someone in the fullest (not biblical) sense and then try to get the idea of being ARC-broken by them. I can't.
I'm not claiming this as some universal truth but it seems true for me.

Cheers

tanstaafl

Ron's error (one of many) was equating 'ARC' with communications with agreement with reality and His invention of the term 'ARC Broken'.

It's quite possible to completely understand a person and still dislike them. Or, disagree with them and still like them. Or share a reality with a person and disagree with some of their conclusions, and, like them *or* dislike them.

The 'theory' that understanding bridges all gaps is silly. Sometimes it's the understanding that *causes* dislike, and, it often causes disagreement.

As it happens, I tend to 'like' Vinnie, for whatever that's worth, and, I suspect I may 'understand' him more than he would like to admit. But, I can still disagree with him; say that the bull he's pushing is just that and suggest that it's his rationalizations that are keeping him from comprehending his own incomprehension.

Zinj
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Ron's error (one of many) was equating 'ARC' with communications with agreement with reality and His invention of the term 'ARC Broken'.

It's quite possible to completely understand a person and still dislike them. Or, disagree with them and still like them. Or share a reality with a person and disagree with some of their conclusions, and, like them *or* dislike them.

The 'theory' that understanding bridges all gaps is silly. Sometimes it's the understanding that *causes* dislike, and, it often causes disagreement.

As it happens, I tend to 'like' Vinnie, for whatever that's worth, and, I suspect I may 'understand' him more than he would like to admit. But, I can still disagree with him; say that the bull he's pushing is just that and suggest that it's his rationalizations that are keeping him from comprehending his own incomprehension.

Zinj

I generally don't like to totally agree with people but I have to on this. :)
ARC has limited workability. For me it's more along the lines of "how to win friends and influence people". Spending some time on this forum convinced me of that, especially early exchanges with yourself and Alanzo The Great.

If you truly grant beingness, or love others, or see a person's true essence (however you want to phrase it) then ARC is not a factor. One might argue that such a thing is ultimate affinity but it doesn't stack up logically as communication requires distance (per it's "formula"). The Ultimate "R" is that the other being is a spiritual being and, in essence, beautiful. All other "Rs" are mesty and greatly inferior.

It doesn't help that the term ARC is used very sloppily in general Scn conversation.

There seems to be confusion with some Scns as to whether ARC is a one-way or two-way flow.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ron's error (one of many) was equating 'ARC' with communications with agreement with reality and His invention of the term 'ARC Broken'.

It's quite possible to completely understand a person and still dislike them. Or, disagree with them and still like them. Or share a reality with a person and disagree with some of their conclusions, and, like them *or* dislike them.

The 'theory' that understanding bridges all gaps is silly. Sometimes it's the understanding that *causes* dislike, and, it often causes disagreement.

As it happens, I tend to 'like' Vinnie, for whatever that's worth, and, I suspect I may 'understand' him more than he would like to admit. But, I can still disagree with him; say that the bull he's pushing is just that and suggest that it's his rationalizations that are keeping him from comprehending his own incomprehension.

Zinj

FYI "ARC broken" doesn't mean disagreement. It refers to loss. One can like or dislike someone without having a feeling of loss. One can repair such a loss and still not like who it happened with. It takes one back to neutral.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
FYI "ARC broken" doesn't mean disagreement. It refers to loss. One can like or dislike someone without having a feeling of loss. One can repair such a loss and still not like who it happened with. It takes one back to neutral.

However, the 'theory' is that if the 'reality' (agreement) and communications suffer, so will the 'affinity'. And, the 'intent' of the 'theory' is to insist that agreement is a necessary corrolary to affinity and communications. Terms like 'high ARC' describe intentional manipulation. Yes, the usage is sloppy, but, the intent is clear; you cannot have affinity without agreement (reality).

One of the most common 'assumptions' in Scientology is that any disagreement involves an 'upset' (which is very low tone :) ) and something that can be 'cured' by more 'comm' and handling.

Even Vinnie insists that anyone who disagrees with him has 'upsets'.

Zinj
 

beyond_horizons

Patron Meritorious
As it happens, I tend to 'like' Vinnie, for whatever that's worth, and, I suspect I may 'understand' him more than he would like to admit.
Yes we know who he is and we know what he's doing!

Actually, I tend to like him also, sept for the fact that I worry sometimes he might have created a secret RPF for his extracurricular Math Lab activities. :)
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
However, the 'theory' is that if the 'reality' (agreement) and communications suffer, so will the 'affinity'. And, the 'intent' of the 'theory' is to insist that agreement is a necessary corrolary to affinity and communications. Terms like 'high ARC' describe intentional manipulation. Yes, the usage is sloppy, but, the intent is clear; you cannot have affinity without agreement (reality).

One of the most common 'assumptions' in Scientology is that any disagreement involves an 'upset' (which is very low tone :) ) and something that can be 'cured' by more 'comm' and handling.

Even Vinnie insists that anyone who disagrees with him has 'upsets'.

Zinj

A historic moment! Zinj is using Vinaire to support an argument! I feel faint. What were we talking about?
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
Hi Vinaire.

I appreciate where you are coming from or at least, I believe I do. :eyeroll: By the way, I like to use the terms Western and Eastern rather than Vedic and Semitic, as the Semites were/are peoples in the Middle East who were named after the son of Noah, Shem. Of course, the three Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) emerged in this region, but we would need to turn to Europe and the United States (as well as Mecca) for what they have become. In fact most Catholics would not consider their religion Middle-Eastern. On the other hand, I personally have no objection to your use of the term Semitic. Just a thought. :whistling:


The following is an extract from Jon Atack at http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html .

IDEAS COMMON TO DAVID-NEEL AND HUBBARD: As with Scientology, the Tibetans believe that they can escape the "wheel of rebirth", and the outcome of their previous actions (karma-vipaka, called the "overt-motivator sequence" in Scientology), by applying a set of techniques ("he may cause himself to be reborn in the most agreeable conditions possible" (66)). To quote from Hubbard "Not the least of the qualities of O.T. is personal and knowing immortality and freedom from the cycle of birth and death" (Auditor 19). The "cycle of birth and death" is a Buddhist concept, more usually expressed as the "cycle of death and rebirth" or the "wheel of suffering".

Hubbard claimed to differ from earlier researchers in defining the "spirit" as the "I" ("Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology", definition of "thetan", "Dianetics & Scientology Technical Dictionary", definition of "theta being"). However, David-Neel has "What is this 'that' which continues its way after the body has become a corpse? It is a special 'consciousness' among the several distinguished by Lamaists. The 'consciousness' of the 'I', or according to another definition 'the will to live'" (67).

The popular Tibetan idea of the "spirit" is much the same as Scientology's "thetan", both seem to derive from the Hindu "jiva" doctrine: "the large majority of unlearned Buddhists have lapsed into the old Indian doctrine which represents the jiva (self) periodically 'changing his worn-out body for a new one, as we cast away a worn-out garment to clothe ourself in a new.'" (68). David-Neel elsewhere quotes from the Hindu Bhagavad Gita: "Just as a man puts off his old clothing to put on new, so also 'that which is incarnated' (dehi) puts off his old bodies to assume new ones." (69).

The ultimate goal of Scientology is the ability of the "spirit", "self" or "thetan" to leave the body and travel at will with "full perception" ("Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary", definition of "exteriorization"). This goal is found in many magical systems. In Tibet those who supposedly have this ability are called delogs. The Tibetans believe in an "ethereal double" capable of what is elsewhere called "astral travel": "During life, in a normal state, this 'double' is closely united to the body. Nevertheless, certain circumstances may cause their separation. The 'double' can, then, leave the material body and show itself in different places; or being itself invisible, it can accomplish various peregrinations ... Tibetans say that those who have trained themselves for the purpose can effect it at will." (70).

Hubbard told his followers of the "between-lives area", where they supposedly go between incarnations ("Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary", definition "between-lives area"). This is the bardo of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Three levels of Hubbard's "bridge" relate to "implants". In the early 1960s, in the foreword to a book written by his then-follower Charles Berner, Hubbard admitted: "The more experienced auditor [Scientology practitioner] would recognise the Between Lives aspect and implants..." (71).

A fundamental aspect of Scientology is the belief that the human being is a composite of "entities" (72) or beings ("thetans" or "body thetans"). "by BODY THETAN is meant a thetan who is stuck to another thetan or body but is not in control." (73) and "What you see as a human being, a person, is not a single unit being ... It is the aggregate of all these factors which you address when you seek to guide or handle the usual human being ... When you are handling a human being, you are handling a composite." (74). Most of Scientology's esoteric teachings deal with supposed indwelling spirits, or demon possession in Christian terms. This belief in indwelling spirits has an origin with the Tibetans: "Animals have several 'consciousnesses', just as we have ourselves, and as it also happens in our case, these 'consciousnesses' do not all follow the same road after death. A living being is an assemblage, not a unity." (75). "Sustained attention, perspicacious investigation will show us that we are not a unit but a plurality, that we shelter, temporarily, guests of varying origins, come from all points of the universe and as the lengthy consequences of intermingled causes and effects ... the Buddhist is exhorted to discern the nature of the elements which make up what he calls his 'self'. He is encouraged to follow up, as far as possible, the line of causes and effects which have contributed to the constitution of these elements and have led to their momentary union. Buddhists are recommended to watch, with sustained attention, the behaviour of these diverse elements ... In truth each supposed ego is a meeting-place where jostles about a crowd that comes and goes continually by many roads, for members of this crowd are constantly on the move to join other crowds at other meeting-places of universal life" (76). The Tibetans call these indwelling spirits or demons "gDons" (77).

Tibetans also use visualization techniques (also called "guided fantasy" or "induced positive hallucination") which Hubbard called "creative processing" during his Philadelphia Doctorate Course in 1952 (78).

In the original "Operating Thetan section VII course", Scientologists were given exercises which would supposedly lead to the ability to implant thoughts into another person's mind. Scientologists believe that they will ultimately be capable of psychic feats including telepathy and telepathic control of others (the aim of all forms of black magic). Practices with similar ends are described by David-Neel (79).

Hubbard's use of a triangle as a symbol of Dianetics can be explained by the common use of this symbol to denote black magic (also true in the Crowley system practised by Hubbard in 1946): "The word kyilkhors means a circle, nevertheless, amongst the numberless forms of kyilkhors, there exist square and quadrangular forms, while those used in black magic or for the coercion or destruction of malignant entities are triangular." (80).

A central aspect of Dianetics and Scientology is the notion of "clearing" which supposedly comes from an analogy with a calculating machine with a held-down number which interferes with all calculations. The held-down number is "cleared", so that the machine once more functions accurately. "Clearing" is achieved through the application of "processes" ("Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary" definitions of "clear" and "clearing"). However, David-Neel too spoke of the "process" of "clearing" (81).

Hubbard asserted that the being, spirit or "thetan" is capable of transmitting pure energy in the form of "tractor" and "pressor" beams ("Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary", definitions "tractor beam", "pressor beam"). This too is an aspect of Tibetan teaching: "Mystic masters affirm that by the means of such concentration of mind, waves of energy are produced" (82).

Hubbard asserted that "reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence" (Scientology Axiom 26) and "Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time ... it is conceived that space, energy and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy and time." (Scientology 0-8, p.27). Further, "REALITY: That agreement upon illusion which became the MEST [Matter, Energy, Space and Time] universe" (Scientology 8-8008, p.133). This is the doctrine of illusion: "In Tibet the learned adepts of the Dzogschen Sect ... regard the world as a pure mirage which we ourselves produce, and which has no sort of existence outside ourselves. All that we see, all that we feel, is identical with that which we see and feel in our dreams..." (Buddhism, p.140); "The bodhisattva practically exercises his compassion when he has freed himself from the illusion which creates belief in the reality of the world as we perceive it." (IIT, p.135); "'Like visions seen in a dream, so must we regard all things.' ... For intellectual Buddhists of the Mahayana School, the world is not the dream of some fabled Brahma, but our own dream ... Each one of us fabricates, continuously, in his spirit, images of the world with its many aspects which, so it seems to him, surrounds him and in which he sees himself playing a part as he may do in a dream. The world is not outside us but in us." (IIT, p.170).

Scientology holds that the highest state is "serenity of beingness" ("Tone Scale in Full"), which once again is held in common with Buddhism: "The model he sets before the disciple is the calm figure of the arahan ... who has attained immovable serenity of mind" (IIT, p.136).

The "what's true for you is true" idea, which Hubbard ascribed to the Buddha (Story of Dianetics and Scientology, taped lecture, 1958), appears in David-Neel as "Be your own guide and your own torch" (citing the Buddha, IIT, p.147).

The Tibetans also speak of the seniority of "being" to "doing", an essential theme in Hubbard's work (IIT, p.162). Buddhist doctrine makes a clear distinction between "being" and "becoming". The Sanskrit bhava and the Tibetan sipa or sridpaconnote "Existence in the sense of 'becoming'." The Sanskrit sat and the Tibetan yeu or yod connote "Existence in the absolute sense of being." (IIT, p.218). With Hubbard this becomes: "There is beingness, but Man believes there is only becomingness." (Scientology 0-8, Factor 27). Hubbard asserts that "Space, time and energy become Be, Have and Do ... Space could be said to be BE." (Journal of Scientology, 1952, c. late November. Technical volume 1, p.295) and "In life experience space becomes beingness" (Journal of Scientology, 31 January 1954, Technical volume 2, p.13). David-Neel has "As the mind possesses no independent existence, no true 'self', we must know that it is like space itself." (IIT, p.183).

Hubbard asserted that "absolute truth" is unknowable (Scientology 0-8, Logic 6: "Absolutes are unobtainable.", Logic 7: "COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth."), this too reflects one of David-Neel's texts: "We must distinguish, they say, two sorts of truth - relative and absolute. Of these two kinds only the former, relative truth, is accessible to us." (IIT, p.169).

Buddhism contains a belief in reincarnation, David-Neel says "Buddhists are often heard to speak of the 'memory' which an individual may retain concerning his former incarnations." (IIT, p.166). Dianetics and Scientology both depend upon the supposed recollection of former incarnations ("past lives"). This is termed "whole track recall" by Scientologists.

David-Neel has "Seek friends who share your beliefs and habits and in whom you can put your trust" and "Avoid the friends, companions, relatives, or disciples whose company injures your peace of mind or your spiritual growth" (IIT, p.182). Hubbard has "Acquisition or proximity of matter, energy or organisms which assist the survival of an organism increase the survival potentials of an organism" and "Acquisition or proximity of matter, energy or organisms which inhibit the survival of an organism decrease its survival potential" (Dianetic Axioms 157, 158).

Hubbard shares the Tibetans concern for the interplay of the static and the kinetic (Dianetic Axioms 34 & 36). David-Neel quotes from a Sutra: "By rubbing two sticks against each other, fire is produced. And by the fire born of them, both sticks are consumed. Likewise, by the intelligence born of them, the couple formed by 'the motionless' and by 'the moving', and the observer who considers their duality are alike consumed." (IIT, p.204).

The Hubbard notion of "postulates" (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, definition 2, "postulate") can also be found in David-Neel: "Wishes, or vows, in Tibetan meulam (smonlam) and in Sanskrit pranidhana, occupy in Buddhism a place analagous to that of prayers in theistic religions. Buddhists do not pray, they wish and in general, they believe that if the mental power of him who expresses the wish is sufficiently intense, such a wish acquires proficiency and produces the realisation of the result desired." (IIT, p.214, footnote).

Hubbard has "Absolute good and absolute evil do not exist in the MEST [matter, energy, space and time] universe." (Dianetic axiom 188) and "Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion." (Scientology axiom 31). David-Neel has "It would be imprudent, they [the Tibetan intelligentsia] hold, to reveal, indiscrimin|ately to one and all, that, really, there is neither good nor evil, that both are but conventions of a relative character." (IIT, p.216).

Hubbard taught a simplified version of the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of "karma-vipaka" (literally "action and reaction"), with his "overt-motivator" sequence. David-Neel: "Man is dependent on the general Karman [or "karma"] of humanity, and he is also dependent on the cosmic Karman. If a man finds himself caught in the midst of a war, or an epidemic of plague, or if a cataclysm, such as an earthquake, occurs in the place where he is living, the sequence of his own deeds, and perhaps his character, will be altered by these circumstances. Some ts will say that past deeds have led the man to be born in the place where these calamities were going to happen, or perhaps to move to it if the place of his birth was destined to be immune to such troubles." (Buddhism, pp.198-199).

Buddhism: Buddhism its Doctrines and Methods, David-Neel, 1939.

IIT: Initiates and Initiations in Tibet, David-Neel, 1931.

MMT: Magic and Mystery in Tibet, David-Neel, 1929.

Now, I don't know where Hubbard got the Axioms of Scientology from, but I suspect that it may well have been a German philosopher. Be that as it may, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to track it down. My point though, Vinaire, is that with Hubbard you're looking at his interpretation of another's interpretation of Eastern philosophy, whereas source is at your finger tips. :happydance:

Regards, David
 

beyond_horizons

Patron Meritorious
Even Vinnie insists that anyone who disagrees with him has 'upsets'.

Zinj
OK, well since nobody asked, :) ... let me return a favor by rendering my play by play account of the source of Vinnie's upset!

Vinnie was doing just fine and holding his own against all the bantering up until the Class 12 incident.

My bet is that when Ralph and Class 12 acknowledged Vinnie's data series expertise, to handle their ARC or hate break, seems Vinnie was launched into a new 'altitude' of orbit and all the prestige that comes with bringing together two titians of the freezone. He even postulated a reward with a fee.

My bet is that they had no intention of mending their relationship in the first place.

But , and to use Vinnie's terms, what a crush it must have been to his 'ego' when he discovered that all the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men couldn’t bring Ralph and Class 12 back together again.

He let his ego take a chance, prematurely boasted his win. Now in light of his failure to accomplish his stated goal he now deflects his upset with typical scientological attempts to handle by introvertion by claiming 'projection' and blaming others with his favorite list of ad homs.

:waiting:
 
Top