Home » Scientology » Scientology philosophy » The Supreme Being (Investigating the Supreme Being)
| The Supreme Being [message #8489] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 14:31  |
 |
Vinaire
Messages: 1082
Registered: November 2009
Location: Tampa Bay |
Indigo |
|
|
According to my understanding:
The concept of "Supreme Being" is at the bottom of the scale, just like the concept of "oneness" or "One God."
At the top of the scale is Static seen as BRAHMA or NIRVANA (no self).
As I wrote earlier,
Quote:With the use of the Vedic process "neti, neti" I have finally arrived at the following understanding of STATIC. This is also referred as SAGUNA BRAHMA in Vedic terminology.
(1) I shall use the word STATIC for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn't really matter what word I use because word is not the "thing."
(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly... from where... that is impossible to know.
(3) We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly CONSIDER what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.
(4) Thus, we can only know the considerations and not the Static. As we dig deeper for the Static we shall simply find more considerations.
(5) Actually, as we dig deeper for the static in our attempt to describe it, we may describe our own hidden considerations as we uncover them.
(6) Thus, Static is nothing more than a carrot, to help uncover the additives (considerations) that may be hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.
Furthermore:
(7) Static is the core of beingness. It is not the beingness itself. When we think of beingness we think of the thetan.
(8 ) Whether thetan dissolves into Static or not is neither here nor there. At the level of Static there is no time. So, whether one is Static for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.
(9) We would never know if we had ever dissolved into being a Static or not. All we would ever know at the highest level is being a thetan in its simplest form.
(10) As far as we are concerned, the ideal of Static is simply there to help us uncover the deepest of our considerations.
And beyond this:
(11) A thetan can be constrained only by its own considerations. Total freedom would mean not constrained by one's own considerations.
(12) Only those considerations would constrain a thetan that are being generated unconsciously.
(13) A thetan may enjoy life fully; participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.
(14) That would be Nirvana... that would be Static... that would be attaining Brahmahood; for this doesn't mean forsaking of life and adventure.
(15) Nirvana, or total freedom, simply means absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It means total command over oneself. The concept of Brahma, as built into the process "neti, neti," helps one move in that direction.
(16) Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then destroy that consideration.
(17) Nirvana does not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana simply means total control over one's considerations. One can attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one's enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana.
(18) Buddha lived to a grand age of 90, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana. .
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| Re: The Supreme Being [message #8798 is a reply to message #8489 ] |
Thu, 11 February 2010 10:29  |
| |
Valkov
Messages: 1336
Registered: November 2009 |
Indigo |
|
|
Vinaire wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 14:31According to my understanding:
The concept of "Supreme Being" is at the bottom of the scale, just like the concept of "oneness" or "One God."
At the top of the scale is Static seen as BRAHMA or NIRVANA (no self).
As I wrote earlier,
Quote:With the use of the Vedic process "neti, neti" I have finally arrived at the following understanding of STATIC. This is also referred as SAGUNA BRAHMA in Vedic terminology.
(1) I shall use the word STATIC for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn't really matter what word I use because word is not the "thing."
(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly... from where... that is impossible to know.
(3) We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly CONSIDER what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.
(4) Thus, we can only know the considerations and not the Static. As we dig deeper for the Static we shall simply find more considerations.
(5) Actually, as we dig deeper for the static in our attempt to describe it, we may describe our own hidden considerations as we uncover them.
(6) Thus, Static is nothing more than a carrot, to help uncover the additives (considerations) that may be hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.
Furthermore:
(7) Static is the core of beingness. It is not the beingness itself. When we think of beingness we think of the thetan.
(8 ) Whether thetan dissolves into Static or not is neither here nor there. At the level of Static there is no time. So, whether one is Static for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.
(9) We would never know if we had ever dissolved into being a Static or not. All we would ever know at the highest level is being a thetan in its simplest form.
(10) As far as we are concerned, the ideal of Static is simply there to help us uncover the deepest of our considerations.
And beyond this:
(11) A thetan can be constrained only by its own considerations. Total freedom would mean not constrained by one's own considerations.
(12) Only those considerations would constrain a thetan that are being generated unconsciously.
(13) A thetan may enjoy life fully; participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.
(14) That would be Nirvana... that would be Static... that would be attaining Brahmahood; for this doesn't mean forsaking of life and adventure.
(15) Nirvana, or total freedom, simply means absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It means total command over oneself. The concept of Brahma, as built into the process "neti, neti," helps one move in that direction.
(16) Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then destroy that consideration.
(17) Nirvana does not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana simply means total control over one's considerations. One can attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one's enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana.
(18) Buddha lived to a grand age of 90, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana. .
.
This is pretty darn good, Vinaire!
I gave a lot of thought to our discussions about "God", "Individuality" and all that, because I was puzzled.
What was the difference between Vedas, Buddhism, Hubbard, Vinaire, and Valkov? I could not help but think it was a difference of language, a difference of semantics. Of the meaning, in the end of one word.
What did Hubbard mean by "Individuality"? Why did he say it was different from "identity"?
So looking into the meaning of "individuality", I found this: the original meaning of "individual" was essentially the same as "having the quality of being indivisible".
The "individual" is what you have left, when you have taken away all additives.
What Hubbard kept saying about "individual" and Individuality is, It is "uncreated". It is nothing that is created. It is the "creator" and "source" of things,but is never itself created.
It is the source of things, identities, space, time, matter, energy, consideration, postulates, even universes.
It is, as you say above, not a 'beingness' It is the source of beingness.
"Individuality" is "cause", pure and simple. It is not any effect. All created things are effects. An identity is an effect. Individuality is the source of identities, it is the cause of identities, it is not itself an identity or an effect of anything.
Individuality itself has no source, has no cause. It is "indivisible."
I now believe this was the best purely English word Hubbard could find for it, that he thought might not be confused with other, older meanings.
Today, this meaning of "Individual" is marked "archaic" in some dictionaries. In Hubbard's time, it may have still been in more common use.
This meaning is, I believe, similar to the word "advaita", which I am sure you are familiar with.
"ne" or "a" + "dva". "In" from the Latin is equivalent to "Ne". It is common in the evolution/mutation of languages, for sounds to switch places. What is "In" in Latin, is "Ne" in Russian, for example. Your "Neti", for example. In Russian we have "Ne ta", "ne te", ne tot" depending on gender.
Many words "evolved" from the basic root.
"In", "Ne, and "A" are negative prefixes. The rest of the words in the various languages are based on the root meaning "dual", or having two natures.
So when Hubbard says "individuality is the source of things", it is very much similar to someone saying "Brahma is the source of things".
Thus, I understand Hubbard to mean "Individuality" as that Indivisible Static Oneness that creates the Many. Some call it "God", some call it "Supreme Being".
It does not have to be at the bottom of the scale. It depends on how these words are understood.
For me, this helps to solve the apparent differences in doctrines
which should all be pointing to the same basic truth, and I think they do.
More to come!
|
|
| | |
| Re: The Supreme Being [message #8871 is a reply to message #8489 ] |
Fri, 12 February 2010 16:58 |
|
Perhaps this is a matter of a way of life rather than of discreet existences. A way of life could be existence that is not embroiled in the physical universe with its apparent time-space continuum. Another way of life could be manifest existence associated with a particular life form or life forms operating in the apparent time stream. Yet again there is being across all the dynamics with no distinction, yet awareness of being an observer. Possibly there are combinations of all these. Viewpoints rather than the point being viewed.
If there is no time, there is no past and there is no future. There is only perception or awareness of activity within the particular set of shared or created experiences.
Perhaps we are looking only at "tags" or "markers" that allow communication to occur between us, that allow persistence enough to share.
Are we the sun? The storm? The beautiful flowers in the morning? The vast reaches of space?
Do we simply filter our perception using our time-space perception machines we call bodies?
When we individuate from all that is, from all that was, from all that will be, when we enter a discreet existence, is this what is called a Godless existence, an existence that leaves us feeling small, alone and vulnerable and perpetually reaching to enter again a state of grace?
|
|
|
| Re: The Supreme Being [message #8874 is a reply to message #8871 ] |
Fri, 12 February 2010 17:40 |
  |
Gadfly
Messages: 142
Registered: January 2010
Location: Earth |
Yellow |
|
|
Anonymous Participant wrote on Fri, 12 February 2010 10:58Perhaps this is a matter of a way of life rather than of discreet existences. A way of life could be existence that is not embroiled in the physical universe with its apparent time-space continuum. Another way of life could be manifest existence associated with a particular life form or life forms operating in the apparent time stream. Yet again there is being across all the dynamics with no distinction, yet awareness of being an observer. Possibly there are combinations of all these. Viewpoints rather than the point being viewed.
If there is no time, there is no past and there is no future. There is only perception or awareness of activity within the particular set of shared or created experiences.
Perhaps we are looking only at "tags" or "markers" that allow communication to occur between us, that allow persistence enough to share.
Are we the sun? The storm? The beautiful flowers in the morning? The vast reaches of space?
Do we simply filter our perception using our time-space perception machines we call bodies?
When we individuate from all that is, from all that was, from all that will be, when we enter a discreet existence, is this what is called a Godless existence, an existence that leaves us feeling small, alone and vulnerable and perpetually reaching to enter again a state of grace?
In the end, we may simply be whatever we conceive ourselves to "be". In a sense, we can "identify" with anything. That is an "ability" of a thinking entity - the ability to identity with things. Also, this notion exists in the Bible:
"Man was made in God's image".
For me, that means that the CREATIVE power of "God", as that intelligence and patterning force behind all-that-is, also exists, albeit on a "smaller and limited level" in Man. It is not that anything is wrong with "individuation" or "localized consciousness", because the action of taking many isolated viewpoints may be how "God" experiences Itself. I enjoy the notion that possibly each entity is a fine thread from God, forming a locus of energy and LIGHT, able to VIEW from that one unique vantage point. To "see" ones creation would mean having the ability to view it from EVERY possible angle and distance. No isolated view is "right", but taking ALL views together, as some near-infinite multi-tasking of perception, delivers to the creator a "well-rounded" view of creation. In other words, the "value" in each person, is that he or she "views" it in a slightly different way, and ALL VIEWS TAKEN COLLECTIVELY form an "accurate" experience of all-that-is.
Hubbard talked of using a "multiple viewpoint system" in analyzing data. Possibly God does a similar thing, though on a MUCH larger scale, and involving a near infinite number of unique viewpoints. If you add into the mix that trees, animals, stars, planets and galaxies may possibly also each be able "to perceive" as a "form of individualized aware consciousness", well then things may not at all be what they seem (to each of our own limited isolated views).
On the last paragraph, there are the "parts" and there is the "whole". It seems that one, as a "part", as an individualized point of consciousness manifesting as a localized viewpoint, can maintain "awareness of the whole" and can also act as a "part" with a greater awareness of "self" as an integral and NECESSARY PART of the "big consciousness" (that is beyond time, space, and manifested phenomena).
In Hindu literature there is the notion of "eras" - the "yugas". There have always been "humans", and what has changed has been Man's awareness of self in relationship to the "bigger picture". It isn't that you are either God or an individuated point of consciousness, but that you can be one while also BEING the MANY. In the earlier "yugas", the theory goes that Man simply KNEW God, and KNEW on an intuitive level. Each was still a separate "part", but each part clearly knew its relationship to the whole, and could act out its part without confusion, conflict or harm. Some would say that it is the loss of this connection with God that is the problem with THIS current time and place.
Also, the Hindu view includes the idea that there has ALWAYS been "creation" and that there will always be. There is not and will not EVER be "just God". The creator and the created always go hand in hand. But, focus can shift dramatically to the "created" and fall away from the "creator" (thus, "the Fall" of Man).
Interesting point here. Hindu literature states that we are in the Kali Yuga. It is the most degraded state for Man where he is most separated from God. It gets worse, and finally quickly unravels, just to start all over again with a new "pure cycle". But, NOW, it is THE END of the line. Ideas such as "end days" and "Armageddon" resonate with similar ideas from the Bible.
Hubbard's view is entirely different. He says that by following HIS PATH, that the entire declining SPIRAL can be REVERSED. Hubbard implies that we can RISE AGAIN, and reverse the declining trend. That is contrary to many other religious views.
I wonder "which" is true? And, I also wonder, what difference could be made if enough isolated viewpoints came to know their connection with the larger whole, through intentional work and expansion? Or, is the pattern already set and determined as described in the Kali Yuga, and reality will always unfold as endless repetitive cycles of being and becoming?
So much to consider. So little time . . . . .
|
|
| | |
| Re: The Supreme Being [message #8893 is a reply to message #8887 ] |
Sat, 13 February 2010 02:09 |
| |
Gadfly
Messages: 142
Registered: January 2010
Location: Earth |
Yellow |
|
|
fnx3 wrote on Fri, 12 February 2010 16:28And Gadfly ... I only just read yr post too ... whoa!
What you set out reminds me of this article that I read recently:
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
There is a "law of entropy", I think it is, that explains the why of the "dwindling spiral" theory of the Yugas - it goes like this:
"with time energy which is going from a potential state to a kinetic state diminishes until there is nothing left". Although how that also fits with the law that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" I haven't quite worked out 
Suffice to say that I have found meditation to be a wonderful way to remind & refresh oneself of both the "whole" & being "part of the whole".
Yeah, me too! I meditate twice every day (for 30-60 minutes). It gets way beyond words, as I have long ago learned to silence the intellect and explore "non-verbal realms". A great one is "open-eyed meditation". Do about 10 minutes of regular mantra-type meditation, let all thoughts slow and dissipate, get to a point where you are just there, calmly aware, silent, quiet, and walk around in the woods. Don't even allow yourself to focus on anything. Just be there. I have it happen at times where I seem to "snap out" into the environment, and am there "as the woods". No thoughts, just crystal clear quiet pervasion of the surroundings. Sort of. Still looking "out through the eyes", BUT a very different "state of consciousness". Sometimes I gently "give myself" to "God", and say, "here you go, YOU take a look at just how GREAT it all is", "you take over the channels of perception for a few moments here", I step aside (mentally), and I watch as HE WATCHES! Very cool! VERY different! Of course, don't try driving when doing THAT!!!
By the way, I love that picture! It pictures in a way what I was talking about with "infinite numbers of fine tentacles spreading out forming infinite points of views".
I read a book last week, called "The Science of Self-Realization" by Swami Prabhupada. He is the guy who started the "Hare Krshna" movement. The picture was in that book! Synchronicity! Oh, I wouldn't call it a "science" though, but it seems all these swami types from the 1950-1960 period, Hubbard included, tried to tack on the world "science" to their chosen fields to give them more "impact" and "legitimacy". (mainly a PR gimmick really)
I did a contemplation on the "meaning" of the Hare Krshna mantra, so that it would have "associations" for me on a subconscious and non-verbal level, and I now end my daily meditation with about 2 minutes of the Hare Krshna mantra. Really intense shit happens! I can't imagine if I would do it for 5 or 10 minutes. I get the feeling that I might "lose it" (go into some weird trance). I experiment quite a bit with this stuff. Yeah, I know - I make it all up in my imagination! But, since you do that ANYWAY, whether you know it or not, you might as well take some responsibility for what you mock up.
The swami is a bit of a pompous ass too, like LRH, and he also asserts that his way is the ONLY "right way". They should all get together and form a club!
The notion that subatomic particles can "communicate" at ANY distance has been the main idea that writers use to explain how "spirit" might exist below all physical reality. I enjoy the notion of the "invisible intelligence underlying all-that-is that creates and sets the PATTERNS for every level of reality". The patterns for atoms, electrons, molecules, cells, all the way up to solar systems and galaxies! What I love about meditation (and there are MANY different types with different aims), is that it BYPASSES logic and thinkingness entirely, and enables contact and experience with "subtle & alternate realities". I like contemplating the idea of the "intelligence" that sets the patterns for something like the "sun", and then digging into it with a meditation.
Of course, the possibility of "delusion" is very high with such "subjective" practices. But, as long as you don't try to push it on anybody or sell it to them, who cares?
That is one aspect of Scn that always bothered me. It didn't have any DOINGNESS where I could "go there" at will. It was either, "get the results from auditing in whatever way they happen to come", or create more thinkingness with training. Oh, or wait until you get to OT 8, 9, 10 and above! Too long of a runway for me. That is why occult/meditation stuff always attracted me so much; because it opens the door to PLAYING with many other realities left untouched by Scientology. Right now! Just learn to use your mind and imagination, through PRACTICE and EXERCISES aimed at certain unique mental/imaginative developments.
Scientology cuts it up into "theta" and "MEST". There is SO MUCH else between those two extremes!!!!!!!! An infinity of worlds and realities actually!
Shit, now I have gone on done it! I am riding one of many my favorite hobby horses. Mysticism, the occult, magick, meditation and alternative "spirituality". But, it does have "something" to do ith the "supreme being".
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Sep 10 13:45:29 CEST 2010
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I have used an open-eyed meditation with astounding results some years ago & oh yeah, gave the hare krishna mantra a pretty good work out when I was a lot younger but not with any noticeable benefit.
