GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:huh, you guys did Scientology training?

That explains a lot, actually.

Ehe. Ehehehe. Aahahahahahaaa!

[Blair]

Why does one need bliss to buy a car? Or to fix a car? Or to sell a car? I need a car, I buy a car. The car breaks down, I fix the car. I need to sell the car, I sell the car. Listen to Diebert on this one, serenity of being is not about being blissful or not being blissful, but about being undisturbed. "Be still and know I am God." This is what I was referring to when I spoke of post-wisdom awareness of the rising up within one's consciousness of the 'desire heap to world build or meaning-make.' Why do you require bliss to be present to buy a car or fix a car or sell a car? What happens if bliss is not present?

What do you actually experience Pam?
(;
No fibs OK?
Quotes and theory don't mean shit.
Words are words, not that.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:huh, you guys did Scientology training?

No, I was just having you on. Never come across it before in my life.

What led you to such a thing? Did it cost?

The TRs can't be explained.
Only in the direct experience are the TRs known.

Oh, they can be explained, since that's what the course does. The question is whether or not one can actually clear the mind. That takes some doing for such long periods!

L: So, what I make of it now is that in Scientology, enlightenment is when an individual is sufficiently released from “charge” (all those unconscious, reactionary feelings) relating to transgressions on the four flows (self to self, self to other, others to self, others to others) that the transgressions against him and his own transgressions against others no longer have a debilitating effect; he is freed up of the burden of such past upsets to make clear and reasoned decisions in the present. The “earlier similar” stuff is about getting to the first in a chain of such experiences that foggy up “theta”. Since I don’t believe in an immortal soul independent of the flesh, “theta” did and still does translate to me as simply as "thought".

D: it's so obvious.
Clarity.

Well, what's problematic is the difference between believing in an inherently existing self—an "immortal soul independent of the flesh"—and treating something such as "past life experiences" as a pure mental construct.

I thought you said earlier you didn't believe in an inherently existing self?

L: I never knew anything about Buddhism when I came across Scientology so many years ago. But I’ll be damned if I can’t see the reason for the many parallels between it and Buddhism, especially now!

Fascinating.

D: Wonderful.
LRH was cool.
Totally practical.
Game changer.
He always said the training was the real deal.

He was certainly a god, especially by the buddhist definition!

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What led you to such a thing?

Causality.

Did it cost?

Yes, John. It costs. There's a saying around those parts; "You have to be OT to go OT".

Makes one wonder what you're paying for then?

Causality leads to strange things.

What's OT? I've really got no clue about Scientology whatsoever, besides that they depict it in the media as a scam and act as if it has something to do with aliens :\ So yeah, no clue.

Ok well wiki makes it sound like a scam which uses buddhist-like notions and truths to hook members (except with some added bullshit).

Dennis Mahar wrote: Quotes and theory don't mean shit.
Words are words, not that.

It's all you have on a forum. It's all you are on a forum.

And of course ones own fantasies and self-hypnosis on top of that.

Which only can be addressed if meaning starts to mean something again.

Being bliss and being serenity, incidentally, are not poles apart, experientially they are harmonically closely related.
I'm not talking about the bliss of food or sex or wonderful conversation as dependent on that stuff showing up and engaged.
It turns out to be a commitment.
A possibility in the matter of being to be resolute about as Kierkegaard and Heidegger disclosed.
At times incredibly lonely in coping with the general resignation, complacency, cynicism of the Herd.
It's like learning to ride a bike and keeping going courageously.
Generating it situationally, concretely.
There's no concern about a lack of Supply.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Why does one need bliss to buy a car? Or to fix a car? Or to sell a car? I need a car, I buy a car. The car breaks down, I fix the car. I need to sell the car, I sell the car. Listen to Diebert on this one, serenity of being is not about being blissful or not being blissful, but about being undisturbed. "Be still and know I am God." This is what I was referring to when I spoke of post-wisdom awareness of the rising up within one's consciousness of the 'desire heap to world build or meaning-make.' Why do you require bliss to be present to buy a car or fix a car or sell a car? What happens if bliss is not present?

What do you actually experience Pam?
(;
No fibs OK?
Quotes and theory don't mean shit.
Words are words, not that.

Dennis regardless of what I must cause, and by I, I mean the principle of causality, I must cause something as you must cause something as everyone must cause something, I know that it is when I am still, I, as the principle of causality, cause the 'right' (clean, pure, purposeful, meant-to-be) effect.

For me, stillness is the ideal of wise (empty of desiring this effect or that effect) causation, not bliss. This is why I say emotional states or moods as you call them such as bliss are problematic when they are viewed from the perspective of being the foundation state of causal movement. Bliss feels good to be sure, but feeling good does not clean, free-flowing movement of effects make. And for me, to be the vehicle of free-flowing movement of effects is the goal of wise spiritual practice, not to feel good.

Am 'I' still in every moment so the clean flow of causation can be revealed? Hardly. I know that because i have causal regrets. Which no longer 'fester', but they do serve as a reminder to “be still and know I am God (the Causality)”.

Why I quote the Buddha is that his is a teaching of 'clearing' that is available to everyone free of charge (unlike many modern schools of thought, including Scientology) which, for me, is an important demonstration of pure causal intent. For example, since you and I began communicating, you have been auditing me, which, until this thread, I did not know. How many times did I ask you to stop doing what I thought was simply a misguided attempt to show you 'understood' my intent, or that you cared, and how many times did you fail to honour this request? Too many to count. Why did you hide your true intent? Is this not one of these fibs you asked me not to tell? A fib of omission?

Having answered your question as asked, will you please answer mine as asked, giving fleshed out answers, not quickie, glib one-liners that serve only to halt the movement of authentic causal exchange.

You talk about Ideals Pam,
how one should be or not be etc..
theorising
constructing an archetype

I'm not interested in advice.

I'm interested in direct experience.

When I say bliss I experience bliss.
When I say I love you I experience love.

When I say serenity I experience serenity

When I'm grumpy I'm excellent at it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Being bliss and being serenity, incidentally, are not poles apart, experientially they are harmonically closely related.
I'm not talking about the bliss of food or sex or wonderful conversation as dependent on that stuff showing up and engaged.
It turns out to be a commitment.
A possibility in the matter of being to be resolute about as Kierkegaard and Heidegger disclosed.
At times incredibly lonely in coping with the general resignation, complacency, cynicism of the Herd.
It's like learning to ride a bike and keeping going courageously.
Generating it situationally, concretely.
There's no concern about a lack of Supply.

If one must generate bliss situationally, concretely, they are not being bliss. Being implies an unchanging state. Bliss is not unchanging. Herein lies the core problem with feeling states or moods, regardless of how happy they make one feel for the moment. They must be regenerated (reborn) again and again and again. A more wholesome rebirth than that of hate, to sure, but no different in principle. To borrow your bicycle metaphor, one must keep pedaling to keep going. It is the constant pedaling that is the suffering.

Dennis Mahar wrote:You talk about Ideals Pam,
how one should be or not be etc..
theorising
constructing an archetype

I'm not interested in advice.

I'm interested in direct experience.

When I say bliss I experience bliss.
When I say I love you I experience love.

When I say serenity I experience serenity

When I'm grumpy I'm excellent at it.

Dennis, I cannot give you my direct experience. How can you not see this truth? You're not interested in advice? This coming from a man who loves to give advice, who lives to give advice. And if you're grumpy or in bliss, please, before we talk, get out of bliss and get out of grumpy. They only get in my way.

It is the constant pedaling that is the suffering.

One is at cause and resolute in the matter, easy peasy.
Works out fine.
Practical Wisdom.

Dennis, I cannot give you my direct experience. How can you not see this truth? You're not interested in advice? This coming from a man who loves to give advice, who lives to give advice. And if you're grumpy or in bliss, please, before we talk, get out of bliss and get out of grumpy. They only get in my way.

Quit sookin' love.

Bottom line, you want to generate bliss and grumpy, no problem. I do not want to generate bliss and grumpy. Do I understand the non-generation of bliss and grumpiness to be an ideal state? No. Please hear me and stop projecting Ideal on my intent. Do I need to say it again for you to hear me?

Stillness is not an ideal, it is our natural state, our unconditioned state. Bliss is a condition. Grumpy is a condition.

Again I ask you to answer my posts without projecting your conditions of bliss or grumpy on me. Sorry, but I felt that another slap on the wrist of Dennis-the-auditor was necessary. Why? The history of Dennis on Genius tells me so.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Dennis, I cannot give you my direct experience. How can you not see this truth? You're not interested in advice? This coming from a man who loves to give advice, who lives to give advice. And if you're grumpy or in bliss, please, before we talk, get out of bliss and get out of grumpy. They only get in my way.

Quit sookin' love.

Goodbye Dennis.

Hubbard dismissed privately Buddhist style emptiness and nirvana wholesale as more "goals-problem-mass":

• We are Scientologists. We won't fall into the abyss [of emptiness]. And we won't join Nirvana. We have meters and a map. We know the rules and the way.

His whole movement is a perfect demonstration of the game of self-delusion, power-tripping, self-enrichment, self-enjoyment, self-hypnosis, guilt-relief and lots of 2nd hand psychology tricks. In other words it's Church of Egotology. And it fits perfectly this age of self! There are enough people on this forum ready to enlist in some variant or private concoction of same. In that sense it's indeed the 20th century version of Buddhism converted as toxic vehicle for self and self-excitement. Most things these days have entered that conversion. It's nihilism.

movingalways wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Dennis, I cannot give you my direct experience. How can you not see this truth? You're not interested in advice? This coming from a man who loves to give advice, who lives to give advice. And if you're grumpy or in bliss, please, before we talk, get out of bliss and get out of grumpy. They only get in my way.

Quit sookin' love.

Goodbye Dennis.

Enlightened lover's spats, on the next frickin Geraldo.

/facepalm/

jupiviv wrote:

movingalways wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Dennis, I cannot give you my direct experience. How can you not see this truth? You're not interested in advice? This coming from a man who loves to give advice, who lives to give advice. And if you're grumpy or in bliss, please, before we talk, get out of bliss and get out of grumpy. They only get in my way.

Quit sookin' love.

Goodbye Dennis.

Enlightened lover's spats, on the next frickin Geraldo.

/facepalm/

An unenlightened comment, see Diebert's post above for reason.

An unenlightened comment, see Diebert's post above for reason.

Why?

What do you want Pam?
or want for?
There's a Supply Issue of concern.

You say Stillness is the natural state.
That is still a moodedness, a relatedness.

Being at cause means the ability to pull in any old mood available appropriate to the concrete situation.

Some personhoods are disposed to monasticism.
It doesn't amount to anything.

Temporally flicking thru' the moods doesn't cancel out a pervading peace.
The left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.
moods are equipment
thinking is equipment.

The task is to get yourself in the driver's seat.
Is that it?

Leyla,

Oh, they can be explained, since that's what the course does. The question is whether or not one can actually clear the mind. That takes some doing for such long periods!

I meant explaining the direct experience of the TR's to the 'experts' around here who merely opinionate without 'knowing'.
Bless their little socks.
How can the experience of blowing off a chain of earlier/similars be conveyed to these 'experts' who rush of to wikipedia to get a quote in order to look like an expert.