Ascensionism®

 

This is a big subject that we will be taking piece by piece. But the fact is there have been many serious errors foisted off onto the seekers of truth by various pundits and gurus, some due to innocent incomplete or mistaken perception, and others due to evil and destructive intent.

Needless to say, some examples are historical as were used by the established religions of centuries ago.  They are now obvious, and I’ll not be dealing with them. What this note will address will be the errors that have been created and introduced within our own lifetimes that have led us astray.

L. Ron Hubbard is primary in this respect.

The true history of Hubbard is that he was a narcissistic sadist, fraud and conman whose private “Affirmations” acted to reinforce such notions and powers that “all men were his slaves” and “all women surrendered to him.” Notoriously, he falsely claimed to have earned a PhD, this till the Victorian State Government inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Anderson published its findings revealing Hubbard’s many frauds and lies.

Hubbard’s “Axioms of Scientology” contain a number of apparently correct propositions and truths regarding the Conditions of Existence and our Spiritual Presence and Being.

In retrospect, one should note the pompous nature of the “grand statements” of these Axioms that give them an air of “scientific exactitude.”

Scientology Axiom 1.  LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Of course, the first question becomes: What does he mean by “LIFE.” Is he speaking of the game and activity that is “life” or is he referring to the Life Forms that are engaged in the activity of Life and Living. Observing LIFE and defining it in a dictionary one finds it is anything BUT static or “a” static.

Hubbard does go on to describe some characteristics of a “Life Static” that is merely relating some obvious points except that he mis-uses the word “postulate” . . . As scientologists know, it is used throughout the subject to mean, as stated in the Scientology Dictionary: verb sense #1, “causative thinkingess.”  In other words, throughout the subject Hubbard spawned the word “postulate” is used to mean you bring something into existence by postulating it into existence.

Here follows is an exchange between Alan Walter and myself in November, 2006.
 
 We often exchanged research "notes."
 
 The word "Spirita" is the word Alan coined in order to get away from using the word "Theta" :J
 
 Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:25 PM
 To: rb .com.
 Subject: NEW AXIOM 1
 
 Dear Rog,
 
 Thanks for the research material.
 
 This maybe of some help.
 
 A.
 
 My suggestion is to print this off and put copies near you and read it several times a day.
 
 If your mood level drops or you are having difficulties with honoring your presence, power or purpose - read this.
 
 Alan
 
 NEW AXIOM 1
 
 NEW AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE
 
 Definition: A Lifeforce Presence is pure Spirita it has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.
 
 A Lifeforce Presence is infinite in depth, breadth, size and scope.
 
 A Lifeforce Presence in its purest state is capable of infinite aliveness, infinite powers, infinite duplication, infinite permeation, infinite intelligence, infinite abilities, infinite cleverness, infinite strengths, infinite skills, infinite creation, infinite love, infinite truth, infinite harmony, infinite knowledge, infinite know-how, infinite responsibility, infinite control, infinite experience, infinite exchange and infinite integrity it should be noted that each one of these infinite capabilities also has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.
 
 A Lifeforce Presence is in a state of oneness with all these capabilities.
 
 A Lifeforce Presence is senior to all gradient scales and the mechanics of life.
 
 A Lifeforce Presence has the ability to create and to perceive.
 
 ALAN C. WALTER
 
 27 November 2006
 
 
I replied next day:
 
 New Axiom 1---Something Omitted
 
 Dear Alan,
 
 I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:
 
 A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.
 
 One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita.
 
 This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
 
 I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.
 
 Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1.
 
 Rog
 
 
Alan did embrace my bright little note.

Note the specificity and exactness here that “LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE”


Scientology Axioms 3 and 4 could be picked apart, but I don’t want to make this posting a matter of nuancing shades of gray.

Scientology Axiom 4 states: SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.

This is really an example of Hubbard’s utter grandiose nonsense.

Space is NOT a “viewpoint” in any way shape or form.

Space is an expanse of existence that enables the determining of the extent of separation between positions. Space and Time facilitate the positioning of viewpoints, but are themselves not “viewpoints.”

Scientology Axiom 5 states: ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLS IN SPACE.

There’s that word “postulate(d)” being misused again, but more to the point “energy” is not necessarily particulate nor necessarily located in space.  In the spiritual realm, the directing of one’s Spiritual Life-Force and Powers is very energetic and not located in space nor particulate.

Scientology Axiom 7 states: TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.

In actuality, the creation of TIME was occasioned with and by our FIRST ENVISIONING THE WANT OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE THEN CURRENTLY EXPERIENCED. WE WANTED A NEW EXPERIENCE TO BE CREATED, AND THAT “TO BE” BROUGHT FUTURE TIME INTO EXISTENCE

Scientology Axiom 8 states: THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE.

That word “Apparency” is troublesome.  Is change not demonstrative of the fact of the passage of time? And what about the experience and observation of one’s own causation?

Scientology Axiom 10 states: THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.

Well that very much speaks to Hubbard’s narcissism . . . he was a dominator who had to subjugate everyone to his will.

Personally, I find my highest purpose is that of wanting to continue in existence in the manner I choose. And that includes having/maintaining a group of friends with whom can be shared a co-empowering relationship and existence of a game.

OK, the above should keep you all going for a while . . . we are restricted to word count per post. MORE TO COME ON THIS SUBJECT.

Rog

Those Axioms were my stumbling block for too many years. No matter how many times I read and re read, studied and mock up them up, I would always remain confused. The trick I developed to better "understand" those Axioms was to admit to myself that I lacked the necessary intelligence to gain true, conceptual understanding of them.

I was then actively sabotaging my own spiritual advancement by accepting those axioms, even though I could not understand them. Talk about denying my own integrity........ 

But when I began to explore the spiritual universe and all aspects thereof, more and more I realized, that those "axioms" were wrong and were suppressing my advancement.

Roger, I believe you are correct with your assessment of Hubbard.

Good post, Julian . . . would love to see you do more! (M&

Yes, Hubbard was the individual who sadistically abused those under his control: for example, locking very young children in the ship's chain locker for extended periods of time; making an aged individual push a peanut around the ships deck with his NOSE for hours till his nose bled due to skin loss; throwing an old woman who could not swim overboard to "discipline" her, etc. And his narcissistic vanity and projection of self importance was almost painful to behold once one understood what the hell was going on.

Julian, reading your post, it seems to me you got some wins and validation from the opener (M&

That makes me very happy.

/

Of course Hubbard is not the only screw-up touting false knowledge.

In around 1962-3 I well remember "Professor" Arnold Ehret . . . he was a nutritional guru introduced to me by a Scientologist friend who sung his praises.  Ehret's schtick was that your body could make whatever it needed from whatever clean nutrients you gave it . . . his most notable recommendation being his "grape diet."  All you ate was grapes, and thus your body cleaned out the accumulated "mucous" it had built up and the body would then use simply grapes and nothing else to rebuild.

His famous book of the day was "The Mucousless Diet Healing System."

As one of my research endeavors, I tried it. It was a bum steer. Also, the "Professor" was no professor.

Another bum steer that is current, today as we speak, is so much of the stuff touted by Gregg Braden . . . he is one of those popular YouTube/internet gurus in the vein of Deepak Chopra.

If you want to witness some of the junk-think touted by him, try this most recent stuff:
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/unexplained/gregg-braden-if-we-are-living-in-a-simulated-reality-who-put-us-here-and-for-what-reason/

The idea that we are living in and as an AI or Computer simulation is currently rather fashionable!

It's as though these guys, he is one of many even in the "scientism" community, who seem to be simply throwing up as many different ideas about us and "existence" as they can dream up . . . which, of course is all touted as "interesting" possibilities  . . . and which they hope they can garner some interest or agreement on.

If you are game, here is Braden's effort:
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/unexplained/gregg-braden-if-we-are-living-in-a-simulated-reality-who-put-us-here-and-for-what-reason/

Rog

Scientology Axiom 11 might contain the most egregious nonsense of all.

Axiom 11 states: "THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOURFOLD.
a)      AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival."

This notion of “As-Is-ness” has led so many people astray as to be shameful. Though it must be realized that Hubbard was first a writer of fiction and gifted of hyperbole. This junked up piece of writing just simply mis-uses too many self-contradicting concepts all mixed up in one effort to appear “learned.”

Firstly, any “condition of immediate creation” can have as content the notion and intent of continuance and persistence into the future. Indeed, this was the basis of our first alteration to our Native Pristine State in the Supreme Being’s Universe when we envisioned the “Universal Visions” which became the persistent future that is fundamental to our current condition.

Secondly, that phrase: ”the condition which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction,” is total nonsense and non-sequitur and contradictory to the purported notion of “As-Is-ness” touted by Hubbard. This because “destruction” per force is a secondary action against something that already exists; but more importantly it contradicts the first clause of this grandiose statement by Hubbard. It also violates his own Axiom 13.-+

You folks who were on our earlier forum will remember one of the members touting a variation of this nonsense presented by Hubbard. The member presented it as though a “great hidden truth” in a “koan” of Buddhist wisdom. Rather than let the chaos and confusion continue and mis-direct our whole forum, I acted to point out the errors and inconsistencies in his proposition.

Unfortunately, rather than continue in a civil discourse, the individual became vitriolic and abusive. Fortunately, Christian, being 6 hours ahead of New York, saw the abuse before our membership in the rest of the world, and blocked the tirade. The member then “rage quit” our forum . . . I point this out because this is the kind of consequence that is too often an occurrence when folks have embraced bum confusing data as though it to be great pivotal wisdom.

More correctly, if Hubbard wanted to introduce this notion of As-Isness, he should have simply written: AS-ISNESS is the condition of immediate creation without additions or alteration.

The fact is, the initial creation (or vision projected into existence) can have any notion regarding its persistence or relationship to time included as part of its creation that the author chooses.

All else Hubbard wrote in his definition is superfluous, pompous, and in error.

Axiom 11 continues on with:
c) "IS-NESS is the apparency brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is called when agreed upon, Reality."

Here is another example of Hubbard’s effort to be grandiose and over-think the issues he is dealing with.

Firstly “IS-NESS” and Reality do NOT require “continuous alteration” of anything at all. Such action, of course, can lead to the development of chaos, confusion, upset and spiritual and mental mass.

Demonstrably, REALITY can be seen to be the resulting outcome of we Spiritual Beings fusing our agreement on or with the telepathically projected visions or images of another.  To be noted, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vision (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vision) has a wonderful and complete definitions of “vision,” and also of “image,” that applies here.

Creating reality is the act of fusing one’s agreement to, on or with another’s envisioned concept or idea. It is spiritually agreeing and fusing Life-Force agreement with or on a spiritually projected concept that creates reality.

Hubbard’s “IS-NESS,” of course, can be brought about by the simple, pure, initial creation or envisioning of a concept intended to continue on in existence from its moment of creation. Its continuance being part of its exact creation to do so.

An example of this is the creation of the “Universal Visions” that introduced the notion of “future existence and its continuum.”

Many probably do not know, but Hubbard "borrowed" even the name Scientology itself from someone else, namely a German scientist, Dr. Anastasius Nordenholz.

When Hubbard lost his rights for the Dianetics trademark in 51/52 he needed a new name for his gig. The church lore says he and his wife Mary Sue came up with the name Scientology.

But this can not be true. Not only did A. Nordenholz come up with the name Scientology decades before, he also, in his work, tried to summerize his findings on counsciusness in an axiomatic format, even labeling his precepts Axioms.
https://www.scientologie.de/English/Table_of_Contents/Chapter_II/chapter_ii.html

Christian

Yep!  John McMaster gave me this data back around 1969.  

My impression being that the info came to John from Hubbard himself.

Rog

Yep!  John McMaster gave me this data back around 1969. 

My impression being that the info came to John from Hubbard himself.

Rog

Interesting! 


Christian

Thanks for this thread !

Since first time I knew the existence of the old axioms I have spent too much time trying to understand them but just with little or non success, advancing in one and getting stuck in another. Thanks to the research made by Alan and the research that Roger is still doing and kindly share with us in this forum, their discovery of the earlier universes, the new terms, concepts and definitions, now it's more clear to me. I see how I was using the old axioms as explanations to understand life and its phenomena, but again with little success. I'm still stuck with some of them, but now with the information in this thread, and I hope Roger light us with more about it, I can now Clean Slate some of them and start to use it in the right way.

Thanks again !

Jorge,

It is my great joy to be able to help the good folks like you on this forum . . .

PLEASE . . . speak up and let me know which of the Axioms you are stuck with . . . this way, I can debug the ones the good guys like you and Julian have been stuck with.

This will save me some time . . . I started this thread to address the nonsense from #1 onward . . . But I prefer to hit what is needed rather than simply addressing what I see from #1 to #54+??

To be noted . . .  it is to be giving oneself a WRONG INDICATION and a "Bum Steer" to be saying "I don't understand what the great God Lord Hubbard, or any other "scientism" phony authority has uttered"

Too much of their utterings are bullshit incomprehensibleness.

The actuality I continue to observe is that they cannot and do not actually either address or perceive WHAT IS.

My observation ccurrently, in dealing with their presentations directly about 2-3 times weeklyis, all they are dealing with and can confront are "representations of the actual."  They love extrapolations based on thoughts and opinions ABOUT what they invent to be possibilities of what might be that are then structured into their famous "models."

They are honestly so far south of actually dealing with what is, it is a head spin.

They LOVE being stuck with what is "interesting" but which does not resolve the issue trying to be resolved or understood . . . my observation is in the order of magnitude that they CANNOT experience the truth of direct observation.

But that is the actual human condition . . . otherwise we would not be in the situation we are in.

So, please, you guys who are active, ask of me what you want resolved.

It will help us all.

Rog

I am of the opinion that Hubbard wrote these Axioms in an attempt to legitimize his subject Dianetics and later Scientology as a proper science. In the early days, he was all about "scientific study", just look at the title of his earlier books which contained words like "modern" and "science".

He was very fond of referencing Friedrich Nietzsche and also named a series of Bulletins "Scientology, Science and Certainty" which interestingly enough Nietzsche used the same title - Science and Certainty. It was in these "famous" bulletins were Hubbard made the grandiose statement that Scientology can cure cancer.

Christian is also correct in stating that Hubbard "borrowed" the term "Scientologie" for his new redesigned philosophy from a German Philosopher. He also "borrowed" Aberact Therapy and repackaged it as Dianetics along with processes from Oder Tempali Orientis which became the earlier "advanced" materials. And the list goes on..........

Perhaps the biggest win I have ever gained from my own processing(it was a few years back) was when I accessed that part of my past existence, which I have come to realize as my earliest, which is best described as a state of "being one with all". And then these "Hubbard Axiom" made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Roger, Thank you for sharing your views, thoughts and opinions . I look forward to the next .

Thank you so much Roger !  I(&

It would be so much interesting to me to know your insights about axiom 11's b) and d) , clearing some axioms is producing a clearing chain reaction in some others axioms as I reading them again in present time.

Thank you so much Roger !  I(&

It would be so much interesting to me to know your insights about axiom 11's b) and d) , clearing some axioms is producing a clearing chain reaction in some others axioms as I reading them again in present time.

OK, Guys and Gals, I've been chewing on aspects of this reply to Jorge for some hours now . . . mainly on the endeavor to articulate, succinctly and accurately, the notion of "WHAT IS TIME"!

If you see any holes in my dissertation on "time," let me know.

Apart from the "TIME" thing, here is my exposé on Axiom 11. (b)


AXIOM 11. (b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistence.

Again pompous erroneous nonsense.  I am using his First Edition “Scientology 0-8, The Book Of Basics” as my source of his work here.

Note that comma (,) after the word persistence.  It is totally in error.

This whole Axiom is over-thinking, grandiosity and bullsh*t. 

Alter-is-ness may well introduce change into what already exists (the earlier created existence) but it does not and cannot “introduce time or persistence” into that which already exists. That which already exists does so due to prior creation and has been persisting in time before it could be “alter-is-ed.”

“TIME” was created into existence when we envisioned the Universal Visions of the FUTURES we wanted to have and experience instead of the boring continuum of NOW in the Heavens.

The Universal Visions is the quintessential persisting continuum. It did not and does not require “Alter-is-ness” for its persistence, this because the reason it would persist was a basic element of its original “As-IS” creation.

The Universal Visions was created to persist!

All creations envisioned after the creation of the Universal Visions were created in the context of and related to the future time as envisioned by the Universal Visions.

Indeed, one of the unfortunate liabilities of the Universal Visions is that its involuntary replication continuance confers on all new creation the automatic tendency to persist unless that new creation was specifically created not to persist in or as the future, but then such creations would become part of our memory of the past which routinely persists in that form!!

The notion of the past was created by our envisioning of the “Universal Mind.” As a concept, it was a solution created to handle what we did not want to experience in the future or present and was relegated to being “done,” finished, put it behind us.  To be noted is the point that the Universal Mind also contains the solutions designed and intended to detect and react to handle and solve that which we did not want to experience (again) in the future.

If I were to be asked to define time as it exists now, I would put it in these terms:  Time is a concept of a dimension in or of our domain of spiritual existence, and is the result of sequential considerations, that affords us the faculty of locating objects and considerations in a dimension that differentiates their position based on the duration of either their existence or movement relative to each other. 

Time as we now know it to be and experienced is the result of sequential creative considerations or envisionings. Originally as the creating and envisioning of the future that is wanted and exists, then, secondly, what was not wanted to be in the future or experienced there was solved by removal to a putative “past” along with its being managed by the solution to manage or counter it whenever it is detected. This being the basis of our Involuntary Replication phenomena.

Here we see expressed the two earliest altering creations to our Pristine Native State Condition of Existence, the introduction of the Universal Visions and then the Universal Mind.

OK, Jorge . . . did my last post on Axiom 11. (b) do it for you???

Rog
/

Hey Rog ! 

Thank you so much ! I'm still translating and intending to not miss any word of it. Give me a little more time !  O:)

"If you see any holes in my dissertation on "time," let me know." 
I don't think so, let me share what I understood about it.

The creation named "future time" was conceived by us in the Universal Visions Realm of Existence as an unusual solution of infinite next posiblities from the then unexperienciable boring "present" of the Heavens Realm of Existence harmony. 

The creation named "past time" was conceived by us in the Universal Mind Realm of Existence as an unusual solution to the then unexperienciable, continued and "uncreated" present or possible future creations, and the unusual solution was putting them in a record stored in the mind machine that also works as an automatic response to never create it again or how to solve if we dela again with that, and with it apparently solving the problem of the then still present or future unexperienciable creation, so from there anything created or experienced, or possibily created or experienced, pleasant or unpleasant, was automatically stored in the Mind Machine and it can be recalled to present time with the name and sensation of "past".

[hat]

Well,

Jorge . . . you have it, and very well indeed.

Just as a little note for all you guys, over the recent years (20 or so) as I processed my case, I kept running into a cognition cum experience that revealed to me the way in which I (and probably we) automatically (and involuntarily on an unwitting basis) create what in actuality is our unwanted futures
 (/+ _)L

What I kept spotting was that when ever I spotted any item that was not wanted or was un-experiential, my awareness would automatically go to it BEING NOT WANTED TO BE EXPERIENCED IN THE FUTURE . . . and my auto solutions would kick in to solve or otherwise resist it there, in and as the "to be not had future.".

Which, of course created that particular (resisted) future.

The good news is that that particular involuntary replication has pretty much ended now . . .

I give you this little tip to let you know to not be surprised at the crazy stuff one can have running on auto.

Rog

Ok Rog, I think I get it !
By the new Is-Ness definition, the initial spiritual creation is already persisting because it was intented be this way, so Alter-Is-Ness is just one of the many forms that we can "add" more mass of a spiritual creation or "fix" it, adding change or altering it, so it can be with the intention 1) to unusually solve to get rid of it (I think it could add "more" persistence because makes more difficult and unwilling to get the truth on it) or 2) fixing it to get an upgrade. 

I think Aperceive-Ness could be a great substitute for the old As-Is-Ness word, and New As-Is-Ness could prevail with its new definition.

The way I see it "Is-ness" is what was agreed upon. People often say "it is what it is" but actually mean "it is what we say it is". And when there is consensus, that's the Is-ness. 

In order to transcend "Is-ness" we first need to recognize that we actually are in agreement, in a cultural progamming or otherwise caught into a certain paradigm.
Then it is easier to cognite on what was sourced by us and what was sourced by whom (individuals and group agreements).
Alter-is-ness is in my view more like a personal alteration  from our original observation, intention or creation (each being altering truth for themseves). Originally we created something and then we altered away... and away... but it was all still in our own universe. It is the interaction with others that creates an Isness.
Is-ness must not be bad per se. It's getting massiv and burdensome when we identify too much with the agreements and imagery instead of separating Is-Ness as a condition of existence that was created and ourselves as creators and co-creators.

But really ugly it becomes further down in Not-is-ness when we start to fight it all and get stuck in mortal combat with our own creations and other's sourceness and creations and agreements. Not-isness is like can't have what is or must have a certain way regardless of what the condition actually is. Totally deluded state.

Through processing we can unravel it and come down to the truth (who, where, when, what etc.) and get unstuck again.
The more truth is seen the more rubbish can be undone and we are free to re-align whatever the creation or game.

I believe Hubbard did not correctly define what he means with "condition" and "creation" in conjuction with the above Axioms.
Destruction also is not the best word to use to talk about "ceasing to create", "uncreate", "undo" etc.

Best regards,
Christian

Good post Christian!!

I have long observed on the issue of our misused, misdirected Spiritual Life-Force, that counter-forces and counter-creations simply result in the condition of STUCK FLOWS . . . as in, something or another's emanated vision exists and you are dull enough to oppose it, the only result you get is your Life Force, as directed, hangs up at the point in existence (time and space) where your Life Force collides with that which you are opposing in a ridge of STASIS that persists on, getting more and more solid as time progresses.

Hence, since "REALITY" is the result of fused agreement (and note, to oppose something you need to have agreed it exists) all you need to practice in order to be free from that which you do not wish to suffer or experience, is to not agree to its emanation into existence, and/or its continued existence.

That is, to be precise . .  the other Being(s) emanate or projects an envisioned existence you find unacceptable, simply don't agree to its "realitification" by agreeing to or with it.

And to be further explicit, you can undo and withdraw any agreement of yours that you had earlier unwittingly given to the thing.  We do that in processing!

Rog

Well put, Roger. Agree totally.

Christian