In earlier thread Don Carlo Wrote:

"Basic basic, thanks for your reply. Did RON say granting beingness was "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Or is this a Freezone thing?

BB replied:

" The ability to assume or grant beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it."

Thus I write (to Basic Basic):

What is your personal Understanding of the meaning of the word Beingness? Not Rons definition of the word, but yours.

The first part of your (or Rons) declaration crys out for clarification (as well as the last part). For both imply, in no uncertain terms, the concept of the possibility of oneself not granting beingness to oneself as well as the possibility of oneself not granting beingness to another. Where granting and assuming are seemingly interchangable terms, distinguished only by the object, not the subject.

To wit you penned: The ability to "ASSUME" or grant beingness....etc.

How then, given your understanding, does one "DENY" (or not Grant) "Beingness" to oneself (or to another)? Given both are Undeniable and wholly irrelevant to ones philosophy, cosmology or scientology?

For example BB, "I am". How then can one (myself for example) deny (i.e. not assume) that "I am"? Can you deny that you are? Or that I am?

What is this "Beingness" you speak of? (that can be granted, assumed or denied & unassumed)?

I love that you love the work you are doing in the world BB. Kudos to you.

However, of all of Hubbards deception (offered to the world for public or private consumption) no deception was greater than his deception regarding the intellectual meaning of words, hidden and obscured behind emotional appeasement.

Do you understand what I mean?

If not, let me clarify.

The word Beingness, offered in the context of being subject to "granting or denying" is pure nonsense, often referred to as being pure bull shit.

Can you correct this seemingly universal (outside of scientology) view?

Intellectually?

According to Hubbard the answer is no. Just pick up the cans. You'll feel much better after we audit you. And you'll learn to quote me (Hubbard) instead of quoting yourself (You).

If I err here BB, perhaps you can, and will, (in the interest of honesty), correct me by articulating exactly what "YOU" mean by your employment of the word "Beingness" as it relates to your own (or Hubbards) decree, which decree affords an individual the Power to grant or deny beingness, to oneself, and or to others. Which decree is patently absurd to the world, outside of scientology (and the freezone).

I exist in the absence of your granting me beingness. And you exist in the absence mine. Do you Understand this?

What then, pray tell, are you talking about?, when you write:

"The ability to assume or grant beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it."

And lastly BB, please, please, please, do not deafen our ears with your Hubbardarian Patriotic Silence (which Patriotic Silence is a Hallmark of Hubbards Sorrowful Legacy in the Very Real World). Witness the stare.

Just because Hubbard said you have the right to "not communicate" doesn't mean your inability to communicate, is right.

I am appealing to your ability to communicate BB.

You are not a Parrot, you are a Man.

Lastly then, I am asking of your clarification because my youngest grandson was recently approached by a scientologist with an invitation to take a personality test. You know the story.

So I brought him to the internet. And afforded him the opportunity to open his eyes, before he opened his heart, and closed his mind.

And we both, sitting together saw Don Carlos question of you, and your reply to it.

Which gave rise to "our" post (i.e. question) to you. Called Please Please Please (...BB)

Now my grandson is waiting with baited breath for your reasoned reply. As am I.

To recap, what is the meaning of the word BEINGNESS, as you use it, in terms of Granting or Denying it?

Thanks for your time and consideration (and hopefully for your own reply)

ZU

XU
What is your personal Understanding of the meaning of the word Beingness? Not Rons definition of the word, but yours.
BB
It is how you see yourself, who and what you are.
XU
The first part of your (or Rons) declaration crys out for clarification (as well as the last part). For both imply, in no uncertain terms, the concept of the possibility of oneself not granting beingness to oneself as well as the possibility of oneself not granting beingness to another. Where granting and assuming are seemingly interchangable terms, distinguished only by the object, not the subject.
BB
Well yes, one can hold oneself and others in low esteem, and act on that. Usually to bad effect. Racial attacks would be an extreme example.
XU
To wit you penned: The ability to "ASSUME" or grant beingness....etc.

How then, given your understanding, does one "DENY" (or not Grant) "Beingness" to oneself (or to another)?
BB
As in examples above. No doubt there are many ways.
XU
Given both are Undeniable and wholly irrelevant to ones philosophy, cosmology or scientology?
BB
You lost me there.
XU
For example BB, "I am". How then can one (myself for example) deny (i.e. not assume) that "I am"? Can you deny that you are? Or that I am?
BB
Well... perhaps not recognising one's spiritual nature might be an example. Note that is not only applicable to scientologists but anyone.
XU
What is this "Beingness" you speak of? (that can be granted, assumed or denied & unassumed)?
BB
See definition you asked for above.
XU
I love that you love the work you are doing in the world BB. Kudos to you.
BB
Thank you.
XU
However, of all of Hubbards deception (offered to the world for public or private consumption) no deception was greater than his deception regarding the intellectual meaning of words, hidden and obscured behind emotional appeasement.

Do you understand what I mean?
BB
Not entirely sure. He started a new subject, which aquirred its own jargon. This is a normal progression.
XU
If not, let me clarify.

The word Beingness, offered in the context of being subject to "granting or denying" is pure nonsense, often referred to as being pure bull shit.

Can you correct this seemingly universal (outside of scientology) view?

Intellectually?
BB
Loving someone is to a degree making someone right about their own self image. Hating them does the opposite.

Which do you personally prefer?
XU
According to Hubbard the answer is no. Just pick up the cans. You'll feel much better after we audit you. And you'll learn to quote me (Hubbard) instead of quoting yourself (You).
BB
Granting beingness is essential for auditing to work.
XU
If I err here BB, perhaps you can, and will, (in the interest of honesty), correct me by articulating exactly what "YOU" mean by your employment of the word "Beingness" as it relates to your own (or Hubbards) decree, which decree affords an individual the Power to grant or deny beingness, to oneself, and or to others. Which decree is patently absurd to the world, outside of scientology (and the freezone).
BB
This concept is part of life. Hubbard just pointed it out in his own way.
He can't decree how anyone does this.

Can you love thy neighbour as thyself? If so it it Jesus or you doing this?
XU
I exist in the absence of your granting me beingness. And you exist in the absence mine. Do you Understand this?
BB
Yes. And if we interact, how can we make this an positive experience, or a negative one?
XU
What then, pray tell, are you talking about?, when you write:

"The ability to assume or grant beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it."
BB
Hopefully I've explained.
XU
And lastly BB, please, please, please, do not deafen our ears with your Hubbardarian Patriotic Silence (which Patriotic Silence is a Hallmark of Hubbards Sorrowful Legacy in the Very Real World). Witness the stare.

Just because Hubbard said you have the right to "not communicate" doesn't mean your inability to communicate, is right.

I am appealing to your ability to communicate BB.

You are not a Parrot, you are a Man.

Lastly then, I am asking of your clarification because my youngest grandson was recently approached by a scientologist with an invitation to take a personality test. You know the story.

So I brought him to the internet. And afforded him the opportunity to open his eyes, before he opened his heart, and closed his mind.

And we both, sitting together saw Don Carlos question of you, and your reply to it.

Which gave rise to "our" post (i.e. question) to you. Called Please Please Please (...BB)

Now my grandson is waiting with baited breath for your reasoned reply. As am I.
BB
Hope my response is helpfull.

Xenusuncle, how old is you grandson?

The scientology personality test is bogus and it’s the same test the freezone uses! If you are both interested in exploring personality traits for personall development, I would recommend the THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR!

... snip > The Indicator is based on the vision of Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isobel Briggs -Myers to create an instrument to identify Jungian personality type for non-psychiatric uses.

Their vision was ‘to enable individuals to grow through and understanding and appreciation of individual differences in healthy personality and to enhance harmony and productivity among diverse groups. Their mission was to give the individual access to Carl Jung’s understanding of human development

Every individual is unique. Each is a product of heredity and environment and as a result different from everyone else. In practice we tend to assume unconsciously that other people’s minds work the same as our own. All too often, however, people with whom we interact do not reason as we reason, do not value the things we value or are not interested in what interests us. The assumption of similarity, therefore, can promote misunderstanding of the motives and behaviors of people whose minds operate quite differently from our own.

The value of the theory underlying the Myers-Brigs Type Indicator personality inventory is that it enables us to expect specific differences in specific people and to cope with people and their differences more constructively then we otherwise would. Briefly, the theory is that much seemingly chance variation in human behavior is not due to chance; it is the logical result of a few basic behavioral preferences. In developing the Indicator the aim was to give individuals access to the benefit of knowing their personality type.

The MBTI is the most widely used inventory of its type in the world having been translated into many languages and completed by millions of individuals. Its uses include supporting one to one coaching, leadership development, team development and the resolution of relationship problems.

In the 360 degree pilot project we will use it to supplement the feedback from the 360 degree questionnaire and provide the opportunity for additional insights into why individuals are viewed as described and to identify strengths and potential areas for development arising from a type preference.

As with the 360 degree questionnaire the information provided is confidential and only the recipient can give permission for its release.> snip …

The test can be taken freely at the link below, in the safety, privacy and comfort of your home. And best of all ... No Terrilmarketers will call!

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

Click "DO IT" button below the box for the free test!
.

Oh ... by the way, the THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR is a “grant beingness� test.

The scino test is used to invalidate from state of "piousness" that you must respond to by "granting beingness" as you can never score high enough on it to gain the ability to put your pants on without planting at least one foot on the floor!

That is until you become a Ron's org OT 16 ... sombody once wrote ... once upon a time!

BB beingness definition:

So it's part self-awareness, part self-esteem, part self-created reality, part emotion, part love-thy-neighbor?

What a mixed bag.

Maybe you're trying to recreate the millenia-old "Namaste,"
defined here.
A billion people in India use that phrase. Only Scientologists use the
made-up phrase "beingness," and I defy any of them to define it coherently.

granting beingness is the recognition of the identities and spaces of others, and the recognition that others are also "theta itself acting in the MEST and other universes in the accomplishment of the goals of theta and under the determination of a specific individual and particular personality for each being." (LRH, scn 8-8008, quoted in the tech dict) it means recognizing others importance, independence and personality and treating them as valid and valuable beings with their own valid identities. all forms of prejudice are refusals to grant beingness....the oftstated idea that racism and bigotry are the result of insecurity is not so far off from the point that those that dont have control of their own identity refuse to recognize that of others.

Great Quote! Theta.

And DC you should have quoted this.
Another great quote.


Definition & Meaning of Namaste

I honor the place in you
in which the entire Universe dwells,

I honor the place in you
which is of Love, of Truth, of Light and of Peace,

When you are in that place in you,
and I am in that place in me,
we are One.

Oneness is indeed a the answer to the fragmentation problem. It’s the end game process. It’s going to happen with or without scientology! And its not the first time the concept appeared on earth and in the mass mind consciousness. Does the word “whole� or “holy� come to mind?

However to use an example, when one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt there exist no life in this solar system and one is tricked and forced into a closet cult who taints it with all sorts of imaginary stuff that really isn’t there, nor should be put there during an enlightenment process, then one is not “granting beingness� or being "truthful" about the nature of the universe itself.

Your idea of oneness is in a closet cult of like minds programmed from a 60’s era mentality. My idea of oneness is in life, in society, in the light of day, of which light and dark itself is not a hubbardian concept (as in let there be light), where demons are here and now as in terrorists, not only the fundamentalists (oneness in a box) but the mind rapers and implanters of which you are part of and exist in that closet of funny mirrors.

Every time I asked about the light that I experienced during a near death experience 35 years ago, I was told by Ron's OT fuck heads, over several decades, that it was an implant, of somesort or something too dangerous to think about and ponder!

Brilliantly that phenomena was articulated to me after leaving scientology in another place and by doing so has saved my life!

But getting back to "truth" of which I wonder if you have any concept of what it means after having steeped yourself in the box for soo long and continue to route so many to a Ron's org, and had it not been for a space shuttle orbiting over the Yucatan, a product of our evolving wog technologies, an asteroid impact wouldn’t have been discovered to have wiped out the dinosaurs some 65-75 million years ago. NASA wouldn’t be reaching out to touch asteroids and comets , alter their orbits in an attempt to avoid another mass extinction.

Folks would still be cogniting in a darkened courses room that “hubbard in the cupboard� has all the answers and there is no need to continue on with an education.

The universe you operate in is a much different universe than I percieve and the mass mind world operates in. Thank God for the internet!

The warmth and love of "Oneness concepts" can be found articulated quite nicely outside your cockroach laden house of mirrors and eternal introversion.

It’s articulated quite nicely in other philosophies and religions, but when misused is the cause of so much suffering when trickery and deceit is used to cluster beings into a smaller box labeled "oneness"!

The wording of "I grant you beingness" is what bothers me.

When I "grant" you anything it puts me in a "one up" power position.

I don't grant anyone their beingness.

God/ Godess/ Allah/ All That Is/ The Great Unknown/ Powers That Be/ Your Parents Sex Act/ Divine Accident/ Cosmic Conciousness/ The Divine/ Great Ruler In The Sky/ Creator/ Holy Father/ Holy Mother...etc... (call it what you will) already granted you beingness.

Granting beingness is just another reworked concept from psychology - acceptance.

It is healthy to accept yourself as you are, and others as they are, because accepting reality keeps you from working against it, denying it, or trying to destroy it.

Robert Ringer - "Reality isn't the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are."

ZU (to BB): What is your personal Understanding of the meaning of the word Beingness? Not Rons definition of the word, but yours.

BB:
It is how you see yourself, who and what you are.

Ok, if I understand you correctly the quote you offered earlier would read like this:

The ability to assume or grant [how you see yourself, who and what you are] is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit other people to have [how they see themself, who and what they are] than to be able oneself to assume [how you see yourself, who and what you are]".

Close?

So it's more important that I grant you, for example, how you see yourself who and what you are, than for me to assume for myself, how I see myself, who and what I am?

Does not such a statement strike you as being a bit tortured?

Now how could I possibly "grant" you how you see yourself, who and what you are? What does your personal self-interpretation have to do with me, calling my participation with it, my granting of it to you?

And is a critic of scientology Un-granted beingness? Or Granted Un-beingness? Lol.

I sense the meaning you are speaking of is closely related to acceptance, of self and of others, calling that acceptance "granting beingness", however, the entire philosophical structure of scientology is based upon the exact opposite of acceptance of both self and others, in their present form or condition. Perhaps not in the freezone, but certainly in the church.

If Ron had granted beingness to the world, his self created spiritual warfare with it would have never come into being. Thus the hidden though most significant operative word/idea in his statement is, "conditional".

For example...."where sane people have rights". Thus no granting of beingness to insane people. Wherein opposition to scientology is defined as insanity.

Smoke and mirrors via words.

Thanks for your reply in any event.

One last question BB, when I was in scientology (with my wife) we were in the position on a number of occassions wherein everyone in the room would stand up and applaud a Statue of Rons Head. Which peculiar manifestation of adoration ultimately contributed to our exit from the church. The question is this: Do people in the FreeZone applaud Statues of Rons Head?

Just curious.

Thanks
ZU












Hubbards Mushroom wrote:
The wording of "I grant you beingness" is what bothers me.
When I "grant" you anything it puts me in a "one up" power position.
I don't grant anyone their beingness.

Right, Galileo. Hubbard didn't say he had a monopoly on or was the first to discuss the concept.

So since it's a good concept and since it's been around a good long while, I don't think that people should attack BB for employing it.

BB is a much nicer person than !!

"Right, Galileo. Hubbard didn't say he had a monopoly on or was the first to discuss the concept.

So since it's a good concept and since it's been around a good long while, I don't think that people should attack BB for employing it." Claire

..........................................


The difficulty some non-scientologists have with Hubbards characterization of the "good concept" is in his twisting of it. To wit, one cannot grant beingness to others. Acceptance and Granting are two distinct concepts.

You cannot grant me anything save for your interpretation of me. Which interpretation is yours alone and has nothing to do with me.

You can accept me as you interpret me to be, but you cannot grant me anything. Such "granting" smacks of the superior smugness that is the hallmark of L. Ron Hubbard and his flock of followers.

Correct me if I am wrong.

If Hubbard was merely offering a concept that had been around for a long long time, why alter the concept of accepting to granting?

Big difference in meaning of the words, that's why.

Acceptance is passive, Granting is active.

The former is an act of humility, the later an act of (imaginary) Power.

Do you suppose Hubbard inadvertantly substituted the word Grant for Acceptance (in terms of Being)?

I think not.

Hubbard was a brilliant linguist. He knew exactly what the distinction was in terms of implication.

And he erred (and he lied).

You, Claire, cannot grant me Beingness. Try to Understand that.

You can accept my beingness. But you cannot grant it to me.

You do not have that imaginary Power that Hubbard told you you had.

ZU

P.S. a hallmark of scientologists throughout history (indies or otherwise) is their absolute inability to engage in a dialogue that upsets them. Thus they (per Ron) refuse to "grant" beingness to their opponents. Which (so called) "Granting of Beingness" to others was Scriptured by Ron as being, of greater value than Assuming ones own Beingness.

Lol. Go figure. Or in the case of scientologists, go clay. See Source.

Don't think. Duplicate.

ZU wrote:

- I disagree. If he had been a "brilliant" linguist, his prose would not have been so affected, slapdash and almost painfully labour-intensive to read. One could more accurately describe him as a cunning linguist, except that would ascribe to him a power so extraordinary that even he did not claim it: the ability to breathe through his ears.

Merlin,

Did you mean "cunning linguist" in the sense of:

"Our lips met in a deep passionate and all-consuming kiss, the passion radiated from you with an intensity that caused my lips to ignite, and then I'll be damned if you didn't cross your legs and break my glasses"

Right enough with some it would be more of a case of, "Close your legs, your breath smells"