Tetragrammaton became As-Is-ness, Alter-Is-ness, Is-ness , and Not Is-ness

Veda

Well-known member
Aleister Crowley's 1904 Naples Arrangement is the precursor of Hubbard's 1952 The Factors.

The Point's idea of Bliss (Ananda) became Affinity.

The Point's idea of Knowledge (Chit) became Reality.

The Point's idea of Being (Sat) became Communication.

Affinity, Reality, Communication appear in Hubbard's The Factors in the same place as do Bliss, Knowledge, Being in the Naples Arrangement.

"These idea of Bliss (
Affinity), Thought/knowledge (Reality), and Being (Communication) constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have sensible experience of itself."

*​

'The Factors' are a re-write of material from Aleister Crowley, who drew from earlier sources.

Relevant passages from Crowley are in his 'Book of Thoth', and in his Second Lecture from the book 'Yoga for Yellow bellies', and also in his 'Little Essays Towards Truth' in the chapter 'Man', and other works.

Lots of the stuff, about which Scientologists swoon with appreciative awe, comes from this guy:

 

Ed8

Active member
Aleister Crowley's 1904 Naples Arrangement is the precursor of Hubbard's 1952 The Factors.

The Point's idea of Bliss (Ananda) became Affinity.

The Point's idea of Knowledge (Chit) became Reality.

The Point's idea of Being (Sat) became Communication.

Affinity, Reality, Communication appear in Hubbard's The Factors in the same place as do Bliss, Knowledge, Being in the Naples Arrangement.

"These idea of Bliss (
Affinity), Thought/knowledge (Reality), and Being (Communication) constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have sensible experience of itself."

*​

'The Factors' are a re-write of material from Aleister Crowley, who drew from earlier sources.

Relevant passages from Crowley are in his 'Book of Thoth', and in his Second Lecture from the book 'Yoga for Yellow bellies', and also in his 'Little Essays Towards Truth' in the chapter 'Man', and other works.

Lots of the stuff, about which Scientologists swoon with appreciative awe, comes from this guy:

Ananda-chit-sat is not the template or format behind triangles, including your example the ARC triangle. For one thing, 'sat' is the verb to be. So 'sat' translates to mean a Being or any existence when a noun (satva) and equivalent to 'is' in English as a verb. The correct template for triangles in Hindu knowledge is the three gunas: satva-rajas-tamas.
Ed
 

Veda

Well-known member
Ananda-chit-sat is not the template or format behind triangles, including your example the ARC triangle. For one thing, 'sat' is the verb to be. So 'sat' translates to mean a Being or any existence when a noun (satva) and equivalent to 'is' in English as a verb. The correct template for triangles in Hindu knowledge is the three gunas: satva-rajas-tamas.
Ed
Your argument is with Hubbard, not me. It is he who lifted The Factors from Crowley's earlier statements.

I think it's in a PAB (Professional Auditors Bulletin) but Hubbard described Being as communication.

When I first saw it, long ago, it seemed odd, since Scientologists think of "communication" this way:



What can I tell you? Spend a few years reading Crowley and then re-study Hubbard.

:scratch:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed8

Zertel

Well-known member
Thanks for the MU (joke)

from wiki: The Tetragrammaton (/ˌtɛtrəˈɡræmətɒn/) or Tetragram (from Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning "[consisting of] four letters") is the four-letter Hebrew word יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHWH), the name of the national god of Israel.[1] The four letters, read from right to left, are yodh, he, waw, and he.[2] While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally.[3]

from dictionary.com: tetragram - a word of four letters.
.........................................................................................

I don't see how "god" relates to Is-ness or ARC unless you're talking about thetans being gods or godlike. ARCU (Understaning) would be a "word" of four letters. In other words I don't understand what thread title is about.

Also, what happened to "I think therefore I am"? (being a bit facetious)

To me Is-ness and ARC are worthwhile concepts but I never paid much attention to Elron's more metaphysical stuff like the axioms, factors, maxims and so on but other people did and still do. I was happy if myself and the people I audited got out of session with an f/n, cog, vgis - floating needle, cognition, very good indicators. haha
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
On the scn blogs people occasionally get into discussions about Elron's descriptions and sources for "the true nature of creation, existence and being" and have trashed some of his descriptions as being incorrect. One time on Rathbun's blog there was a debate about whether or not a thetan has "a tiny bit if mass".
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
"These idea of Bliss (Affinity), Thought/knowledge (Reality), and Being (Communication) constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have sensible experience of itself."
Okay. I reread that and it makes some sense.

I was thinking out loud and blowing through some confusion. The topic mentions Is-ness and then the first comment switches to ARC. No big deal. Somewhere on the forum there is an extensive thread about Crowley's philosophy and practice.
 
Last edited:

La La Lou Lou

Well-known member
Aleister Crowley's 1904 Naples Arrangement is the precursor of Hubbard's 1952 The Factors.

The Point's idea of Bliss (Ananda) became Affinity.

The Point's idea of Knowledge (Chit) became Reality.

The Point's idea of Being (Sat) became Communication.

Affinity, Reality, Communication appear in Hubbard's The Factors in the same place as do Bliss, Knowledge, Being in the Naples Arrangement.

"These idea of Bliss (
Affinity), Thought/knowledge (Reality), and Being (Communication) constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have sensible experience of itself."

*​

'The Factors' are a re-write of material from Aleister Crowley, who drew from earlier sources.

Relevant passages from Crowley are in his 'Book of Thoth', and in his Second Lecture from the book 'Yoga for Yellow bellies', and also in his 'Little Essays Towards Truth' in the chapter 'Man', and other works.

Lots of the stuff, about which Scientologists swoon with appreciative awe, comes from this guy:

I think he stole a lot from a lot of places including Crowley, but I don't see ARC and bliss thought and being, only thing I see in common is there being three things. However bliss and Love are similarish.

I went to a Hare Krishna temple, once. Hare Krishnas get into bucket loads of bliss when they do their chanting and singing with music, it's very nice, dancing to ever faster rhythms is so ecstatically blissful, love flying all over the place, then the love bombing increased, then the handsome guru chap with the lovely smile told confusingly unbelievable stories about gods in supermarkets and asked for money. He was good at the cult thing, but I've been caught before. Bliss is something I never had from my years in scn, a little bit of affinity from a reg isn't bliss.

The fat ginger one did say he got start change and stop from three Hindu gods, sometimes he was honest about where he stole from.
 

Veda

Well-known member
I think he stole a lot from a lot of places including Crowley, but I don't see ARC and bliss thought and being, only thing I see in common is there being three things. However bliss and Love are similarish.

I went to a Hare Krishna temple, once. Hare Krishnas get into bucket loads of bliss when they do their chanting and singing with music, it's very nice, dancing to ever faster rhythms is so ecstatically blissful, love flying all over the place, then the love bombing increased, then the handsome guru chap with the lovely smile told confusingly unbelievable stories about gods in supermarkets and asked for money. He was good at the cult thing, but I've been caught before. Bliss is something I never had from my years in scn, a little bit of affinity from a reg isn't bliss.

The fat ginger one did say he got start change and stop from three Hindu gods, sometimes he was honest about where he stole from.
Your argument is with Hubbard, and maybe with Crowley.

Crowley wrote on these topics over many years and expressed himself in many ways. Hubbard, deep into Crowley in '52, 1953, and into 1954, created the "basics" of Scientology during that time.

Could be substituted for does not necessarily mean corresponds with, and corresponds with does not necessarily mean equates with.

Hubbard, often sloppily, off the top of his head, threw this stuff out there, and Scientologists agreed, and once they agreed, it became really real to them. Solid. And the Scientology parade began.

Sometimes it's helpful to trace back to where this stuff originated. It tends to loosen the glue that holds a person to Scientology, especially if the person is in a state of intense appreciative awe towards the subject, or parts of it.

Okay. I reread that and it makes some sense.

I was thinking out loud and blowing through some confusion. The topic mentions Is-ness and then the first comment switches to ARC. No big deal. Somewhere on the forum there is an extensive thread about Crowley's philosophy and practice.
I should have been more clear, and not try to cram so much into a tiny space.

The Four Conditions of Existence is Hubbard's extrapolation/expression of Crowley's explanation of the four basic and successive postulations/emanations of the/a life force, which was an extrapolation/expression of the tetragrammaton.

In Scientologese, Hubbard "squirreled" Crowley and Crowley "squirreled" the Kabbalah.

Sometimes very general and vague names are given for things, and it can be perplexing. Examining correspondences can be useful - but, of course, it can also be misleading at times.

It's interesting that the Hebrew system is about a WHO (God, who is considered to be a person) and it goes up and down.



The ancient Chinese system is about a WHAT (a principle, or perhaps even a kind of energy), and goes round and round.



Yet there are correspondences. Whoever created these systems appears to have been looking at (imagining?) the same thing, yet seeing it (imagining it?) through different lenses.

"Through a glass darkly," etc.

The book Master Therion, also titled Magick in Theory and Practice,
was actually recommended by Hubbard (very unusual) during a lecture in late 1952.
In the book, Aleister Crowley placed Alice Through the Looking Glass on his recommended reading list for "serious students," and described it as "Valuable to those who understand the Qabalah." But that's straying from the topic at hand.




At the bottom are the eight hexagrams of the ancient Chinese Book of Changes, above these are the four bi-grams, which correspond with the tetragrammaton, and with Hubbard's Four Conditions of Existence.



This is a diagram by Crowley showing correspondences
between the ancient Hebrew Tree of Life and the ancient Chinese Book of Changes.



The correspondences are similarities not necessarily exact equivalents, although they may be.

For example, the Scientology symbol of Knowledge, Responsibility, Control above Affinity, Reality, Communication




is a restatement o f Crowley's Love is the Law, Love under Will.
Crowley regarded "love," not as sentimentality, but as a phenomenon comparable to gravitation, chemical affinity, and electrical potential.

So words, at first glance, can mislead.

Unfortunately, who wants to spend years studying Crowley? So Scientology's (actual) antecedents (not the for-display antecedents used in PR) go unrecognized.
 

Ed8

Active member
Your argument is with Hubbard, not me. It is he who lifted The Factors from Crowley's earlier statements.

I think it's in a PAB (Professional Auditors Bulletin) but Hubbard described Being as communication.

When I first saw it, long ago, it seemed odd, since Scientologists think of "communication" this way:



What can I tell you? Spend a few years reading Crowley and then re-study Hubbard.

:scratch:
I'm not arguing with you. :) It's not personal. The above was for informational purposes.
Ed
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Now I get it - I think - lol
You're making a comparison to the Hebrew word for God to the nature of existence expressed otherwise.

from www.dictionary.com
Tetragrammaton
[ te-truh-gram-uh-ton ]SHOW IPA

noun
the Hebrew word for God, consisting of the four letters yod, he, vav, and he, transliterated consonantally usually as YHVH, now pronounced as Adonai or Elohim in substitution for the original pronunciation forbidden since the 2nd or 3rd century b.c.
 
Last edited:
Top