KNOW VERSUS KNOW ABOUT
This is another page which may bother some scios, especially ones who are highly trained auditors in/from the CoS. It may bother them because it directly applies to their alleged "knowledge". Warning: this article will be a steep gradient for most people. If you just wandered onto this page at random -- without having read the previous pages in this series -- then my advice is for you to read no further. If you entered the freezone through Scn, odds are you will become upset if you continue reading this.
Any time a person studies a subject, this results in the person knowing about the subject. It does not result in a person KNOWING it. I do not care how many years of study have been done. There are certain specific characteristics (which I shall go into later) evident in someone who knows a subject. And completeness of study, time spent, diligence, effort, certificates, etc have absolutely nothing to do with it. A scio for instance could have every single word spoken or written by LRH memorized, and that person could still merely know about Scn. A monk could have memorized every word of the Pali canon of Buddhism, and still only know about it.
In fact, knowing too much ABOUT a subject can actually be an impediment.
I realize that last was a pretty radical statement. Allow me to describe why it is true.
When studying the work of another person such as LRH or Gotama, the student is ACQUIRING THE MIND OF THE SOURCE. This is copying, not duplicating in most cases. Copying produces a persistence. Duplication produces a vanishing. A small percentage of people do manage to duplicate, and cause to vanish, the mental structure of the source, LRH or Gotama in these examples. Most do not. Most students usually end up creating a brand new entity, a complex of thoughtforms, a "BT" -- or rather a cluster of BTs. Simply put O Scios, you should use your NOTs tech to offload the enforced viewpoints of LRH. And it's more than a simple set of thoughtforms clogging your space, you also acquire a reinforcing (clustering) with other students of that same subject, forming what is called a group mind. If this subject of acquired minds and group minds interests you, I advise you to study the work of Edmund Meadows (the Viking Remote Viewing & Psychic Self Defense site), and also that of Rupert Sheldrake.
To be fair, the typical scio will have a large number of duplications resulting in "know", plus a much larger number of parasitic mind vampires, er, I mean entities, er, I mean others' ideas, heh heh! ;-) That little joke, isn't so little. I jested about it because, O Scio, it is deadly truth. You are "obsessed", in the magically meaning of that word, not the pop psych meaning. This is not much of a problem apparently at lower levels because a beginner's mind is so clouded with pain and unconsciousness that this phenomenon is out of view. But a "clear" is in the curious and uncomfortable position of being empty enough to perceive the mindstuff in their personal space, but not yet aware enough to have gained control of their misowned creations. I talked about this in the article The Shape of Apparent "Truth". What happens is that whatever acquired mind (also known as a "frame of reference") is being used as mental anchor points acts as a template for creating apparent existences colored by it. The result is essentially indistinguishable from madness, with the person telepathically hobnobbing with or against demons, aliens, psychic spies, etc; personal case items take on the characteristics which the person expects them to have; and their understandings of their subject are heavily colored by preconceived ideas acquired from the guru-godlet of their mind. The hell of it is that the person has no way to tell which of all these are real, which have been colored/altered, and which are sheer hallucination. This band of other people's created reality has been called maya by the Hindus, and the Abyss of Hallucination by western magicians. It must be passed through as part of the process of waking up. There's apparently no avoiding it. I see evidence of it coloring my work. It's scattered through Filbert's book. It's in quite a bit of Ogger's Super Scio. Capt Bill Robertson was very heavily effect of it. It destroyed Koos completely. It affects every one of us. And the only writers I notice aware of the problem in the freezone are myself, Edmund Meadows, Flemming Funch, and the deceased Dennis Stephens.
So how to tell if someone really does "know" their subject? Easy. "Know" is tone 110 on the scale. Know is above tone 100, which Filbert calls Truth, and I name Creation. A scio who knows the subject of Scn, will be above Creation on it, and originate new, original data and processes which amplify and clarify the subject. A scio who does NOT know, but merely knows about Scn, will expound in a dogmatic inflexible manner what has been written by others. Let me repeat: a person who knows a subject will create it in present time.
At the highest level of course, every person "knows" everything and is co-creating the full contents of all universes. But most people are subaware of this and only get glimpses of true knowledge, and rare flashes of "inspiration". This limitation is mostly caused by simple unconsciousness, compounded by overlays of learning acquired from others. It is also caused by the fact that a viewpoint located in a universe cannot reach these higher levels. It must wake up in its higher self.
A student of Scn or Buddhism should reject the very words of the source they adore, and take a new look each time, all the way up to static where looking is being. To do otherwise is to fail. Filbert had some excellent words on this subject:Anyone who is in know about on any subject is doomed, absolutely doomed. You can't create or control or be responsible unless you know. --Excalibur RevisitedSo Buddha's words, LRH's words, Filbert's words, MY words here, should only be used as a springboard to cognition, as signposts pointing the way to directly knowing. Once a person knows, then other people's words can be laughed at, shrugged off, affectionately treated as amusing stupidities, and finally taken over completely and made the person's own. At that point the student doesn't even use the words of their ex-source any longer -- ask them the exact same question on ten different days and recieve the same answer worded ten different ways BECAUSE EACH TIME THEY ARE ANSWERING IN PRESENT TIME. Rote answers always worded exactly the same are spoken by highly trained robots who merely know about. And I don't want to hear any crap about duplication. Duplication of a subject is not the same thing as duplicating the exact same words robotically. Duplication of the words of a subject is not the same thing as duplicating the subject. Words are not the subject, read your Korzybski.
Occasionally I get a little backflash from some ex-scientologist who has undergone years or even decades of training in that church, expressing the opinion that I am not trained up enough to know Scn. This might sound arrogant on my part to some people, but quite the contrary. I know the subject because I am above it, evidenced by the simple fact that I can create it. I can create it because I reestablished a direct connection to myself at Coexistence, which is above both Know and Create/Truth. If I had trained up to Class XII it might have frozen my knowing within a solid block of LRH's knowledge, LRH's know abouts and LRH's low opinions. And I too might have failed. Not all who are trained up to high levels have failed. But the ones who do know their Scn are people who have offloaded the burden of LRH's mind and done their own knowing, their own direct looking.
Scn persists because it is a lie which is known about. Buddhism persists because it is a lie which is known about. All "know abouts" are lies. Instead of knowing about these things, my advice to you is to KNOW TRUTH. And when you do, truth will vanish instantly. But that's alright, not to worry, simply create it as you need it.
back to index