Home

light-illustration

By Robin Rhyne

There’s not a lot to be said about the subject and definition of not-isness that has not already been covered by LRH in The Axioms, The Factors, Phoenix Lectures and other early fifties works.  I won’t belabor the definitions beyond quoting LRH:

NOT-IS-NESS,

1. Trying to put out of existence by postulate or force something which one knows, priorly, exists. One is trying to talk against his own agreements and postulates with his new postulates, or is trying to spray down something with the force of other is-nesses in order to cause a cessation of the isness he objects to. (PXL, p. 64)

2 . Not-is-ness is the effort to handle is-ness by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an is-ness. (PXL, p. 154)

3 . There are two different conditions of not-is-ness: one is just vanishment. The other one is an is-ness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying, “It isn’t.” A not-is-ness, in our terminology, would be this second specialized case of an individual trying to vanish something without taking responsibility for having created it. (PXL, p. 100)

4 . Not-is-ness is manifested as and is in itself the mechanism we know as unreality. (PXL, p. 55)

I have known this definition for close to forty years, always was able to apply it to others in handling their cases. But it was not until lately that I have found personal revelation as to how I have been applying it to things in my universe to which I have objected.

As a thetan I am an energy and space production unit. Seems that quite a bit of energy and space have created with the purpose of putting out of existence thing which I know, priorly, exist. I’ve begun to notice the flows, ridges, dispersals that, once thought of as “my case”, are now real as how I hose down unwanted reactions, emotions, attitudes. Better to simply drop the not-is and be there comfortably.

This won’t be a long piece, there is only so much of my personal revelation that I can share without sounding bombastic. Even using the word “bombastic” sounds pretentious and overstuffed!

So I will leave it at this: I invite you, dear reader, to  take this piece of LRH tech, apply it to your life and in it find some improvement.

10 thoughts on “Not-isness

  1. “As a thetan I am an energy and space production unit.” Interesting. I produce pond water and green jelly beans. 😉 Sorry, I’m teasing. It’s just funny to me when you put it that way. I never thought of myself as a “production unit”, even though technically it’s true.

    While readers are examining areas where they typically not-is things, it might also be worthwhile to examine the virtual opposite of not-isness, as-isness. As-isness is the process of making things go away, not by using force or effort, but by actually eliminating their existence. One way of doing this is to recreate the thing in its original time and space.

    “[A]s-isness would be the condition created again in the same time, in the same space, with the same energy and the same mass, the same motion and the same time continuum.” (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 68)

    One other way of doing this is by recovering the original postulate on a condition (or object). NED, to some extent, operates on this principle (recovering the original postulate on a chain). (Experts please correct me if I’m wrong on this point.)

    There’s a chapter in The Phoenix Lectures (PXL) covering this. You may be surprised to find how seldom you actually do this. Thetans apparently specialize in creating things, but almost never do the opposite. They really are “production units”, and hardly ever function as true “destruction units”. That may be the key to their continuing aberration. They just keep going down the track, making useless crap like pictures of painful incidents. It’s fairly clear that doing the opposite (actually reducing such things to nothing via as-isness) is the key to their salvation.

    For those who are curious, The Phoenix Lectures, along with Creation of Human Ability are two of the most OT volumes in existence. PXL is primarily theory, and COHA is primarily processes (not to imply COHA is the practical extension of the theory in PXL; that’s not the case).

    Anyway, just a thought there.

    Paul

  2. Robin,

    When I was in the church, my favorite “book” was the Phoenix Lectures. I first read a copy as a staff member at the Phoenix mission. The Qual Sec loaned me books from the Qual Library to read on the bus.

    L. Ron Hubbard’s research into duplication came from the 6th American ACC (Advanced Clinical Course). The Phoenix Lectures were delivered as part of the 7th American ACC.

    The largest number of lectures given in one location was from Saint Hill, England. The second largest number was delivered from Phoenix, Arizona. In addition to the Phoenix Lectures, multiple ACCs were delivered in Phoenix. The first international Scientology organization (the HASI) was founded in Phoenix, Arizona in 1952.

    ARC,
    — Jonathon

  3. Good post Robin, thank you.

    It reminds me of a popular TV advertisment here in the UK, where the lead character is shown data, and says, ‘What am I not seeing?’

    It’s a highly thought-provoking subject, and for me, Not-isness is best viewed in the context of the other axioms, where Ron provides the basis on which Scientology is developed. The Axioms are a masterstroke, being not philosophical ponderings but the test of Scientology workability.

    There’s no verbose rhetoric or microscopically subtle argument in the Axioms, they are bold statements written in plain language from which, possibly, anyone could eventually derive the subject and practice of Scientology, and measure its competence.

    The way out is the way through, as we Scientologists like to say. Not-isness is the start of our great adventure as we penetrate the mysteries of the universe and the terra incognita of the mind.

    It’s absolutely brilliant that Scientology occurred in my lifetime, and to have friends to explore this thrilling game. I’m in 🙂

  4. Robin,
    Great article, mate!

    I have been wrapping up the full chrono tape/bulletin/book study I’ve been on for a number of years now and am up to the lectures just preceding the use of the term “suppressive” in relation to a particular case that does this in extremis – the Suppressive Person.

    “Suppress” as a button is what you’ve laid out here under “Not-is”. It’s what we all have done in varying degrees, here, there, all over and manifests in all sorts of ways as you have described.

    Recently, I had a similar realization to yours on my own sundry “suppress/not-is” thingies on areas I hadn’t seen before, since of course they were suppressed 🙂

    I also, and to a degree of KRC I’ve never had for the topic before, recognized that pattern of activity an SP type case goes through in this whole area of suppress/not-is and the justification for it.

    Again, great point in your article.

    • ” recognized that pattern of activity an SP type case goes through in this whole area of suppress/not-is and the justification for it.”

      What do you mean by this Jim, can you give an example?

  5. Robin,
    Great article, mate!

    I have been wrapping up the full chrono tape/bulletin/book study I’ve been on for a number of years now and am up to the lectures just preceding the use of the term “suppressive” in relation to a particular case that does this in extremis – the Suppressive Person.

    “Suppress” as a button is what you’ve laid out here under “Not-is”. It’s what we all have done in varying degrees, here, there, all over and manifests in all sorts of ways as you have described.

    Recently, I had a similar realization to yours on my own sundry “suppress/not-is” thingies on areas I hadn’t seen before, since of course they were suppressed 🙂

    I also, and to a degree of KRC I’ve never had for the topic before, recognized that pattern of activity an SP type case goes through in this whole area of suppress/not-is and the justification for it.

    Again, great point in your article.

  6. I’m formally disconnecting from the group Milestone Two.

    For the record: I was not in the group and did not receive training or auditing from the group.

    Thanks to everyone for allowing me to participate on the blog! (I am not “upset” with anyone. I am still a Scientologist and with LRH.)

    ARC,
    — Jonathon

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s