From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 12 - July 1993
See Home Page at

...Ulrich's Article on Dianasis -2

By Peter Mumford, England

Regarding Ulrich's article on Irene's Axiom Zero and Dianasis,(1)
he may well be suffering from the 'how many entities on the head of a
pin?' syndrome(2).

Spiritual advancement is ultimately achieved looking outward, not
interminably sloshing around in significances. In the pursuit of
enlightenment, we cannot afford to get bogged down in irrelevant
and complex intellectual argument.

All the great spiritual movements of the past bear out this viewpoint.
The dynamic view present at their conception and early years contrasts
sharply with their current state. They have for centuries been
looking in on themselves and engaging in endless intellectual argument
and symbolistic activity - and are followed by millions of beings
who have either effectively given up looking for themselves or in
good faith felt they were being properly led.

Sadly, the CofS has turned inward and gone the same way, without the
discussion! I therefore feel it is important to jump on it hard from
a great height when it rears its head in my vicinity!

The path to enlightenment lies outside the head (mind), not within
it - hence looking not thinking, observation not

It is there

Thus I do not involve myself in the convoluted intellectualising on
Axiom Zero. My answer to the question, 'Why Axiom Zero?' is
simple: because it is there! We are instantly the effect of our
because that is the way it is, Theta Law. All Irene Mumford did was
observe this head-on in the context of the tech.

To paraphrase L. Ron Hubbard, the further one advances in
the more one should expect to find data of a more simple and
nature that explains existing and more complex data below it.

Axiom Zero is one such datum: Theta is the law and that is all
the law there is.

Maybe Ulrich could confront it more easily if he were to view it more
appropriately as a corollary of the first two axioms. Of course, we
will all inevitably interpret what we see and understand according
to our own spiritual state, which explains why Ulrich is concerned
with relatively unimportant intellectual argument and Aleister Crowley
interpreted his particular observations in terms of mysticism and

TA action

I would like to make it clear that I am neither a proponent nor an
opponent of Dianasis. I have never wavered from my original statement
in the In Memoriam I wrote of Irene. Where it produces TA action
and beneficial change and is consonant with the individual's case
requirement, Dianasis is of use. And where it does not, it is not.
With the upper levels as with all our work, we have to handle the
person in front of us and not some other, imagined case!

In conclusion Ulrich's statement 'Personally I have never had
any doubt about this (the Factors and Logics etc.) being sufficient
to describe all phenomena of the world and the mind' is unhealthy
in the extreme and is actually seeking to throw the baby out with
the bath water. In line with true Bhuddist principles, enlightenment
lies somewhere between those two extreme viewpoints

We have a golden opportunity and seem to be wallowing around sometimes
in an intellectual maze which is the antithesis of the way out, the
mind being capable of infinite complexity.

(1)Dianasis by Ulrich, IVy 10, pages 11-12

(2)Syndrome:according to The American Heritage Dictionary,'A group
of signs and symptoms that collectively indicate a disease or

Tue Jul 11 20:42:12 EDT 2006