Yes, in this case the hidden meaning of the Red Book is the unconsiousness itself. Holding the secrets to the meaning of life. My question is, are the Voynich, Antichthon Universalis of Codex_Seraphinianus manuscripts, Valis (Philp K. Dick), Michael J. Topper's or even Castaneda's work merely artificially constructed fantasies (like Scientology or the Church of Subgenius) or also pointing to or connecting with a deeper layer of reality of archetypes rooted in our biology like in Jung's the Red Book? Is there a deeper meaning?

Since when is Scientology artificially constructed? I think "thinking about Scientology" is not the same as "the subject of Scientology" - and after all, who is to say that the Voynich manuscript itself doesn't contain some seriously intersting, deep, secrets on the nature of the universe, being overlooked by the ignorant who do not know its language. Like so many other subjects in the world, alas, of the human soul.

Hi fit2rule, a good question.... i assume Scientology's metaphysical subject was articulated by L. Ron Hubbard in "Scientology: A History of Man" (1952) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_A_History_of_Man#T... I am not sure if L. Ron Hubbard actually believed in the things he wrote as it's so far out and contradicting scientific insight, or that he wrote it to create an artifical overarching framework (a sacred canopy) to hold dianetics together by rooting it in the transcendent (as such I think Scientology is a religion). The same uncertainty I have while evaluating Castaneda's work. The underlying question remains the same - do they (and I was explicitly including Voynich) seriously interesting, deep, secrets on the nature of the universe or do they remain a fantasy and dream meaningful only to their respective authors?

What we think about Scientology, and what Scientologists think about Scientology, are two different things - are they not?

Jung theorized that the collective human consciousness had many archetypes that could not be explained through environmental means, and Hubbard seems to have capitalized on that idea and attempted to push it forward, which is what I understand "History of Man" and Hubbards' common Time Track theory to be all about. While I am not a Scientologist - I do believe that collective unconscious and conscious 'reality about _something_' is what Scientology really attempts to dissect. But this is based on a naive investigation of the subject beyond the tabloid 'everyone knows the subject is bullshit' collective agreement ..

The point I wish to make is that there are two versions of Scientology - and indeed, other esoteric topics - what "everyone knows about" the subject, and "what only the true practitioners know about" the subject. These two points of view are often diametrically opposed. Maybe Voynich is the result of a cargo-cult that observed some other, greater subject? Same could be true of a lot of subjects dealing with metaphysical esoterica ..