Scientology is all bad

[PirateAndBum]

And to address more directly what you said.

It is a consensual activity. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "predetermined but occluded outcomes", I will assume you mean the stated EP's of the levels? If so, how is that dangerous?

You can scoff at the idea of past lives. Scientology is certainly not alone in the matter. Scoffing doesn't make you or your buds correct, it just make you scoffers

The cult aspects of the Co$ certainly are worthy of scorn. Wanting to make the world a better place however is not something I deride. Those that prefer it otherwise should also garner scrutiny...

 

[Infinite]

Frankly Infinite, you know not of what you speak of. You were never a Scio, you have never had nor given an auditing session. Your reliance on 3rd party information to make such sweeping statements of fact do not make them fact. And certainly you are not qualified to make such statements since you have no qualifications for making them. You are of course free to say that auditing turns you into a 3-headed purple toad. That doesn't make it so.

Its not me saying it, Pirate. Its experts and ex-scientologists. DAing the messenger doesn't change the message. If you could point to any mistakes in fact, I'd be surprised, and grateful.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Its not me saying it, Pirate. Its experts and ex-scientologists. DAing the messenger doesn't change the message. If you could point to any mistakes in fact, I'd be surprised, and grateful.

I don't consider the experts to be un-biased in this matter. They had an agenda.

You state as fact what they state as fact. If their facts are incorrect then you are also incorrect.

It is quite clear to me that auditing is not the mere practice of hypnosis.

 

[Veda]

I defer

-snip-

First off, I think the Anderson Report had some valuable insights into Scientology, although I do not agree with all its observations and conclusions.

I think there are some nuances that are missed by the Anderson Report, yet, in some instances, their analysis is excellent.

They were definitely looking at something that, justifiably, should cause concern. The difficulty is in how to explain it.

That said, whenever a discussion involving the words "hypnosis" and "hypnotized" occurs, for some reason, it's impossible to motivate those passionately using the terms to provide, in their own words, a simple, concise, definition as to what they mean.

I also might ask you to explain, in your own words, specifically, what you mean when you use the word, "auditing," as there are many kinds of "auditing."

The dilemma becomes apparent.

Here we have a discussion where the parties involved cannot or will not define - succinctly, in their own words - the terms they use, which suggests the parties are not sure what the terms they are using mean.

Such discussions are usually pointless.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Perhaps you should take a look at NLP for a comparison. There you definitely have methods far far more "dangerous" to worry about.

 

[Infinite]

I don't consider the experts to be un-biased in this matter. They had an agenda.

Yeah yeah yeah . . . eeeevil psyches out to protect their market and forward the command intention of the Marcabian Invader Forces. The experts appearing before the Anderson Inquiry were biased only in that they were intent on representing the facts as presented.

You state as fact what they state as fact. If their facts are incorrect then you are also incorrect.

But their facts are not incorrect . . . at least, you seem unable to point to any errors. Are there any?

It is quite clear to me that auditing is not the mere practice of hypnosis.

You're right. Its about all sorts of other things, like collecting personal information for use in the protection of the conspiracy to defraud, its about presenting a charade of scientific endeavour, its about manufacturing agreement, its about giving altruistic people an imaginary means of realising their intent to help others, its about offering "something" for exhange. The list goes on.

 

[Infinite]

Perhaps you should take a look at NLP for a comparison. There you definitely have methods far far more "dangerous" to worry about.

 

[Veda]

One of the things that influenced the Anderson Report was listening to and looking at Scientologists. It was obvious that something was "off" with these Scientologists on the topic of Scientology. The question was, "How did these Scientologists get that way?"

The conclusion was that it must be entirely the result of auditing, or at least that seems to be how the Anderson Report is being interpreted, yet, as I recall, the Anderson Report cites other influences, in Scientology, circa early/mid 1960s, other than just "auditing."

That this "auditing" was occurring, preceded by something, and followed by something, and in a certain environment, are also taken into consideration by the Anderson Report, although that is usually missed.

That doesn't mean I think that Scientology auditing is entirely benign. IMO, it most definitely is not, yet - as I noted earlier - there are nuances, and there are times when it can be benign, or even beneficial.

So it ain't so simple.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

It certainly isn't simple but neither is it especially complicated.

Anyone that has audited people will continue ad infinitum to insist that they got results, saw results, heard results and felt results and they are right ... they witnessed indoctrinated people coughing up the required results, everybody was on the same page, we knew what had to be done and did it.

Of course there were some genuine results but there were a lot more that were not worth the paper they were recorded on ... ESMB and all the other boards and critics would not be here if the results were consistent or worth having.

We were all hypnotized (bedazzled, enchanted, mesmerized)!

 

[Infinite]

. . . That said, whenever a discussion involving the words "hypnosis" and "hypnotized" occurs, for some reason, it's impossible to motivate those passionately using the terms to provide, in their own words, a simple, concise, definition as to what they mean.

I also might ask you to explain, in your own words, specifically, what you mean when you use the word, "auditing," as there are many kinds of "auditing."

The dilemma becomes apparent . . .

Alright, I'll have a go. In this context, by hypnotism, I mean a covert process by which a person is told what to think and then acts on those thoughts as if they were their own. By "auditing" I mean what Scientology refers to as "counselling" and/or "confessional" where one person is the "auditor" and the other person is the PC and there is an e-meter being used and where the apparent intent is for the PC to stay on and/or make progress up the Bridge and the process can be considered "standard".

I agree about the difficulty inherent when participants in a dialogue argue their points using terms lacking mutually agreed, and/or shifting, definitions. It doesn't just occur in the Auditing=Hypnosis arena but extends much further and even encapsulates the definition of "Scientology" and "Scientologists". Coupled with L Ron Hubbard's stricture on "always attack, never defend" and his plethora of various definitions for the same terms, I suspect that the difficulty you highlight is a deliberate outcome. I don't see such discussions as being useless, however. Every now and then an apologist will engage and seek to summon the necessary logic and/or DOX to defend their position without resorting to sophistry and Scientology 101. Its rare, but I love it when it happens. Usually I learn something and have to change my own viewpoint accordingly - I value that new information and the changed perspective it provides.

 

[PirateAndBum]

First off, I think the Anderson Report had some valuable insights into Scientology, although I do not agree with all its observations and conclusions.

I think there are some nuances that are missed by the Anderson Report, yet, in some instances, their analysis is excellent.

They were definitely looking at something that, justifiably, should cause concern. The difficulty is in how to explain it.

That said, whenever a discussion involving the words "hypnosis" and "hypnotized" occurs, for some reason, it's impossible to motivate those passionately using the terms to provide, in their own words, a simple, concise, definition as to what they mean.

I also might ask you to explain, in your own words, specifically, what you mean when you use the word, "auditing," as there are many kinds of "auditing."

The dilemma becomes apparent.

Here we have a discussion where the parties involved cannot or will not define - succinctly, in their own words - the terms they use, which suggests the parties are not sure what the terms they are using mean.

Such discussions are usually pointless.

True nuf.

OK, I go to wiki on this and find:

hypnotic subjects are fully awake and are focusing attention, with a corresponding decrease in their peripheral awareness. Subjects also show an increased response to suggestions.[6] In the first book on the subject, Neurypnology (1843), Braid described "hypnotism" as a state of physical relaxation accompanied and induced by mental concentration ("abstraction")

Thus I say that auditing has hypnotic aspects. But so does reading a fucking book by this understanding. God, best be careful that someone doesn't walk by you while you are heavily concentrating on something and utter some command at you. In fact you sitting there reading this post qualifies as you being in a hypnotic state. "Quack like a duck!" Did you follow my suggestion?

The process of looking inward is going to put one in such a state. Is this dangerous? Well I suppose it could be under certain circumstance. The protocols of auditing, the prohibtion from evaluating for the person in session, for sticking to exact procedures all contribute to introducing little in the way of "suggestion".

Now it can be said that asking a person for an earlier incident is a form of suggestion. But given the models that are being operated on I don't quite see how it could be otherwise done. And it is formed as a question, not a command - it is NOT: "Find an earlier similar incident.", it is: "Is there and earlier similar incident?

Now, on this point, I think Hubbard's model is in error. It should be "Is there another incident?" not asking for earlier. The theory that everything is in chains is not necessarily true.

So, yes, you have a person looking inward, inspecting whatever come to view. That is the action which brings about the benefit. It does put one in a focused state. To say that is dangerous though does not follow in my opinion. Those that want to say that the only benefit comes from having a nice chat with someone are quite mistaken. I don't say that having someone listen to you cannot be beneficial. There are reasons why it is beneficial.

Now there are objective processes like 8C (touching walls) or OpProByDup (book & bottle) that some claim are very hypnotic. Hubbard claims they "run out" hypnosis and I have found that when these processes are run to their "EP" that the person is more aware, more awake than when they started. During the running, yep, they sure can get foggy, but in these processes there is no suggestion whatsoever given to the person. Are they being trained to be mindless robots under the control of the auditor as some claim? Not that I have experienced, but people have their opinions.

The CC & OT levels are another matter entirely. Can people be told about something and then just because they have been told about it, imagine it. Yes, I'm sure that can and does happen. Steven Fishman is a good example of such a delusional individual. But he was nuts to begin with! Veda is a strong critic of the evaluative nature of the upper levels and rightly so. There really is no reason a person should be put through this kind of a sequence of actions.

So to sum it up, I think this hysteria about auditing being dangerous because it is hypnotic is bullshit.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes, it IS very difficult to keep them posting here but I don't think it's necessary to embed "shore stories".

I have many conversations with still-in scientologists (as do you) and they're always civil and often result in the scientologist learning something they never knew (or, maybe, pretended they never knew) before. Internet "discussion" is obviously a hell of a lot more complicated, especially when anyone looking on can chirp up at any given moment and throw an irrelevant spanner in the works.

Still, a civil approach seems to work well for me. I think it works fine for message board discussion too.

BTW: Whenever I talk to scientologists, I never think of it as "handling them". I just tell them the truth as I understand it in a way that they can understand.

Understood.

I guess ESMB is like professional boxing. But...

Sometimes, someone wanders in who is used to shadow boxing or sparring in the gym--with protective headgear.

I guess that's why boxing has different divisions, so nobody gets their feelings hurt when they step into the ring without amateur headgear with get hit by a punch thrown by one of the professional heavyweights. LOL.

 

[Infinite]

. . . So to sum it up, I think this hysteria about auditing being dangerous because it is hypnotic is bullshit.

In what way is it safe to Audit a person over and over again until they can, with near complete "whole track" memory, duplicate Xenu to their Body Thetans?

Also, I call strawman. No one is saying Auditing is dangerous because its hypnotic. Its dangerous because the PC is not told that they are about to be hypnotised. Its unethical and its results are unhealthy and perpetuate an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Magoo just mentioned on another thread the song 'blinded by the light' ... which is much like being hypnotized (if you don't believe me you can ask any rabbit that has ever been caught in the headlights, assuming you can find one alive).

Most of us were blinded by the light of the promised bridge results.

Sad? (yes).

Embarrassing? (absolutely).

True? (true enough for me).

 

[PirateAndBum]

In what way is it safe to Audit a person over and over again until they can, with near complete "whole track" memory, duplicate Xenu to their Body Thetans?

Ha! OK, since you asked...

You have not fully grasped what is being done on OT II and III. The person is not being audited to a point of whole-track recall (another BS EP by Hubbard). That is not the premise. The premise is that the BTs have the recall (of Inc II) not the person. The person may or may not have been around and subjected to this incident personally. It is the BTs that were.

OK, so that doesn't excuse Hubbard in the slightest. For one he is telling you that you have these BTs - eval #1. Second, he is telling you why they are there - eval #2. And you are not told about BTs while doing OT II - so that's even more fucked up because the real reason you are doing it is not even disclosed to you. Very bad form per his own rules!

Does it require a hypnotized subject to buy into it. No, it just requires someone to trust the guy's word. ANd as we all know, Scios trust Ron.

Now, is it safe? You'd have to collect the data from those that have done it. I think that in the main it has been "safe". Perhaps Veda could comment on what specific dangers he sees because he has stated that those that say got the most benefit from it are the most harmed, but he didn't go into the particulars on what that harm is exactly and I'd like to hear his views on it. Has it ever been unsafe, certainly because we have cases reported that have had bad reactions to OT III. I remember when I first read about BTs (I've not done these levels) that when I started looking at the idea that there were these outside influences attached to me, it really had me in a weird state of mind for a while, kinda like having invisible ants crawling on you or something. So yeah, just the idea of such things I think could destabilize an individual and cause them to loose it if they really got into a paranoid kinda feedback loop on the idea.

As I said in the previous post. I do not think the OT Levels were well conceived. Are their entities (BTs) - perhaps, but I believe Hubbard misidentified an aspect that belongs to the individual and is not some separate thing. I think what is being handled are of the individual's own creation, not some external entity. Could there be such external entities, yes, I think that is possible. If so, they can be addressed when they show up, there is no need to shove a person into something like that as it is a serious violation of "not evaluating for the person".

There are definite problems with Hubbard's work. I have no doubt about that. But there is within the work that he and others did that is useful.

Certainly the entire subject of spirituality is going to be an issue for those that are of the opinion that we are but mere biological organisms that are born and die just like an amoeba does.

Those that delve into this area of spiritual development of course have a different view. There is quite a lot of work being done in this field, work being done by psychologists and even physicists.

Xenu - fuck Xenu. If I run into him in my explorations I'll be sure to say "hi from Infinite" and let you know about it too!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Alright, I'll have a go. In this context, by hypnotism, I mean a covert process by which a person is told what to think and then acts on those thoughts as if they were their own.

That is correct for I would estimate 95% of Scientology. There is a portion of Scientology where people are simply asking/answering questions in a session and talk therapy has merit.

Here are a couple of the problems with talking to Scientologists about Scientology on ESMB.

* They are not defining the word "Scientology" the way that L. Ron Hubbard and Scientologists in the CoS define it. In other words, they have made up their own definition for that word. So when the subject is discussed they are arguing about their own ideas of what Scientology is, not the Founders or true believers. For example, they might not believe in Xenu and his BTs because they think they are just lost souls and don't have any story that explains why they are attached to their body. They might or might not think there is a state called OT but they might think that they are Clear--but they will not usually be forthright in describing exactly what that state is--and it almost certainly is different than the ten million words that Hubbard wrote about it.

* Scientology proper, as written and practiced by Hubbard and his cult (COS) very definitely is exactly what you have stated--"a covert process by whicha person is told what to think and then acts on those thoughts as if they were their own. The entire Grade Chart (Bridge) is one huge process of telling the person what to think and having them "make it their own". Any Scientologist who denies this is either in denial or lying. Hubbard meticulously detailed what the "reactive mind" consisted of and all the major events that needed to be run out from the "wholetrack" including implants, Gorilla Goals, the crazed fiction contained in History of Man ("...a coldblooded factual account of your last 76 trillion years."), R6, Xenu & BTs/Clusters and the rest of things that came from one Source and one source only--Hubbard.

* Step by step, a "pc" goes up this grade chart and must behave in accordance with Hubbard's conception of what is supposed to happen. For example, if a person doesn't find past lives, they are forced to pay for a "Past Lives Remedy" and be audited on that until they can. They are even convinced by the auditor to run imaginary incidents at their own expense as part of the indoctrination.

* Everything in Scientology (as defined by Scientologists) is geared to making an individual think the same thoughts as Hubbard stated in his scripture that they are supposed to think. If a person has other thoughts they are endlessly run on "disagreement checks", "false data stripping", "misunderstood word tech", "sec checks" (if they are critical) and countless other "remedies" to fix their "stalled case". Disagreements or opinions are not allowed.​

The "Scientologists" here on ESMB left Hubbard Scientology because it did not work. If it had worked, they would still be there. They toy around with minor scraps of the "tech" here and there and then argue endlessly that "Scientology works!". But, they are not Scientologists, they are "squirrels" and "SPs" and "degraded beings" according to real Scientologists.

For reasons unknown to God or man, they nonetheless continue to defend the brand called Scientology, even though they themselves are only picking thru some odd parts and hoping they can achieve some manner of spiritual ascendency. It doesn't phase them in the slightest that nobody ever achieved that.

There are posters on ESMB have have been trying to apply "Scientology" for over three decades and they get indignant that anyone dares imply or state that it is not working.

You won't find anyone on this board who can define for you the END RESULT or END PHENOMENON or PRODUCT of Scientology outside of the COS. I started a thread on that very exact topic and people got all bent out of shape, but nobody answered with anything even vaguely resembling what appears in Hubbard's Bridge. Essentially, a couple people finally coughed up something like "wins" or "improvement in their life according to their own judgment" (paraphrasing).

Talking to a Scientologist here is like trying to pick up liquid mercury.

They are not even talking about the actual Scientology and they can't or won't tell you what the end result is. And they certainly cannot show or demonstrate any abilities of a Clear or OT. Ask one. LOL.

So they talk in vague ambiguities about "wins" and "case gain".

They won't be accusing me of not having been a Scientologist, doing the OT levels or successfully auditing others--because I have factually done an inordinate amount more training, C/Sing and auditing than they did. So don't worry about them trying to say that you don't know. You do know. Thought you'd like to...um...know. LOL

 

[Veda]

In what way is it safe to Audit a person over and over again until they can, with near complete "whole track" memory, duplicate Xenu to their Body Thetans?

Well, after I formally resigned from Scientology, as a public person, I audited for about a year, as part of an over-all investigation of Scientology, and a re-examination of the subject of auditing.

For about four months, I audited one particular person ("pc"), every day, and we audited some Objectives, quite a bit of Recall processing (at his request), some Dianetics, and then Grade 0,1,2,3,4, and then I sent him to another auditor for Power Processing. (Embarrassingly enough, that person was G. Filbert, but hey I was still pretty naive.)

Anyway, I had made it plain to this person ("pc") that my view was that, at roughly the point when Scientology processing becomes confidential, that is the point where its nature changes. That is the point where - to use the term - when auditing becomes "hypnotic," and that I do not recommend it.

The person agreed, and was happy with what we had done, and that was that.

Then I did more auditing, including some on myself, such as NOTs - that was the big thing at the time. and examined that to my satisfaction.

Once I was a done with the auditing part of my examination/re-examination of Scientology, I began examining other parts of Scientology.

That was a long time ago, but even then I realized certain things. And one of those things was that I would never lead another person into the abyss of Hubbard's mind, although I did skate around the edges at times.

IMO, the most dangerous thing to Scientology is to thoroughly describe Scientology. To do this, it's necessary to describe also those parts of Scientology that are not necessarily "all bad." (See thread title.)

If Scientology were "all bad," it would not be much of a trap.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Ha! OK, since you asked...

You have not fully grasped what is being done on OT II and III. The person is not being audited to a point of whole-track recall (another BS EP by Hubbard). That is not the premise. The premise is that the BTs have the recall (of Inc II) not the person. The person may or may not have been around and subjected to this incident personally. It is the BTs that were.

OK, so that doesn't excuse Hubbard in the slightest. For one he is telling you that you have these BTs - eval #1. Second, he is telling you why they are there - eval #2. Very bad form per his own rules!

Does it require a hypnotized subject to buy into it. No, it just requires someone to trust the guy's word. ANd as we all know, Scios trust Ron.

Now, is it safe? You'd have to collect the data from those that have done it. I think that in the main it has been "safe". Perhaps Veda could comment on what specific dangers he sees because he has stated that those that say got the most benefit from it are the most harmed, but he didn't go into the particulars on what that harm is exactly and I'd like to hear his views on it. Has it ever been unsafe, certainly because we have cases reported that have had bad reactions to OT III. I remember when I first read about BTs (I've not done these levels) that when I started looking at the idea that there were these outside influences attached to me, it really had me in a weird state of mind for a while, kinda like having invisible ants crawling on you or something. So yeah, just the idea of such things I think could destabilize an individual and cause them to loose it if they really got into a paranoid kinda feedback loop on the idea.

As I said in the previous post. I do no think the OT Levels were well conceived. Are their entities (BTs) - perhaps, but I believe Hubbard misidentified an aspect that belongs to the individual and is not some separate thing. I think what is being handled are of the individual's own creation, not some external entity. Could there be such external entities, yes, I think that is possible. If so, they can be addressed when they show up, there is no need to shove a person into something like that as it is a serious violation of "not evaluating for the person".

There are definite problems with Hubbard's work. I have no doubt about that. But there is within the work that he and others did that is useful.

Certainly the entire subject of spirituality is going to be an issue for those that are of the opinion that we are but mere biological organisms that are born and die just like an amoeba does.

Those that delve into this area of spiritual development of course have a different view. There is quite a lot of work being done in this field, work being done by psychologists and even physicists.

Xenu - fuck Xenu. If I run into him in my explorations I'll be sure to say "hi from Infinite" and let you know aboout it too!

Okay, I was posting my last post while you wrote yours. I think this is a good time then to check out what I was ranting about. LOL.

Let me ask you. What is the full end phenomenon of Scientology?

What special abilities and states have you reached thus far?

Do you know anyone who is Clear or OT? How do you know they attained that?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

In what way is it safe to Audit a person over and over again until they can, with near complete "whole track" memory, duplicate Xenu to their Body Thetans?

Also, I call strawman. No one is saying Auditing is dangerous because its hypnotic. Its dangerous because the PC is not told that they are about to be hypnotised. Its unethical and its results are unhealthy and perpetuate an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud.

If you include in your reference to "hypnosis" the reality of self-hypnosis, I think everything you have said is true for the vast majority of Scientology.

Scientolgists don't think of it as self-hypnosis or delusion. They call it something else that is very favorable.

Like "postulating". They first postulate that something is true so that it will become true. That is Hubbard's entire modus operandi.

Or they call it "what is true for you is true" or "what is real for you is real". They think this is a very advanced state of awareness. They have no idea that this is a great way to take a naive person and convince them that their money and time should be given to other Scientologists.

 

[Infinite]

One of the things that influenced the Anderson Report was listening to and looking at Scientologists. It was obvious that something was "off" with these Scientologists on the topic of Scientology. The question was, "How did these Scientologists get that way?"

The conclusion was that it must be entirely the result of auditing, or at least that seems to be how the Anderson Report is being interpreted, yet, as I recall, the Anderson Report cites other influences, in Scientology, circa early/mid 1960s, other than just "auditing."

That this "auditing" was occurring, preceded by something, and followed by something, and in a certain environment, are also taken into consideration by the Anderson Report, although that is usually missed.

That doesn't mean I think that Scientology auditing is entirely benign. IMO, it most definitely is not, yet - as I noted earlier - there are nuances, and there are times when it can be benign, or even beneficial.

So it ain't so simple.

I agree and the fact there there can be some benefit derived from Scientology is something you taught me as essential to keep in mind when seeking to describe Scientology. I have your "glue analogy" handy for further explaining to those who see it as "all bad".

It does seem to me that the Anderson Report is limited in its scope. I prefer not to take an atomised view of the various reports and findings regarding Scientology and, for this reason, state that, on its own, the Anderson Report is incomplete. To fully understand what goes on in Scientology, the committee would have done well to consider, say, the Levine Declaration which provides an excellent description of the "something" and inner environment which remained largely concealed in 1965. Impossible for the Anderson Inquiry to do, of course, but we can.

And the same applies when discussing, say, Auditing. Taking an atomised view of the practise fails to take into account the millieu and the runway (the TRs) required before the hypno-cans are ever plugged in. The covert hypnotism I see in Auditing can also be found in the TRs and in the informal, near constant group-norming dynamics going on in and around the Org. Isolating just bits and pieces without taking context into account can be as equally frustrating as shifting definitions. Gotta start somewhere, though.