Scientology is all bad

[HelluvaHoax!]

Poor Ricky rabbit, first he was hypnotized and then he was completely flattened by an enormous pair of breasts, could have been worse though, he could have been hypnotized, flattened and conned by an enormous tit called tubs hubbard.

.....

Just got this message for you...

Originally Posted by Ricky Rabbit
Hey ITYIWT, I made it! I'm at Target II with Ron! Really it's a totally safe space here and everyone is theta. And nobody's getting overboarded in the ocean like we used to do back on earth when the Commodore saw someone goofing up. Now we just put them in the airlock chamber of the spacecraft and eject them into deep space and since they are kinda permanently offloaded, we don't have to hear all that nattering afterwards. ML, Ricky.

 

[Demented LRH]

I was audited only once, and the session was a total failure (I described it at this thread). But I noticed that my PCs were groggy and somewhat disoriented after the sessions, which is a clear sign of being subjected to some kind of hypnotic procedure.

The person who "recalled" the time when he was a sperm was in a very vulnerable state because his "memories" seemed real to him. He was not a Scientologist, so Hubbard was not an authority for him. Nevertheless, the auditing had a hypnotic effect on him. He lost all his analytical abilities and could not distinguish a hallucination from the reality. However, that did not last long -- next day he was laughing at his "sperm recollections". He received approximately 30 hours of auditing.

Some Scientologists, who received more auditing than he did, are not so lucky -- their analytical abilities are seriously damaged by the hypnotic procedures; perhaps, this is the reason why they still have a distorted perception of reality.

Everything depends on the individual -- some ex-Scientologists have received inordinate amount of auditing, but managed to walk away from Scientology unharmed, while the others, who were audited for just couple of hours, are still suffering from ill effect of Dianetics hypnotism.

 

[BardoThodol]

Dear ITYIWT,

A rabbit caught in the headlights you say?

That is not what is real for me.

I just had a great win in session where my perception increased.

Success Story below....

ML,

Ricky Rabbit​

​

And with full exteriorization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a502RejLz8s

 

[SweetnessandLight]

"FIVE...FOUR...THREE...TWO...ONE..."

*(loud sharp noise~ Finger Snap) SNAP!

"Come up to present time...."

"END SESSION"

"The session is ended, thank you."

How many of you have experienced that in a session with an Auditor, or in co-auditing, or in self-auditing? Witnessed someone else do it? Or heard another old-timer Scientologist say and do such a thing to themselves?

I have witnessed someone looking into a mirror and "auditing themself" regarding some minor anxiety over a personal matter, to "reduce charge". That, verbatim, was the ending of the auditing session...I also heard that same reverse countdown and finger snap from another Scientologist over the phone, when he wasn't aware the connection had gone through to me yet, and also saw it done in a live "demonstration" of co-auditing years ago (done in an Org to convince "raw meat" that auditing was safe and beneficial and that they should "try" it...)

That, my friends, no matter how much you may be in denial about it, is part of hypnotic processing. The reverse count-down, the loud, sharp finger snap noise (done in front of the PC's face) ESPECIALLY the "come up to present time" command...and end of session demarcation is classic hypnosis technique to bring the subject back up in consciousness and out of a state of reverie, following a session.

Nothing in Scientology "processing" would work without the application of self-hypnosis. Many people just do not see it for what it is.

 

[BardoThodol]

This is another discussion, but a person having the cognition that "he's mocking it up," does not necessarily keep something else from "mocking it up" inside his head and to his distress.

The "I realized I'm mocking it up" EP always seemed like the "cheap grace" equivalent of "Clear" to me.

"Clear" is a state and an ability if it's anything. It's not an understanding or a cognition, even though it did become that when Hubbard decided, in 1978, that he wanted lots of Clears to validate himself and the subject.

It's one thing to be "Clear" and then say "I'm mocking it up," and quite another to have a cognition that one is "mocking it up," and then be declared as a "Clear."

IMO, in auditing, a person reaches a point, usually fairly early (months at most), where pretty much everything that's beneficial has been attained. Beyond that, the person - essentially - is "mocking up Hubbard's case," or the "case" Hubbard told the person he has, and then ridding himself of that same (told to him by Hubbard) "case," except that some people never fully rid themselves of Hubbard's "case," or the "case" Hubbard told them they have.

For me, the "I'm mocking it up" cognition was a Hubbardian deus ex machina.

The original conception of clear was the correct goal: a person with all the held down sevens cleared so he/she could reach accurate answers when dealing with life.

Hubbard had studied Korzybski's works which resulted in his realizing that any channel of perception contained meaning. He talked about the stick which meant pain to a dog after it had been beaten. Or how the smell of roses might mean headaches if you'd fallen out of a window, been knocked unconscious and landed in a rose bed.

Any perception can trigger memories, conscious or unconscious, which become "data" in computing one's responses to present time. A clear would supposedly still have memories but those memories would not distort the "answers."

The more I watched Hubbard dance around his definition of Clear, the more I realized he didn't really have a clue as to how to bring about this mythical state.

 

[BardoThodol]

I like your post because it expresses a view that puts me at ease a bit about making a fool of myself after such a short time here. I got a trick question, and I responded repeatedly to a troll. Hell, if I want to feel a fool I can go back to cofs.
I am thinking I'll just go back to lurk mode. At least there I won't show my ass.

phenomanon

Personally,

I like a nice ass. Nicely shown. In all it's glory.

Real asses, not these artificially perfected objects.

So, don't be so squeamish. Asses abound here. You've found an internet version of Black's Beach.

 

[Demented LRH]

We could argue for a long time about the validity of the research showing that the engrams do not exist, or we could take a look at the definition of the engram and see that it is self-contradictory and, as the result of its absurdity, refers to something that cannot possibly exist.

By definition, an engram that was installed when its recepient was unconscious causes linguistic misinterpretation of the sentences that he heard; such misinterpretations lead to all kinds of problems that he is experiencing in his life.

How a phrase could be misinterpreted?

1. All words that constitute a sentence are incorrectly interpreted.

For example, if a PC crashed his car into a pole and heard, while being unconscious, his friend, who is unharmed, saying, "You, idiot, are reckless" might misinterpret every word in his friend's sentence. The word "You" means "Tractor" to him, for instance; the word "Idiot" is interpreted as "Cake", and so on (actually, some patients with dementia do this kind of misinterpretations on regular basic).
The end product of such misinterpretation is a gibberish that has no effect on person's behaviour.

2. A sentence changes from an observation to a command.

The phrase "You, idiot, are reckless" is an observation of a past event, it says nothing the person's future behaviour. In a command form it looks like "Be stupid and reckless" (So he becomes a reckless idiot, according to Hubbard).

But this is where the contradiction lies: The words "Idiot" and "Reckless" are interpreted correctly, while the words "You are" are misinterpreted, they are changed into the word "Be".

By definition of the engram, ALL its words are be interpreted incorrectly. If we make an assumption that some words are interpreted correctly and some are not, we must redefine the word "engram".

But once we redefine the engram, we should be able to tell which words are interpreted correctly, and which are not.

If we do not know which words are interprered correctly and which are not, we cannot define the word "engram" -- this is how the logic of science works. If we want to define something, we must define all its properties so they could be TESTED.

But Dianetics is not a science, so Hubbard got away with nonsense.

 

[BardoThodol]

Please explain, succinctly, in your own words, what you mean by hypnosis.

That would simplify and clarify matters considerably.

Out of curiosity: how do you define hypnosis?

In yoga class, people sometimes leave with a "yoga high," which I consider a semi-hypnotic state. Instead of allowing the exercise to increase consciousness, these practitioners allow themselves to sink into this super relaxed/near sleep state.

Is this state bad? It sure seems pleasant and desirable to some.

 

[Jquepublic]

The use of hypnotism is far from a "claim". It was a finding by a government enquiry at which expert witnesses provided ample evidence. An object examination shows clearly that Auditing does induce an hypnotic-like trance state which is used to implant and reinforce Scientology "think" and to protect the wider fraud. Have you read the Anderson Report's findings about this:


. . . Amen.

I read the Anderson Report again last night, in fact. Here's my main objection to its conclusions: 95% of the processes that were demonstrated to the board are not in use in Scn today nor were they when I was in. Model session is completely different, the method of starting and ending session. I recognized many of the things demonstrated only because I did a chunk of the Briefing Course. The practices of Scientology have changed enormously since 1965, when this report was written. And frankly some of the board's more strenuous objections were based on their perspective of salacious subject matter. Their sensibilities were most definitely offended by a woman's item of "a hot piece"! And there are leaps in logic that peppered the chapter on processing that sadly reminded me of my own Bible Belt upbringing. I figure after a couple thousand hours in the chair and 10 years in the cult, I know a little more about what goes on in a session than the men who wrote this report.

That said, I'm digging into the subject of hypnosis for blood right now. I have half a dozen scholarly works to devour this weekend. I've searched for a thread on this and didn't find one with "Auditing is Hypnosis" as a subject. Can you believe that?! This is one area that most definitely deserves a good digging into!

 

[Panda Termint]

The use of hypnotism is far from a "claim". It was a finding by a government enquiry at which expert witnesses provided ample evidence. An object examination shows clearly that Auditing does induce an hypnotic-like trance state which is used to implant and reinforce Scientology "think" and to protect the wider fraud. Have you read the Anderson Report's findings about this:


. . . Amen.

Your faith in the Anderson Report is, to me, kind of odd for such a dox/plox dude.

I wonder what you'd discover if you actually looked and devoted the same effort to investigating the actual methods and actions that led to the conclusions of the Anderson "Board" Of Inquiry as you do to "investigating" things scientological.

"They" is a bit of a misnomer when speaking of the Board, isn't it?

Why not ask Roger B here on ESMB? Unlike "the Board", he was actually there and paying attention at the time, IIRC.

 

[Jquepublic]

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.

I am delighted that this subject was picked back up on this thread, personally - I checked back in obsessively last night hoping it would continue!

I do define hypnosis differently than you, by the way. (This is also for you, Veda) I don't see it as a covert process, but as a deliberately induced state of suggestibility in the subject for the purpose of instilling a command that will result in a behavior change.

I have a question for you based on your definition though - wouldn't it be necessary for the practitioner to know he or she was hypnotizing the preclear for it to be at all effective? What do you see as the induction process for something like ARC Straightwire? The Scientology CS-1?

Ok that's more than one question!

 

[Jquepublic]

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

You're right that the people who are posting here by and large have abandoned Hubbard's definitions in favor of their own experiences with the subject.

I guess my biggest objection to what you say above, which isn't an objection so much as a position, is that what you describe above is 100% true for every organized religious group I've had the misfortune of encountering. 100% of organized religions tell their believers what to think and why, and those who are "good followers" make that their own and operate within the adopted construct. That, to me, is a gross error in judgement, not hypnosis. The majority of what would constitute this sort of thought-shaping in Scientology is not done in session, though. It's done on post, on course, at events, in books, tapes and drills. So even though I agree thought control is part and parcel of the practice of Scientology (at least in my experience, I won't speak for others) I do not agree that it's been proven to be a crux of the auditing session.

Since I have a lot of reading to do on the subject to form a fully educated opinion, however, I reserve the right to change my mind later on.

 

[Jquepublic]

So you think there is a state of clear?

I agree that the lower bridge is where one should get off. I also think that there is more that can be done by a person, but it isn't the Hubbard bridge.

I also think that the grades are arbitrary in themselves. Much better to handle want the person wants handled all the way along.

I don't believe there is a state of Clear. I think the required Clear Cog is the first of Hubbard's "inside jokes". Why not tell the person the truth and then put him or her through a series of exercises developed to put him at cause over the process?

Because you can't charge 50K for that, that's my true and honest belief.

Clear, like anything else, is a phenomena of processing. It's not stable, it's not permanent and it's not worth the money charged for its attainment.

 

[Jquepublic]

I was audited only once, and the session was a total failure (I described it at this thread). But I noticed that my PCs were groggy and somewhat disoriented after the sessions, which is a clear sign of being subjected to some kind of hypnotic procedure.

The person who "recalled" the time when he was a sperm was in a very vulnerable state because his "memories" seemed real to him. He was not a Scientologist, so Hubbard was not an authority for him. Nevertheless, the auditing had a hypnotic effect on him. He lost all his analytical abilities and could not distinguish a hallucination from the reality. However, that did not last long -- next day he was laughing at his "sperm recollections". He received approximately 30 hours of auditing.

Some Scientologists, who received more auditing than he did, are not so lucky -- their analytical abilities are seriously damaged by the hypnotic procedures; perhaps, this is the reason why they still have a distorted perception of reality.

Everything depends on the individual -- some ex-Scientologists have received inordinate amount of auditing, but managed to walk away from Scientology unharmed, while the others, who were audited for just couple of hours, are still suffering from ill effect of Dianetics hypnotism.

I can see an argument for Dianetics proper as hypnosis. There's an induction, a state of reverie, a returning, a reliving of imaginary incidents (or not, hey who am I to judge?!) a reduced awareness of the surroundings, occasional anaten or boil off, a more suggestible frame of mind for the preclear so returned. NED is actually a step removed from book 1 in this respect IMO. More structure, more control over the auditor's communication in NED than in Book 1. But the above would still apply.

 

[secretiveoldfag]

You're right that the people who are posting here by and large have abandoned Hubbard's definitions in favor of their own experiences with the subject.

I guess my biggest objection to what you say above, which isn't an objection so much as a position, is that what you describe above is 100% true for every organized religious group I've had the misfortune of encountering. 100% of organized religions tell their believers what to think and why, and those who are "good followers" make that their own and operate within the adopted construct. That, to me, is a gross error in judgement, not hypnosis. The majority of what would constitute this sort of thought-shaping in Scientology is not done in session, though. It's done on post, on course, at events, in books, tapes and drills. So even though I agree thought control is part and parcel of the practice of Scientology (at least in my experience, I won't speak for others) I do not agree that it's been proven to be a crux of the auditing session.

Since I have a lot of reading to do on the subject to form a fully educated opinion, however, I reserve the right to change my mind later on.

ALL religious groups are selling irrational belief. Many of them preach unquestioning obedience to a (very variable) set of doctrines drawn from a Holy Book. Judgment doesn't come into it but parental pressure, societal pressure, peer pressure play a part. Services in the best example use hypnotic tricks with lights, incense, chanting, music, prayer and crowd hysteria. Hubbard could have gone a lot further in that direction. Not like him to miss a trick.

PS He was a lazy turd.

 

[Bill]

So you think there is a state of clear?

I agree that the lower bridge is where one should get off. I also think that there is more that can be done by a person, but it isn't the Hubbard bridge.

I also think that the grades are arbitrary in themselves. Much better to handle want the person wants handled all the way along.

To believe there is a "State of Clear", one must believe there is a thing called "The Reactive Mind". Not only has that not been proven, there isn't any evidence for it. No one can "get rid of their Reactive Mind" because nobody has one.

Independent Scientologists get around that by pretending that the definition of "Clear" is something else. No, the precise Hubbard definition of "Clear" is "a being who doesn't have a Reactive Mind". It isn't "a person who feels really good" or "a person who had a very nice 'cognition'." There is no "Clear". Period.

I agree with you. If Scientology has any value at all, that value ends somewhere in the lower grades.

Bill

 

[BardoThodol]

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.

When I used to do a lot of martial arts, newer guys would sometimes get upset over getting hit "too hard." We'd just look at them and say, "Dude, we're learning to fight. If you can't take a punch, you can't fight. Period. Someone hits you in the street, it's gonna be harder than this, and if that punch stops you, you lose--and that really can be bad. You want to learn how to fight, stick around. You want to pretend, just come to the classes where there's no sparring."

 

[BardoThodol]

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

Oddly, I had this realization, expressed in post #238 of this thread. The "Scientology" I knew and liked was one of my own invention. So, I'd say, from personal experience, your observation's correct.

 

[Infinite]

I read the Anderson Report again last night, in fact. Here's my main objection to its conclusions: 95% of the processes that were demonstrated to the board are not in use in Scn today nor were they when I was in. Model session is completely different, the method of starting and ending session. I recognized many of the things demonstrated only because I did a chunk of the Briefing Course. The practices of Scientology have changed enormously since 1965, when this report was written. And frankly some of the board's more strenuous objections were based on their perspective of salacious subject matter. Their sensibilities were most definitely offended by a woman's item of "a hot piece"! And there are leaps in logic that peppered the chapter on processing that sadly reminded me of my own Bible Belt upbringing. I figure after a couple thousand hours in the chair and 10 years in the cult, I know a little more about what goes on in a session than the men who wrote this report.

That said, I'm digging into the subject of hypnosis for blood right now. I have half a dozen scholarly works to devour this weekend. I've searched for a thread on this and didn't find one with "Auditing is Hypnosis" as a subject. Can you believe that?! This is one area that most definitely deserves a good digging into!

The Anderson Report cannot be dismissed as "out of date" and nor can its findings be done away with by DAing its participants. There are exactly zero leaps of logic in the Report, other than those introduced by L Ron Hubbard in his repeated attempts to obfuscate. The bits and pieces of "tech" which made up the data considered is irrelevant to the fact that, at its core, Scientology "processing" consists, mainly, of hypotism. That was true in 1950 and its true, still, in 2012. Its a constant.

I'd love to see your reading list. I've done a bit myself. What's the most recent article you've seen on the subject of covert authoritative hypnosis?

 

[Claire Swazey]

To believe there is a "State of Clear", one must believe there is a thing called "The Reactive Mind". Not only has that not been proven, there isn't any evidence for it. No one can "get rid of their Reactive Mind" because nobody has one.

Independent Scientologists get around that by pretending that the definition of "Clear" is something else. No, the precise Hubbard definition of "Clear" is "a being who doesn't have a Reactive Mind". It isn't "a person who feels really good" or "a person who had a very nice 'cognition'." There is no "Clear". Period.

I agree with you. If Scientology has any value at all, that value ends somewhere in the lower grades.

Bill

The lower grades are just fine. I'm not convinced they're better than any other practice out there, but for what they are, they do fine. Some people also seem to do rather well with upper level stuff, too. For me, though, the Grades and some of the other lower/intermediate stuff was the best.

Scientologists learn rather early on that Clears as depicted by Hubbard that, if the state exists, it's not attainable in Scn. But that Scn does seem to do something.

I said for years that the claims were exaggerated. I said so when I was an Indie Scn'ist, too.

Non CofS Scn'ists are often more realistic than some people realize. I think the situation is more that different people in the non CofS Scn scene vary in their outlooks. Thus, generalizing about them is foolish, yet it frequently happenes in the critic's scene.

It's not a good idea to make those assumptions about people because well, they just might surprise you if you knew what their stance truly was.