Scientology is all bad

[Veda]

Yes, I agree with that.
It seems to me that the outside Scientologists say that the Xenu story is nothing more than a metaphor.

-snip-

Calling things in Scientology, that appear kooky to non-Scientologists, allegories or metaphors has been a PR gimmick used by Scientology since the 1960s/early 1970s. As far as I know, calling "The Xenu story" (Incident 2) a metaphor, etc., was begun by CofS-hired and paid-for "religious scholar" J. Gordon Melton many years ago.

Instruction on how to handle "homo saps" and their reactions to Scientology kookiness date from early 1952, and can be found in the book 'History of Man', a.k.a. 'What to Audit'.

Hubbard instructed Scientologists to tell the "homo saps" that "it's only fantasy."

 

[Claire Swazey]

No, of course you don't remember. It was on an active thread, in answer to something you said where you were attacking me. I recognized that your attack was more about what I'd said earlier than the current thread. I acknowledged I'd been mistaken earlier and I apologized.

I'll acknowledge again that I was mistaken and I again apologize for the mistake and for making you upset. You were perfectly justified in being upset with me.

Bill

I appreciate the apology. I can't find the earlier one but glad to hear about it now.

Bill, I'll tell you something:

That thread had been somewhat painful for me. No, I'm not saying that's because of you. I'm just explaining.

I had made a brief comment about how the organization is separate from the philosophy. To my mind, that was the situation whether the philosophy was good or bad, valid or not. Quite a few people got really up in arms about it. I felt a bit beleagured. People were acting as if I'd caused global warming or something. I lost my temper a number of times and even someone whom I'd considered a net friend of sorts kinda seemed to be joining in (by a mistimed and ill advised clicking of "like" when someone else was lighting into me) and I've never spoken to that person again. Because, frankly, I've had it up to here with this sort of thing.

So that's where I was coming from on this stuff. It probably doesn't matter or anything, it's just how I felt then and now and I wanted to let you know.

I will never mention our past contretemps again, at least not in any negative or chiding sense.

I really appreciate your post.

 

[PirateAndBum]

To study the subject of Scientology its best not to read L Ron Hubbard . . .

LOL, yup. The Reformed Church of Scientology will give Ron an accurate bio and a "thanks for the memories" , and then complete the sort-out and carry on with research.

 

[PirateAndBum]

The question that Hoxie asked me earlier on this thread is really quite important and something that I think most Scios don't really ponder hard enough.

We all know what scientology was supposed to do: make an OT.

It seems that the indy's have some belief that the bridge can do that, yet it is a plain as the nose on your face that it doesn't.

What astounds me is this worship of something that doesn't make an OT. That to me is what is utterly illogical.

I was reading some of the Scientolipedia articles and one in particular struck me as so bizarre.

About OT

In case anyone is interested I would like to say something. I just really want to make OT’s.

I’ve had many goals, some this lifetime, some long-term but over the years these shifted. I had a point in my life a few years ago where I just wanted to get people through the no-interference area. To help those who were stopped or unrecognized by the COS.

Of course I still want to do that, but my prime purpose is to create OT’s.

The “itsa” on this is that I have seen a lot of failures to make OTs. One can make a lot of win and gains for someone, handle their life, improve their heath and cause betterment in general. Still few stay at it to really make OT. It does take a certain amount of dedication. It takes training as well as auditing. It takes time/money and being enough OT to continue the game.

Some people never wanted to be Clear. This was really hard for me to accept in the 1960’s, I couldn’t really believe that anyone knowing about the state wouldn’t want to go clear. Some want to go Clear but don’t continue, they love the state they have and just get so interested in life and playing the game that they cease to go to OT.

Some people don’t believe in OT. They gave up too soon and settled for less. This is not to devaluate the wins and gains they did have. It is only to point out that we do need some people to be “on board” so to speak for the whole enchilada.

<snip>
To do this we need more OTs. Why, because until there are more you will hold back on your OT abilities. You will be like a bird who clips its own wings. Truth is no one wants to be totally alone.

One has to know that when one steps out as an OT that he has others who will also step out. It is a sort of reverse coming out of the closet. So much safer to say, we are “pre-ots”, even though we stick ourselves with the second postulate. It allows us justification for not matching up to someone’s hidden standard on OT.

Years ago when I heard of the dwindling spiral of stopped time I decided I didn’t want to come back here and take another body. I wanted to create a new existence. I wanted to be with others, possibly no body necessary, who could still be capable of sharing affinities and doing things together.

When I first reached that plateau I looked for others there and I didn’t see them. Perhaps they really were there but creating in another time or place. At that time Ron was still around and the concept of “see you on the other side of the bridge” hadn’t been introduced much less understood. I realized one can’t truly be OT unless there are others who are truly OT. If no one is there at the door (so to speak) to greet you when you arrive, one’s inclination is to drop back into what is familiar and there goes OT. It is like an entire wall of self-imposed disabilities. All the agreement to be a little less than we are, in one way or another so we can be par on the playing field, whatever that might be. All so we can have a game. We do love having something of interest to do.

We need to “win” at this game of making OTs. The counter efforts on the Road to Truth attempt to dissuade us at every turn. We need to acknowledge, at least to ourselves, that we are OT. As our certainty increases –and what else is there to OT but certainty—we need to state that we are OT.

She talks as-if 1.) She is OT and 2.) That they can be made by doing the bridge.

I guess you just need to chant "I am OT" enough times until you've convinced yourself of the fact (i.e have certainty)?

What is this? Is Pat Krenik a nut? Why do they let her post such drivel on what is supposed to be a Scio wiki?

THIS is what is so sad about those still sucking at Ron's teat.

Oh and Infinte here is a scio saying that you can have fun with: "You have to be OT to go OT"

Ah the beauty of utter illogic.

(And Pat if you are truly OT come on over without your body and drop a book I have laying about here on my head. You have my permission.)

 

[Dilpickle]

It seems we are all on our own selected paths, wishing to become more aware, more "ourselves", more enlightened, whatever that may mean to us. We don't seem to want to keep the status-quo... If I have problems, I want to solve them. If I am stupid, I want to get smarter. If I am unhealthy, I want to run for miles, etc etc.. For starters, it helps to look at where you are now, and fully confront it.. and perhaps many of us are doing this, rambling on and on here... seeing where we are now, and where we want to go.

I believe the Biggest Mistake I made in all this was to concentrate so heavily on my spiritual awakening. I wanted to be OT.. or whatever you want to call it. Spiritually aware. Free as a spiritual being. Able to go exterior and choose my location. All that stuff.

To accomplish this, I started off on a heavy schedule of examining my THOUGHTS.. What did I think about this or that.. how did I respond.. how did I act... why did I do it... how can I change it.. what's going on in my mind.. why do I think that.. who am I mad at.. why am I mad at them.. all that kind of stuff.. which is fine if you are working on the mind and it's significances.. however, I got entirely off balance..

One day I realized I was so self-absorbed and demanding that I was becoming un-liveable with.. a pain in the ass. I wanted my spiritual freedom so much that I was neglecting my body, my house, my friends, etc. Not entirely, of course, but so much so that I was becoming weaker and weaker and less able all the time.

Whatever you are doing.. I suggest BALANCE. If you are working on your mind.. fine.. do it.. but take breaks and think of others.. start a garden.. get a puppy.. enjoy the earth.. look at the sky.. admire a flower.. hug a child.. touch the walls.. get yourself located.. be happy to be alive.. give your body a treat.. a vacation.. a visit to a spa.. new clothes.. haircut.. and don't forget to acknowledge the spirit.. Mother Earth.. Supreme Creation, however you see it.. your own intuition.. creativity.. draw something, or write a poem, or learn a new dance.. Tai Chi or a good martial art.. Exercise.. take care of your body.. keep your house nice, and beyond that.. be artistic about it.. get a new picture for the wall.. add some knickknacks or whatever you like.. Enjoy being alive.. make your life a work of art in progress..

I thought I would clear up my mind and fly out of here on angel's wings.. instead, I fell on my head with a big THUNK.. Only visiting the mind with such intensity diminishes all the rest.. My mind was getting so FREE feeling that I truly thought I was on my way, until the imbalance became so pronounced that I flopped pitifully...

I say this to anyone who is only moving in one direction.. start spreading out in ALL areas.. appreciate and love them ALL.. Make some new friends.. play baseball.. whatever you like to do. MOTION is important.. you can only sit for so long getting whatever kind of sessions you are getting.. Your body wants to MOVE... Anyway.. this information literally saved my life.. I was starting to shrink into a self absorbed puny little thing, and had to make a fast turn-around at one point. If you are ONLY working on your body.. take a look at your mind and spirit.. and the World around you... etc etc.. Dilpickle

 

[PirateAndBum]

And on that note, this ESMB obsessed person is checking out. Thank you Dil

 

[Demented LRH]

I wanted to be a Clear. But my first auditing session was my last -- it ended in complete failure, I could not recall anything. I blamed everything on the auditor. My desire to become a Clear was not strong enough to look for another auditor.

When I was a Scientologist, I was an atheist at the same time (I am no longer an atheist), who did not believe in thetans. I thought, "Jews and Christians belive in nonexistent God of the Bible, American Indians believe in spirits of the dead, LRH also believed in the spirits. He was a great scientist who invented Dianetics, but his religious views are of no interest to me".

I was one of those Scientologists who did not want to go OT. People get affected by Scientology to different degrees. Some members of this board have completely abandoned Scientology (I fall into this category), the others practice Scientology outside CoS, and there is a group of people who have modified the Tech in attempt to make it more workable.

The problem with the last group is that they do not know that there are much more effective psychological procedures developed by the professionals. It makes sense to study those techniques and use them instead of the Dianetics procedure.

 

[Veda]

LOL, yup. The Reformed Church of Scientology will give Ron an accurate bio and a "thanks for the memories" , and then complete the sort-out and carry on with research.

That's a nice dream, but Scientologists are notoriously stupid and/or goofy on the subject of Scientology, and are probably the least likely candidates to sort-out Scientology, and if someone did sort-out Scientology, it's not likely that the person would have enough Scientology left to, honestly, call what remained, "Scientology," or even "Reformed Scientology."

 

[Gadfly]

We need to “win” at this game of making OTs. The counter efforts on the Road to Truth attempt to dissuade us at every turn. We need to acknowledge, at least to ourselves, that we are OT. As our certainty increases –and what else is there to OT but certainty—we need to state that we are OT.

"what else is there to OT but certainty"?

These people are such DOOFUSES!!!!!!!

Certainty is ONLY a "state of mind". It means NOTHING!

People back in the 13th century were VERY CERTAIN that the "world was flat", and if you sailed far enough that you would "fall off the edge".

Various Muslim fanatics are VERY CERTAIN that their faith is the "only correct version" and that if one dies in a suicide bombing that he will "go to heaven", and be blessed forever with wine, food and MANY virgins.

Jehovah's Witnesses are entirely CERTAIN that they will be part of the 144,000 people who will sit with God and Jesus after the Apocalypse.

And, Scientologists are VERY CERTAIN that following Scientology will lead them to glorious states of OT!

In fact, what most people on Earth have been "certain of", at almost all times, and in almost all places, HAS NOT BEEN true or even real.

What certainty actually is, is a mental state of "being convinced". These types of people are DEEPLY CONVINCED. They have bought into some set of answers lock, stock and barrel. They are "totally convinced".

I could fill a book with examples of people who were "totally certain" about something, and where what they were "certain of" was NOT true or valid at all.

Again, "certainty" is ONLY a state of mind. It is largely of the nature of "faith" and "belief', often being entirely disconnected from observations of actual reality.

Personally, in my view, I do NOT have the attitude that "certainty" is at all valuable, desirable or even useful.

That Hubbard could TRICK people into imagining that "certainty" was first, worthwhile, and second that he could deliver it to them with Scientology, was one of his many feats of deception.

I have found that as I have became WISER that I am "certain" of LESS and LESS. In fact, as I mature and evolve, I am quite happy and comfortable wallowing in DOUBT. I don't "need to know". I no longer need to create a pretentious attitude and view of "certainty" - about anything. That is NOT something that any Scientologist can say. Most couldn't even grasp what I just said.

Now, to a degree I am confident in my own abilities. But, that is NOT the same as "certainty".

I have no desire for certainty in anything. I find people who exhibit strong certainty (whether religious, philosophical, political or scientific) to be somewhat tedious, too rigid in their attitudes, and . . . . . well, boring.

 

[PirateAndBum]

That's a nice dream, but Scientologists are notoriously stupid and/or goofy on the subject of Scientology, and are probably the least likely candidates to sort-out Scientology, and if someone did sort-out Scientology, it's not likely that the person would have enough Scientology left to, honestly, call what remained, "Scientology," or even "Reformed Scientology."

Buzz-kill! OK, hmm, what to call it... Bumology ... maybe... Piratetics.... nah

Limitedology, itbityology. pinheadism, idunnology, spoonbenders.com

hell this list must be incomplete, has too many reading items on it.

sigh

 

[PirateAndBum]

Gad, I'm quite certain that you are quite certain that one should not be quite certain of things of which one cannot be certain.

So much fer Scientology: The Science of Certainty

 

[Claire Swazey]

Dil's comment about it being a mistake concentrating so heavily on spiritual development is a very interesting one. When I think about it, it seems that completely ignoring the current events, family, physical activities etc is far more detrimental than I used to believe.

There are those who concentrate only on the senses. I don't think you'll find anyone like that here or in the cult, either, for that matter. But there are situations like that. I guess balance is important.

I used to think case gain meant you had to pull up Every. Single. Aberrated. And. Painful. Event. and then confront them and all that. And that if you don't, then you won't truly make gains. That's what we were told. I've been questioning this as of late. I don't see anything wrong with facing up to fears, phobias and painful events, per se. But if you were to have a lovely experience or do something nice or noble or decent or figure out where you went wrong on something, those things also would be good for you.

 

[Infinite]

LOL, yup. The Reformed Church of Scientology will give Ron an accurate bio and a "thanks for the memories" , and then complete the sort-out and carry on with research.

What would you call it, though. Its certainly wouldn't be Scientology and, seriously, no one would want to be bogged down with that label. I usually refer to the "reformers" as Hubbardites but, if he's going to be jettisoned with the rest of the jetsam, I may have to review that. There is the "Free Zone", I suppose, but that seems too overarching with Rons Orgs, the FreeZone, the Russians, the Indie Dependents, and so on . . . hmmm, back to the quandry of definitions, I guess.

 

[Gadfly]

Gad, I'm quite certain that you are quite certain that one should not be quite certain of things of which one cannot be certain.

So much fer Scientology: The Science of Certainty

I am emphatically CERTAIN of my total UNCERTAINTY!!!!!!

Or, am I totally UNCERTAIN of my emphatic CERTAINTY????? :confused2:

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Thanks, that clarifies your position. I don't disagree, but I know that the deeper one gets into "the material" the less objective one tends to be.

To me it should be a simple thing: What does Scientology promise? What does Scientology deliver?

I know what official Scientology promises, but I haven't been able to nail down what the outside Scientologists promise. They don't seem to promise anything. Maybe that's on purpose.

Bill

I once started a thread asking that exact question--"what outside Scientologists promise". The results were unbelievably bad. That question is very upsetting to many Indie/FZ Scientologists.

I have tried asking that question on many different threads, at many times, exactly as you have stated it:

"What does Scientology promise? What does Scientology deliver?"

It is the combination to Pandora's box. In my experience in trying to get a straight answer to that simple question, it apparently is like putting explosives at the structural stress points when doing a controlled demolition of an old building. If you take out certain key locations, the entire skyscraper collapses in upon itself.

Perhaps a simpler analogy is in boxing, when a solid punch is landed on just the right point of the chin. Knock Out! That's why boxers are trained to always protect their chin.

Scientologists, likewise, "keep their guard up" out of an instinctive response that they don't want anyone to get near that question about WHAT IS THE RESULT OF APPLYING ALL THIS "TECH"?

Honestly, I was completely surprised, bewildered, amused and wonderfully enlightened on the mindset of a dedicated Scientologist. I learned an enormous amount about the EXTREME FRAGILITY of the Scientology mindset by reading the responses to that question.

You can begin to see how each Scientologist's personal cognitive dissonance works and how they explain it to themselves.

If they don't want to show you how they camouflage the gaping hole, they avoid answering. That is also very revealing as well.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

What would you call it, though. Its certainly wouldn't be Scientology and, seriously, no one would want to be bogged down with that label. I usually refer to the "reformers" as Hubbardites but, if he's going to be jettisoned with the rest of the jetsam, I may have to review that. There is the "Free Zone", I suppose, but that seems too overarching with Rons Orgs, the FreeZone, the Russians, the Indie Dependents, and so on . . . hmmm, back to the quandry of definitions, I guess.

I think Hubbard would more correctly be classified as "flotsam", according the the legal definition...(wait three beats to hear from Mark A. on this )

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flotsam_and_jetsam

"n. maritime law, flotsam, jetsam, lagan and derelict describe specific kinds of wreck. The words have specific nautical meanings, with legal consequences in the law of admiralty and marine salvage.

"Flotsam is floating wreckage of a ship or its cargo.

Jetsam is part of a ship, its equipment, or its cargo that is purposefully cast overboard or jettisoned to lighten the load in time of distress and that sinks or is washed ashore.

Lagan (also called ligan) is cargo that is lying on the bottom of the ocean, sometimes marked by a buoy, which can be reclaimed.

Derelict is cargo that is also on the bottom of the ocean, but which no one has any hope of reclaiming."

Actually, Finny, I personally think Ron is "Derelict", according to this definition, and was for much of the latter part of his life, due to drinking, drug use and untreated mental illness.

Unless, of course, you believe in the conspiracy theory that DM manipulated Ron into running and hiding in order to take over, handle the money and be in control. I don't see it that way. I think DM "took control" as a anxiety-driven reaction to Ron's slipping farther and farther out of control of himself, his actions and the COS organization, which DM witnessed personally.

I think Ron lost all interest in COS and Scientology himself (except for the under the table income) when it became a religion. He never wanted to be the leader of a religion, he hated and despised religions. He seemed to have a lot of contempt for Scientologists, and said that he himself was not one. (I think he saw himself as a Magus )

That guy was a pirate, he just wanted to do whatever he wanted, no matter how it harmed or what the cost to others (even his own wives and children, whom a normal man would feel some protective sense of concern and care over.)

Yeah, derelict...unsalvageable. Some Sociopaths ARE like that.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Buzz-kill! OK, hmm, what to call it... Bumology ... maybe... Piratetics.... nah

Limitedology, itbityology. pinheadism, idunnology, spoonbenders.com

hell this list must be incomplete, has too many reading items on it.

sigh

Infinite, I tried...

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Dil's comment about it being a mistake concentrating so heavily on spiritual development is a very interesting one. When I think about it, it seems that completely ignoring the current events, family, physical activities etc is far more detrimental than I used to believe.

There are those who concentrate only on the senses. I don't think you'll find anyone like that here or in the cult, either, for that matter. But there are situations like that. I guess balance is important.

I used to think case gain meant you had to pull up Every. Single. Aberrated. And. Painful. Event. and then confront them and all that. And that if you don't, then you won't truly make gains. That's what we were told. I've been questioning this as of late. I don't see anything wrong with facing up to fears, phobias and painful events, per se. But if you were to have a lovely experience or do something nice or noble or decent or figure out where you went wrong on something, those things also would be good for you.

A balanced life is most conductive to good mental health, and happiness. Plus, it's a lot more fun!!!

 

[PirateAndBum]

Ya, Hubbard was a... Pirate & Bum...

So what should I call my new religion? I'm kinda stumped.

 

[Bill]

The question that Hoxie asked me earlier on this thread is really quite important and something that I think most Scios don't really ponder hard enough.

We all know what scientology was supposed to do: make an OT.

It seems that the indy's have some belief that the bridge can do that, yet it is a plain as the nose on your face that it doesn't.

What astounds me is this worship of something that doesn't make an OT. That to me is what is utterly illogical.

I was reading some of the Scientolipedia articles and one in particular struck me as so bizarre.

About OT



She talks as-if 1.) She is OT and 2.) That they can be made by doing the bridge.

I guess you just need to chant "I am OT" enough times until you've convinced yourself of the fact (i.e have certainty)?

What is this? Is Pat Krenik a nut? Why do they let her post such drivel on what is supposed to be a Scio wiki?

THIS is what is so sad about those still sucking at Ron's teat.

Oh and Infinte here is a scio saying that you can have fun with: "You have to be OT to go OT"

Ah the beauty of utter illogic.

(And Pat if you are truly OT come on over without your body and drop a book I have laying about here on my head. You have my permission.)

God! I remember "OTs" pulling that trick on me before I did the OT Levels, "We need more OTs up here!, you'll love it up here!" -- as if they existed at a higher plane and knew things I didn't. It's such BS when "OTs" pull that -- I think because they want to give themselves that "altitude". What utter BS!

Bill