What's new

Scientology is all bad

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I was talking about in session. So I stand by what I said.


Since you are "standing by what you said" I will assume that you have very little familiarity with 1950's/1960's Scientology tech and pc handling and how "past lives" was a core part of the PC's case handling. Part of the case handling is done in session (running wholetrack GPMs, Past Lives Remedy, etc...) And there are many more case handling elements to the methodology out of session (D of P interviews, training on course with LRH past life material, books about past lives, LRH audio lectures on past lives, graduation success stories about past lives, Advance Magazine articles and wins about past lives, etc. etc. etc.)

If a pc didn't handle past life charge they could not go Clear (R6EW, Clearing Course, etc...).

If a pc didn't handle past life charge they could not go OT.

PCs paid fortunes and they did so to run what Ron said needed to be run. Past lives.

Both Veda and I pointed you to specific examples of PCs being pushed into "past lives" from tech materials in the books/HCOBs and auditing processes from that time, beginning with the book "What To Audit" from 1952. It's right there in black and white.....

You seem to like your opinion much more than the facts.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Nah. I said that my comment pertained to (pre ot) auditing, not to books about past lives. That's the only reason I said it. You were arguing against a point I'd not made and an opinion I do not possess.

I clarified an earlier phrasing error, is all.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Nah. I said that my comment pertained to (pre ot) auditing, not to books about past lives. That's the only reason I said it. You were arguing against a point I'd not made and an opinion I do not possess.

I clarified an earlier phrasing error, is all.


I don't know what you are saying, but if you do, that's good enough for me.

Onward to something else....
 
Well, yes. Except what Hubbard claimed for Scientology was that it was an exact science. I'm only talking about Scientology's "therapy" and claims.:biggrin:

Bill

I've yet to encounter any regular poster on the board who isn't in general agreement with the idea that hubbard routinely lied.


Mark A, Baker
 
Yes, the man sees his hallucination as his reality, I agree with that. But the outside sources (9 other men) see his reality as a hallucination. The question is -- who is better prepared to live a normal life without being danger to himself?

...

PS. I quit believing in ARC when I was a Scientologist because even then it made no sense to me; I saw it as a bunch of platitudes not worthy my attention.

No, the question is who is better equipped to understand the hallucinating man? Those who will only look at the fact of his hallucination, or those who express a willingness to understand his worldview even if it seems delusional?

Hint: take a look at some of the published works by the psychologist R. D. Laing on the subject of psychosis and the treatment of patients.

Perhaps the reason ARC never made much sense to you was that you may have failed to recognize that it's sole purpose is as a social tool for increasing the individual's ability to understand others. It is a very useful and highly workable tool for that purpose.


Mark A. Baker
 
Gee, I dunno. I've never been to a Psychologist, so I don't know what they do. I would hazard a guess that if a psychologist's patient were to tell him " I was the Capt of a Starliner 45 million years ago", that the psychologist might institutionalize him ( if they do that), or put the patient on some drugs.

But that's an uneducated guess. I have no idea what they do. Do you? Have you consulted with one? ...

First they'd want to know why the person thought that might be true. :)

Whether he prescribed drugs would depend on whether he was licensed to do so. Not all are. My own experiences lie with the medical side of the mental health industry, i.e. psychiatrists. As licensed m.d.'s they have the power to dispense but they also typically want full information on what the patient believes to be going on before they make a diagnosis.

However, some psychiatrists are just pill pushers and don't much care about the patient's views beyond whatever symptoms are being displayed. They will just prescribe the drugs and send the patient to a psychologist or psychiatric social worker if any actual therapy is indicated. In which case it is up to the latter to find out what is actually bothering the patient. That, however, requires actually paying attention & listening to the patient. :)

It's not a wonderful medical model for patient care, but it's what the capitalist system considers to be the 'most efficient use of resources' . :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
No, the question is who is better equipped to understand the hallucinating man? Those who will only look at the fact of his hallucination, or those who express a willingness to understand his worldview even if it seems delusional?

Hint: take a look at some of the published works by the psychologist R. D. Laing on the subject of psychosis and the treatment of patients.

Perhaps the reason ARC never made much sense to you was that you may have failed to recognize that it's sole purpose is as a social tool for increasing the individual's ability to understand others. It is a very useful and highly workable tool for that purpose.


Mark A. Baker
"or those who express a willingness to understand his worldview even if it seems delusional? "

I'm not sure what you mean by "understand". Do you mean that someone should try to understand why he is hallucinating? In this case I agree with you -- in order to treat him, a psychologist (or psychiatrist) should get into his head, so to speak, and try to determine the cause of his hallucinations. But I do not think that a non-professional should communicate with a mentally ill person because such communication could only worsen his condition.

As they say, every sword has two edges. Hubbard's definition of reality as a group agreement was designed to show that Scientology is a valid doctrine, which is very real to its followers. But it also can be used to destroy Scientology, don't you think?

There is a group of members of this board, including myself, who believe that the engrams and implants are not real. Since they are not real to us, we do not have them. In our reality the engrams and implants are figments of Hubbard's imagination. They cannot hurt us in any way. By accepting this point of view on reality, we do not have to waste our money on auditing. We all are above the highest OT level.

Clearly, we have an advantage over our opponents who believe in the existence of implants and engrams.

Hubbard never said that one cannot change her definition of reality. It seems very practical to me to accept the point of view that Hubbard was a mentally ill person to whom his Dianetics and Xenu hallucinations were real.

When I was a Scientologist, I used to think that Hubbard was one of the greatest scientists of 20-th century -- that was my reality. My current reality is very different -- I see Hubbard as a retard. Then in my reality he IS a retard. Intellectually I am far superior to him; I do not have to waste my time on his useless books and crazy definitions.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, yes. Except what Hubbard claimed for Scientology was that it was an exact science. I'm only talking about Scientology's "therapy" and claims.:biggrin:

Bill
I've yet to encounter any regular poster on the board who isn't in general agreement with the idea that hubbard routinely lied.

Mark A, Baker
You keep trying to stop any discussion of Scientology from including statements made by Hubbard -- as if what Hubbard said had nothing to do with Scientology and must be discounted entirely.

This really continues to boggle my mind.

Bill
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
Speaking for myself, the things that "damaged" me were incessant sec checks and ethics handlings, green on white that negated all dynamics but the 3rd, chinese schooling and verbatim memorizations of things that, in the real world, mean nothing at all.

My interest in the mind was present before I ever heard of Scn, and it survived intact after my leaving. I don't feel good or bad or anything at all about my auditor training or my experience auditing pcs. It would serve no purpose other than to further extend the negative effect of my own Scn experience to lament or regret or wish I could undo my time in the church. It's done, and like everything else that has occurred in my life, I view it as a learning experience. If any of my former preclears felt or feel damaged by association with me they should contact me. I'd actually love to hear from them anyway. I really did love them, every last one, and would do whatever I could (short of throwing them in session) to make sure they are ok.

I believe that the people who are most damaged by Scientology are those who cannot put it in the past, cannot let go of their anger, pain, or negative experiences and cannot move forward into the next phase of their lives a little wiser than they were when they first came across the cult. I feel incredibly sorry for those people because no matter how many years pass, they will never really be free.

So I guess it truly is one of those things where opinions are all we have.

That was an awesome post. I wholeheartedly agree. I cared about my PCs too. I really wanted them to do well. I also felt good personally after I audited them. Some had wonderful wins. Some had nothing at all occur and wondered what the hell i was doing lol. I am not bitter about my time. I do feel a little wiser. I am more fortunate than many here. There are some that had unbelievable atrocities inflicted upon them. I too feel incredibly sorry. My personal story on Scio staff sucked for the most part, but it pales against others here. I suspect that they all wanted to improve their lives and the lives of others. I hope in time that they can rediscover that, and now without the pressure. Thanks for your post.
 

Veda

Sponsor
That does not encourage anyone to run past lives. Nor does it discourage it. Asking for earlier similars (which is a Dianetic command, by the way) just means is there an earlier similar event. If someone truly did not believe in any way that he'd lived before, he would only come up with recollections from the one lifetime. Nor does all auditing ask for earlier events.

Fluffy to Cramming. No, on second thought, Fluffy to retrain.
 

Veda

Sponsor
You keep trying to stop any discussion of Scientology from including statements made by Hubbard -- as if what Hubbard said had nothing to do with Scientology and must be discounted entirely.

-snip-

You're not supposed to notice that!

You are resisting being handled by a Scientologist.

Please try to cooperate.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Nope, quite different. The psychologist doesn't encourage the creation of fantasy and, obviously, doesn't have a view as to what the fantasy might be.

Sometimes they do. It's a technique called active imagination, it was developed by Carl Jung and is still in use today, though it is not and never was recommended for all patients at all times.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
You're not supposed to notice that!

You are resisting being handled by a Scientologist.

Please try to cooperate.

It must be awful to not be able to talk with or see anyone else talk with someone of a different point of view without seeing some sinister motive behind it.

It's just discussion between people of varying views, is all.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
And I'm a Venusian train driver, just don't have a licence.



The issue we are talking about is metered. Perhaps they are not asked to belive in past lives but it is certainly presented as fact by Scientology even before a person goes near an org. How can something that doesn't exist be furthered?

You're absolutely right - Hubbard's lectures and books are positively full of discussion of past lives. I had a belief in past lives before I entered the building so I personally found a point of agreement on this topic. Many of the people I got to know said something similar - that reading such and such book made them feel as if they'd finally found something that proved what they already believed.

Good luck getting that license.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
That's not true at all. Take a look at Ron's books, tapes & HCOBs beginning in 1952 in History of Man, to 1967 when he released OT III.

We are talking about MILLIONS of words asking Scientologists to believe in past lives.

And we are talking about TRILLIONS of years ago that Ron lectured Scientologist about "What To Audit" (original title of History of Man).

I can't speak for OT III, but past lives never became a cause for concern until we hit NED on the case. This is with the bridge being grades first, NED to Clear and on up - I understand it changed around a bit. Once we hit NED, if the preclear still wasn't going whole track, then we trotted out the past lives remedy already discussed.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Of course Scn posits the belief in other lives. And it is in books and is mentioned on taped lectures all the time. I know that, we all know that. But auditing questions- before you get to the ridiculous Incident II mishmosh- do not push a person into it.

If you have someone who doesn't believe in or have past lives and you ask if something happened earlier, he'll look around in his current life recollections. If there's nothing to bring up, he brings nothing up.

A lot of auditing doesn't even use any such auditing question. Take the grades or the objectives, for example.

There're psychologists who ask patients what else may have happened to them. It's a similar thing.

I've always thought that Scn and Dn's propensity for not feeding cognitions, ideas and incidents to the person was rather nice til I knew about the OT levels. There, it goes out the window. The person's been primed and conditioned to believe in space opera and then is informed that this catclysmic incident took place. Hubbard was so convinced that this was it, that this was the major deal that is affecting everyone that he completely went off the rails and devoted tons and tons of auditing processes to it, creating a mystique and a "must have". You could say it was all about the money and the man never met a dollar bill or free labor he didn't like, but he evidently did believe in that stuff, too, and thought everyone had it and needed it run out. Remember, he died raving about demons and bts.

I'd once seen it said that he was running someone's case, came across this and decided that all cases were like this, or that he may've been running his case. There have been people who told their auditors they didn't have Incident II but they were few and far between. Most people were pushed into it.

My guess is that given how long beings have been around, that you're bound to have had something cataclysmic happen - probably a bunch of stuff- but I don't believe in Incident II as depicted. My personal speculation is that Hubbard did believe in it, did see or hear about something, did come across a corresponding thing in himself, and then not only decided it applied to everyone but he also perceived whatever it was through a filter. Trying to translate the spiritual into the physical- which includes speech, text, any description- is incredibly difficult and stuff always always always gets lost in translation and buggered up.

Many prophets and seers describe very similar things to one another but also have a lot of stuff that seems to only support their cultural and religious frames of reference. That's because of their filters. Hubbard had 'em, too, but he thought he didn't.

I have this weird thing- it's some kind of recollection from something not of Planet Earth or a human body. It's a thing that comes in on me from time to time. I could use Scn'ese to tell you what it sounds like but let's not do that. I'll just say it's overwhelming and terrifying. I get it less than I used to and since I started meditating I can handle it better. But it's not from here, it's not a human thing and to try to describe it would be making the mistake Hubbard and other prophets (yes, I said "and other". He's a prophet. He's also, like many other prophets, a douchebag) have made. Trying to translate a "not from this universe" phenom into English (or German or Arabic or French etc etc) will always be glaringly inaccurate.
 
Top