Scientology explained

[lotus]

Psychosis or not, disembodied entities exist and that's not only Hubbard who says so. The problem Hubbard had was that he opened his 'can of worms' and had not the means to deal with.

What you are perceiving through your eyes is the physical frequency of your body and therfore you perceive what you are tuned into. On the other side one can basically tune out of that physical plane and perceive alternative dimesions occupying the same space. Actually it can scare your shit out of you if you are not prepared for it. That's nothing to do with body thetans. Hubbard mis-interpreted what he was perceiving.

And how much does it cost to live a lifetime in your dark world of the lord of the darkness ????

Why not spend more time in gardens, instead of fearfull entities you will encounter beautifull elf It's free and can be taken without any restrain.

 

[lotus]

Of course the topic isn't you Leon, perish the thought ... it's about us and what a cretinous bunch of stupid, ungrateful whiners we are.

I guess he skipped the lesssons on how to grant beingness

constant invalidation on people he ask for communications

Leon
There shall be a theta way you could handle us to see the light instead of constant invalidation

It's painfull to be such invalidated
I want an ARCX free session

 

[JustSheila]

addition to my previous post:

there is 2nd possibility that Hubbard mis-assigned something else. Now the following is my interpretation so don't try to kill me if you disagree.

I found that the body's cellular structure is matched by tiny 'thought thingies'. It appears to me that each cell has a spiritual or mental counter part. And these are interconnected and 'comunicate' to a certain degree with other body areas and their spirit counterparts. For this reason I find it not ideal, perhaps even dangerous, keeping on addressing one's body when solo auditing. I don't do solo auditing anymore since decades but when I did, I avoided addressing something on my body. Well, with the exception of OT3 where it was required to do so. OT3 doesn't go very deep so it doesn't matter. However, after OT3 I never interferred with cells. I didn't read this, I didn't study this anywhere and nobody told me to do it that way. I just observed that cells would react and so I kept away from auditing them.

Hubbard may have done it differently. I think he messed around too much with his body. That screwed him up.

In a way, you're right, and you did well to stay away from these, though I disagree that they are spiritual entities. The phenomenon exists within neuroscience. That is where OT auditing becomes dangerous - memory works in many different directions and cells hold different aspects of memories and experiences used for rational thinking. Hit and miss like this can really mess someone up. I'm glad you stopped.

I think you'll find this article on recent findings in brain research more than a bit fascinating, and terrifying, too, in the way memory can be altered:

Inside laboratories, memory researchers are doing crazy things to the brains of mice and rats. They're deleting memories, putting them back in, and even making the rodents remember things that never even happened.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/16/6984423/memory-delete-create-false-change-science-PTSD

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

George, you have got things mashed up horribly. yes I have had a lot of personal gain from doing Scientology the way I did it. And yes, many many people were messed up doing Scientology the way they did it. My way of doing it is in no way a "purified form". It's just the way I found I could get good results for me and others, and it is very much a work in progress.

Everybody certainly does have the freedom to choose. In no way am I lessening that right. Where/how do you imagine that I am?

I look at the way the guys here say they experienced Scientology and I look at Jason Beghe's description of what he experienced and I see clearly that that is not the Scientology I did. What he and many on this board have experienced is the bastardized remnant form of the subject the the CofS in its ignorance is promoting as the real thing. And mush of this bastardized form is what Hubbard himself promoted while in his senile dotage.

So I say Hey, that's not what Scientology is or was ever meant to be. That's not what it needs to be. It can be done differently.

Do you have a problem with me doing that?

If you were conned then for yuo ut certainly is a con game. And for anyone else too who reckons they were conned.

But I was not conned and so for me it is not a con game. When it turned into one in the early 1980s I got out of there.




Yes and Yes




So quite obviously he himself didn't know what a Clear was. Nor how to recognise one. Like I said earlier - it is undefinable.



Indeed.

So let me understand this all so far...
You acknowledge that Hubbard was a con artist.

You agree he defined the state of clear to include, among other things, perfect recall of events.

You acknowledge that the state of clear he proposed doesn't exist as, among other things, clears do not have perfect recall of events.

You do not have a definition of a clear.

The official people who are using the so called 'tech' are not doing it right.

The inventor of the so called 'tech' wasn't doing it right.

You admit that much of the tech is bad or doesn't work...

...and you are still committed to this idea?

This reminds me of when I bought my first used car.

The person who sold it to me said it was the best car ever and that I needed to conjure up magic fuel to run it, but the mileage would be more than I could possibly imagine (which reminded me of some science fiction I like, and I guess that was what hooked me in) and that the car will drive with greater precision and faster and that it will damage the suspension less going over bumps. Wheel alignment would be automatic and the car would clear itself of rubbish.

I had real difficulty trying to conjure up magic fuel, and they charged me for a series of expensive courses.

When I tried to get my money back, they followed me home, harassed me at work and did other such things.

It later emerged that the guy who sold me the car (who is now dead), was a known con artist.

The organization has offices in France and all over the USA. Apparently, the organization has found guilty of fraud and individual members have been charged with fraud, extortion, burglary, assault, attempted murder and a list of the sorts of crimes organized criminal organizations are charged with from time to time.

The used car sales lot is now owned by a manic depressed dwarf with alcohol problems and asthma who still calls me trying to sell me courses. Apparently his terminal asbestosis has metastasized to his brain and his is losing his mind. Thankfully, he was stupid and uneducated, so it wasn't a big fall.

He is known to beat his staff on a regular basis during sales meetings. On occasion, during some of the sales meetings, rather than masturbating, he instead assaults his staff.

I have since thrown out the vehicle and the DVD sets, but I have kept some of the books on magic fuel, because some of it rings true to me. I fully acknowledge that there is no research to support this and that various government agencies have raided the organization and charged them with making fraudulent claims, but what is true is what's true for me. I love that expression as it is the most succinct distillation of the essence of superstition itself.

I am still convinced that magic fuel is real. I can't define what it is, but while driving in another car I purchased, using regular fuel, I have the sense that my car works better because of the magic.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

 

[Leon-2]

Leon,

If scientology were actually just about the tek it would have ceased to exist years ago because these days, as with everything, there are better alternatives that don't involve weird beliefs and a whole new language.

For me, Scientology is ONLY about the tech. Everything else is peripheral sideline stuff of no consequence. It's the tech. And that is a far broader subject than Hubbard ever dreamed of. Various other people have made major contributions to it and I include all of them in the broad sweep of the subject. And then there are quite plainly areas where no research or development has been done yet but that are obvious candidates for opening up and developing a tech for. As is probably the case in every other known area of human endeavor, the area where we know that we know is far tinier than the area where we don't know that we don't know. In the middle is the area where we do know that we don't know and I do perceive that that area for Scio is much bigger than what Hubbard described.

Scientology isn't just about the tek though, it has cult glue running through it ready to entrap a person from the day they set foot in the door and (as you well know) most of us "idiots" were caught up in it at a very young age and for that I feel very sincere compassion. People in general lose more than they gain and sometimes their lives are completely changed as a direct result.

Yes, there is cult glue in the activities of the CofS. No doubts on that. But you know you can't glue grease onto water can you? Both sides have to be willing to accept the glue before you can get something to stick. Cults are the same. Both the cult and the cultee have to be set up for it. If you and I shake hands - who is shaking who's hand? We are both responsible for it, right? And since both of us individually can discontinue the handshake at any moment just by letting go, so too with anyone in a cult. And that is the horrible, unpalatable truth of the matter. Every single person who git stuck in that cult did so by there own personal choice. There is no dodging that one.

There is nothing "spiritual" about scientology and it is almost laughable that anyone could still believe that there is (or ever was).

Yep. Today Scientology is just a load of printed matter and audio recordings. Here and there someone knows something about how to get it all to work. No spirituality there in the printed and recorded mater. Any spirituality lies in the intentions and understandings of the people applying it. Never was otherwise.

You do come here to sneer and laugh at us "losers" ... even in your OP you just had to add the bolded line below.

No I do not. Never have had this attitude towards others who hold different views to mine.

Do you also frequent other boards where people have been conned and are now laughing, chatting, occasionally snarling and deconstructing to "help" them by telling them they were/are idiots and pointing out that you were ever so clever because you escaped with the rent money ... or do you just hang on this one?

This is a "do you still beat your wife?" type of question. The correct answer to that one is "No more than she deserves". I assume the same answer applies here to this question of yours.

The only other board I occasionally post on is the Independent Spiritual Forum. Any posts of mine on it should be readable there.

I understand that you managed to avoid the traps and I envy you for it ... but what is it that you want here from us today ... a medal?

No need for medals. What I would like are questions relating to the subject of Scientology which anyone might want an answer to. I'll answer as best I can.

 

[Leon-2]

I guess he skipped the lesssons on how to grant beingness

constant invalidation on people he ask for communications

Leon
There shall be a theta way you could handle us to see the light instead of constant invalidation

It's painfull to be such invalidated
I want an ARCX free session

Me invalidating you????? Just look at what Trouble calls you: "what a cretinous bunch of stupid, ungrateful whiners we are."

I don't stoop to that level anywhere.

 

[Bill]

You must be feeling like a five-dimensional pretzel by now. What on earth are you trying to say?

Project much? You wouldn't understand what I'm saying. That's a given. Reality just confuses you.

Others do understand.

 

[Gib]

For me, Scientology is ONLY about the tech. Everything else is peripheral sideline stuff of no consequence. It's the tech. And that is a far broader subject than Hubbard ever dreamed of. Various other people have made major contributions to it and I include all of them in the broad sweep of the subject. And then there are quite plainly areas where no research or development has been done yet but that are obvious candidates for opening up and developing a tech for. As is probably the case in every other known area of human endeavor, the area where we know that we know is far tinier than the area where we don't know that we don't know. In the middle is the area where we do know that we don't know and I do perceive that that area for Scio is much bigger than what Hubbard described.

I understand Leon-2.

Maybe you need to define Scientologist in your op that you describe to.

What is your definition of Scientologist?

I find myself a Scientologist in the truest sense of word meaning knowing how to know, or a seeker of learning or wanting to learn more. And by that I do not mean following what Hubbard wrote or said, but by what others as well said.

I have compared Idenics tech to Hubbard Scientology tech and prefer Identics since it is not a belief system but just a system to help a person solve a condition he/she thinks they are in, and no Bridge to Total Freedom nor belief.

Hubbards Scientology and Tech is confined to Hubbard.

I'm reading other sources and comparing. Are you or have you done so?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by Leon and snipped.

Yes, there is cult glue in the activities of the CofS. No doubts on that. But you know you can't glue grease onto water can you? Both sides have to be willing to accept the glue before you can get something to stick. Cults are the same. Both the cult and the cultee have to be set up for it. If you and I shake hands - who is shaking who's hand? We are both responsible for it, right? And since both of us individually can discontinue the handshake at any moment just by letting go, so too with anyone in a cult. And that is the horrible, unpalatable truth of the matter. Every single person who git stuck in that cult did so by there own personal choice. There is no dodging that one.

Leon,

I assume you mean apart from those that were dragged into the cult as children and had no real choice in it ... and those who would prefer not to lose people (often permanently) by leaving themselves? I like to keep things simple myself Leon, but that (above) is a truly ridiculous statement.

You're elderly now and I assume virtually retired and free of the day to day hassles and stress of making a living and bringing up children, have managed to survive death (fairly recently), live close to the ocean in one of the more beautiful (and spiritual) places in the world (New Zealand) and have pretty much lived your life ... if you were not relaxed and happy with the way things are for you there would be something very wrong.

Have a great 2015.

 

[Gib]

Leon,

I assume you mean apart from those that were dragged into the cult as children and had no real choice in it

I reckon they choose to be dumb and/or stupid for falling for the Hubbard talks.

Thus, they are stupid young children.

oh boy,

good point Trouble.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Me invalidating you????? Just look at what Trouble calls you: "what a cretinous bunch of stupid, ungrateful whiners we are."

I don't stoop to that level anywhere.

We may have been conned once (or more) Leon, but you are a rank amateur and utterly transparent.

 

[lotus]

Me invalidating you????? Just look at what Trouble calls you: "what a cretinous bunch of stupid, ungrateful whiners we are."

I don't stoop to that level anywhere.

You nasty entities get out of ITYIWT


Thank's Leon,

You gave me my first good laugh of the year!

 

[Sindy]

Originally posted by Leon-2:

Yes, there is cult glue in the activities of the CofS. No doubts on that. But you know you can't glue grease onto water can you? Both sides have to be willing to accept the glue before you can get something to stick. Cults are the same. Both the cult and the cultee have to be set up for it. If you and I shake hands - who is shaking who's hand? We are both responsible for it, right? And since both of us individually can discontinue the handshake at any moment just by letting go, so too with anyone in a cult. And that is the horrible, unpalatable truth of the matter. Every single person who git stuck in that cult did so by there own personal choice. There is no dodging that one.

Still, ultimately the evil aggressor that got another to agree should NOT have done that, should not exist, should not lure others, etc. It really doesn't matter who agreed to it. What they agreed to was not what they got. What they thought it was, based on LIES, is not what it was so I really don't get your point. It's just a shrug of the shoulders. So what.

 

[Smurf]

OK, So I have a reputation here of being outside of the mainstream of thought on this board. Whereas most others have "left Scientology" - left it but unable to let go of it - I still openly declare that I am still very much a Scientologist. Not in the narrow sense advocated by the CofS but in a much broader sense, encompassing the entire context of Scientology as well.

Do mankind a favor & STFU. Remember this post?

"I am no devotee of Bill Robertson but I can and do recognize that he was a million times more dynamic and causative and creative than all of you slaggers and critics combined. No matter his failings; I have mine too and each one of you the same - no doubt about it - but when evaluating the worth of a person look at the positives they do and not at the negatives. It works much better that way.

And if you need to ask what Bill's positives were then rather go back to sleep, because you are way below understanding anything at all in this subject."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...at-the-Fuck!-!&p=909494&viewfull=1#post909494

 

[Kemist]

Of course!

It doesn't matter if the cult has lied, cheated, exploited the dupe, separated him from his contacts and money, or what. It is ALWAYS the dupes fault. It's ALWAYS something they did, never the cult.

This is one of the most amazing parts of the con to me. Even when I was in, I never fully bought into this. I was sort of 'wait and see' on everything. But, I've seen it myself, there are people who seemed to believe this unequivocally.

This is why cults survive, I guess.

When you think about the nature of the perpretators of con games, such a thing is not surprising.

Blaming their victims is a favorite game of abusers of all kinds, and conmen are abusers. Beyond providing some of them with the pleasure of hurting their victim further, it has a very practical consequence : a victim who is ashamed and feels guilty of being a victim won't talk. If they won't talk this means the con game or other abuse can go on longer, without the abuser being punished.

Beware of those who blame victims. They often tend to be abusers.

 

[Gib]

Do mankind a favor & STFU. Remember this post?

"I am no devotee of Bill Robertson but I can and do recognize that he was a million times more dynamic and causative and creative than all of you slaggers and critics combined. No matter his failings; I have mine too and each one of you the same - no doubt about it - but when evaluating the worth of a person look at the positives they do and not at the negatives. It works much better that way.

And if you need to ask what Bill's positives were then rather go back to sleep, because you are way below understanding anything at all in this subject."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...at-the-Fuck!-!&p=909494&viewfull=1#post909494

seems like an appeal to ethos.

 

[Leon-2]

Because you don't know what state of mind your bringing them to.

Because the reason they believe they need auditing is they have been lied to.

Because your auditing might be coming from the vanity of the mind.

Because even though a person might want auditing it could possibly harm them further.

Because you might be wrong about having never been fooled by the mechanics of scientology and you need more help than those asking you for vanity.

Because it's not your place to save anyone from themselves.

Nuts

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

For me, Scientology is ONLY about the tech.

Advanced technology is normally patented. Science fiction is protected by copyright.

How is Scientology protected?

Everything else is peripheral sideline stuff of no consequence.

So disconnection is of no consequence? To low toned?

It's the tech. And that is a far broader subject than Hubbard ever dreamed of.

So Hubbard was a fraud, the tech he wrote doesn't deliver what he promised and he didn't understand it.

We are agreed. Wait, so other people can advance the tech delivered as a fraud by a con man to make it useful?

Why would anyone do that?

Various other people have made major contributions to it and I include all of them in the broad sweep of the subject. And then there are quite plainly areas where no research or development has been done yet but that are obvious candidates for opening up and developing a tech for. As is probably the case in every other known area of human endeavor, the area where we know that we know is far tinier than the area where we don't know that we don't know. In the middle is the area where we do know that we don't know and I do perceive that that area for Scio is much bigger than what Hubbard described.

I am not aware of anything that would pass as research from Hubbard or anyone else on the subject.

Yes, there is cult glue in the activities of the CofS. No doubts on that. But you know you can't glue grease onto water can you? Both sides have to be willing to accept the glue before you can get something to stick. Cults are the same. Both the cult and the cultee have to be set up for it. If you and I shake hands - who is shaking who's hand? We are both responsible for it, right? And since both of us individually can discontinue the handshake at any moment just by letting go, so too with anyone in a cult. And that is the horrible, unpalatable truth of the matter. Every single person who git stuck in that cult did so by there own personal choice. There is no dodging that one.

So the person in a WISE company with a child in the Sea Org can just leave?

Bullshit.

Yep. Today Scientology is just a load of printed matter and audio recordings. Here and there someone knows something about how to get it all to work. No spirituality there in the printed and recorded mater. Any spirituality lies in the intentions and understandings of the people applying it. Never was otherwise.

So Hubbard left no useful legacy? Sounds good.

No I do not. Never have had this attitude towards others who hold different views to mine.



This is a "do you still beat your wife?" type of question. The correct answer to that one is "No more than she deserves". I assume the same answer applies here to this question of yours.

The only other board I occasionally post on is the Independent Spiritual Forum. Any posts of mine on it should be readable there.



No need for medals. What I would like are questions relating to the subject of Scientology which anyone might want an answer to. I'll answer as best I can.

 

[Leon-2]

I understand Leon-2.

Maybe you need to define Scientologist in your op that you describe to.

What is your definition of Scientologist?

I find myself a Scientologist in the truest sense of word meaning knowing how to know, or a seeker of learning or wanting to learn more. And by that I do not mean following what Hubbard wrote or said, but by what others as well said.

I have compared Idenics tech to Hubbard Scientology tech and prefer Identics since it is not a belief system but just a system to help a person solve a condition he/she thinks they are in, and no Bridge to Total Freedom nor belief.

Hubbards Scientology and Tech is confined to Hubbard.

I'm reading other sources and comparing. Are you or have you done so?

Hooray ! ! ! some points of agreement here.

"I find myself a Scientologist in the truest sense of word meaning knowing how to know, or a seeker of learning or wanting to learn more. And by that I do not mean following what Hubbard wrote or said, but by what others as well said."

yep. 100%

"I have compared Idenics tech to Hubbard Scientology tech and prefer Identics since it is not a belief system but just a system to help a person solve a condition he/she thinks they are in, and no Bridge to Total Freedom nor belief."

Idenics is good stuff. I had one session with (oops, I forget his name. Dang. there goes my perfect recall. Again.) and it was so good that immediately after session the whole area was so totally erased that I could not even recall what it was about.

LOL. I can see that I'm going to get ragged for the above statement. Too bad.


"Hubbards Scientology and Tech is confined to Hubbard."

Correct.

"I'm reading other sources and comparing. Are you or have you done so?"

Yep. Everything I could get a hold of.

Mary Freeman's ethics tech is absolutely brilliant. Focuses on doing ethics on the first dynamic only. Awesome stuff.

Also did Excalibur with Bill Robertson tech. Did this with LR (RIP). Even though it has its oddities it is yet far far better than OT-3 and NOTs. Handles the area systematically and beautifully.

Dennis Stephens' unraveling of GPM tech is also a work of genius. Calls it TROM. I find his processes a bit heavy going though.

Robert Ducharme also goes into the hall of fame here. His reworking of Dianetics opens it up to wide range of applicatins all done with undreamed of (by Hubbard) effectiveness. R3X it's called.

Then there's Pilot's work. I got a LOT out of that. Available on line.

Alan Walter too deserves huge accolades. He passed on too. I'm not sure what is happening with the delivery of his materials now. I haven't done any of the rundowns but the theory work he has made available is sterling stuff. Roger knows more on this.

Those are the top developers as far as my knowledge of them goes. I have done all of them except Alan's.

There are some lesser luminaries too. Geoffrey Filbert is among these. Best avoided.

 

[Leon-2]

We may have been conned once (or more) Leon, but you are a rank amateur and utterly transparent.

I know. (sigh) I'm a total doofus when it comes to conning people. Thank you.