Kha Khan
Patron Meritorious
Mostly, I just wanted to write and say that I am very happy for you. You seem to be much happier and "lighter" -- like a weight has been lifted.
Your post was very honest, very brave and very insightful. You have never lacked for "confront," but unlike many (perhaps sometimes including myself) you have also never lacked self-confront.
I was tempted to say Congratulations!, but I didn't want to appear to be condescending or, worse, actually be condescending.
Just a couple of comments:
I used to know a lot of people who were in the alien abduction community -- who believed they had been abducted by aliens. They became really good about confronting the "fact" that they had been (and sometimes were still being) abducted. One couldn't help but notice that by confronting that "fact" they were able to non-confront, to avoid confronting, the facts concerning what had actually happened, or was actually happening, in their lives. I fear the "past life" stuff in Scientolgy operates in the same way, to the same effect.
I do have my concerns about even the "good" stuff in Scientology. First, because I'm concerned that it is inexorably intertwined with the bad. That it is part of a mindset, and ideology, a way of thinking (primarily KSW) that is dangerous. As a more practical matter, I worry that the good is the bait in the trap.
Let me give an example. When I explained the KRC triangle to someone recently, my need to be intellectually honest caused me to give credit where credit was due -- Scientology. But then I felt the need to give a large, detailed disclaimer to warn the person away from Scientology. I'm can't stand the idea of being even partially responsible for getting someone involved in the Church.
Perhaps the best advice one can give regarding Scientology -- after "Don't get invovled! Stay away! -- is a quote I've seen attributed to Ram Dass (but can't find online) -- "Take the teachings and run!"
I didn't intend to post this to largely state disagreement. Like I said, I'm very happy for you, and indeed have all respect for you.
I also identify with your interest in other "isms," and am particularly struck by what appears to be some attraction (albeit far from exclusive) in your original Catholic faith. Even when I was in the COS, I never abandoned "other practices." [I was a great Scientologist in some ways, but really lousy in others.] But I found that when I left the COS I returned to my original faith -- in my case liberal, New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Christianity, in addition to Zen. There was some comfort in coming home. I've always been attracted to New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ethics. What I was thinking when I joined the religion of "DBs," "wogs," the doctrine of exchange (when it doesn't involve contributing to the IAS), "illegal PCs," and demonzizing evil psychs, I'm embarassed to day I don't know.
Anyway, I wish you the best.
Your post was very honest, very brave and very insightful. You have never lacked for "confront," but unlike many (perhaps sometimes including myself) you have also never lacked self-confront.
I was tempted to say Congratulations!, but I didn't want to appear to be condescending or, worse, actually be condescending.
Just a couple of comments:
The horrible thing (shhhh, don't tell anyone on WWP) is that I do too. Every once in awhile I remind myself to get my fracken TRs in; to be interested, not interesting. The KRC triangle has come up a lot lately in my life. For Xenu's sake, I found myself explaining the KRC triangle to someone recently, and damn it if they didn't say it made sense.I still have use for some Scn ideas
I have found most Freezoners and Independent Scientologists to be well-intentioned, just like I found most Scientologists to be well-intentioned when I was in -- at least at first, before they had been in too long, or risen too high.This does not mean that I won't stop taking up for my FZ and indie friends (not that I don't stick up for other people in the critic's scene- I do.) . I will. I know some nice people in the FZ
This is where I disagree. Whether they hurt themselves is largely their own business. But I to think they do harm others, even if only negligently. Even if only by foreclosing or displacing forms of therapy that are based on something called reality. I have a real problem with "past life" therapy in any form (Scientology, Freezone, or elsewhere), or the "confronting" of problems, issues, etc. that "arose" in a past life.and, while I know some of you may not agree with this, I think they're doing jut fine and are not hurting themselves or anyone else.
I used to know a lot of people who were in the alien abduction community -- who believed they had been abducted by aliens. They became really good about confronting the "fact" that they had been (and sometimes were still being) abducted. One couldn't help but notice that by confronting that "fact" they were able to non-confront, to avoid confronting, the facts concerning what had actually happened, or was actually happening, in their lives. I fear the "past life" stuff in Scientolgy operates in the same way, to the same effect.
I hate to admit it, but I agree. I'm sure the subset of Scientology I find beneficial is much smaller than subset you find beneficial, but I well-understand and respect your position.In fact, I think that Scientology can be beneficial in some cases.
I do have my concerns about even the "good" stuff in Scientology. First, because I'm concerned that it is inexorably intertwined with the bad. That it is part of a mindset, and ideology, a way of thinking (primarily KSW) that is dangerous. As a more practical matter, I worry that the good is the bait in the trap.
Let me give an example. When I explained the KRC triangle to someone recently, my need to be intellectually honest caused me to give credit where credit was due -- Scientology. But then I felt the need to give a large, detailed disclaimer to warn the person away from Scientology. I'm can't stand the idea of being even partially responsible for getting someone involved in the Church.
Perhaps the best advice one can give regarding Scientology -- after "Don't get invovled! Stay away! -- is a quote I've seen attributed to Ram Dass (but can't find online) -- "Take the teachings and run!"
I didn't intend to post this to largely state disagreement. Like I said, I'm very happy for you, and indeed have all respect for you.
I also identify with your interest in other "isms," and am particularly struck by what appears to be some attraction (albeit far from exclusive) in your original Catholic faith. Even when I was in the COS, I never abandoned "other practices." [I was a great Scientologist in some ways, but really lousy in others.] But I found that when I left the COS I returned to my original faith -- in my case liberal, New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Christianity, in addition to Zen. There was some comfort in coming home. I've always been attracted to New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ethics. What I was thinking when I joined the religion of "DBs," "wogs," the doctrine of exchange (when it doesn't involve contributing to the IAS), "illegal PCs," and demonzizing evil psychs, I'm embarassed to day I don't know.
Anyway, I wish you the best.
I never thought you were OSA, even back in the ARS days when you were still in the official Church. Anyone who thought you were OSA was an idiot.I will cap this by saying that not only am I not OSA, but I never was. Not when I was in CofS, not when I considered myself to be a Freezoner and not during my heretical indie term.