Leon's Tech Page

[Aiki]

Leon. To carry on on the subject of Ethics and conditions.

I agree with the concept and to me fact of consecutive conditions as part of a progressive cycle.

All the positive ones would therefor be above some neutral condition and all the negative ones would be below that neutral condition.

So this would result in a scale.

Do you agree?

Peace.Aiki.

 

[In present time]

Seems there's a bit of bpc on Leon

Mmmm, leads to non optimum communications:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

give it time and you can have your very own bpc on leon, lol.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

The hymn of asia I did love as it was a poem and so I gave him poetic licence there. Something about it I loved was especially the message that you can love, be positive, on all dynamics. It rang true with my personal what I called Buddhist point of view. Another thing I found fascinating is that it was so 'unronlike' and even joked with myself that it must have come through him rather than from him.

-snip-

Oh, Hubbard wrote it, alright. Hubbard was a writer, and he could write stuff.

The editor of most of Hubbard's 1950s books, and the Editor of the old 'Ability' magazine, John Sanborn, recounted, in an interview of the mid 1980s, how Hubbard had joked about it with him. It was, privately, considered, by Hubbard, to be ridiculous.

That was around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.

(As Dr. Winter - who had written the Introduction to the first edition of 'DMSMH' - had noted in 1951, when describing the disparity between Hubbard's noble sounding (essentially PR) proclamations and actuality, such things were "lip service.")

During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.

By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.

"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.

However, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on (wog) religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.

Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.

These are 'Advance!' magazine covers from 1974:

I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.

L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'​

 

[Aiki]

Oh, Hubbard wrote it, alright. Hubbard was a writer, and he could write stuff.

The editor of most of Hubbard's 1950s books, and the Editor of the old 'Ability' magazine, John Sanborn, recounted, in an interview of the mid 1980s, how Hubbard had joked about it with him. It was, privately, considered, by Hubbard, to be ridiculous.

That was around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.

(As Dr. Winter - who had written the Introduction to the first edition of 'DMSMH' - had noted in 1951, when describing the disparity between Hubbard's noble sounding (essentially PR) proclamations and actuality, such things were "lip service.")

During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.

By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.

"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.

However, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on (wog) religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.

Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.

These are 'Advance!' magazine covers from 1974:

I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.

L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'​

Ah, I see you are one for dates and sequencing of events. So before I can read this properly I would have to know when exactly date wise did the subject get called scientology.? Also when date wise was it made a church?

A few bits there I haven't heard before by the way and yes, on the subject of what followed what I find it interesting:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Veda]

Ah, I see you are one for dates and sequencing of events. So before I can read this properly I would have to know when exactly date wise did the subject get called scientology.? Also when date wise was it made a church?

A few bits there I haven't heard before by the way and yes, on the subject of what followed what I find it interesting:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

It was called Scientology in 1952, and made a Church in 1953.

 

[In present time]

Oh, Hubbard wrote it, alright. Hubbard was a writer, and he could write stuff.

The editor of most of Hubbard's 1950s books, and the Editor of the old 'Ability' magazine, John Sanborn, recounted, in an interview of the mid 1980s, how Hubbard had joked about it with him. It was, privately, considered, by Hubbard, to be ridiculous.

That was around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.

(As Dr. Winter - who had written the Introduction to the first edition of 'DMSMH' - had noted in 1951, when describing the disparity between Hubbard's noble sounding (essentially PR) proclamations and actuality, such things were "lip service.")

During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.

By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.

"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.

However, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on (wog) religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.

Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.

These are 'Advance!' magazine covers from 1974:

I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.

L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'​

thanks for that veda. i remember hymn of asia being one of the very first books i splurged on. it was quite expensive, i think like $36.00 in 1970's dollars. and later i read the thing about buddhism just being a control mechanism. i hadn't examined that bit of cognitive dissonance in quite a long while. i think i justified it by assuming the "man" had done lrh wrong again, and stolen his earlier attempt at setting man free.

plus, i really disliked that shade of green and always wished a few of the books at least came in non-standard colours. i should have run the other way when i saw that $cn. had no stained glass or pipe organs.

 

[Aiki]

Oh, Hubbard wrote it, alright. Hubbard was a writer, and he could write stuff.

The editor of most of Hubbard's 1950s books, and the Editor of the old 'Ability' magazine, John Sanborn, recounted, in an interview of the mid 1980s, how Hubbard had joked about it with him. It was, privately, considered, by Hubbard, to be ridiculous.

That was around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.

(As Dr. Winter - who had written the Introduction to the first edition of 'DMSMH' - had noted in 1951, when describing the disparity between Hubbard's noble sounding (essentially PR) proclamations and actuality, such things were "lip service.")

During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.

By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.

"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.

However, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on (wog) religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.

Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.

These are 'Advance!' magazine covers from 1974:

I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.

L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'​

So he wrote it so it must have come to his mind. Being into past track stuff he thought he was that identity. Makes sense. Later he laughed at that idea as rediculous. Makes sense too.

Wanting to show it was religious in 1954 I have already said about, without knowing the date, so far so good. Now at this point then my understanding may differ to yours, or thus my conclusion. I say that his reason for doing such was actually to save the subject. It and he were under much attacks and so making it a religion was his 'bright idea' and 'solution'. (attempted solution anyway) So let's carry on.....

Ah, those manuals. So they were written then, o.k. So that all fits so far too. Being under attack and making such drastic measures as a solution led to him coming out with his 'defence operations'
Mmmm. Understandable. Not good, but understandable. Promoting the hymn of asia and saying nice things about other religions would then also be understandable as through fear one seeks allies and a safer space to operate from.

So now let's see 1961 he denounces buddhism as a control mechanism. Mmmmm. Read your quote too. Well is he denouncing Buddhism or it's use? No different to nearly all religions as big organizations and no doubt many as small ones too the ones in control tend to use them as control mechanisms and when doing that as an organization meant to be for spiritual growth then his statement is spot on. Probable spot on for his own one too.

He would have to mellow on his opinions because his organization was now part of that group called religions. Makes sense.

Meanwhile I loved every advance magazine I read, shame I didn't keep them.

So in conclusion I see a man who brought into being a great subject. Unfortunately he suffered from I believe one crashing m.u. and then various negative conditions. His aim I see as basically good and his goal of keeping the subject alive and in existence as achieved albeit not quite as a complete subject but an established one.

Thanks for the interesting data.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Veda]

So he wrote it so it must have come to his mind. Being into past track stuff he thought he was that identity. Makes sense. Later he laughed at that idea as rediculous. Makes sense too.

-snip-

Hubbard laughed about it, privately, with close confidante John Sanborn, when it was written, because it was a hoax.

Another hoax of 1955 was

Unlike the Hymn of Asia, it was quickly published and distributed, being presented as an authentic Russian Communist manual, a manual that revealed that Dianetics and Scientology were under attack by the Communists. Hubbard wanted to convince others that Scientology was under attack by Russian Communists.

Its Introduction was written by one "Charles Stickley."

This was followed by "An address by Beria," the long time head of the Russian Secret Police.

And that was followed by the main text of the manual, written either by Beria or by unnamed Communist psychiatrists.

Do you think it was a hoax, or do you think it was authentic?

Hubbard looked Scientologists in the eye and told them, repeatedly, that it was an authentic document and, as late as the late 1960s, was still attempting to use it to discredit his and Scientology's critics as Communists or Communist sympathizers, and to cause them "personal ruin."

Have you seen the 'Reconstituted 1950s thread' http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31867-Reconstituted-1950s-thread which presents some of Hubbard's 1950s letters to the FBI? If not, you really should take a peek at it.

And here's Hubbard saying that his skills as a nuclear physicist had been coveted by the US government, and explaining that, during World War II, he was repeatedly asked to work on the Manhattan Project (the secret project building the atomic bomb), and each time refused, and each time was sent into a combat theater as punishment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1-6I-d4jK0

 

[Leon]

All this Hubbard hoax stuff does not belong on this thread. While I don't dispute the accuracy of much of it I still find it out of place. Makes this thread untidy. Go elsewhere with it please Veda. And others.

 

[Leon]

Leon. To carry on on the subject of Ethics and conditions.

I agree with the concept and to me fact of consecutive conditions as part of a progressive cycle.

All the positive ones would therefor be above some neutral condition and all the negative ones would be below that neutral condition.

So this would result in a scale.

Do you agree?

Peace.Aiki.

None of the conditions are either positive or negative. It's how you go about applying them that makes that difference.

And whether they are by necessity a progressive scale in all circumstance is also not something to just be assumed. There is no reason why a person should not bounce from finding a resolution to a lower condition he was in to just leap several grades up into a much higher condition without having to belabor the intervening ones. And vice-versa too - one can plummet from normal op into treason in the blink of an eye.

There are also likely steps between the conditions described by LRH. Not always, but there is no reason why it should not sometimes be so.

What am getting at is that one should never be rote and robotic about applying these. It takes good understanding, good observation and a modicum of intelligence. And some flexibility too.

 

[Veda]

All this Hubbard hoax stuff does not belong on this thread. While I don't dispute the accuracy of much of it I still find it out of place. Makes this thread untidy. Go elsewhere with it please Veda. And others.

The door was opened with the reference to Hubbard's hoax 'Hymn of Asia'.

Admittedly, it's difficult to discuss Scientology without bumping into hoaxes.

At least allow Aiki to respond, if he chooses to respond.

Then you can return to discussing Leon-ology.

 

[Aiki]

Hubbard laughed about it, privately, with close confidante John Sanborn, when it was written, because it was a hoax.

Another hoax of 1955 was

Unlike the Hymn of Asia, it was quickly published and distributed, being presented as an authentic Russian Communist manual, a manual that revealed that Dianetics and Scientology were under attack by the Communists. Hubbard wanted to convince others that Scientology was under attack by Russian Communists.

Its Introduction was written by one "Charles Stickley."

This was followed by "An address by Beria," the long time head of the Russian Secret Police.

And that was followed by the main text of the manual, written either by Beria or by unnamed Communist psychiatrists.

Do you think it was a hoax, or do you think it was authentic?

Hubbard looked Scientologists in the eye and told them, repeatedly, that it was an authentic document and, as late as the late 1960s, was still attempting to use it to discredit his and Scientology's critics as Communists or Communist sympathizers, and to cause them "personal ruin."

Have you seen the 'Reconstituted 1950s thread' http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31867-Reconstituted-1950s-thread which presents some of Hubbard's 1950s letters to the FBI? If not, you really should take a peek at it.

And here's Hubbard saying that his skills as a nuclear physicist had been coveted by the US government, and explaining that, during World War II, he was repeatedly asked to work on the Manhattan Project (the secret project building the atomic bomb), and each time refused, and each time was sent into a combat theater as punishment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1-6I-d4jK0

I'll respond to this this once on this thread then, no problem.

Don't know the in depth data you seem to but none of that changes my overall view. I already told you it makes sense. He in my opinion had some big m.u. and thereafter negative conditions and thus lied etc. out of fear and no doubt arrogance. I don't take anti him spiel any differently either by a government or opposing group. Two sides fighting and lying about each other and themselves. Nothing new there. One vested interest vs. another.

The subject survived. Now one fine day if someone wanted to they could remove all the data from it that shouldn't be there and add any useful data that should and you would have an improved subject.

Some of us or probably many of us did that for ourselves. Others to me are still caught up in some game with something to prove.

I can read or learn more data about who said what, when and on and on and that would lead to greater understanding historically but nothing else. Those who need to do so for other than historical reasons to me must have something they are trying to prove. Fixed ideas and serfacs and and the like are funny things arn't they cos you have to make them right by gathering more and more data which fit them. I suppose carrying all that baggage would make you stronger in one way until it got too heavy for you then you'd collapse. It's like weight lifting

I don't hang on to stuff myself, waste of time. :wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

None of the conditions are either positive or negative. It's how you go about applying them that makes that difference.

And whether they are by necessity a progressive scale in all circumstance is also not something to just be assumed. There is no reason why a person should not bounce from finding a resolution to a lower condition he was in to just leap several grades up into a much higher condition without having to belabor the intervening ones. And vice-versa too - one can plummet from normal op into treason in the blink of an eye.

There are also likely steps between the conditions described by LRH. Not always, but there is no reason why it should not sometimes be so.

What am getting at is that one should never be rote and robotic about applying these. It takes good understanding, good observation and a modicum of intelligence. And some flexibility too.

O.K. Thanks for the reply. Not that I agree though.

If they are not a progressive scale then how can you bounce up or slip down? So come on, something with higher conditions in it must have a scale of progression.

You say you can jump up from one to say five in the blink of an eye then I say you probably went through the preceding ones faster than you recognized.

Only a negative can make you plummet so that would be a negative condition would it not? Treason is not a positive condition so it must be a negative one. Obvious to me. Don't see how you could call it positive.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

The subject survived. Now one fine day if someone wanted to they could remove all the data from it that shouldn't be there and add any useful data that should and you would have an improved subject.

Some of us or probably many of us did that for ourselves.

-snip-

No doubt, you believe that you did that for yourself.

However, your posts on this MB reveal that you are naive, and happy to remain naive, and uninformed, on the topic of Scientology.

If you ever develop the motivation or desire to take the time, and make the effort, to examine the subject of Scientology, in its totality, the information is easily available.

 

[degraded being]

All this Hubbard hoax stuff does not belong on this thread. While I don't dispute the accuracy of much of it I still find it out of place. Makes this thread untidy. Go elsewhere with it please Veda. And others.

 

[Leon]

O.K. Thanks for the reply. Not that I agree though.

If they are not a progressive scale then how can you bounce up or slip down? So come on, something with higher conditions in it must have a scale of progression.

You say you can jump up from one to say five in the blink of an eye then I say you probably went through the preceding ones faster than you recognized.

Possibly so.

Only a negative can make you plummet so that would be a negative condition would it not?

Splitting hairs here. It's a negative event but the condition itself is neither neg nor pos. Depends on what you do with it.

Treason is not a positive condition so it must be a negative one.

It's positive when you apply the formula correctly and benefit from that. Can be very positive indeed.

Obvious to me. Don't see how you could call it positive.

Peace.Aiki.

Mine in bold

 

[Gib]

The subject survived. Now one fine day if someone wanted to they could remove all the data from it that shouldn't be there and add any useful data that should and you would have an improved subject.

The subject, if you mean scientology,

the only reason it has survived to date is because of certain poilicy's, hcob's, and other fine print installed in hubbard's lectures and books.

and that is KSW, hard sell, technical degrades. no comparing notes. no talking about the tech or trying to improve it, and so on.

And yet the whole subject called scientology is really about communicating, but yet one can't, when in the church, and it also creates confusions outside the church.

Without hubbards PR and sales talk in his books and lectures, would the subject still survive?

 

[Lone Star]

Admittedly, it's difficult to discuss Scientology without bumping into hoaxes.

That is a great line ▲▲▲

 

[lotus]

And here's Hubbard saying that his skills as a nuclear physicist had been coveted by the US government, and explaining that, during World War II, he was repeatedly asked to work on the Manhattan Project (the secret project building the atomic bomb), and each time refused, and each time was sent into a combat theater as punishment:

It's a very risky life to be a nuclear physicist during WWII


'' my very good friend..[STRIKE]Aleister Crowley[/STRIKE] Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt and told him about the Nazi threat.
Roosevelt then created the Manhattan project and requested my very good friends Enrico Fermi, Arthur Compton, Ernest Lawrence et Robert Oppenheimer -( who almost all of them, later on, became Nobel prize ), to help me in fulfilling the goal of manhattan project. Later on, the secret agency did an inspection and found that my ...hung low. I have been disqualified and sent to [STRIKE]RPF for masturbating[/STRIKE] destroy japaneese submarines in Atlantic sea and won a dozen of military decorations for my courage.

Anyway..this is when I decided I would let go on atomic bomb and save this planet -
Anywhere you call freedom and address Lord Metteya, you are calling me - your friend Ron -
I came to you as a man , but please, call me Lord (I am the buddha reincarnation) ''

 

[Aiki]

The subject, if you mean scientology,

the only reason it has survived to date is because of certain poilicy's, hcob's, and other fine print installed in hubbard's lectures and books.

and that is KSW, hard sell, technical degrades. no comparing notes. no talking about the tech or trying to improve it, and so on.

And yet the whole subject called scientology is really about communicating, but yet one can't, when in the church, and it also creates confusions outside the church.

Without hubbards PR and sales talk in his books and lectures, would the subject still survive?

Yep, lot's of reasons it survived as a subject. Agree with all your reasons you put forward too. Agree too that it's about communicating and the church is actually destructive of the subject and a big 'group' drama.

Actually I reckon it's the truths in it that make it survive. So all this bpc on personalities and charachter assassination stuff is a waste of time and effort.

Peace.Aiki.