Meditation, Yoga and other practices

betskand

Patron with Honors
Hi Knows and HelluvaHoax

What I do not understand is how come you are so bitter about LRH Tech but at the same time you are applying in full the Tech on how to overwhelm (to put it gently) a communication line.

For those who do not know this Technology or want to know what exactly some few people are trying to do read “ An Essay on Management” Volume 7 page 243 -1973 edition.

This essay has been written in 1951 but you will be surprised how accurate it is.


But some will continue to say it does not work but they never give specifics of what exactly does not work in it. Only generalities. What an SP does? S/he takes your rights away. You have to know your rights and you can stop s/he to take your rights away. That is it.

A lot of the writing LRH plagiarized completely in his early days has some meaning, or let's say some meaning if you accept an initial world view, and that includes the "tech" you mention above.

Much of this "tech" is lifted in large part from Dale Carnegie, among others. (And of course it never occurred to Elron to credit any of the people he plagiarized.)

Of course some of it works. That's why Dale Carnegie made a ton of money, and that's why the young Elron was able to read enough of his work to plagiarize it. Dale Carnegie was one of the main "self-help" authors in the first part of the 20th century.

Let's not call this "Tech." Let's just call it what it is, a booster idea that Dale Carnegie and similar early people who wrote on "Management Programs" developed, which were then stolen by Elron and palmed off as his own original ideas.

Later, of course, drugs and increasing malignant narcissism and paranoia and other mental issues began to add things to "tech" like the OT levels that would have made Dale Carnegie run screaming from the room.

PS. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to write this. I have the feeling that the person I'm responding to is on the wrong website.
 

Tom_Booth

Patron with Honors
I think Hubbard changed his mind about that. Creative processing was said to stir up the case, BT-wise, IIRC.

Thousands of "BTs" ("Body Thetans") are considered as being stuck to one's body. However, that's "upper level" data, and mentioning "BTs" to "raw meat" is not allowed.

I don't buy into the whole "Body Thetan" idea. I think that is probably something Hubbard made up after he ran out of material provided by Crowley.

Some of the stuff published by Hubbard is pure gold, distilled from painstaking research. Not to blow my own horn. That is what he took out of his experiences in the OTO. Most everything else he ever wrote or talked about is pure gibberish and Science Fiction fantasy it seems to me. It isn't hard to tell the difference. If there is no possible way to validate something scientifically, you can be pretty sure it didn't come from Crowley.

What's IIRC ? (If I recall correctly ? I guess, I thought it was a Scientology acronym at first. Tried to find it in the tech dictionary.)
 

Tom_Booth

Patron with Honors
After the long rap introduction, at 1:22, two Harlem Org staff members appear, and the Executive Director of the Day Org appears towards the end.

[video=youtube;J8JIIcUTDsA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8JIIcUTDsA#t=781[/video]

It's possible, because of the association with the Nation of Islam, you may be experiencing, at least for now, a more low key version of Scientology.

It's Harlem.

Walking a few blocks from the train station to the Church every day, I pass probably 20 homeless people. Not to mention those that were sleeping on the train and who knows how many not seen. The guy at the end of the video I know fairly well, though I'm on Foundation. He grew up in Harlem. I'm guessing that he really believes that Scientology can help the community. I guess he really wants to see that happen, though I haven't talked with him much.

I don't think I've met anyone so far who isn't more sincere and good hearted than I am.

I thought it was kind of a rather Ironic Joke of sorts that people were calling me up day after day to Join Scientology Staff. Seriously ? Do they not have any idea ?

I think its good though. I think in general my presence in Scientology can't be anything other than a good thing all around. Simply put, I have no intention of tolerating any Bull Shit for long. I don't need Scientology. Scientology needs me if anything.

Hubbard didn't do all that bad of a Job of promulgating Crowley's ideas. He had some integrity.

DM, He's done some good things, but in general seems to have fouled things up almost beyond repair. Worse than Hubbard could have ever hoped to.

I'm not sure either one understands or ever understood the material to any great depth. My mind seems to rest easy if I just consider Hubbard a hired mouthpiece for Crowleyanity. It allows a neat separation of the gold from the dross. If it doesn't square, it's probably something Hubbard inserted, just wild imaginings not Scientific Illumanism by any stretch of the imagination.

That they actually put me on Staff... That isn't a joke. More like a miracle.

Strange. I don't know if Harlem is really the dirtiest slum on the planet but Growing up in NY I always considered it the worst possible place on earth. I always thought too that it would one day be a good place to hang my lantern to bring some light into the world.

If you want to lift something it is generally a good idea to take it from the bottom.

Some here still follow the old Hubbard axiom of "making the able more able". That is, they have no clue about the reality of being on the street and have a kind of snotty attitude towards any homeless people that happen to walk in the door. It isn't the west coast celebrity center people. Be ready to get your fingers dirty or go someplace else is my attitude. If this is just some kind of PR publicity stunt to raise money and not something that is really intended to actually do something for people in this community, I won't be here for long, I can pretty much guarantee that.
 
Last edited:

Tom_Booth

Patron with Honors
I always took it to mean they wanted to be sure that any wins came from the practice of Scientology and not from meditating, going to confession, attending a mass, reading Psychology 101, or anything else.

Well, "success stories" are a thing that is used in promotion. I guess the success story would be not quite a perfect piece of PR in somebody's opinion if the person mentioned how they also meditate or something, but...

If you want to exercise, it is, I think, a good idea to do DIFFERENT kinds of exercises. Go to a Gym one day. Go to the pool and do some swimming. Hike a mountain and so forth. Some thing applies to mental and spiritual development. Don't just rely on some one exercise machine. It isn't particularly healthy. It can make for lopsided development.

If somebody does a variety of things that make them healthy, well the various product suppliers they use may tend to vie for all the credit. They want to prove it was their product that did the person some good.

Well, what made the person healthy is they did a variety of things. They had a balanced approach.
 

Tom_Booth

Patron with Honors
A lot of the writing LRH plagiarized completely in his early days has some meaning, or let's say some meaning if you accept an initial world view, and that includes the "tech" you mention above.

Much of this "tech" is lifted in large part from Dale Carnegie, among others. (And of course it never occurred to Elron to credit any of the people he plagiarized.)

Of course some of it works. That's why Dale Carnegie made a ton of money, and that's why the young Elron was able to read enough of his work to plagiarize it. Dale Carnegie was one of the main "self-help" authors in the first part of the 20th century.

Let's not call this "Tech." Let's just call it what it is, a booster idea that Dale Carnegie and similar early people who wrote on "Management Programs" developed, which were then stolen by Elron and palmed off as his own original ideas.

Later, of course, drugs and increasing malignant narcissism and paranoia and other mental issues began to add things to "tech" like the OT levels that would have made Dale Carnegie run screaming from the room.

PS. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to write this. I have the feeling that the person I'm responding to is on the wrong website.

Dale Carnegie ? I don't think so.

Evidence points to Crowley, primarily. Scientology is more or less pure Thelema.

I don't mean that as a criticism as most people would probably take it. IMO Crowley was a genius. Crowley built "The Bridge" across the abyss. It really was his life's work. Hubbard just waved the banner.

When I was about 16 or so in High School I was in town browsing a book store one day, out of curiosity, I picked up a little book called "A Kabbalah for the modern world" which as I thumbed through it, I noticed made brief mention of Crowley as somebody who wasn't much of a Kabbalist.

I got so infuriated by the insult I bought the book just so I could throw it in the garbage on the way out the bookstore.
 

Leland

Crusader
A lot of the writing LRH plagiarized completely in his early days has some meaning, or let's say some meaning if you accept an initial world view, and that includes the "tech" you mention above.

Much of this "tech" is lifted in large part from Dale Carnegie, among others. (And of course it never occurred to Elron to credit any of the people he plagiarized.)

Of course some of it works. That's why Dale Carnegie made a ton of money, and that's why the young Elron was able to read enough of his work to plagiarize it. Dale Carnegie was one of the main "self-help" authors in the first part of the 20th century.

Let's not call this "Tech." Let's just call it what it is, a booster idea that Dale Carnegie and similar early people who wrote on "Management Programs" developed, which were then stolen by Elron and palmed off as his own original ideas.



Later, of course, drugs and increasing malignant narcissism and paranoia and other mental issues began to add things to "tech" like the OT levels that would have made Dale Carnegie run screaming from the room.

PS. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to write this. I have the feeling that the person I'm responding to is on the wrong website.

This is an interesting idea. I know for a fact that LRH disparages Dale Carnegie in a tape lecture guite thouroghly . LRH maligns him and his book "how to make friends and influence people." Just guessing but if LRH hated him so much to lecture about him....then he probably did copy some of his stuff. LRH loved to ( teach ) "been there done that" ....and therefore ( no need for you to investigate that area.)

If you get what I mean.
 

betskand

Patron with Honors
This is an interesting idea. I know for a fact that LRH disparages Dale Carnegie in a tape lecture guite thouroghly . LRH maligns him and his book "how to make friends and influence people." Just guessing but if LRH hated him so much to lecture about him....then he probably did copy some of his stuff. LRH loved to ( teach ) "been there done that" ....and therefore ( no need for you to investigate that area.)

If you get what I mean.

Yep, I do. I agree that his disparagement of Dale C. seems actually to point to his having been influenced by him and then refusing to acknowledge it. I learned a lot of this from reading a couple of recent histories about "self-help" movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, coupled with the fact that (I'm pretty sure I'm right in this memory) Russell Miller confirms that LRH gave every indication of having read Dale Carnegie.

If he didn't, or didn't hear about Dale, he was one of the few people of his age group in the US who didn't. And that seems unlikely.

When you read some of LRH's management stuff after having read Dale Carnegie's book the similarities are just too enormous to ignore.
 

betskand

Patron with Honors
Dale Carnegie ? I don't think so.

Evidence points to Crowley, primarily. Scientology is more or less pure Thelema.

I don't mean that as a criticism as most people would probably take it. IMO Crowley was a genius. Crowley built "The Bridge" across the abyss. It really was his life's work. Hubbard just waved the banner.

When I was about 16 or so in High School I was in town browsing a book store one day, out of curiosity, I picked up a little book called "A Kabbalah for the modern world" which as I thumbed through it, I noticed made brief mention of Crowley as somebody who wasn't much of a Kabbalist.

I got so infuriated by the insult I bought the book just so I could throw it in the garbage on the way out the bookstore.

Oh, I don't disagree about the degree to which LRH plagiarized Crowley. But his plagiarizing was wide-spread and so massively unacknowledged that many more major fonts can be named. Crowley obviously was a major influence in his Jack Parsons days and later, as his son Nibs made clear. But he almost certainly read some of Dale Carnegie as a younger man, and as we know, he wasn't one to leave someone else's stones unturned.

In that sense, his plagiarisms were undiscriminating. He certainly can't be accused of having been prejudiced against people to the point that he wasn't willing to lift their ideas if they were useful to him.

In citing Dale Carnegie I was responding to the earlier post from someone who seemed to think LRH's MANAGEMENT "tech" was some kind of original thinking. This is somewhat separate from the "spiritual" tech that relates heavily to Crowley.

I agree with you that Crowley was probably a genius, but he didn't develop any Bridge I would want to find myself on. His legacy might have been more positive if he had managed to die on K2 instead of getting down. But that is just my puny opinion.
 

Leland

Crusader
Just to make an additional point , the amount of vitriolic hatred LRH spewed about Dale Carnegie on one lecture..... To me is surely an indication that he had read him and wanted to , let me say " dead agent" his writing so no Scientologist would bother to read him .......as Dale Carneige was a top selling writer of that era. He was a household name.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just to make an additional point , the amount of vitriolic hatred LRH spewed about Dale Carnegie on one lecture..... To me is surely an indication that he had read him and wanted to , let me say " dead agent" his writing so no Scientologist would bother to read him .......as Dale Carneige was a top selling writer of that era. He was a household name.

read this description of a sociopathic personaility... They tend to blame others to hide their own crimes as a pattern of conduct.
 

Gib

Crusader
Just to make an additional point , the amount of vitriolic hatred LRH spewed about Dale Carnegie on one lecture..... To me is surely an indication that he had read him and wanted to , let me say " dead agent" his writing so no Scientologist would bother to read him .......as Dale Carneige was a top selling writer of that era. He was a household name.

That's about what I figured. Hubbard also bad mouthed Napoleon Hill.

I found this and the sequence:

Science of Getting Rich by Wallace DeLois Wattles written 1910

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/sgr/index.htm

The Law of Success Course by Napoleon Hill 1928

http://archive.org/stream/Law_Of_Success_in_16_Lessons/law-of-success-napoleon-hill#page/n1/mode/2up

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

All three books built from the first. All three talk about the "ether", Hubbard renamed it "theta" or "theta body"

Hubbard was also an expert at rhetorical writing. I believe hubbard borrowed from Hill & Carnegie to set-up his Bridge. And of course was making it up as he went along and added things from other religions, psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. And everything Veda posted above fits right in. All long and drawn out over a lifetime as Nibs said. Hubbard even admitted he compiled from other works.

One of the five canons of rhetoric is "inventio" or invention: the process of developing and refining your argument.

Hubbards "inventio" surely was invention in the art of developing and refining his bullshit wacky cosmos sci fi stories and convincing us they were all true. Somebody slap me silly. :laugh:

Hubbard used rhetoric only in the wrong way, to entrap. Just like his "admissions" state.

I dunno, this is how I see it.
 

betskand

Patron with Honors
That's about what I figured. Hubbard also bad mouthed Napoleon Hill.

I found this and the sequence:

Science of Getting Rich by Wallace DeLois Wattles written 1910

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/sgr/index.htm

The Law of Success Course by Napoleon Hill 1928

http://archive.org/stream/Law_Of_Success_in_16_Lessons/law-of-success-napoleon-hill#page/n1/mode/2up

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

All three books built from the first. All three talk about the "ether", Hubbard renamed it "theta" or "theta body"

Hubbard was also an expert at rhetorical writing. I believe hubbard borrowed from Hill & Carnegie to set-up his Bridge. And of course was making it up as he went along and added things from other religions, psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. And everything Veda posted above fits right in. All long and drawn out over a lifetime as Nibs said. Hubbard even admitted he compiled from other works.

One of the five canons of rhetoric is "inventio" or invention: the process of developing and refining your argument.

Hubbards "inventio" surely was invention in the art of developing and refining his bullshit wacky cosmos sci fi stories and convincing us they were all true. Somebody slap me silly. :laugh:

Hubbard used rhetoric only in the wrong way, to entrap. Just like his "admissions" state.

I dunno, this is how I see it.

Thanks for these excellent links and the careful thoughts!

Just for fun it might be diverting for someone to spend time making a list of all the ORIGINAL ideas Elron ever had. It wouldn't require much paper. A postage stamp would already be too large. The head of a pin, maybe?
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Thanks for these excellent links and the careful thoughts!

Just for fun it might be diverting for someone to spend time making a list of all the ORIGINAL ideas Elron ever had. It wouldn't require much paper. A postage stamp would already be too large. The head of a pin, maybe?


Early on Hubbard admits he's a compiler not an inventor, or words to that effect in several lecture series. Somewherre in The Phoenix Lectures is the one I remember the most. But by 1965 he is **SOURCE** (pronounced in an appropriate sonorous voice) ;-) and no one ever thought up anything worthwhile except him. We know he's full of shit because we have the first hand accounts from people who were there. In the thread OPENING PANDORA'S BOX by Alan Walter and others also. Alan even made an estimation of exactly when Hubbard 'jumped the shark'.
 
Last edited:

Mystic

Crusader
I've met this "Hubbard" person, many times over the decades. Takes a while to get a good grasp on what one is confronted with when in this thing's presence. I would always come away from meetings with him/it with a WTF. Like something was missing.

Took me years to finally get a direct observation of this thing: L. Ron Hubbard was not a natural being, he was an artificial entity conjured by some 267 beings who used to reside in the lower psychic darkness. He was a tulpa, a shade entity, and nothing more than a spokeshole for the beings who conjured him.

L. Ron Hubbard is now not only dead physically, but isn't even being conjured by his sources. L. Ron Hubbard fully achieved non-existence.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
It's Harlem.

Hubbard didn't do all that bad of a Job of promulgating Crowley's ideas. He had some integrity.

DM, He's done some good things, but in general seems to have fouled things up almost beyond repair. Worse than Hubbard could have ever hoped to.

I'm not sure either one understands or ever understood the material to any great depth. My mind seems to rest easy if I just consider Hubbard a hired mouthpiece for Crowleyanity. It allows a neat separation of the gold from the dross. If it doesn't square, it's probably something Hubbard inserted, just wild imaginings not Scientific Illumanism by any stretch of the imagination.

That they actually put me on Staff... That isn't a joke. More like a miracle.

Strange. I don't know if Harlem is really the dirtiest slum on the planet but Growing up in NY I always considered it the worst possible place on earth. I always thought too that it would one day be a good place to hang my lantern to bring some light into the world.

If you want to lift something it is generally a good idea to take it from the bottom.

Some here still follow the old Hubbard axiom of "making the able more able". That is, they have no clue about the reality of being on the street and have a kind of snotty attitude towards any homeless people that happen to walk in the door. It isn't the west coast celebrity center people. Be ready to get your fingers dirty or go someplace else is my attitude. If this is just some kind of PR publicity stunt to raise money and not something that is really intended to actually do something for people in this community, I won't be here for long, I can pretty much guarantee that.

Hi Tom Booth,

:wave: I know what it's like to live on the streets. I've also lived in the worst neighborhoods of LA and Chicago - in absolute shitholes. I've been to Harlem as a white girl with a wrap over my head - hiding my whiteness - to visit friends there as a teen during times of incredible racial hatred and tension.

I've lived in a black ghetto community for a while, became friends with the neighbors because I helped them build and cement their family relationships, taking pix of their families and giving them prints and CDs during holidays so their happy memories would see them through less happy times.

You write very well and have a good command of the English language. How is it that you came out of Harlem with such a good education when the vast majority did not?

You can certainly reach for higher goals than Scientology staff. Michelle Obama grew up in a poor, lower middle-class neighbourhood on the south side of Chicago where a great deal of welfare recipients also lived. Did you know that? Yet she made it to Harvard, became a lawyer and America's first black First Lady. Chicago is proud of her in every way.

Why spend all your time, imagination, education, youth and energy on a pipe dream by a conartist when the ghettos need concrete help? Do you really not know what to do to help your community? Because if that is TRULY your intention, I'm happy to throw some ideas around with you on what I've seen and what has worked and what has not.

Here you are, with all the potential to become a lawyer, a doctor, or other professional, to save lives and build communities, and you are following a dead white leader who never even had a concrete plan to help anyone, despite his egotistical bragging and false claims.

Sure, Scientology can be fun. That doesn't feed hungry kids, that doesn't get a violent alcoholic off the booze, that doesn't take the needle out of someone's arm, either.

Do you have a realistic plan of any kind?
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around

I've met this "Hubbard" person, many times over the decades. Takes a while to get a good grasp on what one is confronted with when in this thing's presence. I would always come away from meetings with him/it with a WTF. Like something was missing.

Took me years to finally get a direct observation of this thing: L. Ron Hubbard was not a natural being, he was an artificial entity conjured by some 267 beings who used to reside in the lower psychic darkness. He was a tulpa, a shade entity, and nothing more than a spokeshole for the beings who conjured him.

L. Ron Hubbard is now not only dead physically, but isn't even being conjured by his sources. L. Ron Hubbard fully achieved non-existence.

Would that have been from or before birth, or something that came about later? If from the beginning, what on earth accounts for the ineptitude of this congregate being, his penury and inability to mix in the circles he desired to in college, in Hollywood, in the Navy, in the science world with Jack Parsons and the like, and in short until he found his way to spinning the kind of tales that a select and affluent group of people would pay him for? What accounts for this 267 constituent group finally getting successful after extended botchery, and why did they choose a form of organization and mutual career that took so much of his life to finally get right?

Hubbard - why such a rainbow in the dark for decades?

Also, aren't tulpas supposed to be perceivable only by the tulpamancer? Is there a counter example in the literature, and would it extend only to a Bodhisattva's ability to create tulpa perceivable by others or are there instances of lesser beings creating tulpas perceivable by third parties?

:questions:
 

Mystic

Crusader
Would that have been from or before birth, or something that came about later? If from the beginning, what on earth accounts for the ineptitude of this congregate being, his penury and inability to mix in the circles he desired to in college, in Hollywood, in the Navy, in the science world with Jack Parsons and the like, and in short until he found his way to spinning the kind of tales that a select and affluent group of people would pay him for? What accounts for this 267 constituent group finally getting successful after extended botchery, and why did they choose a form of organization and mutual career that took so much of his life to finally get right?

Hubbard - why such a rainbow in the dark for decades?

Also, aren't tulpas supposed to be perceivable only by the tulpamancer? Is there a counter example in the literature, and would it extend only to a Bodhisattva's ability to create tulpa perceivable by others or are there instances of lesser beings creating tulpas perceivable by third parties?

:questions:



. . . .
 
Top