Scientology and the Supreme Being

[Tanstaafl]

Hubbard speculated that there may be races of thetans. Up to 15, I think he said, on Earth, in "History of Man". I don't buy that at all, but then, I also don't buy the idea of the thetan or of God at all.

He names some of them as if he knows what he's talking about in the PDCs.
Monitor people, cat people, yadda, yadda, yadda.

If there's any truth in this it's more likely that they are members' clubs, not races. How the hell can you have races of thetans? - it contradicts the very definition of a static/thetan.

I'll now contradictm myself and say that I do believe in families of thetans - but even that may be governed purely by early track agreements. Split theta lines is a more plausible theory.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

That's not my argument. My argument is that it isn't a religion because Hubbard said it's not a religion, and only changed from "science of certainty" in order to accomodate "the religion angle".

Sure. I get your point and it makes sense.

But going on from there...those of us who are alive and walking around and practicing Scn- regardless of what LRH thought or intended- for some of us, it may or may not be (Depending on the person) a religion.

 

[Moonchild]

Good luck with that one!

I promise you that if you really dedicate yourself to solving this one you are guaranteed to disappear up your own arse. And I for one won't volunteer to pull you out!

Yes, tricky one isn't it? I suspect LRH arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Yes, tricky one isn't it? I suspect LRH arrived at the same conclusion.

Possibly, but then again, as the man who "rose above the bank" (although we won't speculate as to how ) maybe he thought he created god?

 

[Moonchild]

Maybe he found a vacant slot he could fit himself into, you mean? Yep, I could buy that....
In truth though, LRH's proposition that MEST came into being as the creation of a body of Theta-aka-God is, to my humble wits anyway, credible if not proven.
The crux of the whole question appears to be "WHY would this happen"?
But that's for another thread.

 

[Neo]

Who created The Force (God).

If God exists, it must have been created at some point, right?

Neo

Good luck with that one!

I promise you that if you really dedicate yourself to solving this one you are guaranteed to disappear up your own arse. And I for one won't volunteer to pull you out!

It was just a joke, Tansy.

I was playing around with Bjorkist's earlier post, and the wording in it. You know - the whole First Cause argument. Personally, last time I heard, God was still trying to work out if I exist. That's good enough for me.

Neo

 

[Tanstaafl]

It was just a joke, Tansy.

C'mon Neo, you know how much I hate people joking about serious matters!

I was playing around with Bjorkist's earlier post, and the wording in it. You know - the whole First Cause argument. Personally, last time I heard, God was still trying to work out if I exist. That's good enough for me.

If I've given you the impression that I don't think you're too bright - far from it.

If I've given you the impression that I'm slow on the uptake - it's true.

Oh, and:

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I have to agree with you here about it being an applied philosophy and Buddhism too. But I wouldn't say that Scientology is a form of rhetoric. It certainly uses what currently passes for rhetoric in its PR, but it is not at all a form of traditional rhetoric.
If you ask any Moslem if his religion believes in Allah, you would get an immediate yes. The same with Christians, Jews. and others. But ask a Scientologist and generally you will get people having to look for remote referrences to find out. This only means that they don't believe it a God and that Scientology virtually doesn't address it.

And of course this applied philosophy isn't non-denominational. When someone attests to an OT level, if on their success story they praise Allah, or Jesus Christ for their new revelation, my guess is they won't be routing on to their next level.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I agree, and this is why IMO Scn isn't a religion.

 

[thetanic]

On a strictly theoretical sense (and omitting any issues with management), I do consider Scn a religion, though I consider it a spiritual practice rather than a faith.

It's works-based, where the work is primarily self-improvement.

In one sense, I'd consider it similar to Iyengar Yoga, which is a spiritual practice rather than a faith.

In another sense, Judaism requires specific things to be done and not done, and it doesn't necessarily require belief (in some forms of Judaism) -- except sufficient belief to bother doing what is required and not doing what's forbidden.

I also consider some of the upper-level stuff (particularly that which deals with body thetans) to be related to exorcism, which is traditionally considered religious. Instead of relying on the divinity of an outside party, it's working with the divineness in one's self. Sort of like the namaste salute I've seen in yoga, the sort of rough translation being that my divineness salutes your divineness.

Anyhow, my take on it, but I never did any of it, so my rosy vision never met gritty reality.

 

[Neo]

C'mon Neo, you know how much I hate people joking about serious matters!



If I've given you the impression that I don't think you're too bright - far from it.

If I've given you the impression that I'm slow on the uptake - it's true.

Oh, and:

Ooops, sorry Tansy. I have J&D genes. So I blame genetics (I would blame Ron, but I'm sure I would be hearing from Bjorkist on that )

Perhaps it was me who was slow on the uptake

 

[Tanstaafl]

Ooops, sorry Tansy. I have J&D genes. So I blame genetics (I would blame Ron, but I'm sure I would be hearing from Bjorkist on that )

OMG - maybe we were separated at birth?!

I have the same gene!
Are you mid-20s, tall, athletic and handsome?

If so, then sadly you're not my twin.

 

[Dulloldfart]

That's a good point. So I'd like to ask those who feel that Scn shouldn't be called a religion because it doesn't inculcate deity worship-- how is that different from Buddhism and Taoism being recognized as religions?

About 2500 years.

Paul

 

[RolandRB]

This was my assessment and observation too Paul. Just want to see if there are any 'confidential' data, or little known Bulletins, Policy Letters, etc, that relate to this topic.

Neo

There are some taped lectures where Hubbard gives his view on God. See the list at the top of the page.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html

 

[Voltaire's Child]

About 2500 years.

Paul

Well, all religions were new at one point.

 

[Lermanet_com]

Well, all religions were new at one point.

All Racketeering Influence & Conspiracy Organizations were new at one point too.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

All Racketeering Influence & Conspiracy Organizations were new at one point too.

So were all cupcakes.

 

[thetanic]

So were all cupcakes.

And bunnies. Your nick reminded me of bunnies.

 

[BarMoshiach]

Oneness

There's the traditional personal "God," understood in the West to act like an arbitrary despot, but really basically loving. And there's the deeper concept in the Torah, the Zohar, and the Tanya, consistent with both Taoism and Buddhism, that there is a Oneness. It's not the idea of one God versus many gods. It's that there is nothing else but God.

When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find peace of mind is waiting there. And the time will come when you see we're all One, and life flows on within you and without you. (George)

Judaic: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Christian: I and the Father are One. (John 10:30)

Islamic: He is the living One; there is no God but Him. (Koran 40:65)

Hindu: God is pure and ever One, and ever one they are in God. (Bhagavad Gita 5:19)

Taoist: Tao existed prior to the beginning of time as the One deep and subtle Reality. (Tao Te Ching 21)

Buddhist: Objectively nothing exists outside the Unity of Mind. (Tibetan Book Of the Dead)

Scientology: The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. (FOT)

If each dynamic includes all the lower ones, then the Supreme Being (singular) is a Oneness in which we each "live and breathe and have our being."

 

[Neo]

There's the traditional personal "God," understood in the West to act like an arbitrary despot, but really basically loving. And there's the deeper concept in the Torah, the Zohar, and the Tanya, consistent with both Taoism and Buddhism, that there is a Oneness. It's not the idea of one God versus many gods. It's that there is nothing else but God.

When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find peace of mind is waiting there. And the time will come when you see we're all One, and life flows on within you and without you. (George)

Judaic: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Christian: I and the Father are One. (John 10:30)

Islamic: He is the living One; there is no God but Him. (Koran 40:65)

Hindu: God is pure and ever One, and ever one they are in God. (Bhagavad Gita 5:19)

Taoist: Tao existed prior to the beginning of time as the One deep and subtle Reality. (Tao Te Ching 21)

Buddhist: Objectively nothing exists outside the Unity of Mind. (Tibetan Book Of the Dead)

Scientology: The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. (FOT)

If each dynamic includes all the lower ones, then the Supreme Being (singular) is a Oneness in which we each "live and breathe and have our being."

Good post, BarMoshiach.

There is certainly what appears to be a consensus of thought/belief through the varying religions. Yet, to see these then turned into the fundamentalist/literal interpretations, that override personal knowingness, and create divisions and seperation, still amazes me.

Neo