Scientology is all bad

[Veda]

-snip-

From Handbook for Preclears:
you have read here before and as you have come to suspect in your processing, your
own decisions and evaluations are the most important items in the entire process.
What you decide is LAW to you. What you evaluate is evaluation to you.
SELF-CONFIDENCE is nothing more than belief in one’s ability to decide and in one’s
decisions.
MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE UNCONSCIOUS MINDS OR
BACKGROUNDS OF MOTIVATION SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE REFUSED THEIR
OWN POWER TO DECIDE.
Negation of decision, refusal of decision, letting others decide are the most powerful
sources of aberration. They apply to any and all subjects.

This section is devoted to picking up each and every postulate you can now reach in
your whole lifetime. A postulate is a decision you make to yourself or to others. You make
one, then afterwards conditions change and you make a second one. This makes the first one
wrong. You make a postulate as cause and then, by having lived through some instants of time,
become an effect of your own cause.
A computer could not work if you kept leaving its totals on the calculator for the next
problem. That is what you do with decisions. They have to be made. Sweep them up before
making more. It is a new method of thinking and one that keeps you happy. No need to be
afraid of making decisions. Simply sweep up old decisions. You make New Year’s resolutions.
And you make them into the teeth of old resolutions and you tell yourself you are
weak-willed. You aren’t weak willed, you are simply obeying yourself as of yesterday.
Emotion and effort cover up these postulates. They should be free and clear by now and
indeed should blow at a glance. There are two parts to every postulate. There is the evaluation
of data and the decision itself.
When you pick up an old decision, also pick up the reason you made it. They “blow”
very quickly.
SCAN THROUGH EVERY DECISION, WITH ITS REASON WHY, YOU HAVE MADE………………

From Advanced Procedures and Axioms:
EVALUATION: Postulates are made because of evaluations. Postulates ordinarily do
not lift unless the reason WHY is also contacted. This is brief but very important.

-snip-

[/FONT]

Handbook for Preclears was published in December, 1951.

The Crowley influence is clearly visible, as is the influence of Hubbard's - only a few years earlier - self-hypnosis&Affirmations-"tech," where Hubbard attempted to "self-implant" decisions, or, err, "postulates."

By December 1951, Hubbard was about to break with Dianetics "business partner" Don Purcell, and would soon introduce Scientology's trillions-of-years "whole track maps," etc., to be followed, less than a year later, by a bunch of rewritten and re-shaped Crowleyana.

Hubbard was on a roll!

 

[Veda]

What many of us have noticed is that the PC does not always have an FN, Cog, VGI's after only running out the incident.. that's what caused us to ask more questions in order to get them to that place where they DID have VGI's..

-snip-

PS: If the PC had FN VGI'S COG after only running the incident, OF COURSE I would not insist that they keep going and ask them for decisions or anything more.. END OF SESSION

That's good.

I never used New Era Dianetics. It appeared concurrent with the Dianetic Clear mass frenzy that swept Scientology, when Hubbard told Scientologists that almost anyone who had been audited on Dianetics, especially if they had problems with Dianetics, was probably "Clear" - or suggestive language to that effect.

That's when I began to sense that Hubbard was not primarily concerned about the much heralded "tech," but was primarily concerned about something else, yet undetermined by me at the time.

When I did audit Dianetics again - a few years later, after leaving Scientology - as part of a year long re-examination of Dianetic&Scientology auditing and the Grade Chart, outside the CofS, I used used old R3R, although I had read the new NED pack.

NED seemed top heavy with prepared lists, and its origins were suspicious, as it appeared soon after Hubbard implemented his $$$$+"Clear"-making "Dianetic Clear"-gimmick.

The new NED pack was peppered with butchered old Dianetic HCOBs, that looked as though they had been edited in the middle of the night by an exhausted tech aide in hurry.

I suppose if you have a pc trained to stay in session after running out an incident - if that's possible - then one could ask for a "postulate," I guess.

More likely, pcs oriented towards running this type of Dianetics (by which I mean NED) are conditioned to stay in session until they offer a postulate.

Otherwise, the pc would have to still be in session, and still down the track, and still in his bank, etc. - per Dianetic theory - or it's just going to be "think think."

But you're there and I'm not, so that's your call.

 

[Demented LRH]

I think you need to review the materials. Most people have moments which they may think of as unconsciousness on a daily basis, they sleep.

What you need to ask for is a "moment of pain and unconsciousness" as far as I recall.

I'm reasonably familiar with engram theory, I've audited thousands of hours of Book 1, Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics but haven't done so for a while now.

The Auditor does not select the incident for the PC, the PC comes up with an incident in answer to the Auditor's command.

BTW, you're mistaken about Volume 1 and II, I think. They are a roundup of decades of ever-changing tech but Book 1, DMSMH, is the original version of Dianetics. Volume I and II were released as a marketing exercise and to make Dianetics more accessible to people. I think it was an admission that the data in Book One was a bit of a strain for most people.

I did not say that the auditor directly selects an incident for a PC because it is impossible -- the auditor does not know the PC's life story. In your words, the auditor gives a command and the PC responds to it. The command is vey specific -- recall an incident when you were unconscious (Volume I) You added the word "pain" to the command, but I am not sure what you mean by that -- is this a physical or mental pain? Let's say that PC recalls an incident when he cut a finger with a knife-- did Hubbard recommend auditing in such case? I do not think so. At least initially this was not his recommendation, according to the Volume I material. He might have changed his recommendation years later, but I am not aware of that.

The auditing described in this thread does not involve commands of any kind, if I understood it correctly, which makes it similar to the psychoanalytic procedures.

DMSMH is the original book in a sense that it was the first Dianetics book introduced to the public. But prior to its release Hubbard did "research" in Dianetics, the results of which are presented in the Dianetics Volumes.

The Tech is ever-changing, as you said, we are in a complete agreement about that. I will explain the reason for these changes at another post.

PS The sleep does not fall into the category of the moments of unconsciousness because Hubbard did not define it as such. I already listed the causes of the moments of unconsciousness in one of my previous posts. The list is not mine but Hubbard's.

 

[Demented LRH]

I was told that nowadays even Class VIII Auditors do not push their PCs into the prenatal times. I do not know if this is true, but if it is, it makes sense to me -- this shit does not work.

The original Dianetics (Book 1, Volume I and II) was a complete failure. none of its promises turned out to be true. Hubbard had a dilemma -- either to put Dianetics to the grave, or to add valuable techniques to it. He chose to make additions to Dianetics. Since he was an idiot who had no idea of how scientific research is done, he chose the psychological procedures that withstood the test of time. He took the descriptions of these procedures from scientific articles, parapharased them so they looked like extentions of his Dianetics research -- this is how ever-changing Dianetics was born.

When I was in Sea Org, I was told that the Sea Org members are not allowed to read the articles written by professional psychologists and psychiatrists. I though this prohibition is excessive because the Scientologists have a strong faith in Dianetics. But this is not a matter of faith -- a curious Scientologist is bound to find out that almost all Dianetics methods are nothing more that a paraphrase of original research done by the professionals.

Here we are arguing about different versions of Dianetics, some of them are valid, some are crap. But the valid ones were not invented by Hubbard the Plagiarist.

 

[Smilla]

My honest opinion is that Scientology isn't all bad, but the good is so small, and so wrapped in deliberate deception and covert hypnosis, that it's just not worth the effort of trying to sift through it. Life's too short to waste on a project like that.

For those who have a desire to help others - why not go and get qualified in a recognised and properly regulated therapy, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, or Person Centred Counselling?

Wouldn't that be better than being an unqualified amateur, practicing a pseudo-therapy cobbled together by a conman?

Seems like a better choice to me.

 

[BardoThodol]

What's not to like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs

Seriously. I walked across the bridge with my dog every morning for a week and it was just wonderful!

 

[phenomanon]

What many of us have noticed is that the PC does not always have an FN, Cog, VGI's after only running out the incident.. that's what caused us to ask more questions in order to get them to that place where they DID have VGI's..

If an engram (let us suppose there really IS such a thing) is made up of Mass and Significance, perhaps in equal proportions, then addressing each side of it makes logical sense to me. If what you are saying is TRUE, then Everyone would be raving about how wonderful Dianetics is and would likely have stuck it out longer to continue on up the bridge.. Some did like their Dianetics.. many did not.

Some PCs might just naturally GO THERE.. and look at their ideas and blow down without being asked to do so.. some might benefit from asking them to look at the Significance side of it. My theory all along is there is a BALANCE in all things.. Good/Bad, Mass/Significance, Love/Hate, etc.. and most things are combinations of both..

To run NOTHING but IDEAS and No Force or Mass would be equally unworkable.. just as getting Nothing but Auditing with no Physical side to it - no exercise, no Locationals, no Touching things or working, no movement, no concern for the BODY at all.. just the Mind or the Spirit.

I think you need to keep a Balance.. address all sides, knowing they are all of equal importance and worthy of our care.

Most folks here have disagreed with me.. and that is OK. My only defense, if you want to call it that, is that my intentions are good, I don't claim to know it all, I can admit if I am wrong, I would gladly admit it if it ended up that I had more knowledge or success or happiness for admiting it, and the fact that we have not hurt anyone.

It's as if I was selling great tasting organic apples in the park, and folks were not buying it, and I kept saying, but they taste good and nobody has gotten sick eating them.. and yet the attacks keep coming, and I just field them as best I can.. knowing that I mean no harm.

You might disagree with my ideas, and I certainly don't mind anyone saying so, but please don't accuse me of destroying anyone's lives.. you don't know me or our PCs, and unless you think I am lying, there is no reason for attack. If you think I am lying, that is a different matter altogether. Is that what you think?

PS: If the PC had FN VGI'S COG after only running the incident, OF COURSE I would not insist that they keep going and ask them for decisions or anything more.. END OF SESSION

I don't see where anyone has accused you of destroying someone's life.
Please do not equate disagreement with attack.
I believe that your heart is good , that you want to help, and that you mean no harm.

phenomanon

 

[Demented LRH]

I would like to say a few words about a specific "Hubbard technique" that I found in Volume I of Dianetics Series. It works beautifully, but Hubbard was not the one who invented it, it was introduced by Chicago University scientists in 1920s. Below is an abbreviated recording of my auditing session.

Auditor (that would be me). What are you affraid of now?
PC. I'm affraid of losing my job.
Auditor. What will happen if you lose your job?
PC. I won't be able to pay the rent, the landlord will evict me.
Auditor. Why are you affraid of the eviction?
PC. I will become homeless.
Auditor. Why are you affraid of becoming homeless?
PC. The life-span of a homeless person is very short.
Auditor. Does this mean that you are affraid of death?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. Do you realize that, statistically speaking, the chance of dying at your age is very small?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. Would it be correct to say that your fear of death is unwarranted?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. How do you feel right now?
PC. It is almost as if I no longer affraid of death.
Auditor. Are you still affraid of losing your job?
PC. No.

Brief explanation of the technique by the Chicagi scientists.
Majority of the subject's fears are based on the fear of death. The subject (PC) may not realize that. The doctor's job is to lead the subject to conclusion that a particular fear that he has is based on the fear of death. As soon as the subject realizes that there is a little chance of him dying at a young age, the secondary fear is gone.

Brief explanation of the technique by Hubbard.
Somehow Hubbard connects this procedure to a specific engram and its erasure.

Morale of the story.
As long as a valuable procedure is correctly used, it does not matter how it is explained to the unsuspecting readers of the Dianetics Series.

 

[Smilla]

It's not actually necessary to delve into the past to resolve an issue. It is possible to resolve an issue that way, but it isn't necessary.

It's worth noting also, that some issues can't be fully resolved by any means.

 

[Man de la Mancha]

What's not to like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs

Seriously. I walked across the bridge with my dog every morning for a week and it was just wonderful!

Great footage. I ran across that bridge several times with my jr. high cross country team. The first time was a little scary. It was very windy and raining, and the bridge was obviously swaying, but not in a truly threatening way. Heavy trucks make it feel a little bouncy. It's sort of fun once you get used to it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Great footage. I ran across that bridge several times with my jr. high cross country team. The first time was a little scary. It was very windy and raining, and the bridge was obviously swaying, but not in a truly threatening way. Heavy trucks make it feel a little bouncy. It's sort of fun once you get used to it.

The Tacoma Narrows collapse was 72 years ago. You guys are older than I thought.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Winston Smith]

My honest opinion is that Scientology isn't all bad, but the good is so small, and so wrapped in deliberate deception and covert hypnosis, that it's just not worth the effort of trying to sift through it. Life's too short to waste on a project like that.

For those who have a desire to help others - why not go and get qualified in a recognised and properly regulated therapy, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, or Person Centred Counselling?

Wouldn't that be better than being an unqualified amateur, practicing a pseudo-therapy cobbled together by a conman?

Seems like a better choice to me.

When we recover from all the happy face hype of the org, this is the inescapable conclusion. My long time cello teacher in Utah (where I was kidnapped into the cult, sort of) took the comm course and was blown away by the concept of "present time," a natural thing because classical musicians HAVE to remain in "present time" to perform at their best. That for me is maybe the only idea to come from it all, but even that is common sense. No, you don't have to mortgage your life to discover this stuff, it can be readily had by actually growing up and thinking for yourself. Scientology is a great way to delude yourself, to place all the hard work of becoming an adult in some messiah's hands instead of your own.

Happily said cello teacher is very intelligent and never did more. I owe my prosperity to him and will forever be indebted.

 

[Man de la Mancha]

The Tacoma Narrows collapse was 72 years ago. You guys are older than I thought.


Mark A. Baker

Right. And another long, not quite as narrow, and sturdier bridge was built in its place. Still, even the new bridge was known for its occasional action, but nothing even close to the footage of the collapse.

 

[Panda Termint]

I would like to say a few words about a specific "Hubbard technique" that I found in Volume I of Dianetics Series. It works beautifully, but Hubbard was not the one who invented it, it was introduced by Chicago University scientists in 1920s. Below is an abbreviated recording of my auditing session.

Auditor (that would be me). What are you affraid of now?
PC. I'm affraid of losing my job.
Auditor. What will happen if you lose your job?
PC. I won't be able to pay the rent, the landlord will evict me.
Auditor. Why are you affraid of the eviction?
PC. I will become homeless.
Auditor. Why are you affraid of becoming homeless?
PC. The life-span of a homeless person is very short.
Auditor. Does this mean that you are affraid of death?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. Do you realize that, statistically speaking, the chance of dying at your age is very small?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. Would it be correct to say that your fear of death is unwarranted?
PC. Yes.
Auditor. How do you feel right now?
PC. It is almost as if I no longer affraid of death.
Auditor. Are you still affraid of losing your job?
PC. No.

Brief explanation of the technique by the Chicagi scientists.
Majority of the subject's fears are based on the fear of death. The subject (PC) may not realize that. The doctor's job is to lead the subject to conclusion that a particular fear that he has is based on the fear of death. As soon as the subject realizes that there is a little chance of him dying at a young age, the secondary fear is gone.

Brief explanation of the technique by Hubbard.
Somehow Hubbard connects this procedure to a specific engram and its erasure.

Morale of the story.
As long as a valuable procedure is correctly used, it does not matter how it is explained to the unsuspecting readers of the Dianetics Series.

That's not Dianetic Auditing, nor any kind of what scientology calls auditing at all. That's something else again.

If that's a reflection on how you "audited" Dianetics it must have been in some alternate universe, virtual version of scientology where C/S's, Auditors and PCs tolerated all sorts of Evaluation, Invalidation, 2WC (two-way comm) questions which act as Listing Questions, and Auditor Code Breaks.

This thread is full of Squirrels!!!

 

[Winston Smith]

That's not Dianetic Auditing, nor any kind of what scientology calls auditing at all. That's something else again.

If that's a reflection on how you "audited" Dianetics it must have been in some alternate universe, virtual version of scientology where C/S's, Auditors and PCs tolerated all sorts of Evaluation, Invalidation, 2WC (two-way comm) questions which act as Listing Questions, and Auditor Code Breaks.

This thread is full of Squirrels!!!

Oh my, Panda. I take it that you feel "standard tech" yields fantastic gains every time. Hmm. I beg to differ.

 

[Panda Termint]

Oh my, Panda. I take it that you feel "standard tech" yields fantastic gains every time. Hmm. I beg to differ.

I wonder how you arrived at that thought from what I said, Winnie. :confused2:

No, I don't think that. I'm simply commenting (critically) on Demented LRH's idea of what Dianetic auditing is.

My stance on this sort of stuff is, and always has been; there's already so much wrong with scientology, you don't need to make shit up!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Oh my, Panda. I take it that you feel "standard tech" yields fantastic gains every time. Hmm. I beg to differ.

Talk about a stretch in logic. Panda didn't say anything to cause such a conclusion.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dilpickle]

I was told that nowadays even Class VIII Auditors do not push their PCs into the prenatal times. I do not know if this is true, but if it is, it makes sense to me -- this shit does not work.

The original Dianetics (Book 1, Volume I and II) was a complete failure. none of its promises turned out to be true. Hubbard had a dilemma -- either to put Dianetics to the grave, or to add valuable techniques to it. He chose to make additions to Dianetics. Since he was an idiot who had no idea of how scientific research is done, he chose the psychological procedures that withstood the test of time. He took the descriptions of these procedures from scientific articles, parapharased them so they looked like extentions of his Dianetics research -- this is how ever-changing Dianetics was born.

When I was in Sea Org, I was told that the Sea Org members are not allowed to read the articles written by professional psychologists and psychiatrists. I though this prohibition is excessive because the Scientologists have a strong faith in Dianetics. But this is not a matter of faith -- a curious Scientologist is bound to find out that almost all Dianetics methods are nothing more that a paraphrase of original research done by the professionals.

Here we are arguing about different versions of Dianetics, some of them are valid, some are crap. But the valid ones were not invented by Hubbard the Plagiarist.

Maybe the PCs in the orgs are "trained to END session after running the incidents" (??) that was EXPECTED of them? Don't know... I never had to train anyone to answer the decision questions if their tone arm was still high, and there were no major blowdowns or cognitions or VGI's.. they responded happily to my request, and eventually DID have some nice wins, VGI's etc. and there we Ended Session. Occasionally someone would BLOW the whole thing after only recounting the incident for 5 minutes.. either way is fine with me.

 

[Winston Smith]

Oh my, Panda. I take it that you feel "standard tech" yields fantastic gains every time. Hmm. I beg to differ.

Nah, just your string of scientologese in your post made me think you actually took it seriously. I get allergic reactions to too many scientological words strung together.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Since the people who most need to ponder this, probably won't, I'll jump to the finale:

Scientologists are trained to be sensitive to "attacks," and to do either of two things when encountering an "attack": 1) "Cut comm with entheta" 2) or "Handle."

The few Scientologists, routinely, on this board are pretty much in full time "handling" mode, in one form or another.

The rest have "cut comm with entheta" and are absent.

So, communication with Scientologists, or with someone still majorly under the influence of Scientology, is problematic.

Some of the most hypersensitive butthurt people I've ever seen were ex Scn'ists. Accusations of black pr, conspiracies, etc.

I've seen you get like that.

Evidently, saying it's the other guys changes everything.