Scientology may be too "out-gradient"

[Tanstaafl]

Operative word being 'consciously'.

Zinj

I don't disagree.

 

[Veda]

I don't know how much consensus there is on the definition of "cult".
Alanzo put me onto Steve Hassan's Combatting Cult Mind Control.
He has the experience and the research behind him to be considered a credible authority in the field.

After reading his book I came to the conclusion that CoS is most definitely a cult. This does not mean that everyone in it is consciously forwarding a cult agenda - far from it.

Scientology was designed by its founder - in accordance with his publicized/or members only/or selected members only/or advertised secretive/or not advertised secretive writings (the "subject of Scientology") - to be a cult, more exactly to be a deceptive and abusive cult wrapped in a mental healing veneer.

It tends to become confusing since, sometimes, those who emphasize the idea of "the subject of Scientology" are, themselves, unaware of, or in denial about, big chunks of the subject of Scientology.

 

[Terril park]

Cheers!




Not all 3Ds have cult-like aspects, but any you might be heavily involved often do. For example, I used to play for a sunday sports club, and once I did I was encouraged to do things that were in the best interests of the team, such as do extra training and workouts, go to the occasional social gathering with team mates, stuff like that. I didn't necessarily want to do those things, I just wanted to turn up and play. I was also encourage to get my family involved, as supporters and as drivers etc.

My sports club were a 3D that wanted success, and so wanted a certain level of commitment that at first I didnt feel comfortable with, but I got used to. I learnt to consider the groups best interests as well as my own. Often I found both interests were the same -winning, success etc. Sometimes not the same - it left me with less time to pursue other interests I had at the time.

In fact it was this conflict that led me to giving up playing for them.

So I don't necessarily think coercing people against their own self-interests is all that uncommon. It's part and parcel of being in a 3D, caring enough about that 3D to sometimes do things for the benefit of the group rather than oneself all the time.

The key is to have a sense of personal integrity and not violate it. Otherwise one is bound to be unhappy. I think maybe when people leave the church and start complaining that it was a cult, do so for 2 reasons; 1) it was the only 3D they have been heavily involved with in life, thus they have no real comparable experience for a 3D and somehow see it as a cult and see most other involved 3D's as not cults, and 2) they violated their own personal integrity so much that they felt victimized.

Personal integrity is a big factor here, and to the church's credit they actually teach this stuff. It's up to the individual to apply it. The CofS are in many ways like a school-club hybrid. You go there to learn about life, but they also encourage some extracurricular activities and more involvement. They might even ask you to become a "teacher" or "coach".

Btw, I don't think that working for ones own self-interests all the time is that healthy, but also I think having no personal goals and interests is unhealthy too. There needs to be a good mixture of goals and interests all the way across the dynamics for true happiness.

You asked: "So, with your post here, are you now saying that getting people to work against their own self-interests is good for them?

How does that work?"

Working AGAINST ones interests is an absolute that, for me, doesn't really exist. Having interests that too often conflict is the problem. The key is to be able to have interests that don't cause too much friction, both self-interests and group interests, and whenever possible align them together smoothly.

Ok, I was just pointing out that nearly every involved 3D activity has cult-like factors. That the mainstream media and certain academics likes to throw around the word cult to certain 3D's is bias.

Most involved 3D groups could be considered a benign cult. Some groups within the CofS are deceptive, not always destructive (See CL5 Orgs/Missions), and some core groups within the CofS can get abusive and be extremely destructive (See INT/RTC). There are of course exceptions. Humans are sometimes deceptive and abusive, no matter what group they belong too.

Very good points. Personally I would say that Cults are cults because they try to block part of one or many dynamics.

To take it further, one may consider one can can be a cult on the first dynamic. This is extremely common. Well nigh universal. The ser fac is a good example of this.

One can have a second dynamic as a cult. Feuding families for example.

The resolution of " cult" is existing on all dynamics. Then one is not opposing another dynamic or dynamics. One would then live and breathe first policy, " Maintain friendly relations with the environment...." Very succint, logical and above all practical.

Well I use scientologese here. But I'm sure Alan would express the same points, and even possibly in ways I grok, and Bhuddists also and so on.

Jesus expressed this beautifully in the parable of the good Samaritan.
Some dude going out of his way to help one who the orthodoxy would consider his enemy. He was talking to an audience mostly illiterate, study tech, logic, not really known, but made the concept real in terms his audience could understand. They too could then span dynamics. Or at least see that as a possibility and aspiration.

Two examples here I consider brilliant in terms of communication of an idea.

There is another version, less grounded, less useable, " The brotherhood of man."

This is a noble sentiment but less usefull, workable and open to abuse, and misdirection, and can be a tool for propaganda of various sorts. It opens up the possibility of ends justifying means. Fair game if you will.

"We need to kill ,iraquis because of their weapons of mass destruction
for the sake of mankind." Or whatever example one prefers here.

 

[Case]

Scientology was designed by its founder - in accordance with his publicized/or members only/or selected members only/or advertised secretive/or not advertised secretive writings (the "subject of Scientology") - to be a cult, more exactly to be a deceptive and abusive cult wrapped in a mental healing veneer.

It tends to become confusing since, sometimes, those who emphasize the idea of "the subject of Scientology" are, themselves, unaware of, or in denial about, big chunks of the subject of Scientology.

Unfortunately, people tend to make big generalizations about subjects, like math is complicated and for sad cases, art is for headcases, scientology is for brainwashed victims etc etc.

Scientology is a subject that can be used to make ones life better, and others lives better. Scientology is a subject that can be used to make ones life, or others worse - e.g. overrun a process or try lots of different processes without flattening them.

Saying Scientology is terrible or something like that is like saying science is evil, just because people have used it badly in the past. Simple as that.

 

[Veda]

Unfortunately, people tend to make big generalizations about subjects, like math is complicated and for sad cases, art is for headcases, scientology is for brainwashed victims etc etc.

Scientology is a subject that can be used to make ones life better, and others lives better. Scientology is a subject that can be used to make ones life, or others worse - e.g. overrun a process or try lots of different processes without flattening them.

Saying Scientology is terrible or something like that is like saying science is evil, just because people have used it badly in the past. Simple as that.

I could argue with you if I thought you had any idea as the total contents of the subject of Scientology.

You seem to be genuinely unaware of its most senior writings.

However, aware or not, these writings are also part of the subject of Scientology.

And, no, they're not "OT levels."

 

[Vinaire]

There is no need to defend Scientology. It is what it is.

What is there in a symbol?

It all boils down to the person himself and his spiritual quest.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

There is no need to defend Scientology. It is what it is.

What is there in a symbol?

It all boils down to the person himself and his spiritual quest.

.

I couldn't care less about the person and his 'spiritual quest'. That's *his* business. I care very much about a vicious and criminal organization, and, because of that, about the so called 'philosophy' that serves as its excuse for its crimes and vicious behavior.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

There is no need to defend Scientology. It is what it is.

What is there in a symbol?

It all boils down to the person himself and his spiritual quest.

.

Vin, I think you find "Scientology" - its (actual) history, and its (total) doctrine just too unpleasant to deal with.

So you don't.

You look at selected pieces of it that you find tolerable.

And that's OK, since those pieces need to be examined also.

(And that goes for you too Leon.)

You mean well, but deep down you don't want to know the truth about Scientology.

 

[Terril park]

Is 1/3rd of the subject of Scientology still Scientology, the subject?

Are those parts of the subject of Scientology, that you choose to identify as the subject of Scientology, still "Scientology," without the parts of the subject of Scientology that you'd prefer to ignore?

And does it matter? or does "What's true for you is what you believe" mean that a pair of old brown shoes can be "Scientology," if someone wants them to be?

Horrible truth addition:

The "Church" of Scientology doesn't use original "OT levels" 4, 5, 6, and 7, but it does use the rest of Scientology - that being the Scientology formulated by Scientology's founder, and finalized by him by the mid 1970s.

It's odd to observe, but not new: Entire (obnoxious and vile) chunks of the subject of Scientology are erased by well meaning ("Freezone") "tech people," who pretend these parts of Scientology had never been, or somehow were not "Scientology" --- well meaning people, who are in love with the word, "Scientology," yet in denial about what the word represents, and in denial about the actual contents of the subject.

It takes on a never never land feel.

Lol! Unfuzzy unwarm Veda.

" A thetan has things beyond matter, energy, space and time which can deteriorate. His power of choice....." [ Time track bulletin 1]

We can choose our choices and our paths. We can choose to accept or reject anything and everything.

We can choose to accept this or that PL. And even this or that HCOB.
This or that tech. I believe all here choose further advancement in whatever way they choose.

Few to none here choose the COS.

I know you are well meaning, basically good and wish to be right. As are
virtually all of us here. Its a wonderful place.

I arduously promote standard tech. The man said it may not be perfect but it works. I go with that.

I do not attack other techs, or those choosing other paths. I don't even say they are inferior. Nor do I deny they may be superior.

I support the individuals right to choice.

I don't attack critics. I have much area's of commonality and many are my friends.

The freezone uses original OT levels.

Much that you oppose needs opposing. Its a valuable service
to point this out.

Opposing others choices is a no win situation really. And you
denigrate their choices.

There is a better way.

 

[Case]

Very good points. Personally I would say that Cults are cults because they try to block part of one or many dynamics.

To take it further, one may consider one can can be a cult on the first dynamic. This is extremely common. Well nigh universal. The ser fac is a good example of this.

One can have a second dynamic as a cult. Feuding families for example.

The resolution of " cult" is existing on all dynamics. Then one is not opposing another dynamic or dynamics. One would then live and breathe first policy, " Maintain friendly relations with the environment...." Very succint, logical and above all practical.

Well I use scientologese here. But I'm sure Alan would express the same points, and even possibly in ways I grok, and Bhuddists also and so on.

Jesus expressed this beautifully in the parable of the good Samaritan.
Some dude going out of his way to help one who the orthodoxy would consider his enemy. He was talking to an audience mostly illiterate, study tech, logic, not really known, but made the concept real in terms his audience could understand. They too could then span dynamics. Or at least see that as a possibility and aspiration.

Two examples here I consider brilliant in terms of communication of an idea.

There is another version, less grounded, less useable, " The brotherhood of man."

This is a noble sentiment but less usefull, workable and open to abuse, and misdirection, and can be a tool for propaganda of various sorts. It opens up the possibility of ends justifying means. Fair game if you will.

"We need to kill ,iraquis because of their weapons of mass destruction
for the sake of mankind." Or whatever example one prefers here.

Nice take on what a cult is. I especially agree that one can be an "only 1" cult, and limit ones experience and life with certain thought processes, world views etc. One of my family members is like that, and its very difficult to get in comm with the guy a lot of the time.

 

[Case]

I could argue with you if I thought you had any idea as the total contents of the subject of Scientology.

You seem to be genuinely unaware of its most senior writings.

However, aware or not, these writings are also part of the subject of Scientology.

And, no, they're not "OT levels."

Ive read a fair amount of scientology LRH materials, as well as other scientology authors too. IMO, most of scientology is not very disagreeable at all, and the small percentage that is controversial is usually emphasized by critics as representing "the true scientology", even though it is just a minute part of it.

The senior writings of the subject are the axioms, factors, ARC, KRC, logics etc. What do you think they are?

 

[Zinjifar]

Ive read a fair amount of scientology LRH materials, as well as other scientology authors too. IMO, most of scientology is not very disagreeable at all, and the small percentage that is controversial is usually emphasized by critics as representing "the true scientology", even though it is just a minute part of it.

The senior writings of the subject are the axioms, factors, ARC, KRC, logics etc. What do you think they are?

According to Ron, KSW is the 'senior' writing. and He should know, since he knew 'knowingness'.

Besides, a brain tumor is such a small part of a meat body...

Zinj

 

[Zinjifar]

2.5 percent of humanity is such a small part...
20 percent of humanity is such a small part...
A couple of thousand 'Disconnected' families are such a small part...
A few thousand 'enemies' are such a small part...

What's everybody so 'upset' about?

Zinj

 

[Case]

I couldn't care less about the person and his 'spiritual quest'. That's *his* business. I care very much about a vicious and criminal organization, and, because of that, about the so called 'philosophy' that serves as its excuse for its crimes and vicious behavior.

Zinj

The CofS is not a clean organization. But it is tame compared to some more powerful, rich, influential and oppressive organizations on this planet. Like, erm, the CIA, FBI, US admin, Chinese government, North Korean Government, Iranian Government etc etc.

At worse, on a general level the church promotes spiritual freedom, then takes it away or simply refuses to deliver it...(yes, there are a handful of deaths and physical abuses but overall, the main overt is the former).

At best, these other criminal organizations oppress millions of people's human rights across the globe, their oppressive overts resulting in millions of death a year.

There are probably more oppressive powerful organizations on the planet than there are powerful non-oppressive organizations.

I think the reason that people attack the CofS so determinedly goes deeper than mere criminal overts of the CofS. Perhaps some buttons on spirituality, mental practices, even self improvement.

 

[Case]

According to Ron, KSW is the 'senior' writing. and He should know, since he knew 'knowingness'.

Besides, a brain tumor is such a small part of a meat body...

Zinj

KSW is a heartfelt command to the church he founded to keep his writings unchanged. Unfortunately, the CofS didnt manage to follow this command.

It is an important writing, although not essential to understanding the subject, if only important in understanding how strongly LRH felt about what he developed and the importance of retaining its workability.

KSW is probably the most senior policy, from LRHs POV.

 

[Terril park]

The CofS is not a clean organization. But it is tame compared to some more powerful, rich, influential and oppressive organizations on this planet. Like, erm, the CIA, FBI, US admin, Chinese government, North Korean Government, Iranian Government etc etc.

At worse, on a general level the church promotes spiritual freedom, then takes it away or simply refuses to deliver it...(yes, there are a handful of deaths and physical abuses but overall, the main overt is the former).

At best, these other criminal organizations oppress millions of people's human rights across the globe, their oppressive overts resulting in millions of death a year.

There are probably more oppressive powerful organizations on the planet than there are powerful non-oppressive organizations.

I think the reason that people attack the CofS so determinedly goes deeper than mere criminal overts of the CofS. Perhaps some buttons on spirituality, mental practices, even self improvement.

Betrayal of the deepest kind. There is the ordinary human rights violations etc. But using ones wish to help mankind etc and then using that to manipulate you? But we probably have a long track on that. So much to stir up.

 

[Case]

2.5 percent of humanity is such a small part...
20 percent of humanity is such a small part...
A couple of thousand 'Disconnected' families are such a small part...
A few thousand 'enemies' are such a small part...

What's everybody so 'upset' about?

Zinj

I agree that SP/PTS tech is probably the most controversial tech in Scientology. Here's my viewpoint...

Maybe 2.5% of the population are nasty, and maybe they affect 20% of the rest of population in a big way. It's by no means a fact, but an astute observation from my experience of this planet. Most people are truly nice, friendly people, but then occasionally you come across a real nasty piece of work. They exist IMO. A good example is the current US president.

Disconnection was cancelled in 1968, a year after it came into use. However, the CofS still use it as tech. Some scientologists still use it in worst case scenarios if they can't handle the person who is on their case.

SPs deny the rights of other humans, such as the current US president. For example, the current US president denies the rights of every US citizen to have a democratically elected president and government. He denies the rights of millions of people across the globe with his oppressive policies and actions.

Overall, I think SP/PTS tech is ugly tech and is easily misapplied, but it merely represents an evident hometruth that there are nasty pieces of work in society that often have to be addressed for the PC to further improve in life.

 

[Case]

Betrayal of the deepest kind. There is the ordinary human rights violations etc. But using ones wish to help mankind etc and then using that to manipulate you? But we probably have a long track on that. So much to stir up.

Don't the American government swing the flag of freedom for the individual and society? Yet don't they spy on their citizens as well? The US parades itself as the police of the planet, doing it for the betterment of mankind, freeing him from oppressors. Most powerful organizations use "help or improve mankind" as their motivation. I don't think the CofS is unique in that regard.

But yes, I agree that betrayal on a spiritual level is a prime reason why the CofS gets such heated opposition. I find it strange that critics often attack the fact that the CofS has spiritual overts, when they say they don't believe in spirituality! If that is the case, why do they even care about it? So the button might be "belief". Some people don't like people believing in things that they can't perceive themselves.

 

[Terril park]

I agree that SP/PTS tech is probably the most controversial tech in Scientology. Here's my viewpoint...

Maybe 2.5% of the population are nasty, and maybe they affect 20% of the rest of population in a big way. It's by no means a fact, but an astute observation from my experience of this planet. Most people are truly nice, friendly people, but then occasionally you come across a real nasty piece of work. They exist IMO. A good example is the current US president.

Disconnection was cancelled in 1968, a year after it came into use. However, the CofS still use it as tech. Some scientologists still use it in worst case scenarios if they can't handle the person who is on their case.

SPs deny the rights of other humans, such as the current US president. For example, the current US president denies the rights of every US citizen to have a democratically elected president and government. He denies the rights of millions of people across the globe with his oppressive policies and actions.

Overall, I think SP/PTS tech is ugly tech and is easily misapplied, but it merely represents an evident hometruth that there are nasty pieces of work in society that often have to be addressed for the PC to further improve in life.

Its not really an ugly tech per se.

The SP part is perhaps of lesser importance. My personal viewpoint is that there are far fewer SPs than 2 and a half percent. But then I'm really good at avoiding such. ( well, maybe not on the net. )

Of course this tech has been abused and many here of good will were labelled such. Many who helped build COS up to its heights. Put it down to organisational insanity.

PTS is a widespread phenomenon. Its part of the general case /human/thetan situation of being effect.

There is "false PTS". This includes among other points, lack of communication skills to handle life. Lack of basic life skills ( way different statement to original) Unhandled out auditing. And this may be parralled
by life experience. etc.

If you have a boss who is an asshole who dosn't know how to be an executive, you may well find yourself PTS. Effect of another terminal.

Then there is past track.

PTS = effect of an individual. Very common. And needs the individul to handle in an appropriate way.

Clear may make one less liable to be PTS, but is no guarrentee. Some
have invalidated their cler state on this point.


The COS goes " cult" here. People are declared politically. One then MUST
disconnect.

This actually has no direct relation to being PTS or effect, and
probably mostly is a wrong indication to the individul who is told to disconnect.

Thats a brief technical overview. Disonnection is in fact reverse tech.

The COS reverses most tech and policy. Makes destructive. Specially
the PTS tech.

 

[Vinaire]

I couldn't care less about the person and his 'spiritual quest'. That's *his* business. I care very much about a vicious and criminal organization, and, because of that, about the so called 'philosophy' that serves as its excuse for its crimes and vicious behavior.

Zinj

Nobody can police the world. It is a losing proposition.

I am for education.

.