What's new

Spiritual Introspection Not Ecouraged In Scientology

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard extols LOOKING as the highest method of gaining knowledge, and I largely agree. Yet, quite strangely, if you honestly take a look at this, he basically forbids any person from looking inward!

+

Simply because a thetan, being without any spatial dimensions, has no "in". Only out.
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
And quite possibly, if an honest survey could be completed, MOST people who get into Scientology are really not much concerned with "knowing thyself". :bigcry:

Though I could be wrong on that last.

+

If that's true, it would explain some things for me ...

... but please go on -- if not to "know thyself," then what do you think was the reason (or top five reasons, let's say) most people got into scientology?

I happen to be one of those for whom the primary reason was to "know thyself." I was not successful at being a "good scientologist," and I admit to being baffled as to why some folks ended up there, what were they looking for, what did they hope to achieve.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
If that's true, it would explain some things for me ...

... but please go on -- if not to "know thyself," then what do you think was the reason (or top five reasons, let's say) most people got into scientology?

I happen to be one of those for whom the primary reason was to "know thyself." I was not successful at being a "good scientologist," and I admit to being baffled as to why some folks ended up there, what were they looking for, what did they hope to achieve.

I will try to explain.

Yes, I also got in with the aim to learn about the "truth". I was never body-routed in or brought in by a friend. I had a history of meditation, and occult studies, and after reading Dianetics I decided that I might want to address and handle my "out of control thinking mind" before going to India to find a "master". I realy did think that at the time. The big mistake was assuming that Scientology would handle the "internal yapping", instead of just learning how to do it on my own through self-examination and inner work.

But look at that DAMNED ruin-finding. It is a very slick procedure. ANYBODY who comes in, whether by body-routing, through a friend, or as a walk-in, is put on the meter and the ruin found. I never was because I just walked in and said, I want to go clear. What do I have to do? And, I did it.

But most people sit down and spit out some ruin:

talking to girls
talking to boys
making money
being happy
being stable
not being depressed and sad
I can't study
I can't find a job
I get nervous talking to people
I piss my pants when a dog approaches
I am attracted to goats
I have nightmares
My wife cheats on me
I can't get a boner

or any of a near infinite number of possible ailments that any person can have. See, Hubbard rigged it so the Div 6 line was entirely "equal-opportunity". It made no difference what the EXACT ruin was, or even whether the person doing the ruin-finding actually knew what certain Scientology "tech" would "handle" that problem. The person doing the ruin-finding simply had to DO THE DRILL just as Ron says. Oh, and it definitely WORKS. No doubt about that. :yes:

The insidious nature of the Div 6 and other reg drills is what the totally scripted method (exact patter) does next.

The Scientology staff member INTENTIONALLY, with full Tone 40 and excellent TRs, asks the person, "what would happen if that got WORSE". The aim, as directed by Hubbard in the drill, is to get the newbie really wallowing in the RUIN. Really PUSH his or her face into it HARD. Get the person squirming, even crying, and REALLY CONFRONTING what would happen if and WHEN IT GETS WORSE!

And, then, as directed by the Grand Manipulator, L. Ron Hubbard, you tell the person with the best of all possible trumped-up affinity and feigned caring (phony manipulative ARC), that "Scientology can handle THAT".

And the poor sobbing slob looks up, hopeful for the first time in many years or even in his or her life, and says "really"? And from there the sucker is put on the conveyor belt of Total Bank Account Reduction (by a carefully planned series of gradients of course).

So, I think there are MANY reasons WHY any person originally decided to "try" Scientology to see if it might help some personal "problem". But, once there, then Hubbard's well-greased indoctrination system turns that theetie-weetie gaze of the newbie into a "dedicated glare" of the fanatic in no time. :omg:

It is such a well-planned trap!

Actually, I was often amazed at the utter LACK of any sense of spiritual anyhting in so many of the Church members. They were often more like Amway victims, or some crazed member of some new Ponzi-like MLM scam.

+
 
I will try to explain.

Yes, I also got in with the aim to learn about the "truth". I was never body-routed in or brought in by a friend. I had a history of meditation, and occult studies, and after reading Dianetics I decided that I might want to address and handle my "out of control thinking mind" before going to India to find a "master". I realy did think that at the time. The big mistake was assuming that Scientology would handle the "internal yapping", instead of just learning how to do it on my own through self-examination and inner work.

But look at that DAMNED ruin-finding. It is a very slick procedure. ANYBODY who comes in, whether by body-routing, through a friend, or as a walk-in, is put on the meter and the ruin found. I never was because I just walked in and said, I want to go clear. What do I have to do? And, I did it.

But most people sit down and spit out some ruin:

talking to girls
talking to boys
making money
being happy
being stable
not being depressed and sad
I can't study
I can't find a job
I get nervous talking to people
I piss my pants when a dog approaches
I am attracted to goats
I have nightmares
My wife cheats on me
I can't get a boner

or any of a near infinite number of possible ailments that any person can have. See, Hubbard rigged it so the Div 6 line was entirely "equal-opportunity". It made no difference what the EXACT ruin was, or even whether the person doing the ruin-finding actually knew what certain Scientology "tech" would "handle" that problem. The person doing the ruin-finding simply had to DO THE DRILL just as Ron says. Oh, and it definitely WORKS. No doubt about that. :yes:

The insidious nature of the Div 6 and other reg drills is what the totally scripted method (exact patter) does next.

The Scientology staff member INTENTIONALLY, with full Tone 40 and excellent TRs, asks the person, "what would happen if that got WORSE". The aim, as directed by Hubbard in the drill, is to get the newbie really wallowing in the RUIN. Really PUSH his or her face into it HARD. Get the person squirming, even crying, and REALLY CONFRONTING what would happen if and WHEN IT GETS WORSE!

And, then, as directed by the Grand Manipulator, L. Ron Hubbard, you tell the person with the best of all possible trumped-up affinity and feigned caring (phony manipulative ARC), that "Scientology can handle THAT".

And the poor sobbing slob looks up, hopeful for the first time in many years or even in his or her life, and says "really"? And from there the sucker is put on the conveyor belt of Total Bank Account Reduction (by a carefully planned series of gradients of course).

So, I think there are MANY reasons WHY any person originally decided to "try" Scientology to see if it might help some personal "problem". But, once there, then Hubbard's well-greased indoctrination system turns that theetie-weetie gaze of the newbie into a "dedicated glare" of the fanatic in no time. :omg:

It is such a well-planned trap!

Actually, I was often amazed at the utter LACK of any sense of spiritual anyhting in so many of the Church members. They were often more like Amway victims, or some crazed member of some new Ponzi-like MLM scam.

+


This is a very cogent comment. You're right the church is designed to run this as a way of "motivating" converts. Still, I found for myself that the auditing I received on my lower bridge was very useful for my own purposes of introspection. My conclusion is that the auditing tech is itself useful although the climate within the church is poisonous.


Mark A. Baker
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
I remember how the definition of "introversion" in the Tech Dictionary showed a picture of a fellow, head heavily weighing in his hand, staring off into some distance (internally). Hubbard also describes it as:

introversion: a looking in too closely; having one’s attention and interest directed upon oneself.
(Google: "tech dictionary introversion Scientology")

He gives the word itself a negative slant, a negative bias that most accept without question - this bias slips into the C of S member's subconscious, where from there it controls his or her viewpoint.

Look at how Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub uses the word "introversion":

Introversion Rundown - This is a procedure that is intended to handle a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown

Again, Hubbard covertly hijacks the word entirely by associating it with "a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown". What an idiot.

Your whole message is based on the supposedly incorrect use of the word "introversion." There is no such rundown, it's called the INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN.

I torch your straw man.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Your whole message is based on the supposedly incorrect use of the word "introversion." There is no such rundown, it's called the INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN.

I torch your straw man.

Not so fast, and actually, you torched nothing.

I made a mistake in using the term "introversion rundown". My bad, as I had done a quick Google search and found this as the Tech Dictionary definition:

Introspection Rundown - This is a procedure that is intended to handle a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown.

I accidentally typed "introversion" instead of "introspection". I MEANT to type "introspection". No straw man - typing error. I will go back and correct the typo - the argument stands quite well. :eyeroll:

Typo or not, there is NO concept anywhere within Hubbard's subject of a "positive" or "useful" type of introversion or introspection. All definitions, usages and applications paint both words with a "negative meaning". THAT is a major flaw as I see it.

+
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
This is a very cogent comment. You're right the church is designed to run this as a way of "motivating" converts. Still, I found for myself that the auditing I received on my lower bridge was very useful for my own purposes of introspection. My conclusion is that the auditing tech is itself useful although the climate within the church is poisonous.

Mark A. Baker

I also enjoyed the auditing on the lower Bridge. I think that, under certain situations, and with certain people, some of the auditing tech may be useful. I have inserted the qualifiers that take it out of an "all" type framework.

I think that Hubbard was VERY much pushing the limits or absurdity when he set forth the subject in a way that very much proclaimed that ANYONE will benefit from the wonders of Scientology if it is applied correctly. That is a WAY BIGGER "IF" than anyone ever notices. Of course, ONLY as long as he or she isn't out-ethics, a DB, PTS, an SP, a bad student, etc.

And, using endless CIRCULAR LOGIC that is very carefully woven into the subject itself, Hubbard's Scientology will ALWAYS find something wrong WITH THE PERSON if the Tech doesn't work on them. How convenient! :confused2:

If the Tech doesn't work it is because YOU ARE A FUCKUP! So, using his ridiculous circular logic, it will always succeed! And to think so many people actually "think" with such nonsense. :confused2:

+
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
Not so fast, and actually, you torched nothing.

I made a mistake in using the term "introversion rundown". My bad, as I had done a quick Google search and found this as the Tech Dictionary definition:

Introspection Rundown - This is a procedure that is intended to handle a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown.

I accidentally typed "introversion" instead of "introspection". I MEANT to type "introspection". No straw man - typing error. I will go back and correct the typo - the argument stands quite well. :eyeroll:

Typo or not, there is NO concept anywhere within Hubbard's subject of a "positive" or "useful" type of introversion or introspection. All definitions, usages and applications paint both words with a "negative meaning". THAT is a major flaw as I see it.

+

You still flubbed it. Here's the CORRECT Tech Dictionary definition:

INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN, the essence of the Introspection Rundown
is looking for and correcting all those things which caused the person to look
inward, worriedly and wrestle with the mystery of some incorrectly designated
error. The end phenomena is the person extroverted, no longer looking inward
worriedly in a continuous self-audit without end. (HCOB 23 Jan 74RA)

Don't rely on the internet for correct Scientology quotes or definitions.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
You still flubbed it. Here's the CORRECT Tech Dictionary definition:

INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN, the essence of the Introspection Rundown
is looking for and correcting all those things which caused the person to look
inward, worriedly and wrestle with the mystery of some incorrectly designated
error. The end phenomena is the person extroverted, no longer looking inward
worriedly in a continuous self-audit without end. (HCOB 23 Jan 74RA)

Don't rely on the internet for correct Scientology quotes or definitions.

Well, you just made my point for me. Introspection is given a bad rap, and the GOOD "end pheneomena" is (only and always) EXTROVERSION. Again, there is no mention of any notion in all of Scientology of "looking" inward that doesn't have attached to it some negative connotation. Of course, unless conducted exactly as Hubbard says that it should be by the auditing.

+
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
<snip, only for brevity>
So, I think there are MANY reasons WHY any person originally decided to "try" Scientology to see if it might help some personal "problem". But, once there, then Hubbard's well-greased indoctrination system turns that theetie-weetie gaze of the newbie into a "dedicated glare" of the fanatic in no time. :omg:

It is such a well-planned trap!

I agree with pretty much everything you said in your post, especially what I left in quote above.

I worked in Div 6 when I was on staff (Class IV org, not SO). Fortunately, I wasn't very good at it. In all aspects of my tenure on staff and as a public, I was not a "good scientologist" -- always pointing out the outpoints, questioning things, never accepted Hubbard's "altitude" over everyone else, etc. etc. -- ethics bait all the way. I was (still am) good at MEST work, though.

I have no idea why most people got into scientology or what they hoped to achieve. For me it was always a means to an end: shed some baggage, get better, improve your abilities, go out in the world and live... rather than an end in itself.

People think I'm just trying to be funny when I say this, but I really was looking for a way to achieve perfect physical health, grow new teeth to replace the damaged ones, and other very specific things I won't list here. I was not on a "spiritual quest" except for the possibility of being able to exteriorize at will so that I could go check up on a couple of old boyfriends I missed.

These expectations for me fell under the promise that with scientology you can do ANYTHING! (so I was told) -- turns out not be true (at least not yet, I'm still hoping for a couple new molars...):coolwink:

Lower-level services (mostly TRs and some other training and co-auditing) helped me somewhat, but it all got too demanding and expensive -- I wanted to get busy on my various "projects" outside of scientology (what a dilletante!) which is what I have been doing for the past 30 years up to and including the present.

Along the way I found MUCH SIMPLER and MUCH CHEAPER and MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE ways of resolving the "issues" I had with various aspects of life and living. I have written about some of those here on this forum from time to time; I suspect "most people" are looking for those simple, inexpensive, effective ways to deal with common problems -- not a life-long million-dollar path to omnipotence.

Scientology, even without all the organizational madness, turned out to be just "too long a runway" (as we would say in the lingo) for me, not to mention the serious mental/emotional damage from using "the tech" that I believe CAN occur and HAS occurred with at least SOME people.
 

Dilettante

Patron Meritorious
Olska: Yeah :yes:
Gadfly: Totally :yes:
Mark Baker: YES! :yes:
Haiqu: Introspection/introversion? :confused2: I have heard both terms and each time it has been heavily frowned upon inside what is being discussed as "tech" that basicly sucked for us. Funny thing is you are still probably right. :unsure:. I am finding tremendous commanality on this thread either way.
Thank Gad :omg:
Dil
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I came across a copy of the Tech Dictionary today.

Introversion, 1. looking in too closely, (POW, p. 92) 2. a manifestation of the analytical mind trying to solve problems on improper data, and observing the organism being engaged in activities, which are not conducive to survival along the dynamics. (DTOT, p. 105).

Again, Hubbard NEVER discusses "introversion" in ANY way other than as a "bad thing". In the second definition, introversion is limited to "thinking", is described as NOT conducive to survival, and Hubbard NEVER comes close to ever mentioning such an activity as "quietly watching ones own mind in action". In other words, practicing "looking" towards ones "mind" or "inward", instead of towards the "world out there as perceived through the five senses".

It almost seems that Hubbard's aim was to trick members into ONLY observing the physical universe, to be constantly fixated "out there" (called "extroversion"),and to NEVER observe "inside", at least NEVER ON YOUR OWN AS YOU CHOOSE.

Of course, when people start to "wonder" and "question" ones own mental terrain (beliefs, ideas, opinions), then Hubbard's hold on any person through heavy Scientology indoctrination can begin to weaken and fade. :thumbsup:

+
 

Dilettante

Patron Meritorious
Gad, Nicely put and definitions too! I have had some pretty cool cognitions and observations prior to any scn. and I never liked how that was attributed to my past life in scn!!! :angry: That is how it was strongly sugested to me. OH, RIGHT! Please. :no: The control is deep in that sense, wins are due to tech, failures due to pts,mu's,out ethics,blah,blah,blah. Taking personal responsibilty is a good thing but not in those confines! Friends have died thinking they are pts!!! That is no way to go from this life. :bigcry: All the dark stuff is okay to introvert on because they can cash in on that, but the wins, hey hey, that was tech. Would you praise DaVinci for the brush he used? Or Hemmingway for the typewriter he used? It's insulting. Choose your tools wisely but never forget who chose them and who controls them. I like introverting and I like what's in here! Thanks again Gad.
Dil
 
Top