Where the Axioms Came From
I always love your posts.
I always love your posts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow.So first he says he got a lot of this stuff from other sources, then he implies he's Buddha, Source, etc...
Fluffy, ron was not the 'source' for Dianetics. As for scientology, even he admitted source material of probably a dozen or so different people back in 1951 in 'Science of Survival'. You are quite possibly the biggest apologist for Hubbard who I have ever come across. You seem to have even made it something of a lifetime purpose. Why is that? The guy was a megalomaniac spaced out on drugs.
The Book titled OHASPE
contains accounts of millions of "drujias" (spirits) being transported to earth in "vessels"..
and the basic outline of what Hubbard foisted upon us as incident II...
OHASPE is supposedly a book written using automatic writing from the archangel gabriel.. (c) 1893
In the fine print of OTIII was this warning.. anyone who did not see body thetans, would have to redo all their previous levels at their expense..
If you ask the Dalai Lama (who is supposed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion) if he's a deity, a 'god', a messiah, a 'source', etc...his answer is always "No. I am only a teacher".
When anyone marches onto the scene claiming to be the Maitreya, the new messiah, the 'source'...it's a sign that they are, in fact, not.
After all that I sort of concluded that there are a truths that scientolgy can not encompass and falsehoods that it can not detect.
Sure. But I do know that the lamas who are purported to be reincarnations of earlier wise men and lamas do say that they are such.
Yeah, and I heard they took the other sources out from the new books, like Freud, Jesus, Artistole, etc, etc.
Yes; Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Luretius, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell, Charcot, Herbert Spencer, William James, Sigmund Freud, Cmdr. Thompson, William A. White, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski and Hubbard's instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton all filed a Class Action lawsuit to prevent the CofS from continuing to sully-by-association their good names.I looked the other day in my wife's Basics Books (not mine) and there is
no page of Acknowledgement as there is in my 1975, 1976, and 2001 editions.
"Credit in particular is due to: Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato,
Euclid, Luretius, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek,
Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell,
Charcot, Herbert Spencer, William James, Sigmund Freud, Cmdr. Thompson,
William A. White, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski
and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and
the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton".
Right on, Mark...couldn't have said it better myself.Both of the terms "guru" & "lama" have the same basic meaning: i.e. teacher. The difference lies in that "guru" comes from sanskrit and reflects the Hindu traditions, whereas the word "lama" originates in tibetan and is used principally among Tibetan Buddhists.
Mark A. Baker
One of the big lies... was that LRH was the sole source of dianetics and scientology.
The sole-source myth was useful in creating demigod status for Hubbard; an image of a towering genius, an image that could be used to extract obedience, reverence and money.
We have an abundance of documentation and testimony on LRH’s plagiarism from sources inside and outside of Dn and Scn. For example,
LRH biographies by Bent Corydon, Jon Atack, and Russell Miller
Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology by Jon Atack
Hubbard and the Occult by Jon Atack
Alan’s summaries of development of auditing and study tech on this message board:
John Galusha’s technical contributions as described by Mike Goldstein:
Thanks for posting this. It's information like this that really helps break down the illusion of Hubbard as "Source".
This whole thread is a very important thread.
The recognition of multiple sources is vital to unlock the different dynamics - as a being regains their own viewpoints (Sovereignty) - they progress up to recognizing other viewpoints - then granting beingness and value to those viewpoints (Omni-Sovereignty) - then being able to co-create with others without diminishing each other.
The killer of Scio is the crushing and making nothing of a staff member or followers viewpoints and super-imposing LRH or DM or whomevers viewpoint over the top of yours.
The reason people are stuck in Scio and places like the SP Hall is they have no viewpoints left of their own.
Even if you were to go in and save them - they would not want your help as they cannot align their conditioned viewpoints to yours.
The path out is fairly simple - it is the recovery of your own viewpoints - then helping others recover their own viewpoints.
Thus there can never be a dominant viewpoint - at best at the highest levels it can be a co-create - and lets face it the greatest love affairs are co-creations.
The first few pages of the 'Sole Source Myth' thread established - loosely - its template: primarily informational, with concentration on those parts of Scientology that are commonly presented to new Scientologists, and which could reasonably be considered "positive" in nature.
The "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.
An examination of sources for other aspects of Scientology can be found scattered throughout ESMB, and perhaps there should be other threads that consolidate information on "negatives" - such areas as Xenu http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=89707&postcount=1, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=79144&postcount=141, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=72944&postcount=3, Brainwashing
and other non-publicized http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpfsrpf.html, hidden http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=100417&postcount=47, denied http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=153723&postcount=12, or confidential parts http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/ic_conts.htm of the subject and operation of Scientology.
Could someone please tell me: is it or is it not true that LRH attended George Washington U and Princeton?
If so, was he just 'sampling' courses ('sitting in' as a visitor) or was he actually a full-time student at George Washington U and Princeton University? Did he graduate with legitimate degrees from George Washington U and Princeton?