The State of Clear

[Hatshepsut]

Thanks. I find it (the meter phenomena) rather interesting for a couple of reasons. I prefer to dissuade people from monkeying with this stuff but one day some adventurous soul will undoubtedly conduct an experiment or two which might cause some to reconsider certain fixed ideas. Maybe.

I'm lately inclined to look again at the idea that this area of the universe we live in is a compression of many universes. It is a compaction ...of things long forgotten; creations long gone and far removed from what we deal with today. I think the conquering universes game is old and is ever going on...even now. For instance, the 'invasion' of other cultures into our own home turfs (a dramatization?) could be regarded as invading universes___ that is, others' universes collectively perpetrating a new 'stance' from which to create 'reality' __collectively growing STRONGER than our old established laws of reality. I kinda look at whatever was reading on OT II as remnants of stuff deposited here, and which, one 'may' or 'may not' have been contaminated with depending on the path from which one entered.

Yesterday I was reminded of that old illustration in the History of Man book where it shows bunches of itty bitty circles representing when the 'theta line' commingled with the g.e. line and then it with the protoplasm line. This idea, whether myth or not, could be viewed as universes assimilating or taking on junk of others' older bric a brac. I mean we even categorize some things as junk DNA left over from ....duh....we have no clue.

I have entertained the idea even that the feeling of going 'release' or going clear might be had as a result of moving out and away from one of these layered comminglings and regaining one's own universe perspective. (at least that would be one major lie removed from the individual.)

 

[Veda]

This is untrue. Its part of the CC platens not OT 2.

Thought you knew better.

Re-read the materials and my posts on this thread.

P.S. I don't wish to debate this with you.

 

[Terril park]

Functionally speaking, there is no doubt that the organization that Hubbard set up intentionally confuses and misidentifies the WINS with the rest of the belief structure and paradigm that Hubbard created. The "feeling good stuff" gets "attached" to the subject of Hubbard, the man, the subject of Scientology, the goals of Scientology, and on and on. "..

With you there.

As I said on another post, without the "wins" the sinking ship known as Scientology could and would NEVER stay afloat.

The "wins" are often real, and I have no idea WHY the "tech" does what it does, but there is no doubt that whatever the reason, it is NOT because "Hubbard ws a great genius" whose "aim was to free Mankind". Scientology might help you to feel good, even real good at times, but it will NEVER bring you to "spiritual freedom". THAT is a hard thing to face for many overly-dedicated and overly-indoctrinated Scientology adherents. Scientology is an intricate web of deceit, with a few "really good wins" thrown in to keep it all going..

Well wins are a gradient to spiritual freedom. Whatever machiavelian things
Hubbard had going, he wrote the stuff that enabled such wins. Yes OT 2 is very weird. See Pab 12 for possible reasons it works.

Also, any experience is not the same as the reasons that led to the unique experience.

I was once really in love with a girl. THAT was "real to me". Then she cheated on me, a few times, still claimed to "love me", and caused me untold upset and worry. Was my experience of love "real" or not? It "existed", but how "real" was it? Such is the case for a great many "subjective" experiences. .

It was your universe and you are the ultimate expert there.

On a side note, with the now decades of experience I didn't have before, if important, I'd cheat on her. Its really reach and withdraw. But then I was never
upset if lovers were unfaithfull. Its their right to communicate with who they wish.
As is mine.

Such is the case with the "wins" of Scientology. They exist, and they are something, but I suspect they are NOT at all what they are purported to be and what they are explained as by Hubbard in the context of the Scientology paradigm.
.

I've been reading and posting scn wins for more than a decade. You can view the
FZ SS thread to see some of them. Mostly they are indicating truly excellent gains.
But very varied. Very individual. But often some common directions.

In COS, maybe half my wins were so so, mechanical comments of little import.
As was the auditing. They are not even up really for scn for dummies. Some were revelatory!

Part of growing up and maturing, and evolving, is learning NOT to base "truth" solely on the limited, biased, and flawed personal experiences of the "self". That is something one might learn from following a path similar to Buddhism. That is NOT something one will probably ever learn following ANY version of Scientology.

I personally like:-

"the limited, biased, and flawed personal experiences of the "self".

Its a starting point. Then one must look further.

 

[Veda]

PAB 12 to me seems to have relevence here. re OT 2&3.

Pab 12 is used as a red herring. A distraction. Have people do Pab 12 - as I recall, it has a practical section - if it's so wonderful.

Do you? No, you steer them in the direction of OT 2 and OT 3, which have never produced "OTs," and in some instances have produced people who are either physically or mentally ill or both.

Your own "case," per Scientology tech," is "stalled" as you have not progressed onto OT 4.

If you think the OT levels are so great, then prove it by doing your next level.

 

[Leon]

My point is that NONE of us know "why" it did what it did. ANY attempt to explain it is an "interpretation", either because I was "pre-conditioned for it", or because "the tech works as delineated by Hubbard".

Functionally speaking, there is no doubt that the organization that Hubbard set up intentionally confuses and misidentifies the WINS with the rest of the belief structure and paradigm that Hubbard created. The "feeling good stuff" gets "attached" to the subject of Hubbard, the man, the subject of Scientology, the goals of Scientology, and on and on. As I said on another post, without the "wins" the sinking ship known as Scientology could and would NEVER stay afloat.

The "wins" are often real, and I have no idea WHY the "tech" does what it does, but there is no doubt that whatever the reason, it is NOT because "Hubbard ws a great genius" whose "aim was to free Mankind". Scientology might help you to feel good, even real good at times, but it will NEVER bring you to "spiritual freedom". THAT is a hard thing to face for many overly-dedicated and overly-indoctrinated Scientology adherents. Scientology is an intricate web of deceit, with a few "really good wins" thrown in to keep it all going.

Also, any experience is not the same as the reasons that led to the unique experience.

I was once really in love with a girl. THAT was "real to me". Then she cheated on me, a few times, still claimed to "love me", and caused me untold upset and worry. Was my experience of love "real" or not? It "existed", but how "real" was it? Such is the case for a great many "subjective" experiences. Such is the case with the "wins" of Scientology. They exist, and they are something, but I suspect they are NOT at all what they are purported to be and what they are explained as by Hubbard in the context of the Scientology paradigm.

Part of growing up and maturing, and evolving, is learning NOT to base "truth" solely on the limited, biased, and flawed personal experiences of the "self". That is something one might learn from following a path similar to Buddhism. That is NOT something one will probably ever learn following ANY version of Scientology.

I agree with almost all of what you say. For myself though I draw a clear distinction between what Hubbard the person wrote and did for his own glorification, the actual subject of "knowing how to know" or "route to spritual freedom" (of which Scientology as presented by Hubbard is a small part), and the mish-mash of glop which Hubbard and the CofS call "Scientology". I have no difficulty in differentiating between these. Some other people do.

 

[Veda]

I agree with almost all of what you say. For myself though I draw a clear distinction between what Hubbard the person wrote and did for his own glorification, the actual subject of "knowing how to know" or "route to spritual freedom" (of which Scientology as presented by Hubbard is a small part), and the mish-mash of glop which Hubbard and the CofS call "Scientology". I have no difficulty in differentiating between these. Some other people do.

How long have you been a Scientologist, Leon?

And having differentiated so well, and having been on the route to spiritual freedom for so long, are you an Operating Thetan yet?

 

[lotus]

I like to read your discussions guys.
You sincerely try to get a deeper level of understanding - from a distance - beyond appearances.

Very helpfull to me.

 

[Dulloldfart]

This is untrue. Its part of the CC platens not OT 2.

Thought you knew better.

No it isn't. It's part of the CC Instruction Booklet.

Off to Cramming.

Paul

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

LOL, if you "made up" the reads on OT2 you probably either didn't really do it or didn't need to do it. Wait a minute... *need*?

Well, I really should not be talking about my case out of session, but as long as you (PT) are the only one reading this, I will tell you what happened on my Bridge.

I ran the grade chart to the top and then stopped doing Scientology. They assessed a GF 40 Expanded for resistive cases with the prefix "ON YOUR BRIDGE".

The only thing that read was...

"On your Bridge was there nothing wrong in the first place?" (LFBD)

I said: "Why yes!" (F/N COG VGI's)

The auditor snarled: "That's a false read!" and loudly crumpled up the worksheet.

I guess he didn't like my cognition that: "There is nothing wrong with being a human being."

 

[Hatshepsut]

Hey HelluvaHoax,

My biggest read on a repair list was on the question:

"Was it a mistake to audit you?"

ROFLMA0. I said "YES!!!!" Emphatically YES!

It seemed to me that I was a remote viewpoint of a bigger "ME". Seems ridiculous to have entertained such a notion now. Auditing itself, some of it bad, was weakening my ability to hold a position. I started to get this phobia that if my mind 'shell' were to become too thin that I could be vulnerable to being 'yanked' or unmocked as a being by god knows what ...
Protective machinery in the mind is a bear and nothing screws with it like bad auditing running E/Ses all over the map.

Of course I was denied my reading item at first ...

 

[DagwoodGum]

Re: The State of Clear takes Turd Polishing to an Art Form.

"Turd polishing" is an interesting choice of words when one considers that the thing being ostensibly "polished" in scientology is the Spiritual Self.
I guess it all depends on your considerations about Self.

Well I guess, but I was looking at that after each layer of shit you clean off in your auditing your nose is pushed deeper into more layers of shit, even crazy shit that isn't even real. All for the $cilon profiteers. And when one looked around in the grand theater of $SCN, one did see that we were in a toilet with a bunch of polished turds strutting amongst one another as proud peacocks, arrogantly boasting their deslusions of superiority and authority within the $cilon scam structure that begins with Elron himself and runs through the various layers of Rondroid asswipes as they are hemorrhoidaly arranged in $cilon administrative hierarchy, just waiting to be flushed...

 

[Panda Termint]

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced things in that way. It sounds like you had a rather shitty time of it.

I didn't. I was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people than those you describe above. Go figure, eh?

 

[DagwoodGum]

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced things in that way. It sounds like you had a rather shitty time of it.

I didn't. I was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people than those you describe above. Go figure, eh?

Sort of, though I think I was more prone to seeing the forest than a tree. It was a woods I didn't stay lost in for too many years. Fortunately I had enough close family in my ear telling me that it was mostly about money and that kind of opened my eyes though I vigorously argued against their perspective. They were right and I was wrong, I conceeded after a while. As I watched from afar as the years went by I saw the corrupt power structure flush so many of the people that I knew and though I never regarded them as "turds", I do find it an amusing reference now.

 

[Gadfly]

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced things in that way. It sounds like you had a rather shitty time of it.

I didn't. I was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people than those you describe above. Go figure, eh?

That is a great point. If you took 10 different sets of 10 people, and placed them each in a closed room with a book for a year, each group wold come up with different "meanings", and also ACT differenly based on the unique personalities of the 10 people in each group.

The "setting" of Scientology for each of us was different, because we were surrounded by DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Now, it is important to realize that the "human factor" was intentionally reduced and removed from the equation as Hubbard solidified management lines from the late 1970s forward. In other words, various freedoms to "interpret" and to function OUTSIDE the box of strict tight management disappeared.

As Hubbard "better designed" and implemented the upper and lower management lines, his aim was to ensure TOTAL CONTROL from the top on down. That "improvement" of control continued through the 1980s resulting in the very extreme "total control" that exists today.

Sadly Panda, TODAY, as things are set up in Scn management, the "version" of Scientology from org to org is MUCH MORE "unified" - in a BAD way. The chance of ending up in a "decent" and "fun" environment is much less lilkely. Regardless how kind, nice or fun the people may inherently be OUTSIDE of that tight conforming situation.

That is why some here occassionally mention the "wonderful early days of Scientology". Those days WERE "better", not because Hubbard was "nicer" or "saner", but because he had not yet managed to get HIS MANAGEMENT IDEAS enforced as heavily as he would have liked. The actions of destroying missions and orgs in the early 1980s, with mass suppressive person declares, was the beginning of Hubbard's plan and aim to bring about TIGHTER CONTROL. Within such a system the individual person is forced more into an exact mold to Hubbard's liking. As he discusses in the OEC volumes, it is important to get "individual decision points" OUT of the mix.

Thus, the "Scientologist". The RONBOT. The perfectly duplicating, and pefectly complying staff member or public who "wears their hat as Ron would". In other words, as management became more "streamlined" during the 1980s, Ron better made the orgs and the PEOPLE "in his image". THAT is why it so often came to be "not fun" (anymore).

The ONLY reason that it was fun in various "versions" of Scientology, back in the day, is because a great deal of Hubbard's policies and orders were NOT YET FULLY IMPLEMENTED how Hubbard envisioned and wanted.

Once the management system was in place, it mattered little whether Hubbard or Miscavige ran the show. Because for ANY system of Scientology, with such control, following exactly Hubbard's exact orders, the result could ONLY be "oppressive".

 

[DagwoodGum]

"oppressive"

Oppressive is difinitely the right word. Some people are compelled by their nature's to think for themselves and didn't find comfort wearing the straightjacket of being a conforming $cilon.

 

[Gadfly]

Oppressive is definitely the right word. Some people are compelled by their natures to think for themselves, and didn't find comfort wearing the straightjacket of being a conforming $cilon.

I sure never did!

By the way I rarely use the word "suppressive" because it is filled with Scio-relevance and significance. The idea is a poor model of what Hubbard pretends to explain. "Oppressive" always did it for me as the best term defining involvement with any Scientology organization. Or, "mind numbing", or "excessively restrictive", or "just plain stupid". :confused2:

Granted, it can be fun tearing apart Scientology within the framework of the IDEAS of Scientology itself (i.e. examing Ron through the lens of the suppressive person and anti-social person data).

 

[Leon]

How long have you been a Scientologist, Leon?

And having differentiated so well, and having been on the route to spiritual freedom for so long, are you an Operating Thetan yet?

Why look who's here! What brought you around, Veda? Something tweek your interest?

 

[Veda]

I'm sorry to hear that you experienced things in that way. It sounds like you had a rather shitty time of it.

I didn't. I was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people than those you describe above. Go figure, eh?

Why don't you just tell him, "I'm sorry Scientology didn't work for you."?

According to your account, you were a member of the Scientology organization for 34 years from 1974 - 2008. You missed out on the 1969 SP Declare of John McMaster and his rapid descent into non-person-hood; you missed out on the heyday of "Source," with people returning from the "Flagship" as - sometimes screaming - fanatics for "Standard Tech" (which kept changing practically every week); however, you, and those "very different people," were in Scientology for Quentin Hubbard's suicide and his rapid erasure from Scientology history; you, and those "very different people," were in Scientology during the inception of the RPF and the RPF's RPF in 1974, the discovery, a couple of years later, that taking LSD made someone into a "zombie" who, to sweat out the "LSD crystals," would need to run around in a rubber suit, and, a few years after that, for the sentencing of Mary Sue Hubbard to federal prison, and her subsequent Scientological non-person-hood erasure; you and those "very different people" were there for the looting of the Missions in 1982, and the mass declares that followed; you and the "very different people" were there for the "Finance Dictator," and for the release of the 1983 mass mailing, "The Story of a Squirrel," that denounced David Mayo as a "darling of the psychs," and, three years later, for the "LRH causatively discarded the body because it was an impediment to research" 1986 death event, and, a few years after that, for the banishment of "Ron's most trusted aide" and "first loyal officer," Pat Broeker, into quickly forgotten Scientological non-person vapor.

And the above paragraph could have been much longer, but I think the point has been made. You, and those "very different people," were there for a lot of crazy stuff, and you looked the other way, or managed somehow to put up with it. That's not necessarily a positive trait. And this is not a criticism, since almost anyone in Scientology (except Mark A. Baker, of course) did that too, but it's nothing to be smug about. It's not a "win."

You may now return to study.

 

[Veda]

Why look who's here! What brought you around, Veda? Something tweek your interest?

I just stopped by to invalidate your gains.

 

[crm1978]

Great post! Hypnoses is about the power of the mind to fully believe and accept as real subjective states of being It is very powerfull and in the hands of a psychopath like Hubbard very bad for you.Combine that with authoritarian social control like only Hubbard has the answer and you must accept follow and do exactly as he says or else Seems to me there are a lot of reasons why Scientology does not and can not bring about "Total freedom"For one someone can't gain freedom when they exist in a rigid and controlling system like Cos Second the numerous lies false claims etc that run through the whole structure and came from LRH himself prevent spiritual freedom.Thirdly any belief system is a reflection of the mind that created it if that mind was insane as Hubbard might have been that system will tend to be insane as well