Understanding valid antecedents of Scientology

[RogerB]

Most other religions have some sort of meditation, prayer. Would auditing fit into that practise?

Interesting point, Infinite.

I've not studied everything in the universe, but based on what I have delved into, I'd say that what sets $cn apart from the other religions was that it "introduced" the idea of specifics to which to either answer or address one's attention to.

That is, specific questions are asked to thus specifically direct ones attention as a process. In Buddhism, as an example, one would meditate as a rather more general action on a concept or on nothing more than simply control of awareness or presence.

It happens, based on what I've observed, that when the explicit question asked is a correct question targeting a correct area or item of a Being's existence, it can be a remarkably beneficial and workable process/procedure.

$cn got some questions or actions correct . . . but also got far too much wrong and it also generally screwed up its response and handling of client/PC progress. This apart from organizational abuses.

Rog

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Well, in truth, a great deal of FAITH must exist for any person who continues along with Scientology. One cannot continue with Scientology, as a card-carrying member of the organized Church, unless one BELIEVES a great MANY things that cannot be proven, seen, experienced or verified.

In the contex of being "faith-based", Scientology is VERY MUCH "like a religion". Complex cosmology. Belief in "OT abilities" that are unverified. Belief in a "path to salvation" that cannot be verified in any way. Etc.

I agree too that the "facade of religiosity that the CofS presents to the world" was contrived by Hubbard for legal and financial reasons. But, the "religiosity" factors used by the Church to manipulate the perception of them as a "valid religion" did NOT include the fact that they function VERY MUCH as a"faith-based ideology".

I agree with everything you have said.

But, there remains a curious "twilight" area that lies between RELIGION and FRAUD as regards "faith".

At one extreme is an individual who believes (FAITH) with all his heart and mind that his/her personal relationship with Jesus will bring him to Heaven.

At the other extreme is an unwitting victim of a Ponzi scheme who also believes (FAITH) with all his heart and mind that his/her investment is going to bring windfall riches.

Clearly, the fraud victim in the 2nd example has been deceived and it is not a religion.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

* The Ponzi investor is BUYING a commodity/service--an investment instrument. It is a commercial transaction with consumer protections and securities laws governing what the business can represent or sell.

* A religion does not charge money for believing/practicing it. It is not selling a commodity or service.​

In Scientology, the commodity is no different than that which is sold by psychologists/psychiatrists--therapy for an intended or implied benefit.

However, Scientology cleverly has STRADDLED both business and religion, for it's own self-preservation.

It demands FAITH while claiming that it is a science and no FAITH is necessary.

It demands PAYMENT while claiming that MEST is a trap.

The list of hypocritically disingenuous things that Scientology says is vast. They will lie with abandon and VGIs. They will create absurd shore stories. They will spin ridiculous acceptable truths. It was dreamed up by a chronic liar and it has embedded in it sufficient lies to cost an individual their entire life and savings. There is no limit to Scientology's willingness to lie. To keep this post under 75,000,000 words let's leave it at this:

SCIENTOLOGY WILL SAY ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING!

Kinda like Grade 0
But evil.
​

 

[Gadfly]

I agree with everything you have said.

But, there remains a curious "twilight" area that lies between RELIGION and FRAUD as regards "faith".

At one extreme is an individual who believes (FAITH) with all his heart and mind that his/her personal relationship with Jesus will bring him to Heaven.

At the other extreme is an unwitting victim of a Ponzi scheme who also believes (FAITH) with all his heart and mind that his/her investment is going to bring windfall riches.

Clearly, the fraud victim in the 2nd example has been deceived and it is not a religion.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

* The Ponzi investor is BUYING a commodity/service--an investment instrument. It is a commercial transaction with consumer protections and securities laws governing what the business can represent or sell.

* A religion does not charge money for believing/practicing it. It is not selling a commodity or service.​

In Scientology, the commodity is no different than that which is sold by psychologists/psychiatrists--therapy for an intended or implied benefit.

However, Scientology cleverly has STRADDLED both business and religion, for it's own self-preservation.

It demands FAITH while claiming that it is a science and no FAITH is necessary.

It demands PAYMENT while claiming that MEST is a trap.

The list of hypocritically disingenuous things that Scientology says is vast. They will lie with abandon and VGIs. They will create absurd shore stories. They will spin ridiculous acceptable truths. It was dreamed up by a chronic liar and it has embedded in it sufficient lies to cost an individual their entire life and savings. There is no limit to Scientology's willingness to lie. To keep this post under 75,000,000 words let's leave it at this:

SCIENTOLOGY WILL SAY ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING!

Kinda like Grade 0
But evil.
​

So true.

And also, there is no shortage of scammers in this world who do take advantage of people's trust and manipulate their "faith" to their personal benefit.

Look at the television evangelists. That is ALL based on faith, and some of them rake in big bucks. It all gets very tricky because where does one set the line, between "valid use of faith" and "scammers"? I would venture to guess that a majority of the "use of faith" in groups involves some form of manipulation and deception, although at times it may be innocently unintentional (meaning the scammer BELIEVES just as do the deceived). Somehow people tend to NOT blame the "scammer" who also believes the nonsense him or herself, or at least not as much.

Even various ponzi schemes, that have successfully bilked people out of many dollars, at the core, depend on the "faith" that "we will make lots of money".

Also, just because "faith", and the deceitful manipulative use of that faith, often involves religion, does not make it any the less toxic than non-religious varieties.

Tha Catholic Church has operated for many centuries, taking in HUGE amounts of money, entirely on the use of "faith". Cripes, they used to sell "indulgences" back in the good 'ole days. As it exists, to me, the Catholic Church is a scam. It has little to do with any legitimate "spiritual growth" or "salvation".

Faith is an interesting thing, because for almost ANYTHING to come about, a person must take the attitude that it can and will - if I take certain actions and measures. The guy who starts a business, in a highly competetive field, has no idea whether it will succeed or not, and he has NO "evidence" that it will, but he moves forward on "faith". I would say that most marriages begin more on "faith" that all will turn out well, than upon anything else.

In the realm of magick and New Age practices, one MUST learn to control and develop ones own "faith", as a way to bring about desired changes in the world around him or her. One actually learns to turn on and off "faith", at will. One learns to assume a state of "total belief". Most people "believe" - because to him or her "it is true". Since, as I see it, ALL "certainty" (belief) is of the same nature as ANY other "thing" in this universe that undergoes a cycle of action, and thus comes and goes, ALL "belief" is transistory. Mental things are also born, and die, like anything else. As with many things, if you are stuck "in it", it can effect you, and if you are "above it", well, how it affects you is quite different. The same with this little understood aspect of the human psyche - faith, especially when operating in conjunction with the human imagination.

The problem with "faith", as with so many things, is that far too often it is USED AGAINST YOU, without your knowledge of how it operates and without your conscious participation, and some manipulative asswipe benefits from YOUR firm belief. As I see it, in some regards, "faith" is an "ability or function of the mind" that involves a strange but real connection to the universe around you. It is little understood. "Believing in things unseen" can, in some cases, act to help bring them about (whether you take action along those lines or not). Though, "faith" as commonly practiced too often involves some trickster benefiting on YOUR belief in things unseen. And, for the most part, for most people, "faith" is NOT at all any sort of disciplined or evolved "skill". Most people do NOT consciously "create faith", they naturally, quite unconsciously, attach "faith" to various events and aspects of the external world.

I think that Hubbard knew exactly what he was doing when he put together his subject of Scientology in a way that encourages and creates FAITH in the participant, and without the participant having the slightest idea that he or she is doing so. It is difficult to find ANY Scientologist who can admit on ANY level that he or she practices "with faith". They are unable to notice that their intense agreement with many "unverifiable things", assuming them to exist as actualities, involves GREAT amounts of "faith".

 

[guanoloco]

I wonder how altruism is explained by Hubbard's conjecture that survival is the SOLE motivation in an individual's actions.

OK, this is a no BS funny story...you can probably find it somewhere in cyber land.

It was on a thread or a Yahoo answer type of thing but somebody asked about where's the altruism in Scientology.

A Scientologists pipes back that there is no "all truism"...that what is true for you is what is considered true and until you experience "truth" it isn't "true" blah, blah, blah.

It was effing hilarious on multiple accounts:

1) the Scientologist, master of the Mis-U and study tech, has a crashing M/U on the thread!

2) it was obvious in all his "spiritual" studies of Scientology that he had never, ever run across the word altruism!

What a condemnation of the whole enchilada...

 

[Leon]

Well, in truth, a great deal of FAITH must exist for any person who continues along with Scientology. One cannot continue with Scientology, as a card-carrying member of the organized Church, unless one BELIEVES a great MANY things that cannot be proven, seen, experienced or verified.

In the contex of being "faith-based", Scientology is VERY MUCH "like a religion". Complex cosmology. Belief in "OT abilities" that are unverified. Belief in a "path to salvation" that cannot be verified in any way. Etc.

I agree too that the "facade of religiosity that the CofS presents to the world" was contrived by Hubbard for legal and financial reasons. But, the "religiosity" factors used by the Church to manipulate the perception of them as a "valid religion" did NOT include the fact that they function VERY MUCH as a"faith-based ideology".

You can certainly make it into a faith based church if you want to, and the current CofS management certainly does want you to. But you don't need to and you shouldn't. Sprinkled though LRH's earlier works are numerous exhortations to not do so but rather test things out for yourself. "If it's not true for you then it's not true".

 

[Leon]

Veda, I stated that I knew of no antecedent for that part of Hubbard's writings. You said he lifted it from Croweley. Now the onus is on you to show where and what that is.

I truly do not mind being wrong about this. I've been wriong on this board many times already and have no button on it at all. But the onus is with you to show it. Your claim that it is all "over there" in Crowley's materials and that I should go and study it all is pure prevarication intended to disperse my attention and you know it.

Now prove me wrong by posting the exact reference for this as a valid antecedent of Hubbard's As-isness stuff. Or otherwise piss off.

 

[Veda]

Sound familiar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z23tl6l_AB8&feature=player_embedded


Alan's 'Opening Pandora's Box', Part One:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=64&postcount=1

Part Two:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=67&postcount=2

Part Three:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=68&postcount=3

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.

The 'Sole Source Myth' thread. Somewhat derailed after page 4 (I'm pretty sure that the exploitation of the process of abreaction is discussed or at least mentioned in this thread. If not, it should be added):

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?510-The-Sole-Source-Myth

Some more background:

The 'Equinox', early 1900s -

"The method of Science. The aim of religion":

http://www.the-equinox.org/vol1/images/eqcover.gif

Some early processes, circa 1911:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=215566&postcount=164

http://www.the-equinox.org/vol1/no10/eqi10004.html

'On the union of psychotherapy and spiritual exploration', 1937:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=18114

Leon is very impressed with Hubbard's 'Four Conditons of Existence', yet that's a rewording of the Kabbalistic Tetragrammaton. (See 'Sole Source Myth' thread).

Hubbard's 'The Factors' is a re-write of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', complete with Hubbard's addition of "Affinity, Reality, Communication" in the same place as Crowley had inserted the yogic "Bliss, Knowledge, Being."

And Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' was, itself, a re-write of older Kabbalistic (and other) ideas, with Crowley's addition of a bit of Yogic teaching.

Hubbard removed the earlier part of Crowley's Naples Arrangement which posits a primordial 0+ and 0- (boy and girl "zero") which somehow generate a kind of pre-cosmic tension that begins the creation of (a) (the) universe.

However, Hubbard kept Crowley's insertion of "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" which became "Affinity, Reality, Communication."

Bliss, Knowledge, Being is inserted in the same place that Hubbard later added "Affinity (Bliss), Reality (Knowledge), Communication (Being)" to his 'The Factors'.

From Crowley's 'Book of Thoth':

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss [or Bliss, Knowledge, being] constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself..." : http://www.etarot.info/naples-arrangement

One interesting detail in the development of Scientology is Hubbard's contact with OTO member, student of Aleister Crowley and the Occult, chemist and (literally) rocket scientist, Jack Parsons, and the extent to which Hubbard "picked Parsons' brains" is impossible to determine. As a side note, I'll add that Parsons wrote to his former girlfriend, Sara, after she had divorced Hubbard, and according to a reliable source that I cannot reveal [sorry, but I cannot], Parsons wrote that Hubbard had visited him, and stayed with him for a time, after Hubbard's return from Havana, Cuba in 1951. It was immediately after that period that Scientology burst upon the scene, with a re-writing and a re-working of ideas earlier expressed by Crowley.

Hubbard also borrowed from Korzybski's writings, and 2nd ("erased") wife Sara (1946 -1951) would sometimes read to him from Korzybski's writings.

The notion of an "ARC break" and remedies for "ARC breaks" is a spin-off of Korzybski's notions on resolving upsets.

However, Hubbard also used "ARC" manipulatively.

And ARC, in Scientology, is subordinate to "KRC," with ARC being the lower triangle of the "S with the double triangle" Scientology symbol, which is a re-expression of Crowley's "Love is the law, love under will."

And there are many more correspondences with earlier subjects.

I've no issue with Hubbard having had flashes of brilliance and innovation - including innovation of a positive nature. My problem is with what he did with the "total package" that he molded into Scientology, and with his hidden agenda. A hidden agenda that corrupts the entire subject, and that corruption crawls inside the heads of Scientologists and corrupts them also.

From L. Ron Hubbard's 'Data Series 1', 26 April 1970:

"As Alfred Korzybski studied under psychiatry and amongst the insane (his mentor was William Alanson White at Saint Elizabeth Insane Asylum in Wash. D.C.) one can regard him mainly as the father of confusion."

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I wouldn't think so because auditing for the most part is two people talking. I can't really say regarding solo auditing but there's still commands and something being "done".

2 terminal universe and all that. ...

It could better be described as 'one person talking, and another person keeping him talking'. As hubbard once commented the most common auditing error is the auditor who talks too much. There is much truth to that.

Auditing is a form of introspection where a person assists an individual with an expressed interest in sorting out his own problems & considerations by providing a 'safe person' with whom to discuss the matter and by helping to keep the individual focused on the subject at hand. The tools of auditing are intended to facilitate that process. Other uses are misuses.

A useful analogy might be exploring an unknown cave while using a tether and having someone outside the cave monitoring the tether and checking on the condition of the explorer as he proceeds, as opposed to simply going into the cave by one's self and proceeding with out any external assistance whatsoever. The work is done by the pc, the auditor's role is to prevent him from getting into an unresolved condition of confusion and to keep him successfully on track.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Almost none. ...

I don't agree at all, Leon, although I take your point whereas someone unfamiliar with the subject might not.

What similarities exist depend very much on what aspects of the subject you examine. In general scientology practices are unique in that they are not typically a shared component with other religious traditions, especially those monotheistic traditions familiar to to the west. There are few parallels between scientology and monotheistic traditions beyond the formal trappings of the church, and these are not fundamental to the subject of scientology. But even among monotheistic traditions there have been individuals who advocated personal spiritual practices with similarities to some of the practices of scientology.

On the other hand I find a lot of similarities between scientology & buddhism. Some of the processes used and practices of scientology have parallels or precursors in Buddhism. Notable among these are some of the objective processes, but many of the ideas are also in keeping with Buddhist doctrines.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... That is, specific questions are asked to thus specifically direct ones attention as a process. In Buddhism, as an example, one would meditate as a rather more general action on a concept or on nothing more than simply control of awareness or presence. ...

Only partially true, Rog. That which you describe is similar to a 'basic state' of meditation in Buddhism. When a student is considered sufficiently accomplished by his mentor he is often given a more specific exercise upon which to conduct his meditation.

The way I see it scientology & similar practices rely on two person auditing using specific processes as specified by a c/s to help a person get himself to a point of personal stability in his solo auditing. From that point on the emphasis shifts to solo processing by the individual also under the direction of a c/s also using specific processes.

In a sense in the traditional eastern schools of meditation rely on 'solo processing' exclusively, albeit under the direction of a teacher or guru. Initial processes tend towards the general type of meditation which you describe so as to help the student develop to a point where he can handle more specific types of processes on his own. The guru serves much in the same fashion as a 'c/s', supervising the practices & progress of his various students and (ideally) assigning each his practice based on his individual abilities & progress.

General meditation remains a 'standard practice' for all practitioners, whether student or instructor. It is deemed to be good 'basic training' whatever one's individual level of accomplishment. But only the more advanced students are encouraged to pursue meditations on a specific process, and then only in accordance with the supervisory agreement of their more advanced instructors.

This varies to differing degrees among the different schools of Buddhism, but similar practices are not uncommon among the Mahayana traditions. They are also found in a variety of other Vedic based practices.


Mark A. Baker

 

[guanoloco]

It could better be described as 'one person talking, and another person keeping him talking'. As hubbard once commented the most common auditing error is the auditor who talks too much. There is much truth to that.

Auditing is a form of introspection where a person assists an individual with an expressed interest in sorting out his own problems & considerations by providing a 'safe person' with whom to discuss the matter and by helping to keep the individual focused on the subject at hand. The tools of auditing are intended to facilitate that process. Other uses are misuses.

A useful analogy might be exploring an unknown cave while using a tether and having someone outside the cave monitoring the tether and checking on the condition of the explorer as he proceeds, as opposed to simply going into the cave by one's self and proceeding with out any external assistance whatsoever. The work is done by the pc, the auditor's role is to prevent him from getting into an unresolved condition of confusion and to keep him successfully on track.


Mark A. Baker

You're right, Mark. There's actually a bunch of styles and muzzled is one.

However, just looking back at the sessions I got the most out of they were extremely informal with both me and the auditor laughing our asses off and, truthfully, if an outsider could have viewed it through a window minus the meter and cans it would've looked like a very engaging conversation.

Don't you always have more fun at the hoedowns as opposed to the proper etiquette gala balls?

 

[guanoloco]

Fair nuff. Just wondering what similarities there might be between Scientology and other religions??

Little to none that I'm aware of.

The truth is is that anyone I knew did not think of Scn as a religion at all. That card was only played for PR purposes to garner sympathy or appear like a victim to society/media for some perceived benefit or gain.

Nobody that I knew of in Scn joined a "religion" or were there for religious purposes.

Everyone I knew considered a religion to be ritualistic and impractical mumbo-jumbo.

Scientology is supposed to be more exact than psychology. Thee and me can go out and give an exact same list of symptoms each time to various different psychologists and psychiatrists and get a completely different diagnosis/prognosis each time. Whereas the Bridge universally works 100% of the time and is gradiently laid out for everyone no matter race, gender, age, economic status, IQ, education level, political affiliation, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Scientologists see it as very exact procedures that work 100% of the time when done properly no matter the state of the PC as long as the process wasn't too steep of a gradient or too low of a process to "bite" on the PC's case. It even has a quality division to repair the condition when it isn't applied properly and all that.

I've noticed people asking why people get caught up in Scn when so many other religions have more to offer - answer is: nobody joined a "religion".

Religion(s) are case dramatizations and aberration, period. They are off-shoots of hypnotically asleep masses milling around inside us after trillions of years of amnesia and pain blasted into us from implants and all that. Stuff like comm lag defines sanity or is a sanity index (whatever the reference is) and tons of other Scn stuff pounds it into your head that the world is a bunch of spiritual zombies all compressed together so messed up it thinks it's MEST (bodies) and it thinks it's one person.

In addition, in Scientology Hubbard supposedly isolated the thetan (life force/soul) of a person completely on its own and studied it like a specimen under glass. He discovered its exact properties and states of existence.

Oppose that with psychology/psychiatry where the field is so riddled with theories and such - who is right/wrong? Nobody that I know of has ever done what Hubbard claimed he did and to some degree I believe "he" did do just that - hence, any workability in Scientology (and there is tons of that).

However, when I say "he" it could just be that he was the catalyst and it was others around him doing that research. Workability we can PM about if you want.

At any rate, however pseudo Scientology is this is the way every single Scientologist I knew, especially if they trained, viewed it and that is as a science with exact procedures and axioms and exact expected results - which did occur often.

God and the ultimate experience were to be figured out AFTER a person had "no case". Until then anything was to be viewed as suspect and a dramatization.

This is reinforced with Scientologists when they go into session and discover many things of their daily lives are "reactive" or "dramatizations" - in short, NOT analytical (remember the axiom that all thought follows an action) and, all along, they thought they were consciously deciding these things but in "truth" they were justifying these actions AFTER the fact, yadda, yadda, yadda.

This is another and, perhaps, THE biggest trap factor of Scientology is that you could never actually trust what you thought or did - so many witnessed or experienced a win subjectively where they were dramatizing or reactive some facet of life that they thought they had analytically decided on their own determinism and from then on how could you trust yourself? Better to just stick to what the tech says and then the old Ronnie sucker punch gets ya'.

That being said, I personally believe that there may be many valid things to Scientology and I applaud the endeavor to isolate and study the properties of any life force if such a thing exists. Too bad that this wasn't spearheaded by a personality of honesty and integrity. Now it makes the whole subject way beyond suspect and may actually have caused more harm to the idea of studying this facet of man - blah, blah, blah, my two cents.

Great question, BTW. Really made me put this down for the first time ever.

Once again - not an endorsement to "tech", LRH or anything at all.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You're right, Mark. There's actually a bunch of styles and muzzled is one.

However, just looking back at the sessions I got the most out of they were extremely informal with both me and the auditor laughing our asses off and, truthfully, if an outsider could have viewed it through a window minus the meter and cans it would've looked like a very engaging conversation.

Don't you always have more fun at the hoedowns as opposed to the proper etiquette gala balls?

Yes, by all means laugh and otherwise express emotion according to the situation. It's all a part of actually understanding what the pc is experiencing and sharing it with him. Still, it works best when the pc does most of the talking and the auditor listens attentively.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Following the pattern of the devious 'Scientological Onion', the definition of "auditing' changes as one travels further down into the 'Onion', just as the definition of 'ethics' changes, and the definition of other words also.

Bait and switch.

Beyond the introductory levels, there is another presence in an auditing session, L. Ron Hubbard, and the amount of "Hubbard Guidance" increases as one enters onto the confidential part of the "Bridge Grade Chart."

Understandably, this is something that Scientology PR people prefer not to mention when describing (with the pre-switch definition) the subject of "auditing."

 

[Leon]

Well I had the great pleasure of following up on the first link of Veda's lengthy referenced work on page 35, and going over the old Pandora's Box thread again, this time in the hope of finding some antecedent origin for As-is-ness etc. Did I find one? No I didn't. Did I find anything remotely relevant to an antecedent for As-is-ness? No, not that either.

The prevarication continues.

 

[Veda]

Post number 355:

Well I had the great pleasure of following up on the first link of Veda's lengthy referenced work on page 35, and going over the old Pandora's Box thread again, this time in the hope of finding some antecedent origin for As-is-ness etc. Did I find one? No I didn't. Did I find anything remotely relevant to an antecedent for As-is-ness? No, not that either.

The prevarication continues.

The Pandora's Box thread addresses other antecedents, not the 'Four Conditions of Existence'.

Post number 16:

Leon is very impressed with Hubbard's 'Four Conditions of Existence', yet that's a rewording of the Kabbalistic Tetragrammaton. (See 'Sole Source Myth' thread).

-snip-

Above is the statement that has so discombobulated Leon.

Leon, you tell me, in your own words, what is the "Four Conditions of Existence?"

This is not a challenge, or a test, or a spot check with a "flunk" for comm lag. Just think about it - preferably outside the Scientology box, if that's possible.

At least _try_.

Gaze upon the two illustrations linked below. Note the correspondences with the 'Four Conditions of Existence'. I assume that you can spot the Tetragrammaton on the first link's illustration of the Kabbalistic 'Tree of Life'.

http://www.sefarim.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/the-kabbalistic-tree-of-life.jpg

The second link shows correspondences of ancient Chinese philosophy with the 'Tree':

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__d48GnwHn...PfIBTk/s320/Sephirot+and+I+Ching+Trigrams.JPG

However, in the event that you can't get out of the Scientology box, please read the statement below, un-knot your panties and have some cookies and milk, and please try to relax. :

Out of the dozens of antecedents, and the many antecedents derived from Crowley's expression of things Kabbalistic, you find _one_ item that you don't see. That becomes IT.

I give you more information and references and tell you that, in this case, you might not see it until you spend some time studying, but you're already a self-professed expert on Crowley , and refuse to look any further, and most definitely refuse to think any further.

Why this is supposed to my concern, I don't know.

It's not my problem Leon, I am perfectly happy with you disagreeing about _one_ of the many Crowley/Kabbalistic antecedents of Scientology.

 

[Leon]

Post number 355:


Out of the dozens of antecedents, and the many antecedents derived from Crowley's expression of things Kabbalistic, you find _one_ item that you don't see. That becomes IT.

I give you more information and references and tell you that, in this case, you might not see it until you spend some time studying, but you're already a self-professed expert on Crowley , and refuse to look any further, and most definitely refuse to think any further.

Why this is supposed to my concern, I don't know.

It's not my problem Leon, I am perfectly happy with you disagreeing about _one_ of the many Crowley/Kabbalistic antecedents of Scientology.

I'll go through the other links you gave when I have time - perhaps later today. But for the moment the above ^^ quote.

Out of all the random links and alledged antecedents you posted I just took one and said Let's just skip the others for now and focus on just this one, and now back it up with some evidence of there being some substantial sort of an antecedent. And you promptly go and screw the pooch on it.

I could have taken propably any other - how about the Emotional Tone Scale? Sure there have been scales before, no doubt about it, but has anyone done it on human emotions? Or how about the ARC Triangle - where when you lift or lower one corner the other two get dragged along with it? Has that been written before? Or even as simple a thing as the eight dynamics - someone referred to Hobbes writing about other areas in life, and I myself when a schoolboy was taught to care for family and grops and be loyal to the country and look after nature and so on. But these are all a LONG way off from being the eight dynamics as a description of theta's decline (Ooops, you're a meathead and don't "believe" in spirit. Too bad) . . . theta's decline from godlike creator of the universe and follows the stages of life down to unit humanoid? There's a hell of a lot more to them than just areas to care for in life.

Now I'm not going to push you for references to any of these. I will let it rest. But I would like to see you follow through on the just "one" that I asked you to put up on. That's not too much to ask is it?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I'll go through the other links you gave when I have time - perhaps later today. But for the moment the above ^^ quote.

Out of all the random links and alledged antecedents you posted I just took one and said Let's just skip the others for now and focus on just this one, and now back it up with some evidence of there being some substantial sort of an antecedent. And you promptly go and screw the pooch on it.

I could have taken propably any other - how about the Emotional Tone Scale? Sure there have been scales before, no doubt about it, but has anyone done it on human emotions? Or how about the ARC Triangle - where when you lift or lower one corner the other two get dragged along with it? Has that been written before? Or even as simple a thing as the eight dynamics - someone referred to Hobbes writing about other areas in life, and I myself when a schoolboy was taught to care for family and grops and be loyal to the country and look after nature and so on. But these are all a LONG way off from being the eight dynamics as a description of theta's decline (Ooops, you're a meathead and don't "believe" in spirit. Too bad) . . . theta's decline from godlike creator of the universe and follows the stages of life down to unit humanoid? There's a hell of a lot more to them than just areas to care for in life.

Now I'm not going to push you for references to any of these. I will let it rest. But I would like to see you follow through on the just "one" that I asked you to put up on. That's not too much to ask is it?

Really?

A 2 second search on Google reveals countless numbers of LISTS of human emotions that have a multitude of emotions that Hubbard did not include in his "expanded tone scale".

Here is an example:

Acceptance
Affection
Aggression
Ambivalence
Apathy
Anxiety
Boredom
Compassion
Confusion
Contempt
Depression
Doubt
Ecstasy
Empathy
Envy
Embarrassment
Euphoria
Forgiveness
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Homesickness
Hunger
Hysteria
Interest
Loneliness
Love
Paranoia
Pity
Pleasure
Pride
Rage
Regret
Remorse
Shame
Suffering
Sympathy​

Another example:

Adequate
Awe
Assured
Able
Capable
Certain
Charmed
Cheerful
Comfortable
Compassion
Courageous
Confidence
Determined
Delighted
Eager
Energetic
Enthusiastic
Excited
Exhilarated
Expectant
Elation
Empathy
Excellent
Fascinated
Glad
Grateful
Glorious
Glamorous
Graceful
Happy
Hopeful
Inspired
Interested
Joyful
Magnificent
Lively
Love
Pleasure
Playfulness
Peaceful
Pleasant
Powerful
Pride
Positive
Relaxed
Relieved
Satisfied
Surprised
Sympathy
Stable
Sublime
Superior
Thrilled​

Another example:

Affection
Anger
Angst
Annoyance
Anxiety
Apathy
Aroused
Awe
Contempt
Curiosity
Boredom
Depression
Desire
Despair
Disappointment
Disgust
Dread
Ecstasy
Embarrassment
Empathy
Envy
Euphoria
Fear
Fretful
Frustration
Gratitude
Grief
Guilt
Happiness
Hatred
Hope
Horror
Hostility
Hysteria
Indifference
Interest
Jealousy
Loathing
Loneliness
Love
Lust
Misery
Pity
Pride
Rage
Regret
Remorse
Sadness
Satisfied
Shame
Shock
Shyness
Sober
Sorrow
Suffering
Surprise
Wonder
Worry
​

And what about hundreds of others? Such as...

Humble
Awed
Inspired
Kindness
Grace
Tolerance
Creativity
Courage
Simplicity
Wonder
Humor​

Yeah, what about HUMOR?!

Ooops, I forgot, Ron has a policy against joking.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

(Ooops, you're a meathead and don't "believe" in spirit. Too bad)

-snip-

That you would write that speaks of how out of touch you are regarding what I "believe."

Wow.

Good luck with your Scientology identity.

 

[uniquemand]

That you would write that speaks of how out of touch you are regarding what I "believe."

Wow.

Good luck with your Scientology identity.

I believe in spirit. I think it's a property of matter.