Where is the damn treasure?

Or that living humans can 'remember' *other* people's past lives. Certainly no more absurd than that it's *yours*.

Zinj

I have a hard enough time remembering where I put the TV remote control.

But there is nothing funnier to watch than an OT who can't find his/her car keys.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
The more important question is why they, the Scientologists, didn't recall the anti-gravity machines of the past?

Or more practically, because these two particular Scientologists may never have lived in an anti-gravity machine using past civilization, why didn't they post something on a Scientology message list, discussion board, etc., soliciting help from those Scientologists who had lived in anti-gravity machine using past civilizations? Surely, some Scientologist had. Or if anti-gravity machines are, and always have been, impossible, why didn't these Scientologists solicit their fellow Scientologists regarding their memories of past life space propulsion technology?

I mean, why place the sole buden on the NASA scientists? What if the NASA scientists' past lives had all been spent as cavemen or something?

Seriously, why isn't the COS mining the past life memories of its adherents for advanced tech? It could be all powerful! It could have the one ring to rule them all! (Um, or something.)

Don't you know that in the between-lives area they scrunch up your track so thoroughly that you can't remember all the useful scientific things. Nor can you remember where you left treasure or where you stored your spare flying saucer. That scientologists can not recall past life memories of anything useful is not a failure of scientology - it is confirmation of what LRH told us about the between-lives area and vindicates him as a brave explorer of the mind.
 

ChronicEnturbulator

Patron with Honors
Xenu knows, I shouldn't do this. I shouldn't hijack and divert my own thread. But... can't... resist.

Actually, it's a fun and occasionaly rewarding hobby, that I indulge in from time to time...

I already told the story of the woman who stopped performing oral sex on her husband because Ron made disparaging remarks about the practice in one of the "Earth" books.

THIS IS WHY.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
Actually I have some recall of someone in Scotland, on HAPI lines digging up some ancient treasure having remembered where he left it. It got into the local press.

Outside Scientolurgy amongst Budhists and Hindu families its not unusual to have kids remember things from previous lives, and theres well documented evidence of instances. Yes kids in Thibet do sometimes know things they shouldnt about Budhist scriptures.

I personnaly have always believed myself to be a spirit and not a walking vegitable. Ron did nothing to change my opinion there. Not quite so sure, now.

I do recall a conversation when I was about 4 about the grave stone I had last.

If you want evidence of past lives dont bother looking in Scn case studies, look at Indian and Japanese newspapers. Dont forget that Wrong didnt invent past lives, he just tried to make it technical.

I must admit I mostly talked utter bollocks in session, most of my recall there was invented by a creative immagination, believing I was recalling the past, sometimes I did feel that I contacted something from before, but mostly I recalled nothing I didnt already know. I have never suddenly come out of session speaking Ancient Greek. That's not what you were doing in session, just continuosly moving through incidents to a point half an hour later. I really wanted to stop and look at the pictures, but the bloody auditor wanted to get to EP.

Mostly these days I see it as the same as dreams, you dream bullshit, you may never have swum through a flooded fish shop, with fish hanging from the ceiling, or have your dead father fall asleep while he was driving so that you had to steer the car from the back seat, it doesnt mean that these are not trully frightening dreams. I think the pictures in dianetics are much the same, pictures from the same mind that dreams after all. Metaphores perhaps, but Ive had bucket loads of emotion connected to incidents that I dont believe are or ever were wholetrack recollections.

La La
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
DEFINITIVE PROOF!!!

I very successfully contacted a past life and have perfect recall of the exact address I lived at, who my parents and friends were... and even the spot I buried a pet hamster in my back yard.

I remember feeling free and happy as a young boy.

Then something happened to completely obliterate my reality and I forgot all about it.

Oh yeah, that "past life" was me before I got into Scientology. The thing that obliterated my reality was Scientology.

Happily, I was able to hit the RESUME button and that earlier happy, free life now continues!

I now stand and salute the Commodore's photograph. "Mission Accomplished, sir! I am free!"
 

NonScio

Patron Meritorious
If it helps any, TAJ, I knew an ex-John Wilkes Booth, and a couple of George Pattons. But one of the best was a chickie Oat Tea I was auditing who had been Xenu's daughter! ... and it was "real" to her and "real" to me at the time.

So without any evidence at all, just these meager experiences, we can make a super-valid scientific kornklushun: These folks are hallucinatory.

Jeez, that Xenu, what a cad! He sent his OWN DAUGHTER to
Earth along with all those other billions? Did she get the full
Glycol/Alchohol treatment? Dumped in the volcano? H Bomb
and electronic ribbon and all that? BTW, what was her opinion
of the DC8 space plane?

Speaking Xenu's DC8s...isn't that rock solid, slam dunk proof of
recall of past life tech? After all didn't McDonald Douglas
engineers "recall" the DC8 back in the 50's? Gosh what a
bunch of party pooper skeptics around here! Repeat this
line 500 times: "Ron said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Jeez, that Xenu, what a cad! He sent his OWN DAUGHTER to
Earth along with all those other billions? Did she get the full
Glycol/Alchohol treatment? Dumped in the volcano? H Bomb
and electronic ribbon and all that? BTW, what was her opinion
of the DC8 space plane?

Speaking Xenu's DC8s...isn't that rock solid, slam dunk proof of
recall of past life tech? After all didn't McDonald Douglas
engineers "recall" the DC8 back in the 50's? Gosh what a
bunch of party pooper skeptics around here! Repeat this
line 500 times: "Ron said it, I believe it, that settles it!"


Does anybody know if there is an expiration date on the DC-8 FREQUENT FLIER MILES that all my BT's left on account before blowing?

I figure I got rid of 10,000 BT's and each one had that trip to Teegeack which was appx. 25,000 light years.

So I figure I must have about 250,000,000 light years worth of frequent flier miles I could use...or possibly list for sale on btBay.
 
Or when they eventually find their car keys, and claim that as a demonstration of their OT powers. Awesome.

Actually that would be one of the more impressive demonstrations of OT powers, usually they are along the lines of finding something which wasn't even lost, like a parking space in an empty parking lot.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Which leads us to the opening question: Where is the damn treasure? The artifacts? The new insights or leads regarding history? The new tech?

New tech? Like some mental tech that anyone could use after a few minutes' instruction to pretty much discharge almost anything at all that was bugging them, short term or long term, no special equipment needed?

Hmmm. . . .

Paul
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
In my opinion, the Church of Scientology undermines any beliefs in past lives or the value of knowledge itself. Largely because of the points you have made here, but also becasue I have met 3 Rommels, 2 Mansteins, 2 Von Rundsted's, 4 Thomas Jefferson's, 2 Van Gogh's, 3 Mozarts, 5 (count 'em-- 5) Simon Bolivar's, and 3 Beethovens.

Actually, Hubbard explained that phenomenon quite well.
 
In my opinion, the Church of Scientology undermines any beliefs in past lives or the value of knowledge itself. Largely because of the points you have made here, but also becasue I have met 3 Rommels, 2 Mansteins, 2 Von Rundsted's, 4 Thomas Jefferson's, 2 Van Gogh's, 3 Mozarts, 5 (count 'em-- 5) Simon Bolivar's, and 3 Beethovens.

About three years ago I was listening to a conversation between 2 Scientologists at the place I worked who were criticizing the Shuttle program. Both were agreeing that all the NASA scientists have to do is to recall the anti-gravity machines of the past. One was even giving a detailed schematic of it. They realy believed what they were saying.

It seems to me that anything spiritual in Scientology is delusional.

I consider myself a spiritual person, but Scientology makes a mockery out of phenomnon and noumena.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Suffice to say that "reincarnation" as it is commonly understood may not be an actual operating mechanism of spirit so much as an elementary (yet inaccurate) description of an experiential phenomena. This is much as the Bohr atom stands as a model for the more accurate yet less intuitive quantum processes. There is more than one way to interpret such apparencies.

Much of formal Buddhist philosophy refrains from teaching reincarnation except as such a model. Some Buddhist groups also except that multiple incarnations of a single "prior existent being" can occur simultaneously, n.b. tulkus. The ready conclusion is that grasping the underlying reality is difficult and at best a gradual process. :)

Of course it could also all be "dub in". :whistling:

If there is anything to be gleaned from such conundrums it is that the issues that arise in spirituality are "complicated" from a materialist perspective, although arguably fundamentally simpler in a sense other than materialistic. Further, faith or dogmas serve only as barriers to understanding and have no role to play in genuinely understanding the issues involved.

Mark A. Baker
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
In my opinion, the Church of Scientology undermines any beliefs in past lives or the value of knowledge itself. Largely because of the points you have made here, but also becasue I have met 3 Rommels, 2 Mansteins, 2 Von Rundsted's, 4 Thomas Jefferson's, 2 Van Gogh's, 3 Mozarts, 5 (count 'em-- 5) Simon Bolivar's, and 3 Beethovens.
Actually, Hubbard explained that phenomenon quite well.
Did he? Really?

Or did Hubbard yet again engage in post hoc rationalization to make up excuses for anomalous, contradictory and indeed ridiculous results after the fact?

Hubbard's "explanation" is or course consistent with the irrebutable, irrefutable premise of KSW No. 1 that the Tech is always right. Because the Tech is always right, the PC must be lying, mistaken or doing something wrong.

Scientology -- always an "explanation" -- after the fact. Always an excuse -- after the fact.

The fact that 3 people claim to have been Rommel, 2 people claim to have been Manstein, 2 people claim to have been Von Rundsted, 4 people claim to have been Thomas Jefferson, 2 people claim to have been Van Gogh, 3 people claim to have been Mozart, 5 people claim to have been Simon Bolivar, and 3 people claim to have been Beethoven couldn't possibly be because their memories are false. Ron says otherwise. Therefore, there has to be another reason. And since Ron gave that other reason -- after the fact, as always -- we must accept it.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
No, he called it "dub in" and he indicated that there were times when the proposed incident was false and only in the person's imagination. He did have theories as to why that was the case but with or without those theories, he made it quite clear (no pun intended) that past life recalls can be false and if they're of famous people- probably are false.
 
Suffice to say that "reincarnation" as it is commonly understood may not be an actual operating mechanism of spirit so much as an elementary (yet inaccurate) description of an experiential phenomena. This is much as the Bohr atom stands as a model for the more accurate yet less intuitive quantum processes. There is more than one way to interpret such apparencies.

Much of formal Buddhist philosophy refrains from teaching reincarnation except as such a model. Some Buddhist groups also except that multiple incarnations of a single "prior existent being" can occur simultaneously, n.b. tulkus. The ready conclusion is that grasping the underlying reality is difficult and at best a gradual process. :)

Of course it could also all be "dub in". :whistling:

If there is anything to be gleaned from such conundrums it is that the issues that arise in spirituality are "complicated" from a materialist perspective, although arguably fundamentally simpler in a sense other than materialistic. Further, faith or dogmas serve only as barriers to understanding and have no role to play in genuinely understanding the issues involved.

Mark A. Baker

I'm not challenging what you are saying here. I pointed this out because of the hypocracy and childishness of Scientology claims.

A belief is one thing, a claim is something else. Believing that a spirit continues in its existence is one thing and claiming that you are Tennessee Ernie Ford is a different thing altogether.

The hypocracy I am talking about is better explained here:

Did he? Really?

Or did Hubbard yet again engage in post hoc rationalization to make up excuses for anomalous, contradictory and indeed ridiculous results after the fact?

Hubbard's "explanation" is or course consistent with the irrebutable, irrefutable premise of KSW No. 1 that the Tech is always right. Because the Tech is always right, the PC must be lying, mistaken or doing something wrong.

Scientology -- always an "explanation" -- after the fact. Always an excuse -- after the fact.

The fact that 3 people claim to have been Rommel, 2 people claim to have been Manstein, 2 people claim to have been Von Rundsted, 4 people claim to have been Thomas Jefferson, 2 people claim to have been Van Gogh, 3 people claim to have been Mozart, 5 people claim to have been Simon Bolivar, and 3 people claim to have been Beethoven couldn't possibly be because their memories are false. Ron says otherwise. Therefore, there has to be another reason. And since Ron gave that other reason -- after the fact, as always -- we must accept it.

The tech doesn't tell these people they are not Rommels or Mansteins or Mozarts, because in the eyes of the tech that would be bad. The tech defends the absurdities.

It is the absurdity and inconsistentcies of Scientology to which I hope to draw attentions. Not traditional spiritual beliefs.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
The tech doesn't tell these people they are not Rommels or Mansteins or Mozarts, because in the eyes of the tech that would be bad. The tech defends the absurdities.

No. But the tech does not challenge a person's right to believe in absurd things. In point of fact the Co$ has grown dependent on exactly that.

However, I would not agree that it is the place of the tech to CHALLENGE the individual's self-view no matter if apparently absurd to others. The function of the tech serves to get them looking and resolving the issues which impact their own sense of self. They are entitled to determine their own interpretation of self. Failure to respect that entitlement is nothing other than the attempt to fix and define another being contrary to his will.

Besides, maybe one of them WAS Rommel. :coolwink:


It is the absurdity and inconsistentcies of Scientology to which I hope to draw attentions. Not traditional spiritual beliefs.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Okay, fair enough. There are certainly problems with expressions of the various aspects of scientology as laid out by Hubbard. But not ALL the apparent absurdities relate only to Hubbard's defects or the abuses of the Co$. When those apparent absurdities or inconsistencies conform to similar problems with other esoteric traditions that may well be due in part to difficulties arising from the attempt to carry on a discussion concerning what are the inherently spiritual aspects of existence from a framework conditioned by the expectations of physical existence. Things may not "translate" readily to the common modes of thought or communication.

Most spiritual traditions recognize the ineffable aspects of existence and the difficulties accorded in attempting to render them for open discussions. Scientology is not different in that. To that degree it should be accorded the same intellectual respect as a viable spiritual tradition.


Mark A. Baker
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
No. But the tech does not challenge a person's right to believe in absurd things. In point of fact the Co$ has grown dependent on exactly that.

How is 'Co$' in this case different than 'Scientology' and, when does 'has grown' begin? How is *now* different than 1950 in that regard?

Zinj
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Suffice to say that "reincarnation" as it is commonly understood may not be an actual operating mechanism of spirit so much as an elementary (yet inaccurate) description of an experiential phenomena. This is much as the Bohr atom stands as a model for the more accurate yet less intuitive quantum processes. There is more than one way to interpret such apparencies.

Much of formal Buddhist philosophy refrains from teaching reincarnation except as such a model. Some Buddhist groups also except that multiple incarnations of a single "prior existent being" can occur simultaneously, n.b. tulkus. The ready conclusion is that grasping the underlying reality is difficult and at best a gradual process. :)

Of course it could also all be "dub in". :whistling:

If there is anything to be gleaned from such conundrums it is that the issues that arise in spirituality are "complicated" from a materialist perspective, although arguably fundamentally simpler in a sense other than materialistic. Further, faith or dogmas serve only as barriers to understanding and have no role to play in genuinely understanding the issues involved.

Mark A. Baker

This is the biggest wad of BS I've read since History of Man
 
Top