Where is the damn treasure?

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
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:

Okay, I'm gonna go back to something you said earlier. You said that Scientology is about taking hypothesis and testing them and seeing what's true for you. Why shouldn't Scientology be helping people actually test things out? If it really is about TESTING things, then they should be taught how to go out and test them IN THE REAL WORLD and be encouraged to do so. The end cognition is that you made all this shit up anyway, why not encourage people to find that out through their own devices instead of hoarding the secret until you've bilked them out of thousands of dollars? If the experience of auditing and recalling fictional past lives is in some way therapeutic, and the good is not undone by unraveling the fictitious nature of your mental journey, there is no good reason to encourage people to ignore reality.

Unless you're a cult and you're trying to scam them out of thousands.

I want to believe you're not a cultie, Mark. Prove me right here.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Okay, I'm gonna go back to something you said earlier. You said that Scientology is about taking hypothesis and testing them and seeing what's true for you. Why shouldn't Scientology be helping people actually test things out? If it really is about TESTING things, then they should be taught how to go out and test them IN THE REAL WORLD and be encouraged to do so. The end cognition is that you made all this shit up anyway, why not encourage people to find that out through their own devices instead of hoarding the secret until you've bilked them out of thousands of dollars? If the experience of auditing and recalling fictional past lives is in some way therapeutic, and the good is not undone by unraveling the fictitious nature of your mental journey, there is no good reason to encourage people to ignore reality.

Unless you're a cult and you're trying to scam them out of thousands.

I want to believe you're not a cultie, Mark. Prove me right here.

Scientology can't help anyone prove or test anything...it's a subject in books and tapes. As far as CofS goes, well, asking a non CofS Scn'ist about why they do or don't do things can only enter the realms of speculation and discussion. Those are good things, in and of themselves, but may not be what you were looking for.

Asking anyone to prove they aren't something is a slippery slope indeed.

Having beliefs that aren't shared by others doth not a cultie make. Or at least, not just that. One would need more qualifications...
 
Okay, I'm gonna go back to something you said earlier. You said that Scientology is about taking hypothesis and testing them and seeing what's true for you. Why shouldn't Scientology be helping people actually test things out? If it really is about TESTING things, then they should be taught how to go out and test them IN THE REAL WORLD and be encouraged to do so.

I don't disagree with you about this at all. The only thing I would choose to point out is that scientology was originally intended as a way of assisting indivduals in beginning to address the "internal world" of their own spiritual nature. The problem at the time was a culture steeped in a materialist dogma about the nature of man and with few tools available tools to common people which enabled them to explore non-materialistic aspects of human existence. The world has changed a great deal since the '50s.

The function of scientology study is to provide tools which are useful to opening up the study & exploration of the spiritual aspects of existence. There is nothing about the tech which denies the efficacy of putting things to the test in one's own life. Quite the contrary, it is recommended. The fundamentals of scientology emphasize the importance that each individual not simply accept any aspect of scientology as a given but that they test it for usefulness & applicability. It is for each person to decide what makes sense to himself and how best to use it.

That the church actually serves to enforce beliefs on its members relates to its decline into an abusive cult. It does not constitute the actual practice of the subject of scientology.


The end cognition is that you made all this shit up anyway,

That's not exactly it, but not having trod the path you don't know what the view is like. Hence your reliance on the verbal reports of others. :)



why not encourage people to find that out through their own devices instead of hoarding the secret until you've bilked them out of thousands of dollars?

A. Encouraging others to find out such things is precisely what I do. I especially recommend the subject of scientology to this end as being especially efficacious. However, I'm certainly not exclusive about my recommendations. :)

B. I don't hoard.

C. I don't bilk.

D. There is nothing written in scientology that is "The Secret".

E. It's true, "upper levels" really aren't an important part of scientology tech. The Co$ & others make a great deal of noise about them, but frankly it's just something else that is there to be audited when appropriate. :yawn:


The only valuable secrets to be had as a result of scientology are the one's experienced by indviduals as a process of making their own spiritual journeys. This is quite sufficient. :thumbsup:

The techniques available in scientology can be tremendously useful in facilitating a sequence of epiphanies leading to personal insights. It really is good stuff. All the procedures, rundowns, and commands serve to facilitate the course of each indivduals pcs private & personal journey of discovery. This can be indescribably wonderful & valuable.

Unfortunately, within the Co$ much of the focus has shifted to the "importance of LRH & his materials". It is a cult. This has been done to emphasize Co$ control & expansion rather than spiritual benefits accruing to scientologists. It's a greater outrage than you can imagine precisely because there is great value in the materials when used honestly to help others.


If the experience of auditing and recalling fictional past lives is in some way therapeutic, and the good is not undone by unraveling the fictitious nature of your mental journey, there is no good reason to encourage people to ignore reality.

Not everything experienced is a fiction, hence it is imperative that each individual be allowed to come to his OWN understanding. There is not any particular value in an individual's belief in the "truth" or "fiction" of his recall of an event. The value accruing stems from the reduction of any emotional impact or associated confusions and the rehabilitation of one's spiritual nature. This is not something that is to be understood through study. It can only be understood through direct experience.

Such things can be likened to the following. You may have experienced an upset with another over a misunderstanding or misconception. Subsequently the relationship may be rehabilitated as a result of at least a PARTIAL resolution of the misunderstanding. Although it would be preferrable, it is not necessary to get ALL the misconceptions clarified to resolve MOST of the problem. It is typically sufficient to resolve any "core" material to diminish the upset. Misconceptions can still remain in place.

The analogy would be that in auditing the pc is seeking to resolve spiritual issues which fundamentally arise from his own misconceptions. Hence the importance of his being able to FREELY determine & resolve things for himself.


I want to believe you're not a cultie, Mark. Prove me right here.

Oh, I'm a "cultie". I revere the goddess Athena. I'm looking for a stray virgin or two for sanctification as priestess. Willing to consider non-virgins who are willing to undergo an extensive program of "purificatory rituals". :whistling:

Never was enthralled by either Hubbard or the church, though. :no:


Mark A. Baker
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I don't disagree with you about this at all. The only thing I would choose to point out is that scientology was originally intended as a way of assisting indivduals in beginning to address the "internal world" of their own spiritual nature.

I'd be willing to grant you that *Dianetics* was at least marginally aimed at 'helping' people with their individual problems. That selling Dianetics was aimed at also helping Ron with his own financial problems doesn't negate that.

Scientology, however, was *always* aimed at exploiting people's problems for Ron's gain. Which is why it became a 'system' that was *not* intended to be something anyone operating outside of Ron's Influence could practice.

That you think that you can reveals how little of Scientology *your* version of Scientology is.

Zinj
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

There is nothing written in scientology that is "The Secret".

"upper levels" really aren't an important part of scientology tech. The Co$ & others make a great deal of noise about them, but frankly it's just something else that is there to be audited when appropriate. :yawn:

-snip-

Scientology is, and has been for decades, a secretive subject. The amount of secret material is extensive. It is also, for the most part, the senior doctrine of the subject.

I've provided links which document this in great detail.

Don't you ever tire of lying? Don't you ever feel ashamed at what you do here? At least for a fleeting moment?

Or do you take each person you con - or think you've conned - as a "win"?
 

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
If Scientology can't help anyone prove or test anything, Mark's earlier description of what Scientology is is fundamentally flawed. Can I get a direct answer on that, and then we can talk details?
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
Don't get it...

No offense, but I don't quite get the OP. While auditing, we just hit moments...nothing to bring about total recollection of past lives. Don't get me wrong...I think Scientology is BS, but we thought we'd hit that total recall at OTVIII.

I have had things from past lives I verified, and I know others who also did the same, but we weren't attention-seeking whores. And I don't want to share it, because I have no need to get it ripped apart. I don't really care at this point. I don't know if I believe in past lives or not, but I don't care either.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
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.
Once one has conceded that some incidents or past life recalls were "dubbed in," why would one, particularly in the absence of objective, external evidence or verification, rationally conclude that they all weren't "dubbed in?"

If the determination of what is a "real" incident or past life recall and what is a "dubbed in" incident or past life recall is entirely subjective ("What is true is what is true for you."), then what is the difference between the two? How can you tell? Or does it really make any difference?

I suspect that the answer may be, as always, that "it works." Or, more precisely, that if one "runs" "real" incidents, that provides relief. If one "runs" "dubbed in" incidents, that does not provide relief.

So, if a woman is convinced -- or perhaps more precisely, someone "helps" her or causes her to become convinced -- that during a past life she was raped by Attila the Hun in 440 A.D., and afterward she subjectively feels "relief" because she now "understands" why she has intimacy problems with her husband, or why she was perfect victim when she was molested as a child this lifetime, then the incident was "real" and Scientology "works."

So, if she temporarily feels "relief" because she believes she has dealt with, confronted or more precisely "as issed" the root source or her pain, then the past life memory is "real," and Scientology "works" -- regardless of whether: (a) she was, in fact, raped by Attila the Hun; (b) her being "raped by Attila the Hun" was in fact the source, or any source, of her problems; (c) she has, in fact, dealt with, confronted and adequately the real sources of her problem; or (d) the relief is temporary.

Wow. Just wow.
 
If Scientology can't help anyone prove or test anything, Mark's earlier description of what Scientology is is fundamentally flawed. Can I get a direct answer on that, and then we can talk details?

Thought I had. :)

Evidently I'm unclear on what you are looking for by way of "proving" or "testing" anything. Given my earlier background in mathematics, my concept of "proof" tends to be of a formal character. Most "scientific proofs" are evidentiary arguments in support of a thesis. They rarely rise to the level of a formal proof.

Testing is done by an individual through comparison of his perceptions, understanding, knowledge, and considerations against observed phenomena. The purpose of such testing is to identify internal dependencies & contradictions so as to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a given statement or argument.

Scientology procedures assist individuals in expansion of spiritual insight & awareness, i.e. innately subjective phenomena. Their purpose is exploratory rather than defining. As such "testing" of insights by scientologists is done through application of their own perceptions, understanding, knowledge, and considerations against any phenomena they observe as a result of their shifts in insight.

Scientology is not a substitute for the study of formal methods of reasoning, measurement, or analysis. Neither are the formal methods a substitute for spiritual insight & awareness.

Changes in awareness do not directly reflect on various testing procedures or methods although they may affect conclusions which are based on individual perceptions, understanding, knowledge, and considerations.

Perhaps it would help if you were to explain precisely what you meant by use of the phrase "if scientology can't help anyone prove or test anything"? Also, it would be of benefit to know in what you see my prior statement as fundamentally flawed.


Mark A. Baker
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
If Scientology can't help anyone prove or test anything, Mark's earlier description of what Scientology is is fundamentally flawed. Can I get a direct answer on that, and then we can talk details?
You didn't direct your question to me, and Xenu knows that I speak for anybody but the Freezone and Independent Scientologists, but I think the following may help.

First, I would respectfully direct your attention to KSW No. 1. I would respectfully ask that you read it, study it, and understand it. Really think about it. Know that this policy letter is the first policy letter in every course taught in the Academy for professional Auditor training at the Church of Scientology. Consider what impact this has on critical evaluation of the Tech, and the evaluation of what "works" inside the Church.

Secondly, writing a "success story" a requirement for the completion for every course within the Church of Scientology. If you don't write a success story, you don't graduate. Thus, stories of positive outcomes are collected. Negative outcomes are not.

The simple truth is that Scientology, and thus its Freezone and "Independent" Scientology offshoots, are designed at their very foundations to be immune from rational and objective analysis and testing. Step Three of KSW No. 1 is "Knowing it (i.e., the Tech) is correct." And if Auditor B suggests that an auditing procedure might not be effective? Then, "Instructor A [must] jump down Auditor B's throat."

The most you will get, or indeed can possibly get, out of proponents of the Tech is protests that it "works" and anectodal success stories. If it ever appears that it didn't work, or worse that a client or PC became psychotic, depressed or had a mental breakdown, it is never the case that the Tech is at fault. It is, by definition under KSW No. 1, because the Tech is incorrectly applied, or the PC was PTS (a potential trouble source) connected in some way to a SP (suppressive person), or the PC was himself was "out-ethics," etc. The tech is "workable" -- by immutable, irrefutable, irrebutable definition (see KSW No. 1). Any perceived failure is always the fault of something else.

I'll mention another factor in passing. In the Church of Scientology professional Auditor education in statistics in limited to that which can be taught, and conveyed, using graph paper. In other words, statistics are taught at a grade school level for a good school district, or at a junior high level for a really poor school district. Consider the Wikipedia article on Statistics as a starting point. None of that material is taught in the Church of Scientology. In addition, while there are exceptions primarily involving people who got their formal educations before they entered the Church, Scientologists as a practical matter tend not to learn statistical concepts outside the Church. Why should they? They already know the truth.
 
snip

The techniques available in scientology can be tremendously useful in facilitating a sequence of epiphanies leading to personal insights. It really is good stuff. All the procedures, rundowns, and commands serve to facilitate the course of each indivduals pcs private & personal journey of discovery. This can be indescribably wonderful & valuable.

Mark,

My experience and observations lead me to conclude that the "sequence of epiphanies leading to personal insight" are, in fact, just steps in in an indocrination process.

The wins are little quantum bursts of indocrination as I like to call them.

Sure the person's insight changes, sure they are euphoric, but this is all part of the process that leads a person to a monoideaistic intuition.

All cognitions, realizations, new learnings, and whys lead to one source, one idea, one cause, one worldview.

I consider this is built right into the purpose and application of the technology and people escape this when the technology isn't correctly applied to them.

But for those who get the technology applied correctly to them, they continue on up the birdge until life informs them that what is true for them isn't true at all.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Once one has conceded that some incidents or past life recalls were "dubbed in," why would one, particularly in the absence of objective, external evidence or verification, rationally conclude that they all weren't "dubbed in?"

If the determination of what is a "real" incident or past life recall and what is a "dubbed in" incident or past life recall is entirely subjective ("What is true is what is true for you."), then what is the difference between the two? How can you tell? Or does it really make any difference?

I suspect that the answer may be, as always, that "it works." Or, more precisely, that if one "runs" "real" incidents, that provides relief. If one "runs" "dubbed in" incidents, that does not provide relief.

So, if a woman is convinced -- or perhaps more precisely, someone "helps" her or causes her to become convinced -- that during a past life she was raped by Attila the Hun in 440 A.D., and afterward she subjectively feels "relief" because she now "understands" why she has intimacy problems with her husband, or why she was perfect victim when she was molested as a child this lifetime, then the incident was "real" and Scientology "works."

So, if she temporarily feels "relief" because she believes she has dealt with, confronted or more precisely "as issed" the root source or her pain, then the past life memory is "real," and Scientology "works" -- regardless of whether: (a) she was, in fact, raped by Attila the Hun; (b) her being "raped by Attila the Hun" was in fact the source, or any source, of her problems; (c) she has, in fact, dealt with, confronted and adequately the real sources of her problem; or (d) the relief is temporary.

Wow. Just wow.

It's like any other memory. People also "dub" things in with "this lifetime" type memories. And sometimes they don't.
 
Mark,

My experience and observations lead me to conclude that the "sequence of epiphanies leading to personal insight" are, in fact, just steps in in an indocrination process.

The wins are little quantum bursts of indocrination as I like to call them.

Sure the person's insight changes, sure they are euphoric, but this is all part of the process that leads a person to a monoideaistic intuition.

All cognitions, realizations, new learnings, and whys lead to one source, one idea, one cause, one worldview.

I consider this is built right into the purpose and application of the technology and people escape this when the technology isn't correctly applied to them.

But for those who get the technology applied correctly to them, they continue on up the birdge until life informs them that what is true for them isn't true at all.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Your point would be a valid one if the outcome of epiphanies could be controlled. They can't.

It can also be seen to have merit where dependence on a "sole source" of information is used to train the thinking of the individual and thus influence the outcomes of their considerations. This latter point is relevant so I will respond to this perspective.

First, such behavior is not especially notorious. It actually represents the method that ANY human group will preferentially use in attempts to "educate" its members in its own peculiar standards or beliefs. This is so whether the group be a family, a pre-school, a boot camp, a political party, or some other. As an example: note the fervor with which creationists object to exposing their children to evolution, or "capitalists" object to similar introductions of "socialism". This may be "intellectually dishonest", but as you know relatively few are sorely troubled by such "abstract" considerations. :)

Since just such an ideological monoculture is in fact the way Hubbard intended the Co$ would operate, this no doubt goes a long way to explain the effects described by you and experienced by others.

There is a simple remedy. Encourage, nay where possible require, that the membership be exposed to multiple sources of data. Afterall, no one on this board is at present (apparently) a proponent of the "Cult of LRH". [May be some lurkers out there somewhere, so I qualify the comment. :coolwink: ]

The utility of the subject of scientology is preserved when students are subjected to alternate viewpoints. That which is lost is the "sole source" mindset and alll that which accompanies it. All in all, most here & in the freezone agree that is a good thing. :)

Many scientologists I've known came from backgrounds which encouraged intellectual curiosity & exploration. Such individuals were much less likely to partake of the single ideology promoted by the Co$. They were far less inclined to get caught up in the "sole source" dogma that is so prevalent among scientologists, especially those within the church or SO. These were the individuals most likely to catch on to the internal deceptive and dishonest practices of the Co$. They were also most apt at separating the positive aspects of the subject of scientology from the misrepresentations of the Co$.

In my experience scientology tools are tremendously useful for the purpose of enhancing spiritual insights. However, scientology tools should not be relegated to the position of a "sole source" dogma. That approach merely establishes a limited benefit while creating an additional self-imposed barrier. Ulitmately it proves self-defeating for the purpose of expanding spiritual awareness.

The application of honest critical thinking never hurt any discipline. Unfortunately too many individuals confuse a repeated pattern of defamatory attacks with critical intellectual thought. :no:


Mark A. Baker
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
One can play inside a sandbox for a long time, looking over each grain of sand. But you're still inside the sandbox.
 
Your point would be a valid one if the outcome of epiphanies could be controlled. They can't.

It can also be seen to have merit where dependence on a "sole source" of information is used to train the thinking of the individual and thus influence the outcomes of their considerations. This latter point is relevant so I will respond to this perspective.

First, such behavior is not especially notorious. It actually represents the method that ANY human group will preferentially use in attempts to "educate" its members in its own peculiar standards or beliefs. This is so whether the group be a family, a pre-school, a boot camp, a political party, or some other. As an example: note the fervor with which creationists object to exposing their children to evolution, or "capitalists" object to similar introductions of "socialism". This may be "intellectually dishonest", but as you know relatively few are sorely troubled by such "abstract" considerations. :)

Since just such an ideological monoculture is in fact the way Hubbard intended the Co$ would operate, this no doubt goes a long way to explain the effects described by you and experienced by others.

There is a simple remedy. Encourage, nay where possible require, that the membership be exposed to multiple sources of data. Afterall, no one on this board is at present (apparently) a proponent of the "Cult of LRH". [May be some lurkers out there somewhere, so I qualify the comment. :coolwink: ]

The utility of the subject of scientology is preserved when students are subjected to alternate viewpoints. That which is lost is the "sole source" mindset and alll that which accompanies it. All in all, most here & in the freezone agree that is a good thing. :)

Many scientologists I've known came from backgrounds which encouraged intellectual curiosity & exploration. Such individuals were much less likely to partake of the single ideology promoted by the Co$. They were far less inclined to get caught up in the "sole source" dogma that is so prevalent among scientologists, especially those within the church or SO. These were the individuals most likely to catch on to the internal deceptive and dishonest practices of the Co$. They were also most apt at separating the positive aspects of the subject of scientology from the misrepresentations of the Co$.

In my experience scientology tools are tremendously useful for the purpose of enhancing spiritual insights. However, scientology tools should not be relegated to the position of a "sole source" dogma. That approach merely establishes a limited benefit while creating an additional self-imposed barrier. Ulitmately it proves self-defeating for the purpose of expanding spiritual awareness.

The application of honest critical thinking never hurt any discipline. Unfortunately too many individuals confuse a repeated pattern of defamatory attacks with critical intellectual thought. :no:


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

I don't think you quite fully got my point about monoideasim. I am not talkling about a "sole source" of information, although that does hapen in Scientology. I am also not talking about educating people to a groups standards and beliefs, although that happens in Scinetology too. I am talking about limiting a person's innate capacity for pluralistic thinking. And to be clear, by pluralistic I mean the capacity for a person to comprehend and maintain the views that reality has many components.

Others religions may teach a certain worldview, but Scientology goes beyond that and tampers with a persons intuitive process (I mean intutitive in the Kantian sense). So therefoe it becomes much easier to indoctrinate a person into the Scientology worldview. And for those who don't buy into Scientology's worldview, they are still limmited in their capacity for sound judgment to the degree that the technology took with them.

I don't have any scientific basis for this; it is based on my own observation and reasoning. that other religions to a lesser degree affect the same thing is irrelevant. Scientology messes with the mind's softwear, other religions mess with inputs into the mind.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Mark,

I don't think you quite fully got my point about monoideasim. I am not talkling about a "sole source" of information, although that does hapen in Scientology. I am also not talking about educating people to a groups standards and beliefs, although that happens in Scinetology too. I am talking about limiting a person's innate capacity for pluralistic thinking. And to be clear, by pluralistic I mean the capacity for a person to comprehend and maintain the views that reality has many components.

Others religions may teach a certain worldview, but Scientology goes beyond that and tampers with a persons intuitive process (I mean intutitive in the Kantian sense). So therefoe it becomes much easier to indoctrinate a person into the Scientology worldview. And for those who don't buy into Scientology's worldview, they are still limmited in their capacity for sound judgment to the degree that the technology took with them.

I don't have any scientific basis for this; it is based on my own observation and reasoning. that other religions to a lesser degree affect the same thing is irrelevant. Scientology messes with the mind's softwear, other religions mess with inputs into the mind.

The Anabaptist Jacques


I think I do, but let that pass. :)

Either way, the reliable solution is to encourage exposure to alternate viewpoints. That definitely helps to break down monolithic perspectives.

Epiphanies assist in eliminating monocultures also as they are profoundly life enhancing and utterly unpredictable and uncontrollable with regard to outcomes.


Mark A. Baker
 
I think I do, but let that pass. :)

Either way, the reliable solution is to encourage exposure to alternate viewpoints. That definitely helps to break down monolithic perspectives.

Epiphanies assist in eliminating monocultures also as they are profoundly life enhancing and utterly unpredictable and uncontrollable with regard to outcomes.


Mark A. Baker

Exposure to alternate viewpoints won't matter if the softwear in the person's mind has been tampered with. The content of an epiphany may be utterly unpredictable and uncontrollable with regards to contextual outcomes, but the restructuring of the intuitive nature of the mind towards monoideistic reasoning isn't uncontrollable. If fact, that is exactly what is being controlled.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Exposure to alternate viewpoints won't matter if the softwear in the person's mind has been tampered with.

I'm surprised, AJ. That basically amounts to the assertion that "minds can't be changed". I wouldn't think that is somewhere you would choose to go.

Alternate viewpoints matter. You are correct in that the more rigid the mindset to begin with the more difficulty in producing an immediate impact. However, it will occur.

The best approach is to prevent undue rigidity setting in early through ongoing exposure and respect for alternate perspectives. Early intervention is ideal. However, even late in the game change happens. That is the reason Emma created ESMB.


The content of an epiphany may be utterly unpredictable and uncontrollable with regards to contextual outcomes, but the restructuring of the intuitive nature of the mind towards monoideistic reasoning isn't uncontrollable. If fact, that is exactly what is being controlled.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Epiphanies have a remarkable way of breaking through established mental patterns.

Clearly it would be lovely if no one suffered from rigidity of thought. Nonetheless, these two tools, alternative views & epiphanies, are remarkably effective at altering conditioned patterns of thought and opening a person to the prospects inherent in spirituality. To argue otherwise is to argue that humans can not change of themselves.


Mark A. Baker
 
Top