Who is Heber Jentzsch?
Who is Marc Yager?
Who is Ray Mithoff?
Who is Russ Bellin?
Who is Norman Starkey?
Who is David Mayo?
Who is Dan Koon?
Who is Debbie Cook?
Who is David Miscavige?
The answer is out there.
Google “Musical chairs Yager“
Who is Heber Jentzsch?
Who is Marc Yager?
Who is Ray Mithoff?
Who is Russ Bellin?
Who is Norman Starkey?
Who is David Mayo?
Who is Dan Koon?
Who is Debbie Cook?
Who is David Miscavige?
The answer is out there.
Google “Musical chairs Yager“
110 thoughts on “An Open Letter to dedicated Scientologists”
Just did that. Cut and pasted, with quotes, ‘ “Musical chairs Yager“ ‘. The only thing Google found was 2 refs — both to this post.
I see that this post made it straight to the top two – bu the next few does the trick.
As it turns out, I needed to remove the quote marks to get Google to give me
more than the two refs to this post.
Gary, I googled what Geir suggested, “musical chairs marc yager”. and got a variety. In case it’s still a problem, here’s a news site:
And here is an Independent Scientologist’s blog site:
Where are you going?
Check in regularly the next few hours. You’ll see.
More of an answer: I see that Open Letters are popular and thought I’d do a bunch myself. Five of them actually. And I tend to find Open Letters out there a bit too long, so I thought I’d shorten mine.
Short is good.
Rather “Open questions”:)
For the most part, this isn’t really new news, as far as I can tell from the google results I looked at. Not news for some of us anyway, especially anyone who has followed Marty Rathbun. He has been telling this story for a couple of years now – other blogs too, actually. A turning point now, though, is with the news of Debbie Cook telling the story – that is huge news. She has been well known and highly respected in Scientology for decades – and she’s confirming what others have been saying now for years.
A good example of the impact she is able to make is with a friend of mine, who I know from the Sea Org and who is now a public and doing services. When I saw Marty on a TV show a couple years ago, telling what’s going on, I told her about it – she thought there was “probably truth to it”. Like me, she already had a certain dubious impression of him already (from back when we were on staff). Even so, what Marty had to say really didn’t make much difference in her general attitude toward the Church. But then when Debbie Cook told a very similar story, just recently, her response was a strong “no doubt about it”. And she immediately started reconsidering her relationship to the C of S.
The really amazing thing is that these things have been known about for so long with nothing being done about it, which is a significant subject in itself. But I will be shocked if it continues much longer.
Clarification: I meant that my friend had a dubious impression of David Miscavige – not Marty Rathbun.
I’ll add that the impression I always had of Marty Rathbun was one of the best, as far as Int execs were concerned.
My point here is really that Marty’s message is too much to the point and too carpingly critical of DM. A dedicated Scientologist will often disregard Marty.
As do i, but not through a dedication to Scientology.
I guess by “too much to the point” you mean that he mostly writes on this subject of “musical chairs” and the rest of it. I think that’s because the whole purpose of his blog is to bring these things to light and thus do something about the situation – and the course of Scientology as well.
And please say more about “too carpingly critical”. Is it possible to be too critical about such a scene?
Take a look at Marty’s blog from the perspective of a dedicated Scientologist. ANY criticism of LRH, The Church, Scientology or any belief thereof will be dismissed as natter caused by Missed Withholds. That is my point. One needs an approach that gets a dedicated Scientologist to Think rather than React with dismissal.
As regards dedicated Scientologists – they won’t be going to Marty’s blog no matter what he posts or doesn’t post. They are forbidden to do so by the Church – and for that matter, they’re forbidden to “receive” any sort of criticism from any source whatsoever. It has all been labeled entheta and has been made into an ethics matter – so even if they come across criticism accidentally they will quickly shut it off. I’ve observed this kind of thing for myself – it’s standard operating procedure.
Marty is addressing those who are already in doubt. But even among those it’s only the ones who have the nerve to look for themselves – so that narrows it down yet again. The main group he addresses and reaches is the independents, the main ones interested in his cause to both handle the CoS and to encourage the use of Scn outside the CoS, Apparently he also reaches many non-Scn’s who support him in the human rights issues.
Marty wears a different hat than you do, for instance. And what you said below about “gradients” I think is really true – there’s a different gradient needed to reach different people.
Actually, there are reports that what is particularly not tolerated is any questioning of Miscavige.
Personally,I believe one of the few workable ways to eventually reach them is to question the actual production of the orgs – How many Clears does your org make per unit of time? How many auditors trained per unit of time? How many students in your Academy?
Let them comm lag and keep asking. Eventually it will sink in.
I agree here Valkov – real production of the orgs is something that is visible vs. ideas or viewpoints that are arguable.
How many times did each of us sit at more recent events hearing of the stupendous gains in bodies in the shop at some other org?
How about having the thought after hearing such amazing stats ‘ Wow … what’s happening in my org? … We must be doing something wrong’
I would hazard a guess that the other org staff were thinking the same thing … these earth-shattering gains were always ‘elsewhere’.
How about “Who is Debbie Cook?”
Why did you not include her in your list of Whois’?
Fixed – of course.
Of course. Good job.
Marty’s blog is not about Marty in the first place. Dead-agenting Marty is simply a way, a short cut, to getting people to not read the myriad commenters who are there posting their own personal experiences.
That blog is a very successful venue for a “multiple viewpoint system”.
People who refuse to read it just because Marty set it up are brainwashed.
There are many viewpoints which are not allowed on Marty’s blog – as you know.
A much more robust “multiple viewpoint system” exists on uncensored message boards.
You know, the ones Marty calls “Hate boards” and “natter boards”.
Is this one, you think.
This is one of those that are actually ‘multiple viewpoint’.
However, Marty’s blog is very much ‘multiple viewpoint’ within it’s parameters, if you define multiple viewpoint as having a lot of people posting their own individual experiences and thoughts.
Marty has non-scientologists, Anonymous, critics, as well as a lot of ex-scientologists, particularly experienced ex-Sea Org, who post there.
So, Al, do you think Geir would allow the ongoing free expression of, say, extreme racist views on his blog? Or advocates of pedophilia?
Would you, on your blog or forum?
Where would you draw the line?
Would your message board be truly “uncensored”?
Which boards specifically does Marty call “hate boards”, or “natter boards”? Your vagueness about this seems “dispersive” of any analysis.
A kind of innuendo, if you will. A non-specific criticism.
A true dedicated Scientologist will not attend critical information on scientology or will refuse to belive it is truth, it is all explained as lies, lies by the media.
Thus a very gentle, gradient scale is needed.
I agree, and yet I don’t. Ii don’t think there is any way we can cushion things for them very much. The world can’t and won’t stand around waiting for “dedicated Scientologists” to awaken out of their “dedicated slumber”. They are in for a rude awakening and an SRA which will result from life itself imposing Ethics on an antisocial C o S.
You realize that some may say the same about you and your relation to Scientology, the subject?
I say: What works, works. And in this case, gradient scales seem to work the best – from my personal experience with people of different memberships in the Kool-Aid Drinker’s Club.
Yes, it always boils down to handling the individual person. I was referring to the broader scope, such as if/when public exposure grows to the point it cannot be ignored by anyone, and/or the CoS is subjected to justice actions. Then some will experience an SRA inflicted on them by reality. Handling them will indeed require the correct gradients to get a good outcome.
Of course I realize that. All those who predict that I will eventually ‘wake up’ to an SRA about the philosophy need to realize it too – that some of us may take a looooong time before we do that, and they needn’t hold their breaths.
Geir, it is a gradient scale handling indeed and should be done to protect our loved ones.
Right, When I had been out for a couple of years, I give to some insider pretty strong data, thinking that seeing them would bring them to doubt. But what I didn’t consider was that being in doubt is considered a low condition that had to be avoided.
So instead of simply giving data, a Scientologist must first be sure that by having doubt he or she is not committing any crime. The following allegedly was somewhat successful action: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62864689/Scientology-Ex-Sea-Org-It-s-OK-To-Have-Doubts-UK-Helpline-Flyer
Fogive my grammar, I’m probably still sleeping.
How can you be so naive????
Hi, Geir: Just in case anyone doesn’t know what “musical chairs” is, it is a kid’s game we used to play in grammer school (now refered to as grade school), There was a chair for everyone who played when you started. Then music was played and you ran around or moved around the chairs and one chair was removed. When the music stopped everyone tried to get a chair. One person didn’t make it and was out of the game. This continued for years.
I didn’t personally know Mark Yager but if they call him Musical Chairs then he is someone who kept people changing posts.
Google and read the links.
Well, what do I not learn here … :_)
Thanks for that info, Pat ! 🙂
We have this game in Scandinavia as well, if you translate our term word by word, it will turn into “the chair game”.
After a little while in this game people will try to find some way of moving around the chairs so that they position themself to be (almost) certain they get a chair.
This is a pattern one sees also in organizations as well when there are changes (especially cut-downs) coming up, either known publicly or just known through the grapevine …
Thus we also name THIS kind of behaviour “The chair game” … 😀
Hi, I can’t believe I did that. The line that said this continued for years should have been “this continued until there was only one person left with one chair and he was the winner.”
Perhaps everyone played Musical Chairs at one time or another, but I don’t know that. Different regions have differnet games, so I just thought I’d contribute.
Pat Krenik, thanks for your contribution of not-is.
LOL, your humor is appreciated.
Rafael He did not not-is but given different reality.. on the same subject… they both exist..
Elizabeth, you are right, two realities here, the funny one and the sinister in the int management hole.
Rafael, look out what words you use… sinister? you are digging a whole and i am not the one will be in it…
Elizabeth, the hole is a reported offices space at the int base of scientology. Mrs. Dabbie Cook reported on it recently in her texas trial, Mr. Mike Rinder has reported on it too, at marty´s blog. Both report abuse in there.
My Big MU…….. not the first or will be the last!
Dear Elizabeth, 🙂
Rafael I been wondering where my MU has originated from… I was thinking chair game, is that what you said is the sinister thing? I believe my MU around something there… Please help…earthsakingly important…hehehe…
Dear Elizabeth, here is the link that explains it pretty fine:
you are very kind thank you ever so much… now i know where ,my MU originated from… bless you…
You are welcome. However I do not find a communication re: not-is that I wrote.
I’m happy to hear you are an original OT VII–full. For those who don’t know, at that time it meant your case was complete and you were ready for your next step. After NOTS came out, per the 1981 Classfication, Gradation and Awareness Chart, one would also do NOTs before doing Ot VIII.
I’m excited because I have a person I am c/sing for who is a full case completion including the L’s, who is on OT VIII.
Curious, what country are you from?
Thanks for your communication…Canada I live in BC. On the Lower Mainlad just outside of Vancouver. Maple Ridge is the towns name… Very close to the magnificent Rockies.. About 1 mile south, Beautiful here I can see the mountains from my living room window,
I had Nots at Flag when it come out.. In which country you live in? and what class auditor are you? Usually auditors dont communicate with me… for fact not to many other scientologist who do, mind you they read my blog but no comments left… so I was taken back by your aknowledgement of my communication…miracles do happen every day… thank you…..
Pat .” However I do not find a communication re: not-is that I wrote.” I dont get this, what you mean?
Ok, I relooked. It was Raphel who said it. Never mind.
The country i was born in is Hungary.
Ooops, misspelled Hungary. Sorry.
The worst is that most Scientologists does not notice, does not know, does not care that these VIPs of Scientology are out, disappeared, declared, etc…
By the way, did Tom Cruise notice anything?
Did David Miscavige notice anything? I mean – really?
I’m sure Tom Cruise is shielded from controversy, and that anything he does hear gets dead agented. As to D. Miscavige noticing, it is assuming he can “notice” anything. Bank reaction with “I only want to know enough to destory” is hardly an ability to notice.
Pat: “I only want to know enough to destory” is hardly an ability to notice.”
Have you ever thought that the man DM have no awarness of knowing that he destroys? No man have reality that they in fact cause such….. They simply do not know anything on any other-different level. A killer who goes out at night and kills that is his very best…. a man who destroys life that is his very best action… He could have read studied of doing things different ways…. but that has not sank into his reality…. cant.. he is nothing but a robot acting out what ever command is needed to be carried out…
“Take a look at Marty’s blog from the perspective of a dedicated Scientologist. ANY criticism of LRH, The Church, Scientology or any belief thereof will be dismissed as natter caused by Missed Withholds. That is my point. One needs an approach that gets a dedicated Scientologist to Think rather than React with dismissal.”
Then one could assemble a set of quotations to do with natter and criticism and what it is and is not. An essay on what has been said by LRH about all this. He did often contradict that belief system in place that says criticism is natter, especially if you consider that finding outpoints a la Data Series requires criticism.
Here are a couple of LRH quotes from definitions in the Tech Dictionary. I do know how these terms have been interpreted but I can’t think of any references where LRH himself contradicts these quotes, can you?
“CRITICISM, 1. most criticism is justification of having done an overt*. There are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1* criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt. (HCOB 21 Jan 60, Justification) 2. a criticism is a hope that they can damage, and that’s what a criticism is, with an inability to do so. (SH Spec 119, 6202C22)”
“NATTER, sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. Such natter always indicates a real overt. (HCOB 7 Sept 64 II)”
marildi, The C/S do critiques on trs and auditing procedures, here criticism is used in a diferent sense and in analisis to find inconsistencies just what the data series do.
Rafael: “here criticism is used in a diferent sense”
I don’t follow. What are you referring to where criticism is being used in a different sense?
marildi, i mean not in the specialized scientology term meaning natter but in the one found in the dictionary as in the profesional analisis based on the know how.
Criticism is a tool. It indicates, to oneself or another, a departure from an ideal scene, best practices or standard procedure. Like any tool, it can be used to help or hurt. One can use criticism to wound, dismay, or diminish; one can use criticism to perfect, achieve, or ascend.
Right you are, Gary. In fact, you’re singing my tune. This point of intention is what I have realized more and more is the key factor – with probably everything.
Oh yes, Marildi, intent is key! And, of course, that the intent be duplicated as well as the comm itself.
Gary, bingo again! I wasn’t even thinking of it in terms of the comm cycle, but that’s a good thing to ponder. I don’t believe LRH himself spoke about duplication of intention in a comm cycle (unless I’m spacing out here). It’s true that intention is one of the components of communication (Axiom 28) but in the Comm Formula itself, with respect to intention there’s only this: “…the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which emanated from cause-point.” Nothing about receipt-point itself duplicating the intention.
The closest thing to it in drills, that I can think of, would be spotting tone levels – but even that isn’t fully a drill of duplicating intention. Maybe there’s something in the old OT levels that drill this ability, At the moment hat’s all I can come up with. Maybe you or someone else has other data…
I agree with you, Marildi, making the _intent_ of comm ‘perfectly clear’ is likely not part of Axiom 28.
While a 1.1 necessarily relies on masked intent so do quite a lot of other, higher level communications. Surprise, (and high toned beings love surprise), often relies on that masking — deception — to achieve the desired effect.
But it seems possible to say the words, “Good job!” with exactly the same intonation, rhythm, and expression, and have the recipient feel congratulated, amused, degraded, or upset — depending entirely upon my intent. So it seems possible that whether or not ‘intent’ is part of the comm cycle depends on whether the intent was intended to be communicated. 🙂
Good comment, Gary. I realized that what you say is probably the key thing to know – intent can be masked and it can be merely mocked up. So I guess the best we can expect is to duplicate what is being “put there” and not what may be behind it.
Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where George is explaining to Jerry how to tell a convincing lie. He says, “You’ve got to BELIEVE it.” 😀
I think that intention would be a part of this `… duplication of that which emanated from cause-point.
After all, we are communicating in concepts which to me includes the intention or `meaning`of what is being communicated.
It follows that what emanated from Cause would in fact be received as the complete concept if duplication were to occur.
Dennis, you got me thinking about this again. Wouldn’t you say that it varies from person to person as to how much the words carry with them the concepts they symbolize? Maybe it depends on how conceptual the person relaying them is – I think of that HCOB “Super-literacy and the Cleared Word”. A communication with words wouldn’t really need their concepts being impelled – in fact, the words themselves can be translated by receipt-point into the concepts those symbols stand for. And as we know from TR 8, the actual intention can be completely different.
I get your point. Still one does need to include intention. It is part of the comm formula.
Pat, you are right. I think now that what I’ve been mixing together was the intention or meaning behind the relayed words and the intention behind sending those words, which could be quite different. Don’t know if that’s clear to you but I’m okay on it now – thanks, to you and Dennis too for getting me to look at it again. 🙂
Btw, aren’t you the lady who has an auditing practice near Seattle? I think I’ve seen your name on different blogs on the web and took note of your location since I grew up in Seattle. Elizabeth lives in Vancouver and she might also find it interesting that you are located nearby.
Okay, got it. There are two definitions – one is “an expression of disapproval” and the other “a critique or evaluation”. In my original comment above, I was just referring to the first definition, wondering what else LRH had to say about that kind of thing besides what I quoted.
In my opinion simply he wanted to kill criticism not to criticize Scientology or the Church.
Marildi, re: Axiom 28 I’d like to point out that in the very early days when the axiom first was published it didn’t have the part about “understanding” at the receipt point. And duplication was very much the thing. We had all auditors running Oppro by Duplication.
So the idea of bringing into being (essentially creating it in a way that the other person could get it) at receipt point a duplication of what eminated from source point was a very important responsibility of the auditor. The auditor had to intend the comm in such a way that it was clear and easy to duplicate, not mumbled or confused, to the receipt point. Receipt point is where the other person could receive the communication.
The auditior’s intention had to be clear as to what was said, written, or otherwise sent so it would be duplicatable at receipt point. So in a way you are right that it didn’t say anything about the receipt point receiving it –that would be a different flow. Nowadays you could fax something to a receipt point, but to do that you would have to make sure the fax number was correct and even then the person could be on vacation for a week and have a comm lag on receiving it.
So it does help to have somone at receipt point who will get that comm you brought into being!
Sindy, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t noticed when I copied the quote out of Scn 0-8 that it was from the earlier version of the Axioms (although the PT version is in the book too). But I did know the part about “duplication with understanding”, from the HCOB. And as you say, the auditor’s tone 40 is supposed to get the intention across.
Thanks too for duplicating (and understanding) my point about nothing being said by LRH as regards the ability of receipt-point itself to duplicate not just the words but the intention behind them.
I thought of a place where this is “sort of” drilled, which is on TR 9. However, it isn’t actually the student who gets drilled, it’s the coach – inadvertently, but still. The coach is supposed to be able to feel the intention of the student.
I guess we’ll have to suggest to any future Scientology researchers of new-and-improved tech that they include some sort of drill on this ability :). As Gary and I both were saying, the intent is key – for receipt point, that is. And as you were saying, it helps cause-point if someone is there who will get the comm. Everybody wins.
Oops, sorry! I meant Pat, not Sindy.
marildi, these intention flows are well covered in the original OT 7 materials and auditing.
Thanks, Rafael, I kind of figured that might be the case – it seems obvious that intention is connected with OT ability. Can you tell more about it?
marildi, in the early scientology magazines ( 1968-1978 ) you can find a lot of info about the original OT levels. Seek in the web for the materials as these are available if you wish. It is my opinion that these original OT levels are the next levels after new OT 8 plus some compilations from the creation of human hability handbook.
Here you are my friend, my reality with love… Your sister has found the key because of her intention to do so.. help was her intention..
Intention… what is… yes, in fact it is power, The Personal Power… which should not be confused with any form of energy…. Personal power or Intention has no mass- bulk or quantity. The regular energy which can be expressed example: as in the punch of the boxer, that energy which is landing on the body, that is energy… it is able to be gauged, can be measured just what it can do on another physical object. Put the indentation in the rib cage. Etc…. That energy has sustenance as in any movement which “is intended” to cause change in other item.
But it is that invisible intention what makes the gloved fist move and land that devastating blow the first place.. Since the body itself does not think… don’t have will power and can’t move without the connection from the spiritual being… The Static=intention… Static is the being itself, So far I have not experienced reality if there is separation in “what is intention or what is static”…it just is=the intangible-infinite.
The intentions second stage is Postulate. The postulate is pictures hold pictures so it has matter already.. Movements are series of pictures… postulates in motion…Example I will hit him here than next blow will land there the next will break the nose, causes the temporarily disconnection in the in his thought pattern In fact that is the blow which will causes the beings temporally disconnection from his own ”intention”, by losing his INTENTION to knock out even for a second has caused the other persons to win since the winners intention to knock out was not interrupted.. With his next punch he slides his “intention-postulate into place, he win!!!!
Also he has less counter postulates on winning therefore his intention has less- fewer barriers walls…will be knocked out less. His postulated do happen more frequently.. Winners have less barriers-wall- in form of counter postulates…
Marildi It is not on OT ability… everybody has intention. That is simply IS… The knowing-understanding how it works one get is in session. Dannis is right an..
Intention is just blocked off by counter intention and fear.. in fact frear is counter intention.. Counter intention is holding back in order not to happen.. and for that there are millions agreements- considerations exist in each individuals univese.
Right, Elizabeth. When I said intention is CONNECTED with OT ability, I had in mind that the ability increases when becoming an OT. I imagine that the more OT a person is the greater will be the intention. It seems they are almost the same thing.
100% you an…please dont mind me talking to self through you!
The blows are the manifestation in solid form of intention. Each blow intention showing just how much one can hold onto ones intention before it is nulled. Battle of giants… absolutely inhuman way to prove ‘I have better stronger can hold it in space longer my intention than you can, haha ha”
Just how much interruption my space can take before I lose self-control… Marildi, I love this concept. Thanks again, without you I would not looked at it in debt Thank once more!!
Thanks, Elizabeth – I love this concept too. You can talk to yourself through me anytime. 🙂
I don’t see any dedicated Scientologists here. This open letter seems to be a failure.
I see you have been out shopping and bought a cart load of humor.. You right… I, myself a has been… Did you notice : I -self- my were all bunched into one sentence? i am advencing hehehe..
Did anyone hear the interview that Marty did with KHOW in Denver this week?
I won’t put a link here because it contains OT data. But has any Independent Scientologist thought about creating a different handling than David Miscavige’s handling of lying about Scientology OT data in media interviews?
I think it’s time to think up a different handling.
I have some suggestions along these lines. I’m selling a pamphlet filled with useful suggestions for Independent Scientologists on how to apply Scientology differently than they apply it at Int Base.
You can place your orders here and I’ll send them right out to you.
You get discounts for buying in bulk and handing them out to other Independents at their gatherings.
Hurry though, because this selection at these prices won’t last long!
It seems that OT data is so wide spread among general public, that one wonders how many people have been catching pneumonia. Probably the media is keeping that data secret for some reason.
The actual OT data is found in the early materials ( 1950-1955 ).
No Vinnie they just simply died after reading all that nonsense… loughing of course!
Vin; You right my friend one need not to be scientologist in order to have knowledge, gather where ever one can find that understanding which will benefit self …..
So here a is a new cognition just born this morning. If you need to take on aspirin before reading by all means go for it… I won’t be offended.
So I have had this morning a very fine revelation, because somebody has communicated put into my space a piece of information… I have realizes that without others I would be nothing.. No-one and most of all I would simply would not have knowledge..
I have known for sometimes that we do learn from everything, from everyone, no matter what comes our way there is a lesson in that action….
I also believe nothing happens without reason….. I wondered over the years what are the reasons we are here… what is the reason for experiencing: all this… these endless lifetimes… full of pain, suffering, losses, fear and anger, the immense upsets.. Which role over us daily… keeps us deeply buried in the MEST’s solidity?
What is the real meaning of all these? While looking, rattling the doors of Heaven and Hell, I have found and to come to understand so many things…and seen the Universe and recalled far away back: I was there when the first light has come about… now that was long way back..
Solo auditing every day… By that I have collected through cognitions immense amount of understanding …the how and the why they do happen.
But why are we here and why must we experience all these?
Well… when the answer comes usually it is very simple…
If we would not experience lifetimes where we interact with others.. if we would not experience having a connection to the body, than we would not have experienced-practiced being separated, being singular, being self… being I and being me… being One, I would never know, never would have experienced to have become aware, conscious have knowledge understanding what is it like being a person… a human… on individual somebody, a mortal… a identity who can create who can experience.. and be involved, who can have … who can have or not to have…..
Without existence believing in life and the life of others I would not have the life as I know the reality as singular a person a human or any other form existing in this Universe and their meanings significances and their value and their impact influence and their power on me.
The richness these practises what we call our track our past is the most incredible experiences any being in this Universe can have.
I have known for years and I have view what ever has happened to me, pulled in, have come to me for reasons: so I can learn from them..
I have truly believed that this life from the first postulate which connected me into the mother’s womb and ” I” have become a person again in human form, being born with cord around my neck and bottom first there were reason for such begining … To confront to understand that as we strangle through each lifetime till we finally learn why we are here…
That understanding can take many- many life times… it will take many as it needed till one realises: Hey, I am in a class room… I must learn because I can’t graduate and leave till I know the lessons why I am here…. Those lessons are not about spirituality… but about understanding the MEST Universe and our interactions…
Dear Elizabeth, me too, I am in a classroom learning the lessons about understanding the MEST Universe and and our interactions.
great and what conclusion you have come to? learned in the class? In nut shall please if you don’t mind sharing your thoughts.…, I have more than one question: what is “free will? I have seen you using those wording but don’t know the meaning how is that applicable and What is a Full OT 7. I know the dictionary definition of OT…..
Dear Elizabeth, my conclusion is along the lines of your beutiful win, we are not alone and a better state should take into account a better state for me and my loved ones not only ” I ” .
On free will, Geir has a great article on the subjet as a page of this blog. I may add that this quality is a potential wich can be improved and should be.
On full OT 7, I am refering to the original OT 7 as developed by lrh but now only been delivered in the freezone, you can ask Pierre Ethier about it.
On the definition of OT, this was the stuff that lrh was investigating in his creston ranch. The first step was the hability to communicate to any person without the assistance of a physical body and using all the existing physical channels. This ability could show your inmortality and will give certainty on it. I don´t know if this OT section was done and the EP achieved, I don´t know anybody having received direct communication from lrh yet.
“”””The first step was the ability to communicate to any person without the assistance of a physical body and using all the existing physical channels.””” This ability could show your immortality and will give certainty on it. I don´t know if this OT section was done and the EP achieved, I don´t know anybody having received direct communication from lrh yet.
The problem is that no one believes that they in fact can do that… because never has lost that ability.. it is still intact and working beautifully. Receiving Communication from LRH… many have received such a communication but have they believed it that it was LRH who communicated to them? Or was their imagination? I am sure that the later was believed. But of course you would need solid proof of such a communication, right? Otherwise that could not have happened and believed and agreed on by many?
Let’s continue “”This ability could show your immortality and will give certainty on it.” I have achieved that state.. but don’t ask for proof in solidity.. That would not be fair would it now? I see your thoughts churning… computing and coming to the conclusion… nah… can’t be, never read it, impassible….
I left St Hill as full OT seven.. the Old kind….
Dear Elizabeth, Wow, in my view there is nothing old about the original OT 7, it´s so nice to hear about your wins on this. About lrh´s wins on this I don´t know nothing at all and I guess there will never be proof in solidity.
Rafael you are a wonderful being…. thank you…
I am not a dedicated scientologist. However, let me take a look at the OP.
Each of the names mentioned in the OP highlight some inconsistency related to the Church of Scientology.
These inconsistencies cannot be recognized by a dedicated scientologist who is looking from “Church of Scientology” as his reference point.
A person must step back from the reference point of “Church of Scientology” to be able to see any inconsistency in that system.
A person is using “Church of Scientology” as his reference point because it is also a survival point for him or her.
What is a survival point? LRH has said that the basic inconsistency is the observation of an immortal thetan trying to survive.
So, this survival point is itself basically something inconsistent.
This is a wonderful trap that we are looking at.
Thank you Elizabeth for telling me you live in Hungrey. Your English is excellent.
hehehe… by the looks of it my English not that good after all… since i have caused a MU. again? I live in canada in BC just outside of Vancouver. By now I am a Canadian… since 57…
I just hope that all dedicated scientologists would do this.
KHTK 18: Helping Somebody in Need
But, will they?