A few days ago:
Jonatan (9): “Daddy, if one of the physical laws of the universe is broken, does it mean that all the laws get broken?”
Me: “What do you think?”
Jonatan: “I think they all get broken.”
A most intriguing question.
Of all the philosophers I know of, Jonatan is one of the most thought provoking. When he was 5 he asked me “Daddy, do you believe in reality?”
Geir Isene - uncut 
Like father, like son! 🙂
LIKE. 🙂
Impressive son you have Mr Isene!
I would ask: Do you think a universal law can be broken?
I will ask him and report back his answer here later today.
His answer: “I think it might be possible. The way to find out is to actually do it.”
HaHa…you got it! ( I mean the answer, of course!)
I slid down a toboggan run in Norway with him many moons ago. A very likable chap. xxxx
My guess is that Jonatan is a past-life Scientologist. 😉
That is a weird thing to write.
Huh? Marildi, srsly? That sounds so wird. Almost prejudiced – to believe that a person must be a past-life scn to be aware, sharp, creative and intelligent.
Actually, I was sort of teasing Geir but he didn’t take the bait. You and Chris did, though. With Chris, I would expect it as he is very “sensitive” about Scientology, but I didn’t think you were. There was no implication in what I said that “a person must be a past-life scn to be aware, sharp, creative and intelligent”. Nevertheless, the comments Jonatan made could very well have come from a Scientologist, especially one from earlier years. And it isn’t uncommon at all that a former Scientologist chooses his Scientology parents.
Took the bait? Sensitive about Scientology? So you are hostile and tormenting me about my catastrophic experiences in Scientology? Your initial comment was weird on the surface and the follow up comment piled on.
I am in Texas where my oldest daughter is graduating from medical school this weekend. Her disconnected mother, absent from our lives for over 20 years, is not present at her commencement because of L Ron Hubbard’s disconnection policy which he lied about on both the front and the back side. How very sensitive of you to tease me about my sensitivity toward that.
We had a lengthy talk this past evening about her memories of her mother and of living in the Sea Org. These were not happy memories.
Thank you for reminding me of the negative attitudes and introverting practices that I naturally tend to forget; however, I would do well to remain mindful of and vigilant against. Without your diligent and hard work making the inconsistencies of Scientology stick out, I may have tended to give it all a pass. Oddly, it is you who have helped put me squarely in Alanzo’s camp rather than Alanzo himself. Without your force feeding of Hubbard quotations, at least one for every situation, I might not have confronted the utter completeness of Scientology and finally its utter inconsistency outside its make believe world.
“So you are hostile and tormenting me about my catastrophic experiences in Scientology”
I always wondered which of you guys who write on this blog, despite of your posts, despite of real names or nicknames…I wonder which of you are winners, victims, still connected or even more, still love Scientology.
Good questions Dragos. I can see how you would ask that. What is your feeling about it?
Completely neutral. I’m Orthodox Christian and I will die Orthodox Christian. Never had any single doubt about my religion. This is me.
dragos wrote:
I always wondered which of you guys who write on this blog, despite of your posts, despite of real names or nicknames…I wonder which of you are winners, victims, still connected or even more, still love Scientology.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, dragos.
Could you explain? And be sure to elaborate on your use of “winners” and “victims”, because these are terms that Scientologists use to viciously blame the victims of Scientology for the abuse that Scientology itself dished out to them.
It is a very brutal and very cruel practice that LRH taught Scientologists to do to those who would dare speak about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of Scientology and Scientololgists.
So please elaborate.
Alanzo
Dragos, your poignant post reminded me of another poignant post I read a few days ago, written by windhorse | May 25, 2013 at 6:37 pm:
———————————–
Just returned from seeing the fantastic and inspiring movie “42″ based on the true story of Jackie Robinson who with the help and encouragement of Branch Rickey, broke the color barrier in baseball.
The line that reminded me WHILE watching the movie that reminded me of Marty came from Branch. When asked by Jackie WHY he fought so hard to get him (Jackie) into Major League Baseball …
Branch said : “You let me love baseball again.”
Marty – through this blog and his first two books and I am SURE his third book
Let me love Scientology again.”
———————————–
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/dont-read-this-book/#comment-266251
Marildi
HaHa……you are sure a ‘dakini’ !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakini
Marianne, no, it’s just truth moving towards truth. (Or however you worded that. ;))
@Alanzo: No intention to offence or to hurt anyone. I’m not Scientologist, just an observer, an outsider. But reading “between rows”, I felt some people still have regrets about their life inside Sci, others are even nostalgics about that period. The most affected seems to be those who really believe in Sci and after that, realize that everything was a scam.
Dragos: “The most affected seems to be those who really believe in Sci and after that, realize that everything was a scam.”
Don’t forget, some of us who “really believe in Sci” (meaning, we thought that it work
ed) still don’t think “everything” was a scam. On the contrary, we see that in its original form it is extremely beneficial. 😉
I understand. As I told you, never intended to offend someone. I’ve just seen a big amount of disillusion among many of you.
Dragos, your new avatar fits you well ;). And your comments on this topic show that beneath the sunny disposition is some wise insight. Especially the first one. I really admired you for speaking up and speaking out. Thanks for doing that. 🙂
Speak out: To talk freely and fearlessly, as about a public issue.
Speak up: To speak without fear or hesitation.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speak+up
Marildi my dear, I was 17 when my generation stood up against communism, in 1989. I was never afraid to speak up or to speak out. And I will never be 🙂
Kudos, dear Dragos. 🙂
dragos
LOVE your comment! It has helped me to look at the Function of Dichotomy in the Game of Life. Lots of ‘cognitions’ and far-reaching clearing…..thanks for communicating!
Ouch.
Chris, where I wrote “‘sensitive’ about Scientology”, I was referring to the subject itself, not your personal experiences. Our exchanges have always been on the former, as far as I can recall.
Heartfelt, Chris. Disconnection is pure evil. Period.
Now, we just have to wait for Marianne Toth to throw in one of her punch lines “It happened for a reason, get over it” …
Anette: Disconnection is pure evil. Period.
Dee: Yes I also love those gentle advices? You rock lady!
Anette, I gather you have good reason for being bitter, but I think your remark about Marianne is not only a slanted interpretation of her viewpoint but unkind and uncalled for as well. As far as I can recall she has never in any way made less of Chris’ experience or done anything like that to anyone else either.
I don’t know if Marianne have made less of Chris’ experience now or in the past. I don’t think so, yet. But she has done that to me on a few occasions. I guess it’s because she is still jealous that I am Geir’s girlfriend? You can ask her. 🙂
“,,,still jealous”? What makes you even say such a thing? I never got that kind of flow from her towards Geir, just a lot of affinity. So what you are saying now seems like more of the same kind of bad-mouthing, with no specifics.
Marildi, I don’t think you want to follow this one through. I really don’t.
Oh God…girls, girls, girls…:) All over the world with the same catsclaw…:)
Cute, isn’t it. 😀
Jepp! 🙂
Marildi
I have just arrived home from a program and see this. First I was surprised, then I felt peace and affinity inside. Just like now. It’s a good sign of not having made any karma. I don’t remember ever not having flowed pure affinity towards anyone on this blog. Also, put here what I know, technically or from experience. I would like to give it a day what I have just been communicated to. I have some knowingness now too, nevertheless I will give it a little time. I have been living in quite a truthful way for a while but it doesn’t mean that there cannot be things whose consequences I can’t foresee in the moment. If there is a thing like that, it sure turns up
in my consciousness a little later. You may call it a com lag, but I find it coming from
a deeper place. So, I will write again.
As it is Geir’s blog, I can surely do as not to write on it in the future as I haven’t and
still don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings in any way.
“So, I will write again. As it is Geir’s blog, I can surely do as not to write on it in the future as I haven’t and still don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings in any way.”
Marianne, it isn’t clear from what you wrote if you are saying you “will write again” or “not write on it in the future”.
I for one was not hurt by you or anyone else on this blog. I find some interesting viewpoints in most comments I read here and I like the variety. 🙂
Anette, what was the purpose of making an apparently hurtful remark that you “guess she is still jealous”? Even if there is some kind of truth to that which the rest of us don’t know about, why would you want to make a public announcement of it?
And what was the reason for insulting her with your other derogatory remark about her “punch line”? That came right out of the blue as she had nothing to do with that particular exchange.
Amen. 🙂
Well, I’ll take that in a positive way and give you credit. 🙂
Way to go. 😀
marildi: Well, I’ll take that in a positive way and give you credit. 🙂
Good when a person lightens up a bit and not so serious, eh? 🙂 Nice!
MT: It’s a good sign of not having made any karma.
Dee: just had a comment or belief about karma, it happens no matter what you say, do or don’t. 🙂
Anette
Thank you for your communication. It has helped me to insights which keep pouring.
This blog is partly a place for scientology related topics. Based on the knowledge I have and also my knowingness, I am sharing here one insight.
Your comment was based on the concept of ‘disconnection’.
Both connection and disconnection are concepts in the mind. They have meaning only if we consider that there is something or somebody to connect to or disconnect from. So there are the underlying considerations (continuous postulates) of either a thing or a body. The very first concept is the ‘me’.
When there is still the concept of the ‘me’, there can be a gap in the mind when this ‘me’ stops postulating a ‘you’ there. Then the one source experiences itself without separation. It is considerations which build up ‘separation’. In the gap there is just one Source. Seeing through, as-ising ‘connection or disconnection’, one is willing, able and knowing ‘gap’, ‘source’.
From this Source there is an emanation of theta which is attracted to theta and also moves ‘mest’. That you and Geir are together is the living proof for that. When Geir was writing the Amazing Persons series, it was a huge emanation of theta, so you also met in ‘body’.
As I see it, if one flows theta towards a field in life, it causes change, scientology and people in scientology included. No ‘matter’ what.
When one writes, the words can appear on a flow of theta, or through the filter of a consideration with attached energy. One can feel the difference. When there is a ‘disagreement’, it is actually the postulate-counter-postulate plus energy case. In the absence of a postulate, there is noone to be wounded, hurt etc.
I guess I stop here, I meant these posts to be an answer to what you wrote.
MT: In the absence of a postulate, there is noone to be wounded, hurt etc.
I guess I stop here.
Why not write a book from your viewpoint on Scientology and life? Just an idea. 🙂
Anette
You also wrote, which I would like to reflect on.
‘…we just have to wait for Marianne Toth to throw in one of her punch lines.’
No, you won’t. I stop blogging . It’s a decision made some weeks ago. I have realized that I have put here a lot from my views and experiences. So it’s time to stop writing. Also, I have been busy in life and will be for a while. I have enjoyed being here which I have expressed many times. Thank you for reading my posts so far. I see you are busy with your blog, wish you success with it!
Marildi
You know that we had an exchange about me stopping blogging a little while ago.
Now I really stop it. It has been too much writing from me for some time. I love exchanges about scientology technical things, the other parts I am not interested in. Also, when Geir posts about his views, work, music etc. My life will be busier for
a while. Some really interesting stuff. I have enjoyed all our exchanges! You know it! What else can I say? Words….do you know how much I love silence? So I Just….
Marianne, you have been one of my all-time favorite posters. I learned a lot from you! You helped me change my universe to a higher level of “awakening”. I hope to “see” you again in the future ;). Love you…
Really? You have actual proof of “former Scientologists choosing Scientology parents”?
Not that it would have anything to do with kids following their parents religion or anything.. just sayin’.
No proof, Sheila. Just what I’ve heard over the years. One person, an OT who was a good friend of mine, told me that her daughter was a last lifetime Scientologist.
p.s. I should add that she knew this before her daughter was born. And she isn’t the only OT who has claimed to be in direct comm with other thetans, whether they were in a body or not. That is quite commonly stated.
One example converted to “not uncommon”. Seems a bit stretchy to me.
That was one example I knew of personally. Otherwise, what I said was, “No proof, Sheila. Just what I’ve heard over the years.”
Like life situations, talks and stories! Nice post!
P.S. What is your answer to Jonatan’s question if you ask it from yourself now?
Nice! Happy that you have a bright boy. He must have done something good to deserve you. That’s the karma look eh?
‘He must have done something good to deserve you’ ‘That’s the karma look’. Geir must have done something ‘good’ too, as ‘karma’ is basically sending out energy which you will get back. Life is seeking to be in harmony. Life is basically ‘teaching’ itself by becoming more and more aware of its abilities and qualities by sending out a ‘product’ which, when ‘comes back’, is informing Life of itself. Life serves Life. My view of it.
I must have been a jerk boss in some past life 😛
Am I allowed to say jerk?
A wise friend of mine told me the other day: I am grateful to people as they up
roles which I don’t need to play!
correction: take up
Haha. I’m guessing thats Ok!
Sure 🙂
Lol!
I will take a wild speculation at this and say that the underlying rules are simple, iterating and the rules are possibly consistent. And I am wondering if a corallary to Gödel’s would consistent rules to bring forth inconsistent results? The resulting universal characteristics that we see might be recursive and self-similar but drift in time and possibly present differently in other locations. The universe is larger than large and has much room for many realities. I would like to have a chat with Jonatan over a glass of milk with a cookie, I would benefit from that encounter as I am with my granddaughter who turns 7 this weekend. Yes, we are having a double celebration as she completes the second grade and her mother her >20th grade.
Marildi –
Highly trained and experienced auditor Bruce Hines details actual brainwashing in Scientology developed by L Ron Hubbard himself on the Truth Rundown:
What do you think about this?
Do you think this is just a squirrel procedure, made up by someone other than Ron hisself?
Do you think Bruce just has “MUs”, or “an axe to grind” and the Truth Rundown is not how Bruce is presenting it here?
Do you believe that this is actually not brainwashing and it is actually the route to spiritual freedom, as Hubbard told you about everything he did?
Alanzo
Also Marildi – one more question: If you do think this is an example of actual brainwashing in Scientology, then what is any brainwashing technique doing in Scientology, if Scientology is truly what Hubbard says it is?
I’ll hang up and await your answers.
Alanzo
“Do you think this is just a squirrel procedure, made up by someone other than Ron hisself?”
Yes, I do. It’s called “reverse Scientology”. Bruce Hines, a highly trained auditor, has talked about reverse Scn himself on an interview I watched a while back. which I tried to find but wasn’t able to. But here is a comment by Jim Logan (also a trained auditor), who I believe is referring to the same interview I saw:
“In Bruce Hines’ interview he mentioned being asked for False Purposes and Destructive Intentions that HE DIDN’T HAVE. A recent short description of what this is, reverse Scientology, has been put out by Pierre Ethier.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/a-very-important-letter-part-c-of-four-parts/
So LRH never meant to tie your own overts and evil purposes as the root of natter or black pr or negative conclusions you may have made about Scientology or Scientologists?
This connection then, used technically in the Truth Rundown by LRH, is squirrel Scientology – actually REVERSE SCIENTOLOGY – never intended by LRH?
Is that what you are saying?
Because I can list all kinds of basic tech where LRH says that natter stems from overts, missed withholds, and MUs and that it is imperative – even a high crime if I recall – for an auditor NOT to get the overt or missed withhold (but not the MU, interestingly) underlying a pc’s natter in session.
So do you think that some of the thoughts you have been having about the unworkability of some of the tech lately stem from your own overts, missed withholds, or evil purposes?
And if you don’t, and I took you into a session like Bruce Hines described, do you think that I would be trying to coerce or distract you out of these conclusions you have come to about Scientology or Scientologists?
Alanzo
Sorry, Al. I have the same viewpoint that Per expressed to you not long ago, which I myself had already said – which is that it would take way too much time to get across to you the principles and mechanics of auditing. But here’s a basic reference for you on this subject of O/W’s. Hope it helps. Note especially this key sentence: “This is a simple matter of the interaction of the pictures of energy.” (I’ve substituted caps for the words that were in italics.):
“A memory is a recording of the physical universe. It contains—any memory—a time index (when it happened) and a pattern of motion. As a lake reflects the trees and moving clouds, so does a memory reflect the physical universe. Sight, sound, pain, emotion, effort, conclusions, and many other things are recorded in this static for any given instant of observation.
“Such a memory we call a ‘facsimile’. The mind, examining a facsimile it has made, can see it, feel it, hear it, re-experience the pain in it, the effort, the emotion.
“There are billions of facsimiles available to any mind. Billions of billions. These facsimiles can be brought into present time by the environment, and ‘unseen’ or ‘unknown’ by the awareness of awareness of the mind, can reimpress their pains, efforts, and aberrations upon the being, thus making one less liable to survive. All unknowingnesses, confusions, aberrations, psychosomatic ills are traceable to facsimiles.
“One believes he can use any facsimile he has ever received. He has been hurt. He uses the facsimile of being hurt to hurt another. But since one survives as well as everything else survives, to hurt another is WRONG. One REGRETS the injury, seeking to turn back time (which 25 regret). Thus the facsimile he used becomes interlocked with his facsimile of trying to use it and both facsimiles ‘hang up’ and travel with present time. One even gets the PAIN he seeks to inflict on another, this being the action against him of the facsimile he sought to give, by action, to another. It startles the preclear, when run through a boyhood fight, wherein he hit another boy in the eye, to feel the pain in his OWN eye at the instant of the blow. And so it is with ALL inflicted injuries.
“This is a simple matter of the interaction of the pictures of energy.
“This is a “MAYBE’, indecision, inaction. This is aberration—trying to do unto others what was done to you—good or bad.” (Scn 8-80)
p.s. I see there’s a typo in this online edition I copied from. In the paragraph that begins “One believes…”, where it reads: (which 25 regret) – it should read: (which is regret).
What???
This has nothing to do with LRH’s use of brainwashing, as described by Bruce Hines in that video, or with whether LRH meant for Scientologists to be coerced out of their conclusions about the bad or unworkable things in Scientology.
Marildi – I will say to you what I should have said to Per when he blew from our comm cycle on the lack of False Memory Syndrome safeguards in Scientology auditing:
As a Scientologist, Logic 8 compels you to search outside of Scientology for ideas of comparable magnitude to improve your judgement of the ideas found inside Scientology.
Obvious brainwashing techniques exist in Scientology. In order to identify them, you must look outside of Scientology for what people outside of Scientology call brainwashing. You must know what operand conditioning techniques are. You must understand what social psychologists call socially coercive techniques.
Only then will you have judgement on the good and the bad in Scientology, as developed by L Ron Hubbard, or as squirreled by David Miscavige.
Don’t squeal and run away like Per did. Stand your ground and confront these ideas head on.
And may you never be the same again.
L. Alanzo Stanfield
Al: “As a Scientologist, Logic 8 compels you to search outside of Scientology for ideas of comparable magnitude to improve your judgement of the ideas found inside Scientology.”
I have done that and am still doing that.
Your problem is that you are comparing what you THINK Scientology is – which you don’t actually know.
Thought-stopping technique No. 2045, and Cognitive dissonance reduction technique number 1.
The 3 cognitive dissonance reduction strategies are:
(1) reduce the importance of one or the other conflicting beliefs,
(2) add more non-conflicting beliefs so they outweigh the conflicting beliefs,
or (3) change the conflicting beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent and conflicting.
http://alanzosblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/cognitive-dissonance-more-about.html
You’re welcome.
Alanzo
But I gotta give you credit, Al. You do know a lot about reverse Scientology. 😉
What I am saying is that you can not stay on the subject of the Truth Rundown by LRH. You have to dive into a completely unrelated part of Scientology – that lengthy quote from Scientology 8-80.
You never even show what one has to do with the other. Nor do you acknowledge the Blow-Offs HCOB, which would be relevant as a basic example of tech where LRH ties your negative conclusions about Scientology to your own overts.
You can’t look at any of it and then you tell me that I do not understand Scientology – a major non-sequitur generalization.
The usefulness of your response – to you – leaves your belief that you DO understand Scientology intact….as long as you do not look at the Truth Rundown which was the subject of our discussion……
But I just thought I would give it one more try, to see if this time I push the button, I get a different response.
Oh well. I have done lots of Op Pro By Dup, drilled a lot of TRs. I’m even a Pro Trs and Upper Indoc TRs grad. As well as being well drilled in admin TRs and lots and lots of CCHs. Lots of Sup training and practice too.
New unit of time, Marildi!
New unit of time.
Alanzo
Look back at our comm cycle, Al, and you’ll see that YOU were the one who brought up O/W’s in connection with the Truth Rundown. And apparently you didn’t duplicate that the 8-80 quote speaks to the basis of O/W tech.
I’ll say again, I’m not going to get into the Blow-Offs HCOB or anything else, for the reason I gave – it would take too long, at best. And at worst, it would go nowhere, which is what I’ve experienced in the past attempting to talk about tech with you.
I’m not trying to condemn you, just stating an observation. It may come across as a generalitgy but Per, as a highly classed auditor, and even myself as a “medium-classed” auditor can plainly see that you don’t know what you’re talking about as regards the tech.
I don’t think Jim Logan is either a very trained nor very experienced auditor, Marildi. Bruce, on the other hand, is.
I didn’t say Jim was “very” trained, because I don’t know his training level, but I’m quite certain that he’s trained. The main thing I was saying was that Bruce himself has talked about the reverse Scientology going on and Jim, in his post, confirmed that idea and added that Pierre Ethier (a Class 12, as you know) wrote a description of the reverse Scn as well.
Marildi –
Didn’t LRH invent reverse Scientology, too?
What makes the Truth Rundown “reverse Scientology” and not just “Scientology”?
Jim Logan said that asking Bruce Hines for false purposes that he DID NOT HAVE made it reverse Scientology, per you.
But my point is that introverting a person onto his own overts – as the cause of a negative view that he has about Scientology – is a brainwashing tactic.
Can you see the difference?
Now walk with me here:
Everyone has overts. Human beings are moral creatures. They all have times when they have transgressed moral codes. Even LRH said this in the BC tape “Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?”. He very much understood this about human beings.
Therefore, you can ask for an overt from a human being and get one at any time, on any subject. OWs are unlimited in a human being.
To take an unlimited source and say that it is the CAUSE of a view that you have which is negative about Scientology, is like saying that air causes tables. “Air is present wherever there are tables, therefore air causes tables.”
This is false reasoning. Because, as moral creatures, human beings feel guilt, they can be introverted onto their overts. And this vulnerability can be used against them to browbeat them out of having views that they have – if their guilt can be alleviated by giving up their views.
This is classic brainwashing. Every totalitarian state has used this. From Maoist China, to Soviet Russia, to Islamist Iran. Hubbard learned it from them (Maoist China and Soviet Russia) and put it into Scientology to use on Scientologists.
You can’t see this because you presently demonstrate that you can not think WITHOUT Scientology. You demonstrate this every day here that you are unable to see things from outside of the filter of Scientology.
So I don’t know anything about Scientology, and neither does Bruce Hines, but Jim Logan does. Because Jim Logan supports your Scientology filter and Bruce Hines and I don’t.
This is the basis for your argument. That, and an LRH reference.
Some day. When you are good and ready, Marildi, you will be able to see this.
New unit of time.
Alanzo
Alanzo — I think this must be the procedure that Bruce Hines is talking about:
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/2722.
It does describe a truth rundown like what Bruce describes — and it refers to a Truth Confessional, (the confessional itself is not posted online anywhere that I can find.) The RPF technical program itself is signed as being written by the CS International (no name shown) and is dated from 1997.
Chuck Beatty also has brought this up and makes the same descriptions as Bruce Hines. He has asked for the full docs to be leaked on it.
I have always wondered how these two come together.
1.The only sin in THIS universe is to communicate.
2.Communication is the UNIVERSAL solvent.
So, right. When we truely communicate it’s a sin as it breaks the laws and dissolves THIS universe.
Interesting comparison. This is an excellent example of Hubbard’s work being consistent within its own frame of reference.
I think that consistency is manufactured when a Scientologist “thinks with” Scientology, right?
Because without thinking with Scientology, the two statements:
1.The only sin in THIS universe is to communicate.
2.Communication is the UNIVERSAL solvent.
Are clearly not factual and are completely unrelated. They are figurative statements which only make sense within an indoctrinated Scientologist who sees the world as LRH taught them to see it, and not as it actually is.
There is no such thing as a universal crime.
And there is no solvent which is universal.
So these are figurative statements only. They are not factual statements.
So only by thinking with Scientology does this make any sense at all. By all other standards this is at least sloppy thinking or simply the parroting of a belief.
Alanzo
Calm down! I thought that’s what I said! Haha
I’m not being political. .. more physical and looking for how anything is ever consistent at all. But you were just agreeing and embellishing. I see that. Marianne was just doing something, practicing, rationalism, something one has to do to practice religion. Maybe actors do something like this to prepare fora part? To act like a character not natively like themselves?
Alanzo: Are clearly not factual and are completely unrelated. They are figurative statements which only make sense within an indoctrinated Scientologist who sees the world as LRH taught them to see it, and not as it actually is. There is no such thing as a universal crime. And there is no solvent which is universal.
Chris: And yet, there they are day after day, proclaiming the various doctrines of how many cults on the earth?
It does make me wonder at my own doctrines. To what degree is my world my own fabrication and to what degree is there a real world, solid and needing no interpretation to be real? It seems that my own self is the weakest link in that chain of reality. It is the self that comes and goes like a fruit fly. Or is it simply the moment that abruptly arrives and just as abruptly disappears?
I wonder about my own doctrines as well.
I have even come to accept that human beings are not capable of fully understanding their place in the world, and the constant urge to do so is an un-ending desire which can never be fulfilled.
I have found that if I treat my unceasing intellect as above I am happier.
I have also come to see that the intellect is not all there is to me, and there is a way to understand whole swaths of existence without the intellect. I have found that my intellect actually blinds me from these states of existence.
I have come to see that the reason buddhist teachings go on and on about compassion and the recognition that we all experience suffering is because the practice of this opens up huge channels of communication and information that are blocked off without this “right view”. And I can see how the types of information that come across this channel of compassion, and the recognition of one’s own and other’s suffering, can lead to wisdom.
And this wisdom is not a wisdom of the intellect.
I can only describe it as a wisdom of the “heart”.
I don’t think there is any wisdom of the intellect that will get anybody anywhere.
Weird, I know. But seemingly true.
For now.
Alanzo
This is an advertisement for a hospital. But I think it reflects a viewpopint that opens the floodgates to wisdom.
I think that this is what Buddhists call “right view”.
Alanzo
Good one Alanzo. It’s what anyone could call right view.
Sure wish I could watch that “advertisement for a hospital” but I did read many of the comments. My older comp won’t upgrade the Flash any further. But from what I read was excellent. Thanks Alanzo
Beautiful video, Al. I could cry and cry.
Thank you Alanzo, for finding a way to express that which I feel but have not been able to summarize well. I feel this is from your heart Alanzo, and this is the “you” I have come to know and love. And this is how I came to love you. Just as you say, the “heart” opens to that which cannot be intellectualized. And that is how I came to meet you for the first time. I love your new insights, and am I very glad that you really are exceptional at expressing them.
p.s. thanks for the video you posted on compassion. wow.
It may not seem like it to very many people, but the viewpoint expressed in that video is why I became “Alanzo” so many years ago.
Alanzo
Say more on this, intrigued . . .
Perhaps this wisdom of the heart makes one a “factivist” like Bono:
Chris wrote:
Say more on this, intrigued . . .
When you are a critic of Scientology on the Internet, you get accused, over and over, by many different people, in many different ways, that the reason you are writing what you are writing is because you intend to harm others. Or because you are insane. Your insane intention to harm others, and your insane intention to destroy things which help others (like Scientology) is the only reason you would be writing what you are writing, and saying what you are saying.
Over and over, person after person comes at you and tells you this. And tells others that this is what you are all about. You even come across discussions that you were never involved in where people are talking about you and saying this about you to others.
Sometimes people say you don’t know what you are talking about, and this is why you are saying what you are saying, but mostly it is your insane intention to harm others that is most consistently what you get accused of having by Scientologists when you are a critic of Scientology.
When you have been doing this for as long as I have, it takes a toll on you. You can have times when you begin to believe it. Simply because it is said so often by so many different people and in so many different ways, it consistently becomes part of the environment for you.
All I can say is that when I got involved in Scientology, I did so sincerely with the intention to help myself and others. And when I joined staff, I did so sincerely with the intention to help others. I made many personal sacrifices to do both these things because seeing others do well gives my own life meaning. I have never been a guy who finds happiness and meaning in normal, material things. I find happiness and meaning in my life when I can help others.
When I became Alanzo, it was with the same intention as when I first became a Scientologist, and when I first joined staff. When I became Alanzo, I knew the risks of damage to myself personally, just like when I joined staff and stayed on staff for 7.5 years, I knew I would make almost no money at it personally and I made material sacrifices every day. But that didn’t matter because those material things I was sacrificing meant less to me than in helping others.
When I finally had enough information to see that Scientologists were being lied to and deceived, I knew that I had a duty to them to expose this, no matter the personal cost to myself.
My intention has been the same all along. And my intention – the things I see and feel in my own soul, and have all along – are very well expressed in that advertisement for that hospital.
I know that I had the right intention all along in becoming Alanzo, a name which I picked because it means “ready for battle”. At the time and in the situation that I picked it, believe me, it was appropriate. I knew what I was getting into and I did all this very much on purpose.
I know what this sounds like and what this looks like to others. Like I am being “holy” or something. People have often not understood me, and what I think and feel, which gives my own life meaning, and which gives me happiness.
I do understand me, though.
And always have.
That video is the truth from inside Alanzo.
What it looks like to others is their business.
Allen Stanfield
Alanzo; What it looks like to others is their business.
Thank you so much for sharing your story. I can relate to it and it helps me also. Just wish I could watch that video, but alas, you gave a good picture of it by explaining your own circumstance. 🙂
I found the youtube version for you:
Alanzo
You are a good man Allen Stanfield.
Alanzo: think that consistency is manufactured when a Scientologist “thinks with” Scientology, right?
Chris: My point was only how neatly Marianne did that. Perfect. And that’s how it works.
Great emphasis is placed on “as-isness” as that activity which occurs in the moment of destruction and of creation. That was nice and all, but no human can break the laws of this universe, so far.
As-isness is essentially applicable to one’s own universe.
Understood. But I’ve been looking at this mechanic for some time now and am no longer sure that is laid out just right. I’m not arguing against it but I am seeing other metaphors for what might be happening.
I looked at that video earlier and I can see how energies would eventually come into harmony or a “smooth rhythm” – another way of saying that the DIS-harmony has been as-ised. Even the principle of karma could be described in terms of energy, as could the idea in Buddhism that the universe “cleans itself”.
Cool.
LOL, our metronomes are ticking to the same beat. 😉
marildi commented As-isness is essentially applicable to one’s own universe.
Chris: In this world, do we ever have more than our own universe? I’m seeing how this has been worked out repeatedly. All paths seem to get around to this idea eventually.
I have found that trying to practice as-isness during meditation is a mistake. As I have come to understand it, and this may continue to change, the purpose is not to as-is the things that arise while meditating.
As-isness is based upon a view of the self and the world which is not consistent with Buddhist teaching, and using that worldview while practicing Buddhism will bog you down.
Just something I’ve learned.
How would you describe the purpose of meditating?
Also, from what I understand, one could rightly say that IN the original Buddhist philosophy, there is “no soul” – meaning only that there is nothing said about it in the teachings. The reason for that, per my understanding, is that the existence of a soul had not been proven one way or the other and thus the Buddha did not take it (“soul”) into account in his search for truth – and, having found truth, neither did he take it into account or address it in the teachings and practice that he developed. Basically, he avoided the subject simply because it was not provable, and he subsequently found that it wasn’t necessary to do otherwise to achieve his aim. In other words, he left the question open, per my understanding of Theravada Buddhism, which is the form based on the original writings. The Buddha never said there was a soul and he never said there was no soul. He was actually silent on the subject.
I can see that if a Buddhist became completely free of the universe, as in Nirvana, “soul” would have no relationship to, or bearing upon, anything in the universe – so in that sense, how could there be an “individual entity” or “soul”, as that would be conceiving of it in physical universe terms and context. But here’s the kicker for you – I actually got that same concept from Scientology based on the idea that a thetan is nothing more than, or other than, potential – or, expressed in another way, ability (to postulate/create) – and thus thetan/soul can’t be expressed in physical universe terms.
Marildi wrote:
Also, from what I understand, one could rightly say that IN the original Buddhist philosophy, there is “no soul” – meaning only that there is nothing said about it in the teachings. The reason for that, per my understanding, is that the existence of a soul had not been proven one way or the other and thus the Buddha did not take it (“soul”) into account in his search for truth – and, having found truth, neither did he take it into account or address it in the teachings and practice that he developed.
Actually, this is not exactly correct.
In Buddhism there are two levels of truth: Relative truth and Ultimate truth. Relative truth is the truth found in every day living here in the physical universe. Ultimate truth is the one where, I guess, all dogs go to die in (joke). One doesn’t necessarily cause the other, or create effects on the other either.
The “soul” has been translated more often in Buddhists texts as the “self”. And the actual teaching in Buddhism regarding this is that in ultimate truth, the self has no inherent existence.
In other words, in Buddhist teaching, the self requires other causes and conditions for it to exist at all. It does not cause its own existence.
In relative truth, the self certainly does exist. And a Buddhist is invited to examine this existence for one’s own to discover its nature. In fact, it is one of the most important things to contemplate in Buddhist meditation – to look and see exactly what this self -uniquely for your self.
There are fundamental concepts in Buddhism, which when you stick to studying how each of the schools regard these, tend to answer all the questions you just asked. It takes a lot of study and practice to get the answers for yourself.
Here is a list you might use to see how Zen, Tibetan, Theravada, and other schools teach about these concepts:
Anatta
Impermanence
Two Levels of truth
The Five Skhandas
Concentration
Insight
Dukkha
4 Noble Truths
8 fold Path
All schools teach just about the same thing on each of these, but they are expressed a little differently. I have found that by seeing what each of these has to say, and what parts they emphasize, I get great insight for myself on how they relate to me.
There is no such thing as “standard tech” in Buddhism, where the teaching itself is most important to duplicate.
In Buddhism, you are to work out your own salvation with diligence. And developing your own understanding of your own completely unique and ineffable universe is the only way to get there.
In order to understand this no inherent existence thing, the best teacher on this, I have found, is a 2nd century Indian teacher named Nagarjuna. He was a guy who used logic to decimate (prove wrong) just about every Buddhist and Hindu religious belief they had at that time. And for this, they consider him one of the greatest Vedic philosophers since the Buddha himself. Imagine that. A “critic” who is regarded as a spiritual teacher!
His most dense and enlightened work is called “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way”. He uses 4 valued logic (True, False, Both True and False, Neither True Nor False) two examine all of existence and cut away everything that has no inherent existence, in order to find what it is that DOES have its own inherent existence.
His line of questioning and his logic is very instructive to use as a student of Buddhism in one’s own practice. But this is not intro level stuff.
The best intro level book on how to get started, for me, was “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”. I did not understand it until I began meditating. And then it made TOTAL SENSE to me and got me going for real in my Buddhist practice.
For a really good book on the concept of the self, and how the Buddha taught it to be regarded, I have found this one the best explanations:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html
Good luck!
Alanzo
Here is a shorter answer to your question by the same guy – Lee Iacoca in a robe – Thanissaro Bhikku:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
And one more thing: It seems weird that a religion that teaches past lives would also teach that the “soul” does not exist. What transmigrates from life to life if it is not the soul?
The answer seems impossible at first. But as you study and practice, the contradictions begin to evaporate. Insight happens and the simple answer appears. And the insight, for me, appears not in any language, but as a “spiritual understanding” for lack of a way to put it in English or any other language.
One of the first things that I was able to see for myself, through my own study and practice of Buddhism, was how immortality can actually exist. I was never able to work this out as a Scientologist.
I finally understood it when I took a look though a Buddhist perspective.
I have no idea what you are going to find, Maridli. Nor do I pretend some “higher state” where I have found the answers that you are going to find if you “follow the one true path”. That really isn’t how I have found it to work with Buddhism.
Buddhism is the most intimate and personal and unique spiritual practice I have ever experienced. It has shown me parts of myself that have been thoroughly hidden from me in my daily life, and through all other spiritual practices I have engaged in. It has revealed to me my own “language” that I actually run on – which has NOTHING to do with English. None of these “wins” were written anywhere in Buddhist scripture.
They are ineffable, and entirely unique to me.
I have no idea what you might find.
Again, good luck!
Alanzo
Al, thank you so much for going to the trouble of writing all you wrote. In case you didn’t know, I always liked you in spite of myself :P, and in spite of the fact that for the most part you are misguided about Scientology and generally deranged – kidding! (at least about the last part ;)). And this kind of thing is the reason why. 🙂
Just wanted to write a quick note to let you know that I’m actually too PTP’d until later this evening to even read what you wrote but will do so then.
Nice post, Al.
I’m truly happy for you. Namaste.
Good article. I liked the concluding paragraph:
“In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there’s the experience of such total freedom [ahem] , where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?”
I have to tease you about the phrase “total freedom” used in the above. You and your ilk (LOL) have given the pro-gang such a hard time about LRH’s use of that phrase :P. But seriously, very good article.
(Uh, I don’t get it – Lee Iacoca in a robe??)
Marildi wrote:
(Uh, I don’t get it – Lee Iacoca in a robe??)
I hope this picture shows up…
Bummer. Didn’t work.
That is a picture of Thanisaro Bhikku – the guy who wrote those books. He’s totally an American, and he reminds me of Lee Iacocca in a robe.
Alanzo
Hilarious!
Marildi wrote:
I have to tease you about the phrase “total freedom” used in the above. You and your ilk (LOL) have given the pro-gang such a hard time about LRH’s use of that phrase . But seriously, very good article.
Yes I know what you mean about “Total freedom”. I cringe whenever I see stuff like that in Buddhism.
Buddhism has concepts in it which have a lot of potential to be abused by teachers who want to exploit their students’ spiritual vulnerabilities. I have run across many stories of very abusive Buddhist cult leaders.
Just as LRH said in his BC tapes on SOP Goals, a goal is a way to keep from confronting present time by ignoring what’s around you right now, and always diving into the future. I don’t think totalist goals are helpful in my own Buddhist practice because I have learned my lesson about them from Scientology. So I reject them.
In another book, Thanissaro Bhikkhu called a self a “strategy for happiness”. That is a really good, workable concept for me. It is a great way to look around and see whether your “selves” are performing up to snuff.
Maybe someday I will see that all selves have no inherent existence. But for now, I’m going to keep building and re-building my strategies for happiness.
To me, right now, that is Buddhism.
Alanzo
Ironically, I get that “total freedom” precisely fits Buddhism – but not Scientology. It is actually the ultimate goal in Buddhism, whereas LRH never intended it to be so for Scn and uses the term loosely (as essentially explained in a PL). Even the highest state LRH ever described, Cleared Theta Clear, is still about universes and playing games:
CLEARED THETA CLEAR, 1 . a person who is able to create his own universe; or, living in the mest universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle mest universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the mest universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence. (Scn 8-8008, p. 114) 2 . next level above theta clear (which is cleared of need to have a body). All of a person’s engrams have been turned into conceptual experience. He is clear all the way along the track. He can really deliver the horsepower. (5206CM26A) 3 . one who has full recall of everything and full ability as a thetan. (Scn 8-80, p. 59)
Buddhism, on the other hand, has as its ultimate goal Nirvana – where the game is OVER. You wrote about your “strategies for happiness”. Well, the friend I keep mentioning told me he has had a very, very brief glimpse of Nirvana and that it is indeed ineffable happiness and bliss. He’s still a “householder” but has been seriously meditating for years and made great progress. And once he has fulfilled his householder responsibilities, he intends to renounce the world as he considers that is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal this lifetime, which he has every intention to do.
The Buddhist practice is a very long endeavor, just as LRH said. And what he tried to do was to find a route to the playing of a much better game, a route that anyone could do and which would not take them years and years to do it. He didn’t achieve his goal of mapping out the the full route to OT abilities that he described, but Scientology (done right) does enable a person to play a much better game. (You should try it, Al. 😛 😉
Here’s a short excerpt of Lee Iacocca in a Robe giving a talk on Buddhist teachings on one of my favorite websites: Tricycle.com. They have online “retreats” where teachers from various schools of Buddhism teach different parts of Buddhism from their perspective.
This one is on the Ten Perfections.
http://www.tricycle.com/online-retreats/ten-perfections/ten-perfections-week-2-truth
What I like about him as a teacher is that his language is very simple, concise and clear. I may be mistaken in this, but I take that as a sign that he knows what he is talking about.
Alanzo
Alanzo: In Buddhism, you are to work out your own salvation with diligence. And developing your own understanding of your own completely unique and ineffable universe is the only way to get there.
Chris: At 18 years old, I landed on this as my own true purpose for living and went about following this path. Scientology was seemingly an unnecessary fork in the road; However, my personal resurrection from the ashes of this experience has been very enlightening for me and I am pleased with both where I am and where I am not today.
Can the Law be broken? Not that I know of. Our very existence seems to be a manifestation of, and intrinsically tuned to that Law.
Wow, Al, very impressive post. Packed with interesting and useful data – thank you! Valkov and you are great resources on the subject of Buddhism.
In my post above, I wrote that “thetan” seemed to me to fit in with the Buddhist concept of “no soul” in the sense of it having no relation to the physical universe, being nothing but “potential” or “ability”. But after I wrote that I talked to my Buddhist friend (who has also been a Scientologist and thinks LRH was a genius in his own right). He sorted me out by explaining to me that even the idea of potential is not there in Buddhism as that would imply a “clinging to being” and thus it would not equate to no permanent self. You added additional data. The link you posted is kind of long but I’ll eventually get to it.
I also got from the friend that a serious student of Buddhism actually needs to reject and renounce the world in order to make significant progress towards the state of Nirvana. I’m curious what your thoughts are about that, for yourself. (I know, I’m asking all the hard questions first! ;))
Marildi wrote:
I also got from the friend that a serious student of Buddhism actually needs to reject and renounce the world in order to make significant progress towards the state of Nirvana. I’m curious what your thoughts are about that, for yourself. (I know, I’m asking all the hard questions first! )
Part of my struggle with Buddhism has been with its moral teachings. This idea of having to renounce the world is something in Buddhism that I don’t presently accept.
In the United States at this time, we are in a very unique position with regard to Buddhism. For 2500 years, it spread through many different cultures, and developed and morphed into many different schools. It changed, was clarified, was lost and was re-exhumed. Right now, we are on the receiving end of huge amounts of highly developed data from all over the world which we can pick and choose and clarify for ourselves.
I have a LOT of studying to do before I am going to make the decision to renounce human life and society.
To me, Buddhism is:
1. Stress should be comprehended,
2. its cause abandoned,
3. its cessation realized,
4. and the path to its cessation developed.
Right now, I am not imagining a time where renouncing the world is going to help me achieve those 4 steps. Maybe some day that will change. But from where I sit right now, I have no reason to believe it will be necessary.
Enlightenment is a long, long way off. In fact, it’s so far off for me that to judge my practice by “enlightenment” (whatever that is) is to leave present time completely and go live in some non-existent future
The Buddha taught Buddhism for non-monks, as well. He called them “house-holders”.
My practice is right here and right now. It includes the improvement of my life and my happiness as it presently exists all around me.
Why renounce all that potential gain?
Alanzo
Al: “My practice is right here and right now. It includes the improvement of my life and my happiness as it presently exists all around me. Why renounce all that potential gain?”
Understood. (I’ll tease you again and say that you have a very Scientological viewpoint – the purpose of which is to play a better game. :))
Just so you know, Marildi, the first book I bought by Hubbard was DMSMH, at a used bookstore on Green Street in Champaign, IL. The first book I bought at the Champaign mission was “Hymn of Asia”, and the reason I bought it was that the Mission Holder, after talking to me, found out that I was studying Buddhism.
That’s when the Scn dissemination cycle turned to positioning Scn with Buddhism for me. I was told that Scientology was “Buddhism updated, with meters”. And the book that I ought to buy was Hymn of Asia.
Not knowing enough about Buddhism, and not knowing anything about Scientology, I was not able to dispute, or even question, this positioning.
So, long story short, I got involved in Scientology believing that I was getting involved in Buddhism.
Besides the tape “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology” which I listened to where LRH told me that he was blinded and crippled in combat during WWII and cured himself with Dianetics, the first deception I encountered in Scientology was that “Scientology is Buddhism”.
So, knowing what I know now about both subjects, I can dispute and question that Scientology has anything to do with Buddhism much more thoroughly.
To position Scientology with Buddhism is a deception. Scientology does mimic Buddhism. But as with all mimicries, once you look past the surface, it all falls apart.
Scientology also mimics psychotherapy, and drug treatment programs, and psychological personality testing and Christianity (with its cross) and and and….
Also, I did not end up “playing a better game” after 16 years of Scientology.
So I am afraid I can not accept your positioning technique. It is not true.
I hope you don’t mind.
Keep trying, though. I’ll bet you’ll get me back in session some day!
Alanzo
Al: “So, knowing what I know now about both subjects, I can dispute and question that Scientology has anything to do with Buddhism much more thoroughly. To position Scientology with Buddhism is a deception.”
Would you believe, the Buddhist friend of mine says the same exact thing. However, he says that LRH had bought some false ideas about Buddhism that had been handed down since well before his time. In other words, LRH was operating on false data. And, as I’ve said, this friend does think that LRH was a genius in his own right. He considers that not many people will take up Buddhism in a serious way, and feels that Scientology can help many people. He himself was greatly helped, he says, especially by the lower Bridge.
You wrote: “Also, I did not end up ‘playing a better game’ after 16 years of Scientology. So I am afraid I can not accept your positioning technique. It is not true. I hope you don’t mind.”
I don’t mind. And I hope you don’t mind that some of us, even my Buddhist friend and several Buddhists who post on Marty’s blog, seem to feel that Scn did result in the playing of a better game – in spite of all the ways it went wrong.
You: “I’ll bet you’ll get me back in session some day!”
Wouldn’t that be a rip roarin’ riot? 🙂 I would make sure you got a well experienced Class 8. And you and I both would be back to the old drawing board – coming from opposite directions, of course. 😉
I agree with your friend that the data on Buddhism that LRH had at his disposal was not as good as the data we have today in English.
However, there are certain fundamentals of Buddhism, such as Anatta, and impermanence, which LRH did have access to, and which he knowingly left out of Scientology, or disagreed with completely, and still said that he was Buddha, and that Scientology was a cousin to Buddhism – in order to recruit people and get them to pay him for Scientology.
This is an intentional deception.
Also, yes, Scientology does serve as a kind of kindergarten of spirituality for many people. My brother in law put it best when he said that they had “packaged up good spiritual ideas, put them in course packs, and made them available to me in mini malls, with supervisors to help me really get it. No one else did that for me.”
This is very true, too. The good in Scientology is absolutely there. The spiritual ideas, if they were food, would be truly good and nutritious food.
But good and nutritious food can be used as bait on a hook, too. And in fact, that is the best bait. And that is what anything in Scientology that is truly good is used for.
Bait.
So yes, what is good in Scientology is good.
But the subject, as a whole, is a spiritual deception.
And that, in my opinion, is the most important thing that people should know about Scientology.
Alanzo
AL: “However, there are certain fundamentals of Buddhism, such as Anatta, and impermanence, which LRH did have access to, and which he knowingly left out of Scientology, or disagreed with completely, and still said that he was Buddha, and that Scientology was a cousin to Buddhism – in order to recruit people and get them to pay him for Scientology.This is an intentional deception.”
Where do you get that there was an intentional deception? As a matter of fact, LRH was very straightforward about his disagreement with Buddhist thought. Here’s an example from 8-8008, as regards Nirvana:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”
As for the idea of Anatta, here’s an excerpt from Creation of Human ability, in reference to the process R2-48 “Separateness”:
“It can be concluded that the thetan is an individual separate from every other thetan and that he has never been part of any other thetan. There are many ‘phony’ incidents implanted on the track whereby an individual is made to feel that he is a result of explosion having occurred to a larger body. He is also made to feel that he was at one time ‘whole’ and is now only a splinter of himself. This is only an effort to reduce him. He has always been himself, he will always be himself, down to a time when he is entirely identified with this universe, at which time he would no longer be himself simply because he would no longer be conscious.”
It started to look like we were actually having a relatively rational discussion, you and I. OMG. But you’re going to have to do better than to throw out things like – the good in Scn is just “bait” and “the subject,as a whole, is a spiritual deception”. Huge generalities with no specifics. Your floor. 😉
Marildi: “Where do you get that there was an intentional deception?” (Intentional deception by Hubbard)
Chris: When Al points out specific examples of Hubbard’s lying, how do you process; what do you do with this information? And trying to be fair to Hubbard and to your arguments that his situational ethics; problems with the government; MK Ultra, etc. justify later lying; Using an example prior to any type of political pressure or need to do so, the example from the book jacket intro to DMSMH where Hubbard falsely claims to have been healed from being blinded and crippled by war wounds, things which never happened: 1. How do you process this one fact? 2. Why do you feel this lie was unintentional?
Alanzo, and everyone who followed the thread discussion on compassion:
We are not alone! Not by a long shot!
94,000 and counting…
http://charterforcompassion.org/the-charter/#charter-for-compassion
This is an interesting approach to the reform of fundamentalism.