What is Scientology, really?

Scientology is a trick to make you believe that you need Scientology to finally let go.

Specifically it takes you on a ride where you are led to believe that a “Rective Mind” is responsible for your ills – until you are rid of it. Then it is the fault of tormented souls infesting your body. And when those are exorcized your ills can be attributed to ARCX, PTPs, O/Ws, W/Hs, MW/Hs, PTSness, Out List, BPC or yet unreleased OT levels. All instead of just letting go. It will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars until you finally believe you deserve to let go and simply do just that. The “smarter” you are, the more it will take for you to believe you can simply “let go“. The “smarter” people will crave a more complex solution to “become free”.


100 thoughts on “What is Scientology, really?

      1. To me it’s all a matter of perspective . We are never taught to look. We are taught to look using a tool. I dont know if it is out there somewhere but the only tool we really need is the ability to look

  1. New Age platitude. Oversimplification.

    What Scientology offers is PROCESS. People do not ordinarily have the chance to process past mistakes, failures, hurts and upsets.

    Before I go on sounding like I am championing Scientology as the “only” answer, let me first say that life itself processes a person, though slowly – there is only so much at a time that a human mind can process, and like a computer, it multi-tasks hundreds of processes at a time as one goes through life. And sadly, the more present-time problem overwhelming the processor, the less processing occurs. The individual deteriorates.

    “Let Go” is an avoidance of process.

    Getting someone to LOOK is a focused process. It focuses attention on one area and moves it along. It completes cycles and frees up the processor.

    Telling someone what to think inhibits process. Process is ultimately self-determined.

    You can run a wrong or ineffective process.

    You can run away from process – go to a faith healing church or New Age seminar. Just LET GO! You will have a “new life” (key-out from a shift in thinking and change of environment) but you will have done NOTHING about the roots sitting in your past of your programming.

    Scientology is a tragedy. It sequestered decent processes amidst abusive practices. It needs a serious overhaul. But it offers PROCESS.

    You can now get this without the religion, in Traumatic Incident Reduction, Knowledgism, and many other non-religious and inexpensive processing practitioners. There is solo auditing and co-auditing possible for any of this and Dennis Stephens’ Resolution of the Mind may be the best solo practice of all.

    And it’s not that everyone needs auditing. It’s that anyone who wants to pull their unwanted obsessions and aberrations by the roots needs to PROCESS. Even if that is simply watching movies and listening to old songs and processing what comes up with Mindfulness.

    Sorry, but “Let Go” is an old, safe solution (see Sedonna method) to case, and it is actually an authoritative, evaluative, hypnotic command – bypassing self-determinism – enforced by group pressure in support groups, New Age seminars and faith healers everywhere.

    “Just Let Go” also happens to be the best way of forming a cult, and Hubbard made use of this poor substitute with his “bootstraps” – “be OT before you go OT” approach to unaudited Sea Org members (but he made them “process” MEST, didn’t he?). He even provided BT levels where you can avoid processing and “let go” of your afflictions. Except for writing a Co-Audit Series in 1980, Hubbard became a traitor to processing and joined the ranks of the New Age gurus who preach “Let Go” to their starry-eyed adherents.

    So you want to avoid process, eh?

    Go ahead and ride your toboggan to nowhere. Wheeeeee! I BELIEVE!!!

    1. Sounds like you require the complexity offered by Scientology or similar

      It also seems that you have not grasped what I mean by “letting go”.

      As an addition to the OP, I offer an exchange on this from my Facebook

      SFR: Have you read the book Untethered Soul. it’s about just that. I do believe
      that scientology can be a help in letting go, but not a necessity, if
      you’re willing to look honestly.

      Me: Which is a good summary of my own view.

      SFR: […] Tools can be useful, but in scientology you are convinced that you
      cannot live without the tools and become trapped in having to have it. The
      truth is they hook you to not be avble to let go by yourself so you will
      need them. I do not at all regret having been in that trap because, having
      found the way through it, I am more aware, more open, more everything that
      I want to be. It may have taken me longer had I not experienced that so

      Me: SFR: Same goes for me. But I would love to
      have been smarter and just gotten around to let go without all that

      SFR: I agree, but not sure I would have done it – the
      pain of leaving was a catalyst.

      Me: I believe I couldn’t have reached where I am today without
      Scientology. I just wasn’t smart enough.

      SFR: Same

      1. Looks like I was writing my post at the same time you were writing yours. Synchronicity. 🙂

    2. Wow. Knowledgeable post and very straightforward and unapologetic.

      “Scientology is a tragedy. It sequestered decent processes amidst abusive practices. It needs a serious overhaul. But it offers PROCESS.”

      I’ve watched quite a few youtube videos of various spiritual teachers working with their students to help them become free of the “pain body” (Eckhart Tolle’s construct – which I believe is virtually the same as the reactive mind) or free themselves of “Velcro thoughts,” as Adyashanti describes the heavier incidents/issues people have.

      I’ve watched sessions where a student is struggling and has already come back to the teacher a number of times for the same problem – one that is majorly getting in the way of his awakening (i.e. freedom from conditioning). To me, there doesn’t seem to be a definite “process,” and I can’t help but think to myself how an auditing session directed at the heavier incidents/issues at least would resolve them so much faster – not to mention more certainly – as well as resolve the general conditioning.

      I don’t know too much about the spin-offs, but I think scientology tech itself has invaluable contributions to make to the field of spiritual growth and that it’s a mistake to brush it off because of its outpoints – gross though they may be – and to assume that other paths can’t be improved upon by it no matter how ancient or venerated they are. Just as other paths can improve upon scientology.

      1. I’ll add to the above and say that probably the most important or valid factor in determining which “tech” is the best for a given individual is what he/she wants to handle. Not everybody has an interest in increasing spiritual awareness, much less “total spiritual freedom.” There are many people who have certain issues they want to address and that is all. This is where some people are “at” in their spiritual development, and it may not be until the next lifetime or longer before they are interested in their full capabilities and who they are as a spiritual being – if they are even aware they are one. I think we continue to evolve over lifetimes to higher states of spiritual awareness and interest (or, in some cases, devolve/degenerate).

        On the other hand, I think it’s the case that as people make gains in handling current issues they become more aware of the bigger issues around them, on other dynamics, and then want to find solutions to those. It might eventually even occur to them to “find out who they really are.”

        This is actually my concept of what Hubbard tried to do with Scientology – which was to use gradients of processing so as to eventually attain spiritual freedom in one lifetime.

    3. I agree with Watchful Navigator. Life is a process, and it needs processes to unravel itself; not a “Not-is” type of “process” as “Letting go” is.

      One thing is to assume that there is an “evil reactive mind” as the SOLE source of all our illness and maladies, and another ENTIRELY different thing is to go to the ROOT of a problem, inspect it, and then blow it away by the MERE fact of OBSERVATION w/out vias.

      “Letting go” – in whatever forms – is not a process in itself, but the EP of any workable process. When one has found the root of a problem, the inevitable end result is letting go of it. But it takes a PROCESS to let go of anything. To just tell someone, “,Just ‘let go of it’ ” as a “solution” to his worries – as Non-dualism (and even Buddhism) misguidedly does, is to create a cult mentality on the person, and an individual who would develop the tendency to run away from his problems. Believe Gier, I’ve been there myself.

      Of course, Scn doesn’t really process in the direction of letting go (by UNDERSTANDING the basic root of any problem through the use of a process), but in the direction of other-determined “causes” instead of self-determined ones which are the ONLY ones that represent actual Truth.

      At least, the above is my take on this subject which I have intensely researched and studied for quite a few years.

      1. Ah, and I forgot to include in my post above – just as a clarification to my friends here – that I no longer practice ANYTHING from Scientology. So by “Processes”, I didn’t mean “Scn processes”, but ANY workable process as the many that exist out there either as an organized psychotherapy, philosophy or spiritual practice; or as a life process developed by people as the result of trial and error activities (like the methods used by responsible parents to handle their kids, for example).

        1. And let me also add that the amount of process needed is directly proportional to the amount of process a person thinks he needs.

            1. The need to “handle” things with “processes” rather than simply letting go is seems related to a person’s need to deserve the freedom. Instead of handling the argument one has with a person, one could simply let it go 🙂

              See this video to understand what I mean:

      2. The misunderstanding that letting go is some kind of “not-isness” is based on a Scientology construct.
        The assumption that a process is needed to unravel life’s issues is, well… an assumption.
        Try letting go of a problem and see what happens 🙂
        If it seems too simple, it really is 😀
        My point here is also that Scientology induces complex thinking, something the casual reader may observe by reading comments on my blog.

        1. “Not-Is” fits wonderfully – although it is admittedly Scio jargon. What about “abandonment”? Anyone ever notice the society dramatizes “Disconnection” (“letting go” on the 2nd or 3rd Dynamics) just as much if not more, than us ex-scios?

          Before I did Grade I (Problems) I was unable to let go of a problem. Now that I have done the Grade, yes, I can sit there and “let go” of a problem – unless it has some unprocessed underlying root sticking it, which I can usually reach by Mindfulness (I have to admit that Vinay has a workable and direct “process” there) which only requires some reflection (also was known as “blowing by inspection).

          Not so with an angry ARC break.

          Next time someone or something really, really pisses you off Geir, try “letting go” – let me know how that works…

          Of course having done the Bridge, we have no business telling a person enmired in problems that he can sit there and self-audit his/her way out of it. Usually he/she can’t, and already feels invalidated and trapped that he/she can’t.

          “Letting Go” is the EP of processing, not a process in itself. It is a reasonable goal, of course, since you want to move on and letting go allows you to do that.

          One of the things that came “Clear” to me is that so many people – whether Indys or Enemies – are unable to “let go” of Scientology because of the complex package of disappointments, ARC breaks (which are not thoroughly processed in Scientology even on Grade III) and the rest of the assortment of cognitive dissonance. Through processing, I’ve been able to “let go” and move on. Ironically, because of the success in post-Scientology processing, I carry on working on it with others.

          Yes, there are other processing regimes that are workable.

          It is so, so easy to become a critic of the subject, and so, so hard to remember what it was like before freeing the mind of all those impediments.

          I know, I know – “Ron said that” – yes it’s true – “pcs don’t disseminate” – they move on and let go after some processing, and so much so that they completely forget what it was like before finding relief from all that “case.”

        2. I fully agree that Scn induce VERY complex thinking, but my equating “letting go” with Not-isness is not a Scn construct at all, but my ample experience with philosophies CENTURIES older than Scn (Buddhism, Non-dualism, etc) whose basic principle is getting the individual to “let go” in order to allegedly attain real freedom, just as the video you posted described. Btw, the video seems frantic and hectic to me, not spiritually relaxing.

          Non-dualism, specially from teachers like Adyashanti, is entirely based on that principle. You, having done all the Scn Bridge, and having been in this field of Philosophy/psychotherapy for quite a few years, find now the principle of “letting go” as a senior Truth, and as something easy to grasp and apply; I do as well.

          Even in the video you posted, the speaker talks about the need of processes so that humans (who tend to make things very complex) can finally understand that the solution to almost anything is basically “letting go”. Bit I doubt very much that the uninitiated can grasp that concept w/out a gradient approach to it with PROCESSES.

          That was my point all along; that ” letting go” is the EP of a mental process; a process that makes one INSPECT something. You can see all these students participating on these satsangs with Mooji for example, and they misapply the principle of “letting go”, and actually frequently create ARCxs with their friends and family because of that. They equate “letting go” with having NO attachments whatsoever with ANYBODY or with ANYTHING, and thus assume a rather cold and less affectionate attitude that others resent.

          If just the principle of letting go (w/out processes) as taught on those ancient philosophies like Buddhism, was the “solution” to life’s problems, we would have evolved as beings already, instead of the de-evolution that has occurred.

          For me , Buddha’s “enlightenment” was more like an escape from existence and from the game of life. Same with these fixated non-dualists. At least this is my take after having studied those philosophies in great detail.

          For me the solution to the human dilemma lies not in getting unattached to things, or robotically and glibly “letting go”, but in UNDERSTANDING life well enough so as to blow things by inspection.

          Understanding is the actual universal solvent.

          1. Well-stated, ThetaClear…

            I noticed that about Buddhism as well, and have tried to express it, but not as well as you have here.

            And my “Thanks. That makes sense” comment was directed at your earlier comment, also, but the comment tree seems to have bumped it down far away… – oh well.

            1. “Well-stated, ThetaClear…”

              Thanks, Watchful Navigator!

              “I noticed that about Buddhism as well, and have tried to express it, but not as well as you have here.”

              Thanks! Well, actually I am pretty impressed by your great level of certainty and understanding of life. I bet you are a science/math junkie like me, Geir and most posters here. 🙂

              “And my ‘Thanks. That makes sense’ comment was directed at your earlier comment, also, but the comment tree seems to have bumped it down far away… – oh well.”

              Thanks for the clarification; At some point I thought it had been directed at me as it was a kind of non sequitur reply to Geir – and you doesn’t strike me as non sequitur at all – but then I just dismissed all thoughts about it, and sort of “Not-ised” it, and “let go of it”. 🙂

          2. Then we do agree.

            A point deeper than letting go is this: when the person realizes that he is in fact creating every thought and every emotion he experiences, and that these are the only troubles he can ever have, then he can exercise simply not creating the thoughts and emotions he doesn’t want. Can’t get much simpler than that.

            1. “Then we do agree.”

              Yes, we do basically.

              “A point deeper than letting go is this: when the person realizes that he is in fact creating every thought and every emotion he experiences, and that these are the only troubles he can ever have, then he can exercise simply not creating the thoughts and emotions he doesn’t want.”

              In fact, that realization – as specific situations are concerned – comes just a little bit before than the action of “letting go”. That’s why we “let go of it” in the first place. But sweepingly (and with full certainty) realizing the above in all areas and sectors of life so as to be able to instantly blow anything by inspection, would be the REAL meaning of the state of “Cause over life”.

              Ironically, this subject as described by you and me – though not in the same way – was discussed by LRH in the ONLY lectures where he had really gotten to the bottom of it all : “The State of Man” lectures. In them you’ll find a sentence that, at least for me, really defines what a REAL Clear should think like. It goes something like this, though perhaps I am not quoting it exactly. My comments within brackets :

              “The recovery of one’s true beingness (true Self) comes with the realization that one was (is) the cause of every and any difficulty that we ever experienced in life”.

              I literally fell in love with those lectures, specially with that sentence. It communicated so much truth to me, that I was never the same again. The above is my stable datum to handle my own life. As much as I try Not-ising the Old man for everything he did, I always end up having to accept that I was helped by him in more than one way, REGARDLESS of his evil valences, which he had way too many. But honesty is a key ingredient of Freedom.

              “Can’t get much simpler than that.”

              No, It can’t indeed!!! That’s the most senior of the senior truths.

      3. Thanks. That makes sense.

        I would classify a lot of the “repetitive socratic questioning” (originally conceived by Dianeticist Jack Horner and credited to Hubbard) that serves as the engine for the Scientology Grades, as a form of “Ko-an” or mental exercise of tapping into a compartmented, concentrated mental area (Help, Problems, Upsets, Mistakes, etc.) to attain a broader area of “letting go” (release state) that might bring one higher in consciousness.

        Of course, when such a system is surrounded by sales, marketing, lies, intrigues and deception, such an endeavor may be limited or go nowhere.

        In any case, while I still do practice the Scientology version of processing, it bears little resemblance to the authoritarian, corporate package too many of us know too well.

  2. “Next time someone or something really, really pisses you off Geir, try “letting go” – let me know how that works…”

    Nothing pisses off Geir.

    If he decided to create pissed off, he knows he created that instead of letting it go.

    Geir is batman 😉

    Watchful nav, try (or preferably do) that and let me know how it goes

  3. Hmm,

    The first thing I have to say is that I admire the activity of the guys posting here, that because you each care enough to be involved and to act and contribute.

    And, of course, each does contribute from his/her point of view and experiential knowledge base. Thus the next thing to say is that, since the experience of each of us is limited as compared to the all that is there to be known, the contributions can appear to be conflict. But what is good here is that none are getting nasty with their differences . . .

    As my contribution I would ask, as well as say, the following.

    Firstly, “letting go of” has some workability in some respects and on occasions where it can work. But the first question to be asked in this regard is: LETTING GO OF WHAT, SPECIFICALLY?

    The next question then, becomes: What is the eventual outcome of letting go, letting go, letting go of everything one has contact with that is putatively bothering one?

    Looking at it in this context, one can see it is a somewhat limited process as the last thing anyone should want is to end up in a vacuum of nothing and no connections.

    Scientology made two huge mistakes: one as Geir cites: it is way too complex and even, in parts, self contradictory; and the other is that it is too much focused on the negative “process” activity of GETTING RID OF.

    Thus, as Geir has written when he gives us the EP of the ultimate of Scientology accomplishment at OT8 . . . you’ve gotten rid of, gotten rid of and gotten rid of an NOW KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOT AND NOW WANT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE!

    My God! Finding out and having certainty on who you are is one of our very first actions in Knowledgism . . . this because, if that is not known, who the hell is being processed in the sessions you are doing?! Who or what is being put in charge and empowered?!

    Scientology fails in that it does not sufficiently address the POSITIVE and your spiritual abilities and powers . . . and indeed, Hubbard never actually articulated what they truly are!

    Scientology grossly fails because it has not articulated the ideal of what its purported endeavor should be achieving; and that is: The recovery of your spiritual Life-Force and restoring it to its true positive state under your full knowing control from the negative encysted condition it had become that is troubling you.

    In Knowledgism, this ideal is stated clearly and well articulated.

    Similarly, “letting go” is not a “make more of” process and, hence, will not help the person restore and empower their true attributes of Being and their spiritual powers and abilities . . . though it will, to a degree, free the person from what bothers or bugs them.

    Thus, the actuality of any activity intended to help an individual must contain the multifaceted parts of the notion of addressing the changes wrought to our true spiritual Presence such that our Life-Force became encysted and negatively out of our control which then rendered us relatively powerless to handle that which bothers us; then the handling of the area contacted must address the encysted spiritual Life-Force to free it and restore it to positive power under the person’s full knowing control and finally, to then process and empower the recovered abilities and powers to their optimum.


    1. Hello Roger

      I have always been interested in what others think about Spiritual Powers or Abilities.

      When I hear words like True or Spiritual or Powers and Abilities, I always have many questions.

      Can you please explain what knowledgism says about our “true attributes of Being” and what is our “spiritual powers and abilities” ?

      Thank you ☺

  4. Big subject, Mastereric111 . . .

    Perhaps the easiest way to give you an answer, short of writing a tome, is to re-post here a dialogue between Alan Walter and myself.

    To be noted is that Alan did embrace my recommendation when he finally spoke on this subject in a lecture.

    This is an exchange of emails Alan and I had in November, 2006.

    We often exchanged research “notes.”

    The word “Spirita” is the word Alan coined in order to get away from using the word “Theta” :

    Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:25 PM
    To: rb .com.
    Subject: NEW AXIOM 1

    Dear Rog,

    Thanks for the research material.

    This maybe of some help.


    My suggestion is to print this off and put copies near you and read it several times a day.

    If your mood level drops or you are having difficulties with honoring your presence, power or purpose – read this.




    Definition: A Lifeforce Presence is pure Spirita it has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.

    A Lifeforce Presence is infinite in depth, breadth, size and scope.

    A Lifeforce Presence in its purest state is capable of infinite aliveness, infinite powers, infinite duplication, infinite permeation, infinite intelligence, infinite abilities, infinite cleverness, infinite strengths, infinite skills, infinite creation, infinite love, infinite truth, infinite harmony, infinite knowledge, infinite know-how, infinite responsibility, infinite control, infinite experience, infinite exchange and infinite integrity it should be noted that each one of these infinite capabilities also has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no form, no limitation, no location in space or in time.

    A Lifeforce Presence is in a state of oneness with all these capabilities.

    A Lifeforce Presence is senior to all gradient scales and the mechanics of life.

    A Lifeforce Presence has the ability to create and to perceive.

    A Lifeforce Presence is the infinity of Spirita (8) that creates the containers of the becomingness of the Infinity to Zero of Spirit (8 to 0+) – to the Zero to Infinity of Space, Time, Energy and Matter. (-0 to 8) = 8 – 8008.


    27 November 2006

    Copyright © 2006
    Alan C. Walter


    Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

    I replied next day:

    New Axiom 1—Something Omitted

    Dear Alan,

    I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:

    A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.

    One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita.

    This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.

    I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.

    Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1.


  5. Life is motion. Trying to make it hold still is futile. Thus this letting go is not the apathy of giving up. It is the letting go of fixed mental constructs and compulsive certainty. It is cooperation and harmony with one’s environment.

      1. Roger, I have alway seen you as kind in your posts. That said, I assert the following: When it comes to spiritual abilities, one should be terse.

        EXAMPLE: “I can predict the future with 75% accuracy regarding dice throws.”

        … or …

        EXAMPLE: “I can experience wonderful things that give my life meaning in ways no human can know.”

        … or …

        EXAMPLE: I experience synchronicity in my life beyond what is deemed normal occurrences. These synchronicies are my spiritual abilities manifesting in this universe but are unprovable by science because the sane material universe is a subset of the batshit creative universe where I am lord and master of my own crazy shit and am SO down with that that nobody can blow me UP.

        EXAMPLE: I experience something that feels like exteriorization, but I cannot read a card from across the room.

        The problem I see is that “life skills” often get mixed in with “spiritual abilities.” The ability to communicate well is a life skill. But many people align an increase with such an ability as a spiritual ability.

        What makes a spiritual ability any different than a life skill and what would it look like?

        Because, honestly, I cannot think of a real spiritual ability one can manifest that does not appear as a natural part of our world.

        I don’t want many. I just want ONE that doesn’t fail like Trump University.

        One. Terse. Spiritual Ability.

        1. I guess, for me, EVERYTHING is a manifestation of spiritual ability or NOTHING is. And it may be right in both camps depending on the weirdness of things.

          EXAMPLE: To feel like everything in my life is my own creation even if it’s not provable.

          I think that’s all we got folks.

          1. Or put this way. “Our spiritual ability is to create a flowing experience in time believing we are creating our own reality in spite of the damning evidence to the contrary.”

            There. That’s my best guess.

            Roger, please top that. I would really like someone to.

  6. I’d say we can have a positive attitude towards life or a negative attitude, and that is all there is to it.

          1. I’d like to gladly …and proudly say this :

            That is my terse spiritual ability

            (Under a 100 words)

            Hope this Lands in the right place, that is, as my answer to KG

            1. I have several. Here’s one: I can decide which emotion I will create in more than 80% of the situations I encounter.

            2. Geir, to me that sounds like a leadership skill. Again, the line between a spiritual ability and a life skill is blurry. So, here is my attempt to clear that up.

              … hmmm …

              Perhaps a spiritual ability may be not what one does but HOW and WHY one does it. A person of low spirituality like a sociopath may be able to shift the emotions of a room 80% of the time like you, but HOW and WHY he does it is different.


              So, for me, here are key spiritual abilities that take into account that no spiritual ability can be proven in the universe as such proof would violate the laws of this universe.

              1. The ability to create oneself via the power of recursion and exist as a being in the face of enormous evidence from a non-recursive universe that one as a being doesn’t actually exists.

              2. The ability to choose the HOW and WHY one does things as such a being.

              3. The ability to acquire life skills and use them in a spiritual or higher level because one has chosen to even though they appear to be life skills.

              Do you have a better to divide life skills from spiritual abilities than I do? Would love to hear them.

            3. I think all skills and abilities that are freely chosen are spiritual. That’s the only distinction I can see – that of free will.

            4. Of course, “Letting go” would be considered a spiritual ability. AND in many ways it is a life skill that is not requiring a spiritual focus.

            5. This is the best I can get:

              Free will is a terse spiritual ability.
              Even of it is an illusion.

  7. Roger, I would really like to know. Please name one terse spiritual ability.

    It doesn’t have to align with science. It doesn’t have to be falsifiable. Some of my examples above were, others were not.

    Ability is something you DO. What can you DO that is a spiritual ability?

    In under 100 words.

  8. Katageek,

    I am not one for “discussions” very much . . .such usually degenerate into assertions of opinion and the usual drivel of “prove it!” . . . and this all the while with the demanding challenger refusing to actually DO any action needed to demonstrate the opportunities for themselves.

    It was for this reason I saw your challenge and initially thought: WTF.

    But I now see you are rather decently serious and lucid about your request. Hence some answers. Indeed, you listed some of the abilities we can practice and use in your follow up posts. And I have given you a processing R/D below you can use to put them more under your knowing control and execution.

    Your post of 22016-8-5 is a good effort that I personally would reword . . . but I say personally, because this “abilities and powers” thing is VERY much a gradient in its execution and reality.

    Among the guys I have on my forum one sees the same basic ability or power often being expressed, but so differently person to person as to have to do a careful analysis to deduce which particular ability or power IS being used. And, also to be noted is the point that we are, in actuality, ALL the time practicing our abilities and powers . . . it’s just that since the action is done at so many different levels of the “scales” of reality or emotion, one can miss the fact. The point is, any action we perform is an ability or power being used. One example most folks are familiar with is that of “Responsibility.” Low on the scales it expresses as “Blame.” Hence folks can be misled as to what really is being carried out.

    You wrote:
    “Our spiritual ability is to create a flowing experience in time believing we are creating our own reality in spite of the damning evidence to the contrary.”

    Here is what I would write as compared to your effort. Firstly I would not personally be using the notion that I “believe” . . .

    I have the ability to knowingly create time and the future location in which to, on a gradient, bring about wanted existences. Now, the thing to point out here is that, we are all actually doing this, but the problem for many is that they are on compulsive, unknowing, automatic involuntary replication of the action.

    This ditty, is getting a little long already, so I’ll cut to the chase on what you can do personally to get what I am trying to convey here . . .

    Take any of the “items” listed in our “New Axiom One,” and run this process on it. You could even take a “thing” like, space, time, love, responsibility or even blame . . .

    Step one: run this question repetitively to big win or recovered ability or no more answers . . .
    “From where could a spiritual Being experience (item)?”

    When that question has reached EP run this question repetitively as above:
    “From where could a spiritual Being create (item)?”

    The thing to know about our abilities and powers is that we are all the time practicing (using) them in this game of life . . . the trap is, however, most folks are unknowingly also using them against themselves and to restrain themselves. Hence they appear to not have or use them.

    Some of the abilities/powers I am familiar with among my group are:
    Perception at a physical location other than where their body is.
    Remote influencing of and with friends or those they can be in adequate levels of communication with.
    The ability to “psychically” upgrade another person’s emotional state or other condition.
    The ability/power to create time.
    The ability/power to create space.
    The ability/power to create motion.
    The ability/power to form their spiritual Life-Force into imagery that is projected either to communicate to others or to bring about new conditions of existence.

    Basically, we all have volition . . . that is, the basic power of choice to choose what we will be, do or have. Your only problem, then, becomes the “what” do you choose.

    By the way, Katageek, judging by your writing, I’d say you would immensely enjoy Rupert Sheldrake’s latest book: “Science Set Free” (US title) in the rest of the world the title is: “The Science Delusion.”


    1. Thanks for your answers Roger. This one is harder. I am going to try and guess your answer. Please tell me if I’m right.

      QUESTION: “What is your apologetical reconciliation between the experiences of your abilities and the fact that under structured, observable conditions, they do not manifest?”

      Psychic perceptions don’t happen with accurate results when James Randi is looking. When JR looks, psychic perceptions are merely imagination.

      The reality I see is that ALL spiritual abilities like “Psychic Perceptions” fail when tested under scientific conditions. And when I see people making claims that it happened, those claims always topple when others attempt to replicate them (except for things like the double slit experiment).

      If there is a stable datum to this fucking universe, THAT is one of them IMHO.

      Based on what I think your cosmology is and taking it as true for the sake of argument, I would assert that, according to your post above, it is the presence of other beings agreeing on the laws of this universe on a subconscious level that prevent such abilities from working when observed.

      Thus, the collective will of those creating the universe squelch the will of the individual from creating such an effect.

      Thus said, if such effects AREN’T observed and work outside the agreements and observations of others, they may occur by exploiting the fact that one cannot prove a negative.


      And in such a situation of direct observation, spiritual abilities become spiritual experiences. Not observed, spiritual abilities cannot be proven to not exist and thus allow a window of spiritual ability…

      Until you test and accurately observe it in our universe. If I take a cheap ash tray and invite you for coffee, you won’t be able to lift it with your mind. It aint gonna happen. You and I both know this.

      But if I leave an ashtray in a forest a question arises …

      “Does an ash tray in a forest that rises from the bottom of a pile of leaves because of the remote command of a being make any noise?”

      1. katageek: “The reality I see is that ALL spiritual abilities like “Psychic Perceptions” fail when tested under scientific conditions.”

        Not so, kat. I’ve even posted for you data and videos about Dean Radin’s meticulously scientific experiments, for example, and I don’t know if you even watched them.

        So…unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be “suffering” from some false datum that is blocking your ability to think rationally in this area – and the scientology tech for this would be to get false data stripping. 😉

          1. You are right, mastereric111. We’ve been this subject “a few ” times. 🙂

          1. From Radin’s entry on Wikipedia:

            “Radin’s ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.[4][5][6][7] In addition, the review of Radin’s first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.[8]”

            1. To be frank, I don’t think that Nature would in any way, shape or form be seen endorsing anything resembling the paranormal. They could be dragged there if the rest of the scientific community went forst – but only then also kicking and screaming along the way. Nature is perhaps the most well respected of all hard core scientific journals. They are heavily biased in favor of protecting their position. I believe there is no risk taking in sight.

            2. In contrast to the Nature review of the book, here are some of the hugely positive reviews, along with the quals of each reviewer:


              “Cutting perceptively through the spurious arguments frequently made by skeptics, Radin shows that the evidence in favor of (paranormal) existence is overwhelming.”

              Brian Josephson, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics, Cambridge University. In January, 1998, Prof. Josephson wrote in the (British newspaper), the Guardian: “If asked to nominate the most significant scientific event of 1997, I would cite the publication of this book.”

              “This is the best survey of real evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena ever compiled. Clear, comprehensive, engaging, and convincing, it provides hard facts, not hazy opinions. It is a bastion of substance in a sea of credulous psi publications that separates the real science of parapsychology from the morass of channelers, telephone hot-line psychics, side-show telepathics and metaphysical healers that most of the population associates with psychic phenomena, and who have unfairly caused parapsychologists to become pariahs to their colleagues in the more conventional sciences.”

              Michael Epstein, Ph.D., Research Chemist, National Institute for Standards and Technologies, and former President, National Capitol Area Skeptics, reviewed in Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12 (3), 1998.

              “Recently I was being interviewed by a young doctoral student working on a thesis dealing with ‘frontier science.’ After a year of interviewing most of the better-known parapsychologists and skeptics in this country this informed, outside observer remained perplexed. His first question for me was, ‘I have read Dr. Radin’s book and I just can’t see why there is still any argument about your field. Why do the skeptics keep it up?’ That same question is likely to spring to mind for any objective reader on finishing this book, or, more likely, on getting about halfway through it, since Radin provides his own answer to that question in the latter half. Unquestionably, The Conscious Universe is the most forceful presentation of the scientific evidence for psi phenomena to be seen in perhaps the last half century and there is very little ‘wiggle room’ left for the skeptics.”

              Richard Broughton, Ph.D, psychologist, in his book review for the Scientific and Medical Network, which awarded The Conscious Universe its 1997 Book Award.

              “The materialist worldview predicts that telepathy, psychokinesis and clairvoyance are impossible. Using modern statistical methods Dean Radin examines half a century of mind-matter research and concludes that these ‘impossible’ phenomena certainly exist–on the basis of robust, reliable, and repeatable evidence. More than just another science book, The Conscious Universe is a revolutionary act!”

              Nick Herbert, Ph.D., physicist, author of Elemental Mind, Quantum Reality, and Faster Than Light.

              “Radin makes the most powerful case for the reality of parapsychological phenomena that I have yet encountered. He shows how recent research gives overwhelming evidence for the existence of forms of influence and communication at present unexplained. He writes clearly, powerfully and persuasively, and this book shows that we are at a turning point in our scientific understanding of our minds and of nature.”

              Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D., biologist, author of A New Science of Life and Seven Experiments That Could Change the World.

              ” [The Conscious Universe] is among the top ten most important books I have read in my life.”

              Gary E. R. Schwartz, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Neurology, and Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tuscon.

              “The Conscious Universe will become the book to read for anyone, layperson or scientist, who wants to know the truth about the scientific case for psychic phenomena – and the strange reasons why otherwise intelligent scientists resist the facts with such prejudice! I shall use it as a text as well as recommending it to friends and colleagues. Radin has a wealth of knowledge about parapsychology and modern science, as well as a talent for clear writing, that makes even complex experimental results quite accessible.”

              Charles Tart, Ph.D., psychologist, author of Altered States of Consciousness, Open Mind, Discriminating Mind: Reflections on Human Possibilities, and Living the Mindful Life.

              “Not only the best book on psychic phenomena I’ve read, but also the best primer on the scientific method.”

              Douglas R. Keene, Ph.D., psychologist

              More of these can be found here: http://www.deanradin.com/book.html

            3. Okay, most everyone has biases and seek to trump up their views rather than look at conflicting data.

              Here are mine:
              1. If supernatural things occur, then I believe that they happen in such a way that they can never be scientifically validated. This would mean that a one off event may be supernatural, but as soon as you bring in double blind studies, the data will always point to ways it could occur naturally.

              And almost every time I walk down the rabbit hole of supernatural claims being scientifically validated, I end up finding that there are mistakes and problems in the data or, typically, important details missing. If this world is actually a simulation as Elan Musk asserts, this would make sense.

              2. I think this reality is permanent but I happily be proven wrond and would jump onto the bridge to total Freedom if Marildi can just pick up one ashtray with only her tone 40 intention (With me picking up the ashtray of course).

              The burden of proof does not lie with Nature magazine. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claims.

            4. Kat: “The burden of proof lies with the one making the claims.”

              Very true. In my comment below I posted a link that lists out dozens of Radin’s and others’ peer-reviewed papers along with links to the papers. That list is introduced with the following:

              “This is a selected list of peer-reviewed journal articles about psi (psychic) phenomena, most published in the 21st century. There are also some papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list of important articles and books would run into the thousands. Click on the title of an article to download it.

              “The Parapsychological Association – an international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena – is an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world and the publisher of the journal *Science*, one of the most prominent scientific journals.

              “I mention this because some individuals who call themselves ‘parapsychologists’ are not scientists. They are better described as paranormal enthusiasts, ghost hunters, exorcists, or other practitioners of occult or esoteric arts. While such activities are interesting to many in the general population, the people engaged in them are not practicing science as defined by the AAAS, and as such their use of the term parapsychologist is inappropriate.”

              “This page is maintained by Dean Radin. Last updated May 3, 2016.”

              So, as you can see there is plenty of evidence – if you are really serious about looking for it. Also note that in the last paragraph quoted, your criticism of much of the so-called evidence in this field is fully acknowledged – but that “evidence’ is not science.

              On the other side of the coin, Geir’s comment is applicable with regard to hard core scientific journals being “heavily biased in favor of protecting their position” and the fact that “there is no risk taking in sight.” I’ve read that many individual scientists are not personally closed to the evidence of paranormal phenomena, but the current reality is such that voicing this would literally put their careers at risk.

              In any case, I’m not sure if you really want to find convincing evidence for spiritual abilities or you’d rather carry on having fun with your creative imagination. Maybe you’re torn between the two. 🙂

            5. “In any case, I’m not sure if you really want to find convincing evidence for spiritual abilities or you’d rather carry on having fun with your creative imagination. Maybe you’re torn between the two. :)”

              False Dichotomy M.

            6. AND … The “bias” you see in Nature magazine is awesome! It is that very skepticism that adds value to its pages.

              Science is happy to be wrong with the scientific method. Wrong rocks.

              Spiritualism is happy to be wrong with crystal balls.

              The good news is we get to choose how we want to be wrong.

            7. Sure they do. When the world was proven round (again) Nature wrote “Hey! We were wrong and this new evidence proves it!”

              You have to keep up with all the back issues … You know, the ones that were written on vellum …

            8. kat: “Spiritualism is happy to be wrong with crystal balls.”

              You do realize that is precisely the fixed idea of many so-called “scientists”? It’s also called being closed-minded. If they were real scientists, they would be not just skeptical but equally open-minded.

              Bottom line is that you still haven’t looked at the evidence – now, have you?

            9. Pick. Up. The. Ashtray. With. Tone. 40. As. LRH. Said. And. Testified. He. Saw. Occur. In. A. Lecture.

              That way, I have to not wade through another sea of pseudoscience that goes round and round.

            10. That’s a dodge. When you ask for evidence and someone answers with plenty of Dox and you choose to disregard that, you come across as disingenuous on your request for evidence.

            11. Geir: “That’s a dodge.”

              Yes, exactly. Not to mention a false analogy. 😉

              But it’s unlike kat to be so illogical. I think he’s been unknowingly indoctrinated into “the science delusion.”

            12. Okay, I’ll read the links and fact check them. I’ve been working a lot of hours lately.

              And I’ve DONE this before…

            13. “Okay, I’ll read the links and fact check them.”

              Now, that’s the katageek we’ve come to know and love. 🙂

          2. Here’s a link that lists out dozens of Radin’s peer-reviewed papers – each with a link to the paper itself. The list includes papers on the following research:

            – Healing at a Distance
            – Physiological correlations at a distance (such as the remote sense of being stared at, or physiological connections between twins)
            – Telepathy & ESP
            – Survival of Consciousness (as in near-death experiences)
            – Precognition & Presentiment
            – Mind-Matter Interaction


            On that same page, there’s also a list of books on this subject of psi phenomena, and websites with articles, and videos…

  9. In relation to the op of what scientology is, really. It is the ideas and concepts that a person has decided are the answers to the questions he found in the universe around him. Read the materials, agree to the concepts, and you too will see the world from the same tinted glasses. That does not actually make it true. But it will make it “true for you” as any believer has already agreed.

    Some will get benefit from the process and protocols. Some may not. Some may need to agree they have a bank, engrams, etc and trust and belief in the outlined process to get rid of what is considered baggage and a hindrance to knowing and experiencing life. That person is one who first agrees they have something and then work to “let go” of it.

    Others may need only decide they want something and anything in the way does not have to be “let go” as they haven’t agreed to it in the first place.

    I fully agree that our feelings, emotions and decisions from anything we experience are our own creations. We may make something fun or sad, good or bad, or whatever we wish.

    As to any “proof” on the gains from spiritual awareness I would have to find some agreement with Dean Radin in the following presentation. He does address the question of “proof” and peer reviewed publishing of research papers.

    The second video is something that long ago helped me see the simplicity of the issue (or any apparent concept of an “issue”) with spiritual awareness and what we can “proof” in the physical realm.

    I do not find any one thing has the full answer. As I am the one having my own experience why would I ever think that another person, another idea or any other belief system will have “my” answers. But I do enjoy the fact that these things cause me to see and think of any question in a wider variety of possibilities.

    We could just see this issue as Bill does:

  10. As I have often said . . . I am not big on discussion of this stuff. I always tell my friends, basically, “discussion” is too often only an exchange of opinion or prejudice and that does not get you anywhere near the personal certainty you should seek.
    The way to gain the certainty you want, if you truly want it, is to go into action and do the processes that produce the result you yourself can experience and measure.
    Did any of you actually do the little process I wrote in my last post???

    1. Roger – What I appreciate about your input into this “discussion” is that I find this very helpful. I read Sheldrake’s book about three years ago. What I benefit from both your input and the book and the many other inputs is how they facilitate us looking with new viewpoints, new possibilities, new boundaries, etc.

      I received a lot of gain from doing the bridge including the OT levels. I know gains can be had. I have also see where others did not do any bridge and have had incredible gains. What process we use may not be as important as what we allow ourselves to experience and gain from them.

      I have a regularly group and we meet monthly. Some of the most able and unfixed in viewpoint people I have known. Three are ministers from different spiritual backgrounds. The conversations on spirituality, personal awareness, psychic phenomena, art, etc are fantastic. I know my closest friend there has a perfect comm cycle, total ability to grant beingness and willing to communicate on anything. The abilities and success in life that theses people have demonstrated were at times like an OT success story.

      The process you wrote above is one that can bring about a shift in viewpoint, a shift is interpretation, a demonstrated shift in ability. These I find very helpful. The ability to assume a new point of view is gained but there wasn’t a negative that had to be let go. I have experienced the wonderful gains from positive process. I won’t make this into a back and forth with you but wanted to know and thank you for what you wrote.

      I therefore have see than many of us make gains from a process – but does that process need be the same. Maybe the only similarity is that it is whatever is the key within that assists us in growing and assuming a higher potentiality of observation and interchange. The personal certainty, at least in my case, was there after I had used and demonstrated an ability.

      I do not have the background you have in training and auditing others. I am sure I would have some different ideas if I did. But we are still here experiencing the many components of a life energized.

    2. Roger – I would like to clarify. I have experienced and have increased certainty on what could be considered a “process” which it was actually a doing or thinking that was exercising or using an ability I already had. When a “process” was more of a robotic sequence or commands that was seeking or forcing some predetermined end result I did not always find that needed or wanted. Your process noted above is for my finding my own personal outcome. That is helpful in a way that is quite different from some gain that another is forcing on me or decided I need.

      Not sure that I have written my thought as well as I could have so no disrespect is intended. There may be many paths up the mountain but the view from the top may still be the same.

      I am sure you will enjoy what Rupert has to say in this interview.

  11. Well, Still Awakening . . . what you have said is very good, particularly this part:

    “Your process noted above is for my finding my own personal outcome. That is helpful in a way that is quite different from some gain that another is forcing on me or decided I need.”

    🙂 I don’t know whether you noticed or not, by the little process I wrote causes a person to knowingly use/practice/implement two of their basic abilities, those being: the ability to experience/perceive and the ability to create.

    Now, the trick is to apply that to anything you want to improve your relationship to/with or, increase your volition regarding.

    Example: I got the notion of directly processing positive attributes/powers and moods introduced to Alan Walter in 1997 . . . I was running Experience/Create on the unpleasant feeling of “Incompetence” . . . . and a funny thing happened. After I got my EP on incompetence, I was feeling rather OK but, where was my COMPETENCE?! Why had my feeling of competence and ability to do as I wanted now “turned on” and become available to me.

    And then I got the bright idea . . . wait a moment; competence is a capacity, ability, power and feeling of one’s level of existence just like its negative expression, INcompetence . . . so why not run our wonderful Experience/Create on it.

    Well, I ran it and got a tremendously good result . . . so good, I told Alan about at the lunch we had later that day . . . and the notion of using the process on the POSITIVE OPPOSITE OF THE NEGATIVES was put into practice.

    I am an old elite athlete (Aussie swim champ, 1954) . . . hence my thing has always been to be in action to get a wanted or predicted result.

    The key to abilities and powers IS ACTION and the DOING: not the “THINKING ABOUT.”

    My observation concerning folks who want to “discuss” endlessly is that they are into “thinkingness” rather than doingness.

    Thinkingness is all to do with significances and the shuffling about of symbols and thoughts . . . but on the other hand, those who get into DOING a correct ACTION to obtain a result end up far more capable. And there is a reason for this, and that is, going into action causes the Being to either overcome or be ndling what is impeding our spiritual abilities . . . what is actually encysting and impeding a Being’s abilities and powers is simply the force, charge and mass the Being has built up in his universe. senior to the force, charge and mass that is typically blocking the “think” artist. In terms of ha And the simplicity of it is that the only way to handle and either be free from or overcome the blocking force, charge and mass is to do the actions of applying a correct processing procedure to unlocking them.

    It does require action.


  12. The diamond Sutra says all Dharma is like a raft.
    Scientology equals Dharma.
    When it’s use is satisfied, let go of it.
    There is no ultimate Dharma!
    Dharma is a vehicle to from one point to another on the road of Enlightenment.

  13. Geir, Kata, and others here; you are putting the “Scientific Method” on a pedestal it does not belong at all. It seems to me that you have been “indoctrinated” into the falsity that mainstream science is an authority of some kind, which it isn’t, and never has been.

    Being “Open Minded” about the unknown and the unusual, is AS part of Science as the scientific methodology is.

    Most “unnatural” (spiritual) phenomena lies entirely apart from the known laws of physics, and thus , the current methods and electronic devices to measure wavelengths and frequencies not yet fully understood, are not adequate for proper and unbiased research.

    Besides the research that Marildi quoted, there are HUNDREDS! of other excellent researches done by respected scientists. The witnessing of spiritual phenomena is as old as civilization itself, and IMHO, there is PLENTY of evidence to AT LEAST assert that THERE IS something spiritual that apparently has the ability to act in ways that science can’t yet explain. But that it can’t explain it yet, does not mean that it does not exist any more than when we didn’t understand the mechanics of electromagnetism but could observe it’s manifestations, that didn’t mean that electricity was a product of “imagination”.

    This fixation on “prove it with the ‘Scientifc’ method” is even very laughable. You science junkies like me, apparently has no problem with the silly “Thought experiments” from Einstein and the obscure and bizarre interpretations of reality from QM and it’s silly wave function and “collapsing” wave (which is ONLY a mathematical abstraction to “balance the equation” , and absolutely nothing more), but has a fixation with the validity of all the recorded evidence that spiritual phenomena is indeed, a reality.

    1. Peter, I don’t think either Geir or katageek have a disagreement about the necessity for being open-minded. But like anybody, their fixed beliefs – by definition – might get in the way of their own open-mindedness at times.

      It seems that it happened with kat on this thread, on the topic of psi phenomena. And with Geir it happened on the blog post that follows this one, titled “Calling BS on Hubbard’s ‘The role of Earth.'” Both of them appear to have blown the respective discussions. 😉

      1. Rather arrogant of you Marildi. I know you to be the one person that has the biggest issues with admitting you are wrong – or that Hubbard could be wrong. You have also been consistently showing your fixed ideas regarding Scientology.

        Btw; Assuming someone is “blowing” a discussion when he needs to get some sleep (check the timezone differences) is… (fill in). 😉

        1. Wow, you’re already playing the “you never admit you’re wrong” card? Everybody knows that type of thing is only used when a person doesn’t have a good argument.

          Seriously, Geir, it isn’t going to be fun or worthwhile having a discussion with you if you don’t fight fair. Please leave out the name-calling and your opinions of me (based on your own filters) and leave out the other logical fallacies too – and we might get somewhere.

          Consider a debate with me a good test of your TRs. Maybe even a test of your ability to “let go.” 🙂

          And I assumed you were blowing because you didn’t reply but did post a new blog post later on.

    2. Excellently written and well made correct points, thetaclear.
      I am currently in chapter 9 of Rupert Sheldrake’s book “The Science Delusion” (Euro title) “Science Set Free” (US title) . . . Sheldrake cites all the references and case studies and proven instances of exactly what you are referring to.
      What I have always found arrogant of the “not proven scientifically” attitude types is their materialistic fixed mindset that demands everything be demonstrated in terms of their fixed belief system that all is only materialistic Matter, Energy, Space/Time . . . they even insist that the existence of human spiritual existence be demonstrated in PHYSICAL terms!
      And we even get this from folks who can cite Hubbard’s “Logics” and tell you that something or “A datum can only be evaluated by a datum of comparable magnitude.”

      1. Hi, Roger. You wrote:

        “What I have always found arrogant of the ‘not proven scientifically’ attitude types is their materialistic fixed mindset that demands everything be demonstrated in terms of their fixed belief system that all is only materialistic Matter, Energy, Space/Time . . . they even insist that the existence of human spiritual existence be demonstrated in PHYSICAL terms!”

        I have the impression that even Rupert Sheldrake considers the scientific method can be used to demonstrate spiritual existence. To my understanding of it, he basically says that in the video I posted.

      2. “Excellently written and well made correct points, thetaclear.”

        Thanks Roger!

        “I am currently in chapter 9 of Rupert Sheldrake’s book “The Science Delusion” (Euro title) “Science Set Free” (US title) . . . Sheldrake cites all the references and case studies and proven instances of exactly what you are referring to.”

        Thanks; I’ll look into that book.

        “What I have always found arrogant of the ‘not proven scientifically’ attitude types is their materialistic fixed mindset that demands everything be demonstrated in terms of their fixed belief system that all is only materialistic Matter, Energy, Space/Time . . . they even insist that the existence of human spiritual existence be demonstrated in PHYSICAL terms!”

        I know exactly what you mean Roger. I call those rare birds, “Blinded Skeptics” and “Close-minded ‘scientists’ “. As long as science attempts to describe and study the spiritual phenomena by using the known laws of physics, it will not go anywhere, as we are dealing with an energy spectrum not discovered as yet, and one that falls outside the known energy manifestations of the physical universe.

        The spiritual realm has always been senior to the physical one, and thus, it is NOT Na byproduct of the physical universe energy manifestations as those silly scientists like this believe.

        We are not in control nor have any basic knowledge of the frequencies in which the spiritual phenomena manifest itself. We have no equipment sensitive enough to detect, control and direct those subtle energies, and thus, we lack a proper experimental setting in which to accurately and unbiasely study that subject. Some experiments have been performed in this area – specially to control populations by the use of controlled ELF (Extremely Low Frequencies) – by the military, but of course, this is not officially accepted and disseminated. But OFFICIALLY and academically speaking, we have very little knowledge of these wavelengths.

        We can, however, measure and/or detect the effects that those frequencies causes in the mind, behavior, and the health state of a living creature. And that has been effectively studied by DOZENS of competent scientists who decided to go beyond the status quo and beyond the undue influence of scientific “Authority”.

        There are a group of “scientists” who have taken the job of diminishing and discrediting everything that threaten the status quo and the fixed current scientific beliefs. Wikipedia is part of that group, even though that ironically, thousands of individuals see Wikipedia as an “unbiased” and “accurate” source of information. Yeah, right!!! Here is a very interesting website that describe in more details my assertions.


        “And we even get this from folks who can cite Hubbard’s ‘Logics” and tell you that something or ‘A datum can only be evaluated by a datum of comparable magnitude’.”

        Yes, we get it SPECIALLY from them, Roger; SPECIALLY from them.

  14. With no desire to stir things up we can all learn and see how the scientific method can be used to both expand our knowledge and understanding – and on the other hand it can be used to enforce the agreed upon dogma (or paradigm, viewpoint, group agreement, etc).

    In this day and age I can assure you it is not easy to get peer reviewed research published if it doesn’t fit the dogma of the moment. Really new and different ideas are being held to a completely different standard of evidence. If we consider that all that is needed is a rational methodology to make an observation, create a conceptual understanding of how this can be and then come up with a sequence of steps to test both the observation and the explanatory theory.

    A review of the treatment of Dr. Semmelweis demonstrates that this bias has been in vogue for a good many years. For insisting on cleaning hands before and after surgery in a hospital to reduce infections and deaths he was committed as insane and beat to death by a guard at the mental hospital. This despite much evidence of his theory and actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

    I always enjoyed this presentation and how many ways this information could be used and applied.

    1. “…the scientific method can be used to both expand our knowledge and understanding – and on the other hand it can be used to enforce the agreed upon dogma (or paradigm, viewpoint, group agreement, etc).”

      Well said, Still Awakening.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s