Keeping Scientology Working and OTIII Evaluations

[Mark A. Baker]

Thank you for providing subtitles to those reading ESMB with any hearing problem.

Mark A. Baker

 

[NeXTep]

I have been watching this thread for some time.
What I have read confirms what I had suspected while living at CC; Very few who have attested to OTIII actually realized the EP I did.

Before I even heard of Hubbard or Scientology I was exploring my past lives, realizing there had been more than two.
I went into my mind and looked at them from a comfortable distance. Enough distance to acknowledge the existance of them and be selective in recalling specific events.

There was one period of time in particular, about 80 million years back. I saw a lot of activity on a certain planet. It was like this planet intensified by 100.

I also perceived that if I attempted to move closer to that lifetime to recall things I had done, it would hurt my body in present time.
That was wierd. It made no sense to me yet that is what I perceived.

If this "danger" is common in all of us as Hubbard says, I think what he did was to attempt to make an indirect list and line of questioning that could guide a persons thoughts to deal with the danger to the body without actually confronting it head on.

I did not confront any incidents head on but found a way through with my "spiritual" eyes closed.
The EP I noticed immediatly was I became larger than this body, I became very comfortable being larger and just behind the body.
Of course I was just behind it, I now had spiritual legs and much larger than the body.
Not only did I have spiritual legs, but I noticed that I had about a third of my attention back. I was so drawn to the body before , I was constantly putting a third of my attention on it.
The body tends to sing a song of "being a body". It is a spiritual song that is so loud, it becomes a deafening roar.
It insists that we are not spirit but a body and very small inside of it.
Look around the world and we see most people singing along to this song of lies. It is like being at a concert and trying to recall a completely different song while the concert deafens the thoughts.
Many of us believe we need to get something, or attain a new state, or get new powers postulating that we are not already there or have them.

I know the truth of being much larger than this body, yet I will sing along with everyone else because it's very comfortable to do so.
Living the lie.

I did not begin to realize and deal with the people who follow me "BT's" until after I dealt with the incidents that I had closed my eyes to.
I only began to deal with the BT's, at least one after I was more confident and able.

The incidents actually include some very deady things not related to H-bombs and volcanos.
I can't fault Hubbard for not making a list of them or including them in the OTIII packs.
I think he was trying to get people to a more able place, relieve some of the reinforcing charge from the BT's before addressing the real deadly issues.
I will not say what the issues are except I would not have believed them if someone told me. They are even more bizzare than the "OTIII story"

~p

Amazing experience Pepin. I love that concept of the being being bigger than the body. I once had a similar experience where I felt bigger than planet earth, it didn't last very long though.

So far I have not seen anyone with a story that seems more bizzare than Hubbard's OTIII story and I agree with you that it is better to keep it to yourself.

But in any case it does sound like a different harmonic of Hubbard's OTIII to me and proves that there are various flavors of that story in any case.

In any case I fully agree on the fact that he tried to relieve some of the reinforcing charge from the BT's as you say. Wether he was aware that there was much more work to be done I don't know. As far as I am concerned his duty has been to lighten the OTIII charge. Therefore I think that it is not necessary for everyone to run OTIII as the charge has been lightened enough by so many people running it that the incident is very very light now and not very restimulative anymore.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Were you ever inside your head? :confused2:

Who said you were?

I don't know who told you this, but Mr H was the person who told me and he said "Be three feet back of your head".

He was fixated on location of the unlocated.

How can the unlocated be either "in" or "out" of anything?

Yes, I know a person can believe they are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are. Maybe they are just not seeing correctly?

Space & considerations about location are excellent points of case address precisely because they tie into a common sense of "reality". Everyone knows where he is, or at least thinks he does.

One experience I had once as a result of a particularly good session had an associated cognition which I can best describe as: real exteriorization is the recognition of existence without an accompanying assumption of location.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

As far as I am concerned his [lLRH's] duty has been to lighten the OTIII charge.

-snip-

Duty? As in to "decontaminate this sector of the galaxy"?

 

[Pepin]

..... Therefore I think that it is not necessary for everyone to run OTIII as the charge has been lightened enough by so many people running it that the incident is very very light now and not very restimulative anymore.

If this were true, would it not be common for everyone on this planet to realize they are NOT a body?
wouldn't it be common for everyone on this planet to live life as a spirit being behind the body's head?

It was common long ago in a galaxy far far away.

 

[NeXTep]

If this were true, would it not be common for everyone on this planet to realize they are NOT a body?
wouldn't it be common for everyone on this planet to live life as a spirit being behind the body's head?

It was common long ago in a galaxy far far away.

Well I did not mean that the effects would be so immense, would be nice though. I don't think that it would remove more than some basic charge to set the stage for some further advancement.

 

[degraded being]

That's a strange idea... as if OTIII was a solution and "space cooties" as you call them something new - there is nothing on OTIII that was not in Book 1 and "space cooties" are discussed at length in the Fifties. "Book one" could be considered as Hubbard thesis putting there a concept, a Clear, and his whole work till the end (OTIII, Ls, Nots, ...) as a demonstration of how close he could get to it. For some he didn't go far enough, for others he strayed away or missed completely and for others he did get close enough.

The fifties was a long time ago and ron had not compartmentalised the "bridge" and dictated what people were to do, what "cogs" were to prove that each "EP" was attained, and that some stuff (as then not developed) was
to be kept secret. In the fifties AFAIK there was a sense of discovery and freedom to experiment. If you were there in the fifties and possibly early sixties and interested in discovery and experimentation you would not have been subjected to the same rail-roading and control that new public were subjected to after that. If you yourself had gotten into scientology in the 70s, 80s, 90s, Pierrot, you independence probably would have been offended so early that you would have leaft after the comm course.

I got in in early 70s. I read "the history of man". I did not believe it, it had no proof offered. I was told the "what is true for you......" line, so no problem. I just thought I'd see about that later. It did not affect any thing I was audited on or the courses I did. I cannot rememebr "entities" as I think you call them being discussed "at length". You guys who did that in the fifties need to know that "entities" etc were NOT DISCUSSED in later decades.
They were something to be read about in OT success stories.

Are you saying that Xenu etc was in DMSMH. Please don't just tell me that "engrams" were talked about and that that is the same thing. It does not say in DMSMH that running fanatsy space opera is neccessary to clear people, nor does it say that running what is sometimes referred to as RON's case is necessary. It was invented after DMSMH was written remember?

 

[Veda]

A standard response in Scientology to being asked, "What is OT 3?" is, "Read 'Dianetics'." "It's all in 'Book One'." It's one of several disingenuous responses to inquiries about the secret OT 3. It doesn't matter that OT 3 is plastered all over the Net; it's still "secret"; and it's also bad PR.

Xenu/Incident 2, as Hubbard described it in the OT 3 materials and the Class 8 course, is very bad PR. It is to be denied, or obscured.

The reactions (or "handlings") depend on the person or audience ("public") being addressed ("handled.") A common reaction is, "Hah! (dismissive smirk) I don't belive that!"

It depends on what is viewed as "acceptable."

More acceptable is the idea that "religions practice exorcism," and so the idea of exorcising spirits is less sensitive a topic than Xenu and Incident 2.

Exorcising of spirits can be admitted - on ESMB, by this small group - but Xenu/Incident 2? No. Bad PR.

But this is for the ESMB public, as determined by a small group of Scientology Freezoners applying Scientology PR tech to the "wogs," and "BPC-cases," and "SPs" on ESMB.

IMO, arguing at length with any of this handful of PR-types is a waste of time. You'll just receive more PR, although sometimes one will slip up.

Sometimes one of this small bunch will make a true (seemingly non PR) statement for the purpose of getting agreement. It's more attempted manipulation.

Personally, I find it unfortunate, as it's the last thing that newbies need.

At the same time, I believe in freedom - even for Scientology PR types - so the best I can do is occasionally, not so much respond, as attempt to describe what these few folks are doing.

Many thanks to those who've being doing their part in addressing the above described situation - each with his or her own perspective and approach - and each being honest.

 

[lionheart]

Can I pick up some points and invite a fresh look to see if the Hubbard-given data is in fact true? It does involve thinking outside the Hubbard box, so can be an odd thing to do if we still accept his dogma, but it may be rewarding.

My words may fail as they can only hint at the reality, but I'll try.

I understand that it is entirely about considerations. "In" and "out" are just words. But, I have no doubt that most people do experience reality in a fundamentally "dualistic" nature - in and out, spiritual and material, mental and physical. There is some truth to the fact that people experience things as such.

I agree with that but don't see scn tech as the surest way to reach a non-dualist position. One simply has to allow both apparencies without resistance and they discharge naturally. Some scn processes touch on this with processing polarities. But Scn generally tends to stick the person on one side of a duality, not free the person form the illusion. For example Ron's fixation on the desirability of "at cause". That's not a spiritual freedom it is an ego trap.

Same with ext. Exteriorisation, as a spiritual goal, fixes the person as "interior". Stuck to one side of the illusion and desiring the other. Neither ext nor int are true, they are illusionary delusions.

A simple handling of all this scn int/ext complexity would be to allow oneself to be both in and out and like problem processes produce the disappearance of the "problem" this would cause the disappearance of any supposed int/ext issues and one would see neither is true.

But again, it all stems from considerations. I was talking within a certain framework of understanding. Of course, if you consider yourself to be able to be located, well then you will be.

Are you sure?

Does a "consideration" make it so?

I know Ron told us this was true, but is it?

This is like saying a belief by it's nature becomes true. Does it?

Simply looking can undo any belief. So do considerations fix us?

Most people cannot just change their minds about that and have it be true.

Are you sure? Hubbard told us it was hard to do, but he was selling us a Bridge to do it.

Changing one's mind is easy. We do it every moment, we just don't notice we are doing it!

In a certain sense, what I got from the PDC tapes and Exteriorization and Phenomena of Space Course, is that the idea of the Bridge was to UNDO the considerations and agreements that ended you up where you now find yourself - thinking that you are in a body, on planet Earth, in this solar system, in this galaxy, and in this universe. All of it involves location (and below that considerations about location and being able to be located). Sure, it is ALL a consideration, but a WAY, a path, a method, a process is necessary (for most people) to undo the considerations.

Is a WAY necessary? Who told you that?

I'm not saying a process may not help, but don't buy the idea too solidly. Agreeing with any school's "WAY" may make us miss the possibilty of the miracle of NOW.

The basic defintion of a static involves the notion that a thetan can locate itself in space and time by consideration.

What's this "thetan"? What is this "itself"?

See? there's a missed step in the logic there. The unlocated nothing/static has been somehow chopped into min-statics that, being "selves", are no longer static nothing but somethings. There's nothing self-evidently axiomatic in that. It has become a belief, a dogma.

You are fundamentally a nothingness, with the ability to consider somethingnesses located in time and space. The moment ANY unit of awareness selects a viewpoint (a point to view from), you have located youself. While it is nice on a theoretical level, there would be NOTHING to do (boring) unless one assumes a viewpoint from which to participate in some mutually agreed upon game.

Stop! Who is "you"? How can a "you" be a nothingness? :confused2:

Considering somethingnesses into existence is a coded way of saying "being at cause". How can nothing be at cause?

I accept there is nothing and there is something, the fundamental polarity. But it is a non-axiomatic leap to say the nothing caused the something. Does that mean the something can create the nothing? It just doesn't make sense.

The something appears on the nothing. The nothing is capacity for the something. That seems a better way of expressing the paradox. It has nothing to do with "considering" or "causing". It is the beautiful mystery!

"unit of awareness" "select a viewpont" This is just scientologese. These concepts have been given to you by Ron.

"The moment ANY unit of awareness selects a viewpoint (a point to view from), you have located youself" is like saying "when you locate yourself you have located yourself". It is meaningless.

Ron told you it would be boring to not assume a viewpoint in order to play a game. It is pure scientology dogma. Is this actually true?

I don't know about you, but the more I contact nothing, paradoxically the more exciting and vibrant the something called life is!

This seems to tell the lie to the Ron-ism that you have repeated about games.

Hubbard well described the nature of traps. It is very debatable whether what he actually DID had anything to do with what he SAID he was doing.

I agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure he described well the nature of traps. I think he gave us dogma and disguised it as an explanation of traps. But as outlined as above, his explanation is full of assumptions and illogical psuedo-science.

Just an invitation to look outside the scientology dogma.....

 

[lionheart]

Since you then acknowledge the power of postulates then your prior statement, which I was addressing, ...



... seems a bit inept. One can certainly argue that scientology may not be the optimal technology for addressing spiritual gains. But that it does do so and there is utility in using it for that purpose, by your own attestation, is clear.

You've misrepresented what I said. I said I had blow-outs from postulate recovery on lower levels. I specifically excluded OTII & III.

I didn't "attest" anything about "Scientology" as a whole. Don't misquote/misrepresent me that way.

Scientology is a multi-layered, multi-faceted thing. It includes some useful, even wonderful, elements in some of its lower level techniques. It also includes some ego-traps at all levels. On the confidential implantology levels it becomes a mind-warping evaluation as per the opening post of mine on this thread.

I would never "attest" that scientology addresses spiritual gains. On the contrary, on balance, I would say it is a a negative spiritual influence in that it pumps up the ego in mimicry of its Source and Founder.

Clear?

 

[Vinaire]

Possible. I consider drugs affect social conduct and don't always alter the intellect. I didn't try Man made chemicals as a teenager, only the joint that I abandonned as it didn't do anything - other than havng friends that smoked. Or maybe some amplifiyng of sensations when sharing wth my girlfriend. I had two friends as a teenager who were tripping on pot and LSD throughout their whole studies - one studying Medicine the other Science Physics. Throughout their whole studies in High school and tough University they both were at the top, 1st of class mainly A+ ses. I don't know about the Physics guy, my friend who finished Medicine is one of the top guys in Tropical Medicine and works at a worlwide level.

So I don't know about Hubbard in that regard. As to the Tech his work is consistent. Maybe the Sea Org was a drug induced hallucination.




There are several OT Drug Rds - The Scn Drug Rd rehabilitates the "Highs" the person got while on drugs. The Dianetics Rd erases the mass from the "Lows". Drugs are deadly as to any "High" there is an uninspected proportional "Low".

Drugs are poisons. Anythng that is not correct food is. Whle on drugs (according to the simplistic paradigm "cell-life unit" I posted before) many past incidents of times when one did try to kill the cells will be restimulated. Some life units will dramatize "going exterior", severing the link with the cell, and have a common incident with the Central Life Unit - the "I". Per III we would say a drug incident creates a Cumulative Cluster.

It's deadly as any time the being will have an Ascension Experience as Alan calls it, it will kick in the mass from that kind of incident.

So - if Hubbard was on drugs as long as he didn't clean than up he carried with him a proportional "Low".

I have following questions:

(1) Do you think Hubbard lost control of his creation "Scientology"? Or, did he do exactly what he set out to do with the subject?

(2) If Hubbard was consistent in his writings on Scientology, then did he mix his opinions with the subject to get the sordid outcome he got? Where did he go wrong?

.

 

[Vinaire]

maybe the "body thetans" are debris from collective thought, or from any life interactions?

That didn't make sense, sorry!

I would think that attachment to self would be the last attachment to overcome. Before that he would have to handle attachment with other things.

In other words, "body thetans" are part of his own general case. Once he has handled "body thetans" then he would be able to handle the "thetan" he considers himself to be.

.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You've misrepresented what I said. I said I had blow-outs from postulate recovery on lower levels. I specifically excluded OTII & III.

I didn't "attest" anything about "Scientology" as a whole. Don't misquote/misrepresent me that way.

Scientology is a multi-layered, multi-faceted thing. It includes some useful, even wonderful, elements in some of its lower level techniques. It also includes some ego-traps at all levels. On the confidential implantology levels it becomes a mind-warping evaluation as per the opening post of mine on this thread.

I would never "attest" that scientology addresses spiritual gains. On the contrary, on balance, I would say it is a a negative spiritual influence in that it pumps up the ego in mimicry of its Source and Founder.

Clear?

I did not misrepresent you. Your original statement made reference to the bridge, not the "upper levels". Even so, as regards the "upper levels" differ only in terms of focus not tech the distinction is moot.

The power of the processing of postulates is a fundamental practice within scientology auditing. You in your own words admitted that benefit derives from such. It does not follow that you endorse the "upper levels" or other aspects of scientology tech, nor did I make such a claim.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Vinaire]

That's not on OTIII.

A being will mock up compulsively when he fears he might be unmocked.

A "thetan" is you before you mocked yourself up.
The "I" before the consideration.

On OTIII we could say it's about fragmentation. One defragments one's mind to get back one's integrity.

One defragments what's called the Whole Track - not just to disconnect by consideration but to get rid of all ties with it.

You have the following paradigms:

The Static travelling in Space and Time, playing with Energy. There is an Earliest Beginning as entrance point to this Universe, there is Present Time, there is the Future. And he goes from A to B, interior or exterior at will, here and now or "there".

Or - free from the Whole Track - the Static here and now, and the Physical Universe moving around. Like if you drive your car, and it's the road that moves - the whole Universe, Kinetic, moves around the Static.

Then the basic basic, the earlliest beginning, the entrance point to this Universe is here and now. And there is no Exterior/Interior, one simply is.

That is interesting that OT III does not get into the root cause of “mocking up a bank.”

This sentence is quite telling:

A being will mock up compulsively when he fears he might be unmocked.

So, the basic aberration is the fear of being unmocked. This fear will not exist if the being thinks he can mock himself back up again.

So, the most basic ability would be the ability to mock oneself up.

Krishna’s philosophy was not to have attachment with anything including attachment to oneself. Then one is totally free to romp around.

The basic-basic seems to be mocking oneself and getting stuck in that mock up.

.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I have following questions:

(1) Do you think Hubbard lost control of his creation "Scientology"? Or, did he do exactly what he set out to do with the subject?

(2) If Hubbard was consistent in his writings on Scientology, then did he mix his opinions with the subject to get the sordid outcome he got? Where did he go wrong?

.

I think that Ron, as many creative writers do, made it up as he went along, adapted to changing times and circumstances, and wrote/lectured/taught what he could sell to others, what got him the most attention, and what pleased him the most. He was playing a game. He did whatever enabled him to live the kind of life he wanted to live, as best he could. Towards the end, the game he had created for himself and his family (including the fallout from illegal activities) overwhelmed his ability to function in an open and public manner. I think Ron lost control over himself (drinking , drug use, apparent OCD behavior, paranoia, rages, and other signs of mental deterioration) moreso than lost control of his group or anything else. I don't see Ron as being a victim of anybody but Ron.

 

[Vinaire]

The fifties was a long time ago and ron had not compartmentalised the "bridge" and dictated what people were to do, what "cogs" were to prove that each "EP" was attained, and that some stuff (as then not developed) was
to be kept secret. In the fifties AFAIK there was a sense of discovery and freedom to experiment. If you were there in the fifties and possibly early sixties and interested in discovery and experimentation you would not have been subjected to the same rail-roading and control that new public were subjected to after that. If you yourself had gotten into scientology in the 70s, 80s, 90s, Pierrot, you independence probably would have been offended so early that you would have leaft after the comm course.

I got in in early 70s. I read "the history of man". I did not believe it, it had no proof offered. I was told the "what is true for you......" line, so no problem. I just thought I'd see about that later. It did not affect any thing I was audited on or the courses I did. I cannot rememebr "entities" as I think you call them being discussed "at length". You guys who did that in the fifties need to know that "entities" etc were NOT DISCUSSED in later decades.
They were something to be read about in OT success stories.

Are you saying that Xenu etc was in DMSMH. Please don't just tell me that "engrams" were talked about and that that is the same thing. It does not say in DMSMH that running fanatsy space opera is neccessary to clear people, nor does it say that running what is sometimes referred to as RON's case is necessary. It was invented after DMSMH was written remember?

Those who are outside the Church today can now get back to doing experimentation and discovery that was the norm in the fifties.

.

 

[Pepin]

Well I did not mean that the effects would be so immense, would be nice though. I don't think that it would remove more than some basic charge to set the stage for some further advancement.

I see quite the opposite happening.

"spiritual" groups are trying to make the body experience equal a spiritual one.
We are bombarded by concepts that all feelings come from a brain, the body experience is all there is, lifes a bitch then you die.

this sure smacks of charge/old programming.

 

[Pepin]

For example Ron's fixation on the desirability of "at cause". That's not a spiritual freedom it is an ego trap.

If you are not "CAUSE", what are you? Do you not choose for yourself what to think? what to allow in your life? to close your eyes and pretend it's not real?

Same with ext. Exteriorisation, as a spiritual goal, fixes the person as "interior".

Agreed!

Does a "consideration" make it so?

A consideration creates something in life. For me, to realize that creation it must jive with my other creations.
A belief is something different. I can believe some things and be totally delusional to: GET THIS "What I know to be true but choose to neglect, deny or forget"

What's this "thetan"? What is this "itself"?

nothing more than a label for spirit.

See? there's a missed step in the logic there. The unlocated nothing/static has been somehow chopped into min-statics that, being "selves", are no longer static nothing but somethings.

Uh... Why do you 'consider' that the thetan/static is a nothing? Do you consider yourself as nothing?

I don't see a skiped step but an added idea by you that people/spirits are nothing.

 

[Gadfly]

Can I pick up some points and invite a fresh look to see if the Hubbard-given data is in fact true? It does involve thinking outside the Hubbard box, so can be an odd thing to do if we still accept his dogma, but it may be rewarding.

My words may fail as they can only hint at the reality, but I'll try.



I agree with that but don't see scn tech as the surest way to reach a non-dualist position. One simply has to allow both apparencies without resistance and they discharge naturally. Some scn processes touch on this with processing polarities. But Scn generally tends to stick the person on one side of a duality, not free the person form the illusion. For example Ron's fixation on the desirability of "at cause". That's not a spiritual freedom it is an ego trap.

Same with ext. Exteriorisation, as a spiritual goal, fixes the person as "interior". Stuck to one side of the illusion and desiring the other. Neither ext nor int are true, they are illusionary delusions.

A simple handling of all this scn int/ext complexity would be to allow oneself to be both in and out and like problem processes produce the disappearance of the "problem" this would cause the disappearance of any supposed int/ext issues and one would see neither is true.



Are you sure?

Does a "consideration" make it so?

I know Ron told us this was true, but is it?

This is like saying a belief by it's nature becomes true. Does it?

Simply looking can undo any belief. So do considerations fix us?



Are you sure? Hubbard told us it was hard to do, but he was selling us a Bridge to do it.

Changing one's mind is easy. We do it every moment, we just don't notice we are doing it!




Is a WAY necessary? Who told you that?

I'm not saying a process may not help, but don't buy the idea too solidly. Agreeing with any school's "WAY" may make us miss the possibilty of the miracle of NOW.



What's this "thetan"? What is this "itself"?

See? there's a missed step in the logic there. The unlocated nothing/static has been somehow chopped into min-statics that, being "selves", are no longer static nothing but somethings. There's nothing self-evidently axiomatic in that. It has become a belief, a dogma.



Stop! Who is "you"? How can a "you" be a nothingness? :confused2:

Considering somethingnesses into existence is a coded way of saying "being at cause". How can nothing be at cause?

I accept there is nothing and there is something, the fundamental polarity. But it is a non-axiomatic leap to say the nothing caused the something. Does that mean the something can create the nothing? It just doesn't make sense.

The something appears on the nothing. The nothing is capacity for the something. That seems a better way of expressing the paradox. It has nothing to do with "considering" or "causing". It is the beautiful mystery!

"unit of awareness" "select a viewpont" This is just scientologese. These concepts have been given to you by Ron.

"The moment ANY unit of awareness selects a viewpoint (a point to view from), you have located youself" is like saying "when you locate yourself you have located yourself". It is meaningless.

Ron told you it would be boring to not assume a viewpoint in order to play a game. It is pure scientology dogma. Is this actually true?

I don't know about you, but the more I contact nothing, paradoxically the more exciting and vibrant the something called life is!

This seems to tell the lie to the Ron-ism that you have repeated about games.



I agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure he described well the nature of traps. I think he gave us dogma and disguised it as an explanation of traps. But as outlined as above, his explanation is full of assumptions and illogical psuedo-science.

Just an invitation to look outside the scientology dogma.....

When I talk to people with experiences in Scientology, I tend to talk to them within a framework that I think they will be able to relate to.

I actually have "forgotten" most of Scientology as a way to view or think about things. I meditate daily (twice). I make up drills of my own based more on Buddhist and Hindu ideas. I experiment with visualization and concentration techniques. I tend to enjoy the Hindu view that out of the nothingness came all else - out-breathing and in-breathing forever. I realized awhile ago that I had NO CLUE about what is really going on. I had all sorts of "ideas", and adopted certain opinions, but I recognized them as arbitrary and limiting. Everybody yaps endlessly, with theories and ideas and thinkingness and concepts, and FEW can deliver the goods. Everybody is ready to tell you "the way it is"!!!!! I have pretty much stopped listening. The ONLY valid voice is the "silent voice within".

I have an open-eyes drill I do where I basically allow all thoughts to cease, and experience self as a "mirror" of all that is. I gently allow all to fall away, so that I do not interfere with just being there, being aware. Usually it "clicks" and I am not really out, and not really in, JUST there, aware of "self" as entirely out of space and time, yet looking out at the world through the body's eyes. I do drills to let it ALL GO, so that the body, mind and even all sensations vanish. I get close, but I am working on that.

In truth, I have chosen to forget all the theories and statements of Hubbard, and everyone else, and I am currently experimenting with states of consciousness. I tend towards a Buddhist approach - let all aspects of self GO COMPLETELY, and see what that is like. Play with that. See where I can take it. I don't think ANYBODY is going to get anywhere talking and thinking about any of this with "concepts". I apply some ideas of P.D. Oespensky and Meher Baba. The mind is an out of control beast for most people. Until THAT is confronted, dug into and dealt with effectively, nobody is "going anywhere". "Thinking" happens for most people - most people don't "think". It is largely an out-of-control machine, with the person quite unaware of its structure and makeup.

What I never liked about Scientology is that one "gets better" as an "effect" of auditing. I always preferred a more proactive approach. Like magic, or visualization, or various forms of meditation, etc. Digging into the invisible realm.

Unless one fiddles with the mind and awareness, on its own level, one will never learn what its potentials may be and what is its true nature. That is what currently makes sense and resonates for me. Of course, there is no shortage of theories, and people who will be more than glad, usually tripping over their own feet, rushing to tell you THEIRS!

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I have following questions:

(1) Do you think Hubbard lost control of his creation "Scientology"? Or, did he do exactly what he set out to do with the subject?

(2) If Hubbard was consistent in his writings on Scientology, then did he mix his opinions with the subject to get the sordid outcome he got? Where did he go wrong?

.

Where did he go wrong?

It probably started with creating a religion based on his paranoid delusions instead of seeking professional help for his mental illness and went downhill from there, until he was finally found dead in a soiled diaper, all jacked up of psychiatric tranquelizers and curled up in a fetal position.