Why Scientology seems to work up to Clear?

[F.Bullbait]

...every time an element was created, it would create a new element, infinitely...

 

[gbuck]

The bridge?

 

[F.Bullbait]

The bridge?

Wish I had said that. Best of!

 

[gbuck]

Wish I had said that. Best of!

thats because it's true!

I would love to see it on a poster marketed as: 'The Bridge to Total Freedom'

some are on the downward spiral, and some are progressing 'up' the bridge but......

you couldn't say it any better than the visual.

 

[Claire Swazey]

oh, I get it, I see my confusion.

you just said in your message "pissed tread", but not the whole title, thus my confusion.

this tread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?36959-PISSED-IT-S-NOT-YOUR-FAULT-!!!

thanks for clarifying.

Again; you sd I was in a cult and made nothing of that. Totally untrue. You sd I should read, get educated, etc. Hell, I've probably read at least as much as you-prolly more.

 

[Claire Swazey]

But you didn't answer the question.

You can't admit there is no such thing as a clear.

You only state the concept is possible, as stated by hubbard.

Which implies there is a reactive mind.

Do you believe there is a reactive mind?

Yes or no?

Kinda. He did say it wasn't the same as the subconscious but I think that I look at it more like, the subconscious does some of the stuff Hubbard attributed to the reactive mind. And there are characteristics of the so called reactive mind that were Hub's own misinterpretations.

I think he noticed things others already observed and reinterpreted and repackaged them. So there were times he was correct and times he was wrong.

I only know one way to make wut Hub called a "clear" . That would be to attain nirvana. Hubbard couldn't do it himself, could not induce it in others.

So your question was not a yes or no question. Interesting how some here seem to need to think that way. I just don't think one can with philosophy.

 

[uniquemand]

Hubbard was a fraud and a liar, but he did rip off some very interesting material and lie about its potential in order to take Suckerbucks (tm) from them.

 

[Gib]

Kinda. He did say it wasn't the same as the subconscious but I think that I look at it more like, the subconscious does some of the stuff Hubbard attributed to the reactive mind. And there are characteristics of the so called reactive mind that were Hub's own misinterpretations.

I think he noticed things others already observed and reinterpreted and repackaged them. So there were times he was correct and times he was wrong.

I only know one way to make wut Hub called a "clear" . That would be to attain nirvana. Hubbard couldn't do it himself, could not induce it in others.

So your question was not a yes or no question. Interesting how some here seem to need to think that way. I just don't think one can with philosophy.

My question is a yes or no question.

According to hubbard, precisely speaking of dianetics, a person follows the commands spoken when a person is unconscious. Any words spoken during a time of unconsciousness, acts as a hypnotic command to the the person unconscious.

I am saying this is not true. There is no reactive mind.

How shall we discuss this, with proof?

 

[Claire Swazey]

My opinions are as already written. It's not a yes or no question, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bill]

I only know one way to make wut Hub called a "clear" . That would be to attain nirvana. Hubbard couldn't do it himself, could not induce it in others.

I wish you and others would just stop doing this. "This" being dub-in what "Clear" means when, in fact, "Clear" is absolutely nothing at all like that. Hubbard had a specific definition for "Clear" and that was it. The rest is what all us brainwashed Scientologists dubbed in.

Nirvana: (in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

That. Is. Not. What. Clear. Is.

Clear: A person who no longer has a Reactive Mind.

You cannot attain Nirvana by "getting rid of your reactive mind" and you cannot "go Clear" via Buddhism.
Please, just stop conflating Hubbard's "Clear" with other stuff. Clear is one thing: A person who no longer has a reactive mind.

Period.

You want to refer to some other state? Please use the appropriate term for that state and stop calling it "Clear". Please.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I like to look at the ideas behind the theories.

Also...when you have a cult founder who liked to redefine things that others had already noticed and set forth in their works and observations, then, well, his stuff deserves to be deconstructed.

An example: I see no difference between OT abilities, saintly manifestations, miracles, psychic phenomena,...

 

[Gib]

I like to look at the ideas behind the theories.

Also...when you have a cult founder who liked to redefine things that others had already noticed and set forth in their works and observations, then, well, his stuff deserves to be deconstructed.

An example: I see no difference between OT abilities, saintly manifestations, miracles, psychic phenomena,...

here are hubbard's ideas of clear behind the theories:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...rk-up-to-Clear&p=966325&viewfull=1#post966325

 

[Helena Handbasket]

Please, just stop conflating Hubbard's "Clear" with other stuff. Clear is one thing: A person who no longer has a reactive mind. ... Please use the appropriate term for that state and stop calling it "Clear". Please.

Also, people confuse "clear" with "caselessness".

Someone who is "clear" still has a lot of case -- his own case. "The Reactive Mind" is just one aspect of case, and when it's gone, not everything is gone.

I think of the reactive mind as a sort of a flypaper that engrams stick to. Removing this flypaper does not mean "all of the person's case is gone". It's even possible for a clear to have engrams; the difference being is that they can now be be removed quite easily -- perhaps by inspection.

The C of S tends to divide processing into three categories -- that which gets you up to clear, that which removes BTs and clusters, and OT drills. There's a lot more to it than that.

The correct question for an upper level client is "is the charge yours, a BT's, or a cluster's?" not "is the charge a BT's or a cluster's?"

Several times I've had to fight to get my own case handled.

Also, it IS possible to exteriorize from the physical universe -- just extremely difficult, and what's out there is boring. For the time being, I'm staying in.

Helena

 

[George Layton]

I like to look at the ideas behind the theories.

Also...when you have a cult founder who liked to redefine things that others had already noticed and set forth in their works and observations, then, well, his stuff deserves to be deconstructed.

An example: I see no difference between OT abilities, saintly manifestations, miracles, psychic phenomena,...

The cost maybe.

 

[mockingbird]

Look there never was or ever will be a reactive mind , there is not one scintilla of truth in that idea.

It is there to make you so afraid and manageable that you will pay any price and do anything to get rid of a pure fiction.

It is not even 1% accurate at describing the subconscious. It is a great tool to defraud and terrify.

There is no reactive mind , tone scale , time track , whole track , OT powers , clear , stable release, or any of a million other things promised in Scientology.

It has some nice fairy tales to misdirect and confuse your mind but it is less true than Santa and the Easter Bunny.

ALL the supposed gains and abilities NEVER stand up to science or critical examination or verification EVER.

IT is like a magic or psychic trick that can NEVER be duplicated under controlled conditions to prevent cheating and FRAUD , simply because it is fraud.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Forget about everything you've heard about arithmetic. Everyone has looked for solutions for centuries, and failed. I have been through the wall of fire, though, and I will show you how to do it. I call it "Ordinal Theory". When you learn it, after paying me a few hundred grand, you'll be capable of many amazing OT powers.

Now, some people who know my system are broad minded and critical; but they insist that I deserve some respect. "Ordinal theory, arithmetic: it's really all the same," they say. They don't buy my claims that no-one else had ever solved addition before, but at least they concede me my rightful place, up there with Euclid and Newton and Gauss.

 

[gbuck]

Seems to work?
seems to me,
even that
is bullshit,
And that seems to work!

 

[strativarius]

I like to look at the ideas behind the theories.

Also...when you have a cult founder who liked to redefine things that others had already noticed and set forth in their works and observations, then, well, his stuff deserves to be deconstructed.

An example: [highlight]I see no difference between OT abilities, saintly manifestations, miracles, psychic phenomena[/highlight],...

Neither do I, they are all examples of BS in one form or another.

 

[strativarius]

Also, people confuse "clear" with "caselessness".

Someone who is "clear" still has a lot of case -- his own case. "The Reactive Mind" is just one aspect of case, and when it's gone, not everything is gone.

I think of the reactive mind as a sort of a flypaper that engrams stick to. Removing this flypaper does not mean "all of the person's case is gone". It's even possible for a clear to have engrams; the difference being is that they can now be be removed quite easily -- perhaps by inspection.

The C of S tends to divide processing into three categories -- that which gets you up to clear, that which removes BTs and clusters, and OT drills. There's a lot more to it than that.

[highlight]The correct question for an upper level client is "is the charge yours, a BT's, or a cluster's?" not "is the charge a BT's or a cluster's?"[/highlight]

Several times I've had to fight to get my own case handled.

Also, it IS possible to exteriorize from the physical universe -- just extremely difficult, and what's out there is boring. For the time being, I'm staying in.

Helena

The correct question for an upper level client is 'how much longer am I going to delude myself that reactive minds, charge, BT's and clusters really exist'.

 

[gbuck]

I'm glad I'm not clear, means I don't have a case.