ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

A Note for Vinaire

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by mate, Oct 15, 2007.

View Users: View Users
  1. mate

    mate Patron Meritorious

    Hi Vinaire.
    I've been away, only return to find you apparently caught in a web of scientology.

    I do believe your assessment of Scientology, is flawed. The dharmic overtones which appear in the writings of Hubbard, are not intrinsic to his philosophy. This is very evident in the OT levels as they were describe in his original grade chart, and as are described in his Scientology 0-8, Book of Basics. Most, if not all, of his philosophy was "borrowed" from various sources, both Western and Eastern, and of course, one would expect traces of dharma/nature/holy spirit (as the term was originally used), in them.

    In my humble opinion, I suspect that you have seen these traces, and as a result, became attracted to the clarity that can occur in Western expression and became blinded to the contradictions.

    Hubbard's approach has been the development of the Mastery of the Mind, of the ego, rather than Mastery over the Mind. Scientology is a path leading directly away from self-realization.

    It could well be argued that some mind development is important for survival in Western society, if one is not going to enter a monestary. But in my opinion, scientology is not the answer. There are yogic practices which were the source of Carl Jung's psychology of selves, and there are Western developments of them, which would far better serve this need than scientology.

    I suspect you will probably disagree with me, and so be it. :eyeroll:

    Regards, David,
  2. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I don't know how to describe what I think of Scientology. My thoughts have to do with much more than just what Hubbard wrote. I wish I could use another word in place of Scientology, which does not have such a baggage to carry.

    Again, the words "Vedic" and "Semitic" have their own associations that are weighing them down totally drowning my intended innocent use. I see so much of the Vedic viewpoint in what Jesus said, and so much of the Semitic viewpoint in what the Christian Church has been propagating over the centuries.

    It is what the big three Semitic religions are doing to each other and to other religions (pure suppression) that inspired my use of the term "the Semitic viewpoint." But some people have been adding their own meaning to it and then feeling offended by it. And then they are blaming me for it.

    There is no denying the suppression brought about by these three Semitic religions on other religions and cultures. People within these religions as their background just don't see it. They are in a complete denial about it.

    These are the same people who did not see the Church of Scientology being suppressive up to a certain point when they were in it. Then they woke up. Now they see it and complain loudly about it.

    But they still don't see the same aberration ingrained in their own semitic background because they are still "in it." Maybe they will wake up some day and complain loudly about it too.

    But I have never found "complaining loudly" by itself to be a complete solution. It is more or less a dramatization. And many people on this board are very much into it.

    I have reasons to "complain loudly" against Semitic religions the same way these people feel justified to "complain loudly" against the religion of Scientology. But I find that to be a childish tantrum, which accomplishes nothing.

    My choice of the phrase "the Semitic viewpoint" was simply to bring about the awareness to the outpoint that these guys are actually playing both the roles. They are being the complainers in one instance, and the cause of complain in the other. They are complaining against the suppression by the church of Scientology on one hand, and on the other hand, they are being part of a Semitic culture that is being suppressive to other cultures.

    This is very evident in the colossal ignorance most members of Semitic cultures have about other cultures. They just look at the outward appearance of other cultures and look down upon them. Their knowledge of other cultures is so shallow.

    In some ways, these guys certainly brought upon themselves what they are complaining about, because they have been doing the same thing to others, and being in a denial about it.

    How many of these people have really made an effort to learn about other cultures? All I see is a narcissistic obsession about their own prized "semitic culture."

    In my view, Scientology does not even figure to be that important compared to this colossal ignorance about other cultures that permeates this whole "semitic" smugness and feeling of superiority.

    I don't think you are even aware of the issues that I am looking at.


  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

  4. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    I don't know who the "these guys", "these people" and "they" are that you are referring to. I do hope you are not including all ex-scientologists on here in your generalisation!

    Personally I do not object or react to your use of the word "semitic" it is a neutral word for me that carries no association whatsoever to my spirituality. It is your generalised assumptions, evaluations and put-downs that I disagree with you over.

    You manner comes over in your posts as extremely superior and abrasive and if I have misinterpreted you, perhaps you would be good enough to re-phrase some of your answers so they do not appear quite so condescending.

    I wonder if religious suppression, which has certainly existed over the centuries in all cultures, could be a button for you? Are you able to let all religious supression in the past and present just be what it is, or do you feel compelled to change it?

    I agree with Mate's analysis of Scn. I would say LRH paid lip service to the Vedas and other ancient wisdom but his actual Scn, as practiced, bore little or no resemblance to any such wisdom. Scn, as applied, was at best a mental self-help therapy and at worst a cultish mind-control.

    The axioms, that you seem to like so much, do not seem to me to have influenced, in any fundamental way, the actual practice of Scn as developed by Hubbard, which relies so heavily on suppression (not-isness) and force (alter-isness) and "reality adjustments" (is-ness). This is of course why Scn failed and is failing - poor Ron couldn't even apply his first few axioms! Poor old sod!
  5. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I don't think you get it, lionheart.

    People seem to project in others what they themselves do.

  6. Mojo

    Mojo Silver Meritorious Patron

  7. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    I think you just proved my point! :)

    Instead of addressing my specific points, you ignore them with a generalised, superior, abrasive, condescending, put-down. Ah well! .... That's what you do, so I'll leave you to get on with it. I hope it brings you happiness.
  8. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    As in 'not getting it'?:confused2:

  9. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    In the final analysis, I have my karma, and you have yours, and others have theirs.

    The world is as it is because we have made it so. And that includes Scientology.

    There is no God. It is just us.

    Enjoy your creation the best you can. Don't complain.


  10. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    The 'process' of handling Scientology is:

    Recognize the poop on the sidewalk
    Warn people about the poop on the sidewalk.
    Remove the poop on the sidewalk.

    'Complaining' is part of 'step one'.

  11. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Vinaire, what is your goal for your communications here?
  12. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    I think it's more about being able to tell the good poop from the bad poop.
    Scoop the good poop! :D

    I wouldn't warn anyone about the poop but I would suggest they look very closely before they scoop.
  13. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Some of it even has raisins in it!! :happydance:
  14. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I think that God was created as a screen so one doesn't have to confront one's karma.

    It is pretty deep screen indeed!

    Those with heaviest belief in God has the mostest of their karma to hide behind that screen.

  15. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Of course, that's the really good poop.
    One needs to have achieved a fair degree of wisdom and enlightenment before one can truly claim to be able to discern the really good poop from just the ordinary good poop.

    My hat is off to discriminating poopers everywhere! :D
  16. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Vinay, do you mean God as a personality and external source of cause?
    I take it you don't mean static?
  17. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Do you believe that you can do things to give yourself a greater endowment of Static, or Brahmin, or Theta?

    Can you be in better communication with Static/Brahmin/Theta and thus have more cognitions or joy or wisdom in life?

    Then don't look now, Vinaire, but you have just become one of them damn Semitics!
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I mean the most popular definition of God. I am not referring to anything esoteric here.

    I am talking about the God of the "chosen people," the God who granted the land of palestine "to be taken over," the God of crusades, the God of Jihads, the Gods of Middle East conflict, and finally, the God of George Bush and his ultra-conservationists backers.

    I am talking about the God from which rationality shies away. It is the God who wants to harvest sheeps in the East.

    He is very dynamic indeed!

  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    It is interesting for me to see how I am being attacked quite heavily on a personal basis .

    And that is when I haven't attacked anybody personally.

    I have only attacked certain viewpoints.

    It means a lot of people here are identifying themselves with those viewpoints.

    They can't see beyond those viewpoints. They are blind without those viewpoints.

    They think they are the viewpoints.

    That is because they haven't understood Axiom #1. Not only that, they actually detest Axiom # 1 because it diverges from that viewpoint.

    Let me tell you, you are a lot more than a garden-variety, small and fixed viewpoint.

  20. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    As long as it's off the sidewalk, I've got nothing against people scooping it; taking it home; selling it to each other (as long as the 'customer' knows what he's getting); eating it (raisins and all) or rolling around in it (as long as they don't plan to ride public transit).