I still use the appellation of 'freezone scientologist' or 'independent scientologist' when asked by curious strangers. I find that it helps to encourage people in differentiating between the Co$ Cult of LRH and the actual subject of scientology as a proposed spiritual technology.
I left the church because it is an abusive cult. I have few disagreements with the fundamentals of the actual subject. The disagreements I have with the subject lie in the unnecessary complexities which LRH introduced over time.
More accurately I'm a Taoist Buddhist NeoPlatonist who uses scientology spiritual technology in pursuit of my objectives. The use of scientology came late on the chain. I found it to be useful in pursuing my primary goals and can honestly recommend many of its practices to others.
Explaining all that when I am asked, however, takes rather an extensive discussion. Most people want something simple they can work with, not a history of philosophy & comparative religions. I'm too prone to lengthy explanations as it is. Ask any of my friends. Or look up some of my posts.
Mark A. Baker
Thank-you.
What do you consider to be the "fundamentals"?
Is there a date that acts as a general cut-off like 1954, or something like that?
To me, the introduction of KSW was a GROSS additive and unnecessary complexity that brought about considerable distortion to the subject. That sets a line of demarcation in 1965.
I see that even earlier, the introduction of ANY idea that states "this is the only workable system", "we are on a mission to salvage this sector", and things like "Scientology betters conditions", as unequivocal CLAIMS without ANY support or verifiable proof, really confused whatever basic value it might have free of these things. Hubbard's grandstanding and tendency to simply MAKE CLAIMS (with no supporting evidence other than his assertions) often acted to ward off any truly intelligent person with a scientific bent.
So I am curious. Since there is SO MUCH "data" (thousands of pages of Green Volumes, 7 or more volumes AND the Management Series), thousands of hours of tapes, and thousands of pages of "self-help data", in as briefly as possible, but without lacking some detail, what are the FUNDAMENTALS and what are the COMPLEXITIES? Do you consider all or most of the organizational data as unnecessary? Do you primarily concern yourself with the Red Volumes, and the data that has to do with "helping a person"?
I always viewed Scientology as more of a New Age type subject, and while related to spiritual ideas, it was more geared towards helping people live happier, and more successful lives. Lots of it has NOTHING to do with spirituality, and has lots to do with goals, admin scales, purposes, making things happen in the world, etc. I see it like I do so many other New Age subjects. What is involved are some isolated aspects of spiritual data, but taken and used to HELP a human being
satisfy desires in the world. That is FAR different from Buddha's approach which was/is to extinguish the desires entirely. I really can't see Buddha getting on the stage with Tony Robbins (or L. Ron Hubbard), and telling us all how to "win the game of life" by providing us with ways and techniques to "flourish and prosper".
Buddha - all desire results in pain and suffering
Following a path to free self of all desire, is a "spiritual path".
Using various ideas that are rooted in spiritual subjects, as a way to satisfy human desires, is NOT a "spiritual path". Most New Age subjects involve THAT. There are just so MANY New Age books that teach visualization, affirmations, contacting ones "Higher Self", path of least resistance, and much more primarily as a way to achieve happiness, wealth, love, health and success. Much of Scientology takes the same approach. Become free of death, BUT enjoy them desires along the way! Whose kidding who?
I would say, take all of THAT out and away from Scientology, and maybe what is left MIGHT provide a spiritual path.
As I see it it will be VERY hard for anyone anything less than VERY well familairized with ALL of Scientology data to shift through it all and separate the fundamentals from the endless complexities.
I find that in its current form, it is almost impossible to do so. That is not to say that someone couldn't.
I have thought quite a bit over the years about WHAT parts of the basic Scn data could be used along a path similar to the aims of Buddhism. Much would have to go. More would go than would stay. It would be unrecognizable as what almost anyone would call or relate to as "Scientology".
+++++++++++