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 www.exscn2.net.



What 'is' Scientology (absent Hubbard?)

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Mojo, Jan 26, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. Mojo

    Mojo Silver Meritorious Patron

    There are and have been numerous accusations on other critical-of-scientology message boards about the ESMB being a haven for (secret and not so secret) lovers of scientology. Which accusations are and have been routinely dismissed by numerous of ESMBs regular patrons.

    With all the hoopla going on in the world today about scientology (over a million hits on the internet in the last week along with scores of seperate media stories from all around the globe) the issue of what scientology 'is' and what scientology 'is not', and thus what a scientologist 'is' and what a scientologist 'is not' seems to be a reasonable question to ask, which question nonetheless seems to be damn difficult, if not impossible, to be straightfowardly answered.

    By nearly all accounts of the "I am a scientologist but am not of the church' group, being a scientologist apparently means accepting whatever parts of Mr. Hubbards doctrine one chooses to accept and dismissing the rest. For example: Tone scale, that's in. Fair game, that's out. Book one auditing, in, Xenu's fable's, out. Etc. etc. etc.

    The question becomes (or at least one variety of it): 'If Mr. Hubbards creation called scientology is an exact science based upon a precise set of principles, how can one imagine themself to be a scientologist when they butcher his 'entire package' to suite their individual wants and or needs?' (One can only suppose his/the 'squirrel' thing is, well, out, yes?)

    This remarkable state of affairs is mindboggeling to the average run of the mill garden variety wog. Of which thousands stopped by here today.

    It's akin to a flat-earth society member confessing that only some parts of the earth are actually flat (while clinging onto the title of being a dedicated member of the flat-earth society, or a flat-earthian as they like to be called).

    Would, I wonder, the founder of scientology accept individuals calling themselves scientologists that violated the fundamental definition of what he defined a scientologist to be? I think not. It'd be akin to a marxists defining himself as a christian because he liked a few things that Christ said while being disgusted by other things he said. Quite a linguistic trick in terms of self-definition. And why?

    Apparently, or at least it would seem to me, some individuals are prone to being so attached to the word 'scientologist' (and the images it conjers up within themselves, i.e. power, control, superiority etc) that a divorce from such a word in terms of self-definition is simply inconceivable?

    Surely a 'new improved' definition of a 'scientologist' is in order.

    Thus to the one/ones whom say: 'I am scientologist, but not a COS scientologist', please, for the sake of the agonizing future of every man women and child on this earth, do tell us, what exactly is a scientologist that defies and dismisses the fundamental definition of what a scientologist is, according to the creator of all scientologists?

    Thank you.

    Mojo

    P.S. having read hundreds of posts here on the ESMB I would imagine Ball of Fluff would be the most appropriate spokesperson for this undoubtably reasonable question, however, as a testament to scientologys success in communication training, Fluffy has put me on her ignore list. Lest I write something that is disturbing to her.
     
  2. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    This can only refer to me.

    First up let me say that I see nothing amiss at all in a bloke taking only some bits of LRH’s writings and lectures and saying “this I support, the rest I do not”. That is perfectly OK. One is free to do that with any subject in the uniiverse - nowhere is there some cosmic law that declares one has to swallow the whole package deal or swallow nothing at all. Every person can choose; one can take on what one wants and one can turf out the rest. And later if you want you can take on more and throw out more. That is all 100% fine.

    The important thing is that you do not take on or throw out things just blindly. Consider everything, test it, see if it wotrks, see if it fits in and leads to further knowledge. Or not. And then decide, and act accordingly.

    Most people who came into Scio signed up for thje package deal and reckoned well if this bit works for me then all of it must be right and Ron really is infallible. Well I never did that. I never bought the package - I only took on the bits that I could make work and that made sense.

    This is how LRH originally declared it should be: If it’s true for you then it’s true for you, and if it isn’t then don’t take it on board. Leave it in the bull-pen until one day you sort it out one way or the other.

    So what is Scientology?


    The science of life itself. It teaches the fundamental laws and basics of life. Scientology assumes that every person can be more able than he is and then goes ahead with very precise techniques to make this increase in ability possible. Scientology is thus used to increase ability, intelligence, and spiritual freedom. Scientology does not just deal with the field of the human mind - it embraces the overall science of life which also happens to include the human mind.


    Scientology is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western civilization. It is the science of human affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of man, and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom. It is a philosophy in its highest meaning as it brings man to a personal understanding of life and existence, and so gives to man freedom and truth.


    An applied spiritual philosophy dealing with the study of man’s ability to know, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life. Scientology is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life. It contains the data necessary to live as a free being. A reality in Scientology is a reality on life.


    What is important to recognise here is that Scientology stands completely independent of L Ron Hubbard. They are TOTALLY separate. Just like geometry is separate to Euclid and E=MC squared is separate to Einstein, so Scio is quite quite separate to LRH. Each subject is what it is and what is true in each subject is true regardless of its originator.

    And this is the Scientology that I have always done. I did hear of abuses at times - I never experienced any myself nor saw any at first hand - it was always hearsay. I was on the Apollo for five months while LRH was there and I saw no abuses nor any indicators of abuses. The place was sane, safe, dedicated and hard-working. It was a challenge to be there but at the same time it was a great pleasure, a great honour.

    I did see kids around and I did wonder about what sort of education they were getting. But they looked healthy and happy. Those who had parents on the ship had daily free contact and interaction with them - I saw that. There was Bert and Lola Roussouw and their kids, there was Don Tidman and his kids. (I forget his wife’s name) Others too. They all looked in good shape.

    I have used the best of what I know in Scientology as best I could to help others in what they want. It has been a joy. It has been a very rewarding life doing that.

    I never comm-eved anyone nor RPFd them or anything. I only ever threw one guy out and that was because he physically hit the course supervisor in the face (she was 7 months pregnant at the time). I told him to fuck off and not come back into my Org again ever.

    I have had huge gains with the simplest processes and incredible gains with the powerful ones. I have never bullshitted on a success story. I would do my years in the CofS over again gladly, given the same circumstances.

    The philosophy of Scio and the understanding of the mechanisms of aberation make perfect sense to me. I have no problem with that at all. I have lectured on it to non-Scientologists and they loved it. The subject makes total sense. This is why it is esay to see when someone else makes a good contribution towards it - Alan, Dennis Stephens, bits of CBR, bits of Pilot, Robert Ducharme, and others too. Their contributions “fit in” easily and extend the core subject.

    It all got horribly muddied by the curves LRH put into it in “managing” Orgs and the Sea Org, and basically they stuffed it all up for many people. It’s a pity that it went that way. It’s a pity that they never got the Scientology that I got.

    I wish it were different.
     
  3. Mojo

    Mojo Silver Meritorious Patron

    Dear Leon,

    Your response was quite Unexpectedly Beautiful. Thank you for it.

    Were it not for my unshakable conviction that truth and rationality are not always wed I would take you to task for a number of things you penned. Nonetheless such a conviction I do hold (and thus I won't).

    And though, here is one thing I would like you to clarify if you will: what specifically about scientology doctrine struck you as being distinct from other religious/philosophical doctrines with such force that you could have penned what you penned above, to wit: Scientology is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western civilization.?

    For example, when I entered scientology the idea that 'Hubbard had discovered' that man was not meat but was spirit, struck me as being utter nonsense as the upanishads had made such declarations quite clearly many many moons ago. Not to mention nearly every religion on earth.

    The greatest error I perceived in Hubbards 'technology/philosophy' was in his equating the person with the thetan. The ego with the spirit. Which equation is patently absurd to even the most casual of contemplative investigators.

    And yet you are a living example of the possibilities of such a distortion as being of no power. So to speak. Having never met you in person I nonetheless sense you are kind-hearted decent & compassionate. Which is damn near the antithesis of scientologists that follow the doctrine of Ron (from my personal experience).

    So are you saying that Scientology relative to Hubbard is like Physics relative to Newton?

    And are you further saying that the near worldwide cold-hearted application of Hubbards doctrine of fair-game, disconnection, paranoia etc have nothing to do with the core/essential concepts of scientology itself?

    If so that is quite an offering for consumption. One worthy of reflection nonetheless.

    Thanks again for your inspiring response above.

    Mojo
     
  4. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Sure it was known prior to Hubbard by millions of people. Sure. But that does not stop Hubbard from discovering it for himself, does it? Just like I discovered it for myself when I popped my cage the first time. It’s not as though he was saying he was the first to ever discover it.

    The core of the person, the true self, the centre of consciousness - is totally spiritual. The ego and the personality etc., are mock-ups created by the spirit as a via. Nothing difficult about that.

    Here’s a drill for you. You’ve done TR-0 many times no doubt. Now do TR-0 by yourself with your eyes wide open, look about you as much as you like. Allow no language to pass through your mind. No words of English. A silent mind. Perceive without articulating anything to yourself. Wordlessly, without language. It takes a bit of practice but you will soon be aware of yourself as a “thetan”.

    Scientology existed long before Hubbard just as Physics existed long before Newton.

    Correct. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with proper Scientology. They are complete travesty of what Scientology is and stands for. Hubbard threw a curve-ball.

    Every policy letter is a substitute for a thetan. In effect it is an attempt to kill a thetan. (He says so himself somewhere) All of the ethics policies and practices, for example, are a total substitute for a person confronting and handling the situation in front of him. They are a dramatisation of non-confront, and so they will never work. I grew up in a town where wayward kids would get a belting on the ass from the local policeman directly. The only times I have ever gotten a person to work better is when I confronted him face to face one on one and sorted things out. CommEvs will never achieve that - never have, never will.

    You're welcome.
     
  5. Mojo

    Mojo Silver Meritorious Patron

    But Leon, this is exactly what he said. Exactly. Need I get out my old weathered and torn Dianetics Book and quote you verbatim? He said his discovery was equal in magnitude to the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. Did you and I read different books? Lol!

    Fair enough. But that's not what Ron said Leon. Ron said the Person IS the Thetan. Need I look up the exact reference? That was his bait.

    And there is something inherently difficult about that when one considers his audience (mostly young inexperienced naive sincere individuals that wouldn't know the difference between cosmology and philsophy if it jumped up and kissed em on the lips).

    I love that.

    Yes, and no.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. The spiritually richest amongst us (in this seemingly god forsaken world) are those whom have suffered at the hands of spiritual deception. Like the one let out of prison, they know what true freedom means. For all others its simply a concept of mind.

    In this way, it worked I concede.

    Mojo
     
  6. Alan

    Alan Gold Meritorious Patron

    If you ain't you - then ask: What are you sitting in? :)

    You'll pop out quick smart - as you have to - to take a look! :lol:

    BTW What is the pc sitting in? Is the source question that was the forerunner to C/Sing.

    Alan
     
  7. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Dianetics as a technique for erasing engrams was "the discovery equal in magnitude to the discovery of fire". That man was a spiritual being wasn't that - heck, the spiritual stuff isn't in DMSMH at all.

    YOU are a spiritual being, which, in order to give it a general term, we designate with a mathematical symbol 'Theta' and coin the word 'Thetan'. This word has NO MEANING inherent in it, it purely denotes the spiritual being which is the basic person. All else is additive.

    PERSON: A Human Being. A composite of the thetan, plus body, plus knowledge, plus memories, plus reactive bank, plus habits, plus personality. Every human being is composed of the same basics as every other human being. But every human being has a different experience pattern than every other human being. And there are no two human beings at the same case level, just as there are no two apples which are exactly alike. There'll be some differences.

    That may be so. He spoke to guys in the R of the early 1950's before the TV culture set in.

     
  8. nw2394

    nw2394 Silver Meritorious Patron

    That sort of thing has never worked for me. All I ever get is dub in perception.

    Nick
     
  9. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    If you want to have any real understanding of Scientology you need to thoroughly study all of the materials of the 1950's. All of it.

    What came after that is totally inadequate and gives one a shallow idea of things at best.
     
  10. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Unfortunately Leon's Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology aren't the same subject.

    Amongst the materials of the 1950s was a 64 page manual...

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2473
     
  11. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Have you ever compared the Brainwashing book to the Protocols of Zion book?

    They struck me as very similar when I read them many years ago.
     
  12. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Yes, Hubbard's toxic hoax 'Russian Textbook' was a kind of 'little brother' of the toxic hoax 'Protocols of Zion'.

    Are you sure you want to remind people of that connection?

    http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/books/brainwa1.jpg

    http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/7b/200px-1934_Protocols_Patriotic_Pub.jpg

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2473