Zinj, I asked Veda what would constitute adequate proof of "OT" abilities to him and he gave me back Hubbard's (or CofS') standards.
I was hoping for something a little more Veda-specific.
It seems, to me, somewhat disingenuous to refute all things Hubbardian when it comes to "OT" and yet use Hubbard's standard as a measuring stick of it.
I don't accept Hubbard's postulated standards as a yardstick of whether or not a Being can/does operate independently of the body, nor to judge the quality of that operating.
It's just my opinion on the matter as of now.
Alright, I'll try again.
"Thetan" is a Hubbardism used by Scientologists. I'm not a Scientologist. "Operating Thetan" is another Hubbardism. If I were to describe psychical or paranormal sensitivities or abilities, I'd use another term. If I use a Hubbardism, I also use quotation marks.
There are a few seeming exceptions, and these are ordinary English words, not purely Hubbardisms, such as "auditing," which does have a basic definition, and root meaning of "listen," and means, broadly, "an examination of something." I think this is an excellent term, just as I think that the basic know-how and skills of an "auditor" are worthy of isolating from the rest of Scientology. (And when that happens, it's no longer Scientology, but another subject.) Even then, I usually place the word "auditing" in quotes, when referring to it as counselling.
One of the most linked items I use is the 'Scientological Onion' statement, and its further elaboration in the e-book 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels'. 'Parallels' is kind of a clunky PDF document, it's long, has lengthy End Notes, but no handy electronic Table of Contents that one can click and go to selected places in the doc., yet, it too is based on the 'Scientological Onion' template.
That template, or pattern, recognizes that there is some good in Scientology, used both as a "defense perimeter" outer layer, and as a medium of conveyance of ideas and intentions. Without that positive (or at least neutral) element or medium, Scientology would likely not have had much influence, and we probably wouldn't be discussing it right now.
I've described this in many ways, one being the lacquer & solvent analogy. These two ingredients combined make glue, and glue hardens as the solvent evaporates.
Scientology presents communication as the "universal solvent," and new Scientologists typically will read L. Ron Hubbard's inspirational words, "The simplicity of observation itself, and only itself, is functional and will take Man from the bottom to the top. And the only thing I am trying to get you to do is look."
Then, as that Scientologist continues his involvement with Scientology, the "bait and switch" nature of Scientology (remember the "Onion") kicks in, and he finds that he is encouraged to, selectively,
not look. This selective
not or
un-looking, becomes internalized - becomes part of the person - and thereafter seems the natural way to be.
The "bait and switch" aspect, also becomes internalized, becomes part of the person. Once this happens, it's difficult or almost impossible to explain the basic template of Scientology, as the person IS that template.
A person is introduced to Scientology and is given the Scientology term, "Operating Thetan," along with a definition and description. An 'Operating Thetan' can
do things without a body. He can perceive, he can communicate with others, he can move physical objects without a body. In short, he is a god.
Then the "switch" begins, gradually, "gradiently," it begins, and, eventually, the person is presented with a watered down version of "OT," and expected to accept that, and without seeing any contradiction, without seeing the "bait and switch."
And this is repeated throughout the truth-coated and truth-lubricated subject of Scientology.