Hinduism allows its scriptures to be questioned.
Buddha encouraged his disciples to question his teachings.
Knowledge grows when it is questioned and discussed. For inconsistencies are then discovered and eliminated.
Why does Scientology prohibit its followers to question and discuss its knowledge?
If Scientology must grow it should allow its theories to be examined, questioned, challenged and discussed by its followers.
The other option would be for Scientology to go the way of the Catholic Church – moving lifelessly only because of past momentum.
.
Comments
I have been examining Scientology here.
Recently, I have been discussing Scientology auditing, specifically, its process of False Data Stripping. On this thread, I would like to discuss, the much talked about ‘L’ Rundowns. I shall like to start with the L-11 Rundown.
.
V dear I have not done the L’s. But I can give reality on established viewpoints. What ever that worth. 2 cent? 🙂
Elizabeth, you are very welcome. 🙂
Good start for a rousing commentary
“L11, The New Life Rundown was developed to give a person a new life. This means it can handle that part of an individual’s case which stops him from really living. It handles the major source of aberration upon which attention is fixed, blasting apart that major personal stumbling block.
“The EP of L11 is a New Life.”
.
Well, V dear.. now lets establish here what kind of viewpoints you consider one should have about the “”””LIFE RUNDOWN”” a human viewpoint or a viewpoint from a Entity.
Let me know please.
Are those the only options available?
.
NO.. there can be many from the ”human” viewpoint.
Since LRH talks about new life, than he means just that.. If some one don’t like what they have created than having the L R. will erase some of the old -unwanted view point which has stopped the person having what really wanted-desired and can have a different life which would be better liked wanted and in this case less stimulating for that person.
Auditing works, and L rundown will help that person to erase some old unwanted creation.
Thank you. And what would be a viewpoint from an entity?
.
Let’s examine the theory of L-11 Rundown. The first point of the theory is:
(a) Man is basically good
.
That sounds good. But when we look at this point closely, we find that there is no criterion for good in an absolute sense. The idea of good is relative only, which means that anyone can be good no matter what state one is in. So, the statement “Man is basically good” simply plays on one’s bias.
But everyone has some idea of what good is. The bottom line is,
The idea “I am basically good” tends to bring relief and hope that one can improve and get better.
.
Man basically good. Now that is a mouthful. If all creations are equal than that saying is blown to bits. 🙂
The next point of L-11 theory is:
(b) That when faced with doing evil that Man restrains himself and limits or lowers his power/cause level
.
Doing evil is engaging in behavior that is harmful. It is behavior that is not optimum to handle some situation. A person engaging in evil means that his abilities are already lowered. He is not lowering his abilities after engaging in evil.
A person who realizes that he has done evil is actually regaining some awareness after having lost it. He is recovering from confusion. It is not that he is restraining himself. He is simply being introspective and trying to resolve his confusion. The bottom line is
It is ignorance and confusion that lowers one’s abilities and leads one to evil behavior (committing harmful actions).
.
Vin: “A person who realizes that he has done evil is actually regaining some awareness after having lost it”
A different direction of looking at it. Does one continue committing the overt in an effort to ‘make the first one right’? An effort to ‘not be wrong’? A basic Hubbard principal.
Mark
An overt is committed as a result of ignorance and confusion. When a person realizes that he has committed an overt his impulse is likely to handle his confusion. Until that ignorance and confusion is fully handled, it may seem that person is still committing overts. In my opinion, those overts are not intentional. They are still the result of ignorance and confusion. The person may restrain himself from acting in that area because he is now aware that he doesn’t know. His attention goes more toward learning.
Man is not as evil as Hubbard made him out to be.
There may be cases where someone continues to commit overts in an effort to ‘make the first one right’. But, in my opinion, such behavior shall be proportional to the degree that person is feeling threatened. When there are no threats, the person shall realize his error and is likely to work toward correcting himself.
.
V;; “Man is not as evil as Hubbard made him out to be.”” right, but do keep it in mind that LRH was talking about his own reality no matter what he said… BUT he talked like he was the elected communicator for the whole human race and what he said have applied to every being: born and unborn on this Planet
Every man no matter who is that person can only express the ”selfs” reality.
I believe that the more mindful a person is, the less is his reality influenced by the filter of “self”.
In my opinion, Hubbard’s “self” was a big filter that determined his reality.
.
v:. “”A person engaging in evil means that his abilities are already lowered. He is not lowering his abilities….””
Right you are… very well put.. in fact can not be put any better.
B,
I believe we all do our best at all occasions, if one pulls back because of that would be from ”fear” and that to would be his best action. but I could give 6-8 different reality why man would pull back.
The next point of L-11 theory is:
(c) That long ago on the wholetrack, evil persons (originally said to be “psychs”) implanted people with evil purposes
.
From one perspective, this appears to be some off-the-wall hypothesis. But the key idea is that one behaves in an evil fashion because one has evil purposes. Therefore, to cure a person of evil behavior, one should purge his evil purposes.
Is the above hypothesis true?
The L-11 Rundown is said to have fantastic results for some people but not 100% of the time all across the board. We need to look at what really happens when there are good results.
.
I did not do L-11, but this theory and practice is a similar patter to “False Purpose Rundown.” I have hundreds of hours of this “auditing.” On the plus side, it was good exercise for my mind but on the downside the request for the “evil purpose” asked for at the base of these chains of harmful acts was not a good question for me making this some of the least fruitful auditing I experienced. Also, its emphasis on the evil at the root of good people seems inconsistent to me although that mechanism is explained in the rundown, its application seems to harp on evil purposes. Possibly it should use a different vector.
I shall like to look closely at the concept of “evil purpose.”
What is an evil purpose? Where is it coming from?
.
evil purpose is simply another persons intention which collides with the original in this case would be yours.. It is said to be harmful… for harmful for who? For the originator of the first postulate.. you see you don’t liked it when I take down the wall between our land which you have built against my wishes, the wall locked the view of the lake bellow.. I have become a evil person by collected agreement of course who all were your friends. Evil…what is is a agreement same as any other, Example: ice cream is good because etc.. Ice cream is bad Etc…. evil is one of the words when it has been used, labeled people because what have they done have caused immense harm to those.. Evil pointed out in others also point toward self: OH look how good I am because I am not like that nasty evil, no good person..
Just my reality..
Yes, I understand very well that good and evil are relative and not absolute.
.
Is the basis of evil purpose “psychs”? Then how did “psychs” get their evil purpose?
.
hahaha – Yeah, well that’s one of LRH’s rants and all, but that’s not the basis of FPRD, I don’t know about L-11. FPRD to me could be used better. Even at its basis, its theory of evil purpose is as a solution to a confusion preceding it. There is a consistency with KHTK here. But it ends up being abusive to the PC when juicy overts and evil purposes are not handed up. I liked MarkNR’s emphasis on “trust” for this type of auditing is working with things the PC is already fragile about. A misuse or abuse of this can have a really bad result on the PC by either caving him in and making him into a piece of shit or another reaction may be to harden one’s shell and be less reachable, less meditative than before.
There must be some inconsistency in the basic approach of Scientology auditing that lends itself to misuse and abuse.
.
I’m not really trying to look at nor give a political answer – I don’t care about that. We here are just discussing mechanics. We all know a tool can be used, misused, abused or neglected.
In doing so, and as a result of my lifelong conditioning, earlier in life when confronted with a mental confusion I sometimes lashed out. Years later, having continued my conditioning but modifying the earlier conditioning I find I don’t tend to do that as much as I did years ago… I have better responses than I did then. As I wrote earlier, the evil purpose as a result of an earlier confusion did not run well on me personally although I can understand the mechanics.
Well, I am thinking in terms of poka yoke or “mistake-proofing” Scientology auditing process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke).
I have addressed this somewhat in the following thread, but more ideas are welcome.
.
Now, that answer can be only found by each individual by going back tracking into their own past.. in other words confront their very own beliefs.
What was your experience with auditing false purpose style auditing?
I don’t know if I got that far. I just remember being a ‘dog pc’.
I naturally applied mindfulness, and didn’t speculate much in response to auditing.questions.
.
heheh. “Dog PC” – When a person is conditioned by thrashing enough, I don’t think he gets into a very “sessionable” state of mind. Blaming the PC for his lack of response to auditing, especially one as well hatted as you obviously are reflects badly on the 100% workable technology being delivered at the Mecca of technical perfection. Your personal story and glowing reports of your success with dianetic auditing shows me you were anything other than a “dog” pc.
My experience with auditing tells me that the overall method used in Scientology may be compared to a shot gun approach.
A few processes did hit the target in my case but most didn’t. A lot of time was wasted in trying to get FNs on processes that were unnecessary.
Most of my gains came from the very early part of my auditing that I have documented in “About Vinaire”. There were conditions still that I wanted to address but most processes didn’t seem to work.
What has worked for me since then is Buddha’s mindfulness approach.
.
Evil has to do with the idea of harm associated with hallucinations, madness, irrationality and confusion, which is accompanied by fear.
Thus, underlying evil is ignorance, confusion, and physical manifestations. Evil can be caused by ingesting certain substances.
So, what is an evil purpose? How self-determined is such a purpose?
.
Saying that evil purpose was implanted by psychs is non-scientific and non-mindful assessment done by a non-optimum mind.
It doesn’t do anything to improve understanding. It is “The Why is God.”
Click to access the-why-is-god.pdf
.
We can say that Hubbard was rational at times and irrational at other times. He was not consistently rational.
.
The evil purpose seems to correspond with the Scientology definition and use of the word computation. Computations are built of assumptions and result in more unexamined assumptions, This also might be the way to describe the building blocks of a ideology.
From Technical Dictionary:
EVIL PURPOSE, destructive intentions.
INTENTION, 1. intention is the command factor as much as anything else. If you intend something to happen it happens if you intend it to happen. Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it. 2 . degree of relative beingness which an individual desires to assume as plotted on the tone scale.
.
A beingness seems to be a resultant vector made up of hundreds of, or many more, smaller vectors. These vectors may be defined in terms of desires, or, maybe, in terms of considerations.
The vectors are not controlled by the beingness. Beingness, actually, represents these vectors. These vectors respond to each other and to vectors in the environment.
More understanding is required about these vectors. But the idea of a “being” intending is quite simplistic in my opinion.
.
Chris:
I wrote an article which defines an underlying principal of evil purposes. This principal is not addressed by Ron or any other science. I discovered this while doing whole track research. It is data of great magnitude and explains the current foibles of the church, govts. and many other group endeavors. Once read, many things will become clear. I can send it to you if you wish. Just a couple of pages.
MarkNR@hushmail.com
Let me know.
Mark,
You may publish your article on this thread if you wish.
.
How could I resist a nice invitation like that ?!? Chris@giantelectric.net
can not be the whole track search since concepts are very new… and “evil” that is coming from judgement. now if you would do some exploring when judgement it self has come into the game… you will find an the same page: good-bad, life-death, born-die.. etc all the opposing items.
In my opinion any statement of “evil purposes” is going to be very imprecise being subjective. It would be liable to misinterpretation. A person should never be asked for his “evil purposes”. It would only introvert that person and get him to figure upon his case. This is harmful and not recommended.
The purpose of therapy is to handle the unwanted condition, which is real to a person. That is the starting point. Then one can help the person by getting him to look at his condition with mindfulness, and start resolving inconsistencies.
Such inconsistencies may be categorized as follows:
Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)
Inconsistencies add inaccuracies to extrapolated knowledge. All the situations in life are the result of such inconsistencies. This includes inconsistencies in one’s diet etc.
This process may be speeded up by rapidly narrowing down to major inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are connected to incidents where the outlook of the person underwent major shifts. The guide needs only to ask in very general terms if such incidents exist, and then help the person look at them using mindfulness. No private details are needed because no analysis is required. The therapy will work as the person looks more closely at moments of shift in those incidents. He does not have to divulge what he looks at.
If the person is unable to locate such incidents, then the guide should help the person unburden the mind of minor inconsistencies. With this actionl major inconsistencies might show up and get resolved.
.
You right, no one should be asked for : to cough up evil intentions… hehehe.. those should be confronted too but not in that manner.
Scientology has this idea of wholetrack that extends to trillions of years into the past. Is this idea true?
.
In my opinion, what is there will come up in awareness as one applies mindfulness. It is the lack of mindfulness that prevents one from seeing what is there.
If the idea of whole track adds expectations about what should be there, then that violates the very first aspect of mindfulness. It would color what is there by installing filters of expectation. This may lead to conditioning.
It may be nice to have the concept of wholetrack just like I have the concept of unknowable. But such concepts need to be set aside when they interfere with mindfulness.
.
When being mindful, we have to be mindful of our models. Models are deliberately as consistent as possible, this is why we build them, to give ourselves mental and physical analogies of the world around us.
For instance, in your model using unknowable as that which is unmanifested, people balk and argue that everything is manifested. Yet you persist and call it a placeholder and also use irrational numbers to make your point that the final result of 22/7 is unknowable. I get it and that is consistent, however I see it as one model only.
Another viewpoint would be to say that one can know any value of pi that one wishes to know to any degree of accuracy that one wishes to know it. My point is that how one asks the question sort of filters the model. In this model everything is manifested and nothing is unmanifested. Yet one can not know nothing therefore there being something one cannot know is a conjecture only, and this is consistent.
Remember my math question to you whether .999… is equal to 1.0 and you showed me how it is? I liked that example but can also understand that it is semantical in value only.
We are limited by our considerations and the logic we use.
.
Or did you mean, ” – We are limited by our considerations and the tautology that we use! “haha
That is the fact!!! and LRH too was saying the very same!
It seems that we have throughly trashed the following part of L-11 theory:
(c) That long ago on the wholetrack, evil persons (originally said to be “psychs”) implanted people with evil purposes
But we should keep in mind that there is something in L-11 process that works.
.
The following part of L-11 theory is just an extension of point (c) above
Such an implant is referred to in this rundown as an “Implant to Harm”, as these implants embedded commands to do something harmful.
.
I see implant as some “vector” embedded in the structure of beingness. A beingness may be looked upon as a matrix of vectors that are associated through cause-effect relationships. The resultant vector of beingness is subject to this embedded vector.
.
THE DESIRE AND EFFORT TO CONTROL OTHERS IS THE GREATEST OF ALL EVILS, SURPASSING EVEN THE LOVE OF MONEY. It is not the same as the competent and ethical direction of activities of an area or environment. It is so close to an individuals basic purposes that it is difficult to detect and handle. That is why the ability to Grant Beingness (to allow others to be who they are) is so rare and valuable. Those who are truly dangerous cannot see this intention in themselves. They have as a motivator, that the only way they can become more is to make others less. THESE FACTS ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT IN DAILY LIFE THAN MOST REALIZE.
This is a very interesting and sometimes dangerous subject, the basis
of which came very very early on my track. Anyone who cannot control
anything is obviously insane. But lets look at my statement, “The
desire and effort to control others” without qualification or addition.
Not “control in order to…” or “control others so that…” or ” to
accomplish…” etc, but to control others as a purpose. Now, you may
say “of course, that goes without saying”. But it’s not that
straightforward or simple. Your very first, most basic purpose was to
be, to continue. After that was create. Create, create, create. Then
came control. It is very basic to you as a being. “After I made this,
what am I going to do with it.” Then, a few million yrs. later it got
more complicated. At this point, you must read “In the beginning”
(attached) if you haven’t before. An understanding of separation and
other beingnesses is important.
Later, there were games. Competitive games. Create, control was
all the rage. Who is most clever, fastest, most accurate. It was fun.
No harm. And you spent a long time getting really good at it. Then
there were tricks on your competitors,,, more fun. There were teams and
strategies. How can I get my enemy to do this and that so that we can
win. Then, controlling your teammates and enemies became part of the
game. But it was lighthearted and fun. Sometimes, controlling others
was the game. Still, there was nothing wrong with that. There was
nothing wrong with anything, it was all new and exciting. This is the
time all your basic postulates, considerations, and purposes were being
formed. The dynamics, as such, weren’t thought of yet. We all built
these purposes, especially when we won. Even when we lost, we admired
the winner and took on his intentions. But a few were really good at
controlling others and it became a primary purpose. Little did they, or
we, know that a long way down the road, it would be so destructive and
insidious. They learned that to control is to direct and limit the
actions of others and to prevent clever and creative actions. Whether
enemies or allies. This separated you further from theta as a whole but
was made up for by considering others as underlings, like pets. A lower
form of affinity was established. Winning for self only became the way
to go. And often, it worked.
But the real problem now is that it is so close to the real basic
purposes. It was gained before any purposes of any kind were harmful or
contra-survival. And it served you well and kept you on top much of the
time. This is a tough one and must be resolved. Education and
realization of your original relationship with basic Theta is of course
necessary. But that isn’t all. Techniques to discover when and why we
agreed with those intentions is also required. This part of a case is
not completely handled on the pre OT levels. I’ve seen this in myself
and others. I’ve seen pieces of incidents when it originally stuck with
me. I don’t have all, or even most of the details or other complexities
which complement and combine with this area. But I can see that this
is of utmost importance. I know in my core that this is vital.
You can look at this as squirrel tech or wild ideas. Another way to
look at this paper is as a series of cognitions and a success story.
Thanks for listening, and your comments and feedback are
desired and appreciated. Mark
Control is not a evil intention… control is something totally different its origin is FEAR… one has fear of others reality, their actions so for that reason the person who has fear wants to control others so others reality because it is controlled can not effect the controller. I have 7 posts in my blog about fear. I have blown, erased mine about 16 years back.
Elizabeth”
Very happy to hear that you handled an undesirable area of your case. When one KNOWS he has recognized something important, he knows it.
When I wrote that paper about Control, it was for a different audience and perhaps the wording was not exactly perfect for all. But it’s intent and principal is precise and understandable. The date was a bit difficult to nail down since time was not so solid and enforced. There are several other areas of case which come from this portion of our existence. I say ‘our’ because I have seen it play out like a script in many others.
The important part is that there are basic considerations that pre-date and stand as the foundation of later bank, mass, reactive mind and other more mechanical aberrations. I can discuss the hidden meanings of ‘control as a purpose’ or ‘harmful acts’ But their meaning in the article is simple and obvious. These early purposes were formed long before the idea of fear was thought of. That being said, I mentioned once that in some Scn. processes, once the basic on a chain is found, the next incident up becomes the new basic which then scans quickly and easily, but should not be ignored. I am currently looking at other areas which relate to this one. It might take a little time.
Fear, avoidance, hiding facts, altering occurrences is a very broad area of case which I have touched on while doing other investigations. You have made significant discoveries in this area which perhaps could assist me.
My system has been to learn a basic principal, look over a great many instances in my existence when it applied, find the missing data until I realize how this principal affected me and exactly when I decided to act, behave, think, or react in a certain manner. I then adjust the principal from my newly found experience and look at my past again to verify the principal. I then accept AND discard the principal until I find when and who invented it and why. I can then use or not use the principal according to need in present time. This has brought much understanding and relief in many areas, not to mention quite a bit of laughter as some things that were just plain silly came to light.
I will use other means of discovery in the future and assistance and advice when needed.
My observations
Mark
Thank you Mark, when I write I always say this is my reality, I speak only for self..
I would be very happy to point toward the sessions which erased all fear in the universe, for me and
I do not question any ones knowledge only mine.. and I do not want to evaluate and deffinately invalidate any ones reality. Since I believe that what others see-experience is real, because they experience that and that is the reason they have knowledge about that subject. Otherwise the could not talk-write of that subject.
I went to V. blog because I was invited by him.. V. and I we are old blogging friends which was in Geir Isenes blog.
Personally I do not post outside of my own, since my realities have become very different and I do not wish to cause upsets, ARCB’s in any ones universe.
If you have questions and if I have the answer to that question I am happy to give…
Mark, by now what I write the knowledge I have is not from study subjects from others but from cognitions.
Please read some of the posts on fear. there are seven of them. If you have problem pulling them out please let me know.. also, you can use my email. endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com E.
Elizabeth, I enjoy your posts, have learned a few things already, please don’t stop. I haven’t found your posts on fear, could I get an instruction on how to find them?
As you may have noticed, i believe that an important part of enlightenment is a structured, methodical examination of one’s past existence. Not the only part, but an important one. Ron discovered, or decided, that, after clear, one must handle the body thetan problem before looking at ones past directly. The problem being that once one is released from his obsession to carry his photos around with him, he may suck in others banks. He developed tricks to try to get around this, such as spotting bits of mass and blowing them in various ways. I have been fortunate in that I have had certainty on most events that I have looked at, and there have been many. Some may not be so fortunate and get overwhelmed.
I am curious as to what paths you are taking and if we could benefit from each others experience. I have studied other sciences, The Tao, KHTK, and others and have learned much. Would like to comm. with you.
MarkNR@hushmail.com
This article, Control, partially but not fully explains how some considerations are primary and many are secondary. Primary decisions, considerations were made when nothing was confusing or in error. Everything was new. There was no such thing as anything wrong. It was all new. There were no GPMs since there was no such thing as a problem. These very basic decisions became who you are, how you look at everything and are a part of you. In order to be causative and free of these forgotten ‘opinions’, one must look at when they were made and compare them to your experience in life and recognize that they are not necessarily correct for any given time. To be able to use your knowledge without unconscious compulsion, in present time. These early decisions do not show up on any assessment since there is no mass attached. Your early track must be scanned for things that you ‘know’ are right, compare them with experience and release ones self from the primary consideration.
The distinction between primary and secondary considerations is a point of considerable importance to the rehabilitation of a being and I am continuing research into how to do it safely on a broad scale.
Mark
PS: One must be led to some of these things, which is why I used the word ‘safely’. From recent events, you all know what I mean.
Mark: “THE DESIRE AND EFFORT TO CONTROL OTHERS IS THE GREATEST OF ALL EVILS, SURPASSING EVEN THE LOVE OF MONEY.”
.
Let me take the idea of “personal” out of the above and state it in a more objective fashion. A beingness may be looked upon as a matrix of vectors that are associated through cause-effect relationships. These vectors could be made up of thoughts and desires. A group of such vectors may define the scope of self. The resultant vector at the “center of vectors” (analogous to the “center of mass”) may define the purpose of self.
“Others” are also selves with similar structure consisting of vectors.
How the purpose of different selves may interact with each other may define the consistency or inconsistency among those selves.
The idea of “THE DESIRE AND EFFORT TO CONTROL OTHERS” may then be defined in terms of the purpose of a self, which is so forceful that it undermines the purposes of other selves. The self is evil because it dominates the purpose of all other selves. This causes a great deal of inconsistency because the natural harmony of vectors is destroyed.
Now a mathematics may be derived for this model.
.
Did the self called “Hubbard” dominate the purpose of all other selves around it? Does that make Hubbard evil? Why or why not?
How is a self harmed or destroyed? Will dominating its purpose harm or destroy it?
.
What were Ron’s motives? Desperation to finish ‘The Bridge’? To me, the relationship of oneness with all and individuality may not have ‘clicked’ with him. He had a great love for people and yet ordered some into the chain locker.
To be mindful I would simply look at the dynamics of the motives here. This is what I see.
(1) There is a desperate effort to understand oneself. That is the primary purpose.
(2) There is complete disregard for the purposes of other selves.
(3) Other selves are useful only to the degree they help in the understanding of oneself.
(4) Other selves are required primarily to be experimented upon.
(5) The most important activity is laying out the bridge to understand self.
(6) Self is the ultimate reality. It must be boosted up in everyway.
(7) To move in this direction I shall start first with myself.
.
Hubbard’s self came first because he was saving the world. He was the source of the only workable tech around. All other “tech” were unworkable and squirrel.
Being the source of the only workable tech Hubbard could not be sacrificed. Other selves could be sacrificed in order to save the world, nay the universe.
I am not trying to be harsh to Hubbard. I am trying to see things as they are.
Buddha considered attachment to self to be a trap. Hubbard made boosting of self to be his goal. Hubbard essentially called Buddha a wussy.
.
The basic-basic is an attachment to self. This attachment is the rock.
The basic-basic is not the self. It is perfectly ok to have a self.
.
How much self-determinism does Scientology really bring about with KSW?
.
KSW:
Throughout history, every science, technology, wisdom of the mind, spirit, life, has been altered, degraded or made confusing in an effort to make it unworkable. KSW was an EFFORT TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. THE BEGINNING OF EVERY BASIC OVERT. Ron had some confusions in this area. His intention of the science not being degraded was alloyed with his intention of HIS CREATION not being altered. After seeing the effect of KSW over the last 40+ years, this has become clear. Stay with his first intention and it will not be a problem.
Mark
Should there be a “KSW” for Newton’s Laws of Motion?
Truth has staying power. It can only be updated by a higher truth, such as, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. but the original truth still stays there as a relative truth.
Truth once brought to light can never be fully suppressed. Other people may try to alter it, but the alteration is theirs.
So the fear that one’s creation may not get altered is baseless. Only the falsehoods in Scientology shall be forgotten after some time. The truth shall stay.
.
KSW:
I wasn’t saying that Ron was right or wrong, simply what occurred Most individuals have an innate sense of truth about many things, but that truth will prevail is not a rule written in stone. I have operated on many lies for a very very long time and am only recently recognizing just a few of them. With great effort and assistance. This has been my observation.
Your path is different, that is why these conversations have been so fruitful for me.
Mark
MarkNR: Your path is different, that is why these conversations have been so fruitful for me.
Chris: Each of our paths are similar and recursive yet different. When we try with a good heart, each of us learn from one another and from our mindful observations. I am learning from you. I’m of the opinion that enlightenment is short for self-enlightenment and can only occur by one person at a time.
Similar to time being digital rather than analogue. You learn and observe, learn and observe, then CLICK. Things fall into place. Learn and observe, learn and observe, then CLICK………
Vin:
“The truth shall stay.” with continued efforts from You and I to sort it out.
Vin: Truth has staying power.
Ct: This assumption seems unnecessary. Maybe it is false. It should be enough to recognize that truth is relative, conditioned and impermanent. The idea that things should stay the same is an unproductive fixation. Is this a useful assumption?
“Things change.” This is true but how relative, conditioned and impermanent is it? Is this a paradox? Maybe it is unhealthy to become fixated on “the truth.”
Vin: The truth shall stay.
Ct: Shall remain where? My answer: In that frame of reference. And to be clear I mean in that moment-place of space-time. Life seems to move on.
We speak of moments as though they are discrete? Are they? If so, how are they discrete? In the macro existence that we experience, does it help to organize reality as discrete or as continuous? But does it matter whether quantum physics operates in a discrete or continuous mode? Or is this question begged and trying to force the issue between two choices which may not be laid out correctly?
When I look at science I do not see scientific truth getting altered, destroyed or made unworkable. Hubbard may have thought otherwise, but I don’t take him at his word. I do not see mankind to be as mean as Hubbard saw it.
Truth lies in man’s capability to perceive it. That capability to perceive seems to have increased through the ages. So I am not so paranoid about losing truth that I would issue a “KSW” for it. Any research done in the field of spirituality should be out there as it is in the field of science. Such knowledge should be shared, discussed and researched further.
Attempts like “KSW” are to own certain knowledge, and to discourage further research by others. It is an attempt to monopolize an area of knowledge.
Vedas are still there. Knowledge from Hinduism and Buddhism is still there. Anybody can study and write their own commentary on it. It doesn’t alter or degrade that knowledge. Ignorance and misunderstandings are going to be there. But as long as original materials are there, the original knowledge shall also be there. Not only that, any improvements made in understandings shall also be there. This is fairly evident in the field of science.
.
Vin:
You got it, You got it. Your own words, Your own path, similar destination.
Life is infinity. I am a piece of infinity. One viewpoint of life. Each part of infinity is infinite and infinity itself. You are also yourself, wholly and completely, an individual. You are both 100%..That is why to harm others or make them less (cut their reach) you are harming yourself. This is primary to mass or confusions. This has been said before in other words, but when it really clicks, it changes ones life. It did mine.
Mark
MarkNR: This has been said before in other words, but when it really clicks, it changes ones life. It did mine.
Chris: And so we continue!
Mark: “It is not the same as the competent and ethical direction of activities of an area or environment.”
.
There is no other way of defining competence or ethics, except through the elimination of inconsistencies.
Evil would then be an activity that forces inconsistency.
.
Vin:
I get what you mean. I was trying to put forth a descriptive of the difference in control and control as a purpose. I didn’t choose the best wording as I was a bit excited after seeing this and resolving at least part of the issue.
I see what you are saying about “Evil would then be an activity that forces inconsistency.” Evil acts and intentions (place your definition here) produce inconsistencies and confusions just as false data produces conflicts which grow with increased experience. These basic purposes were formed long before evil or the thought of ‘anything wrong’ had ever been thought of. There were no conflicts, that came later. And there’s the rub.
“A lower form of affinity was established.” is a vital part of this era to understand. (Will continue)
Mark
Mark, you are my inspiration. I am simply putting it forward in my peculiar way. 🙂
.
Mindfullness is an absolute necessity in resolving this area for each individual. After reading your writing and the Stephen Mitchell’s Tao, I took another look at this area from a fresh perspective. Several more important principals came up that could help broadly. Will post when written up in an intelligent way.
Thanks, I owe you much.
Mark
I look forward to your writeups. You may post them on this blog. There is no “KSW” in force on this blog.
.
L-11 theory is anchored on HC0B 21 Jan AD10, JUSTIFICATION. I am providing a link to the text of this HCOB so that it can be closely examined.
Click to access justification.pdf
.
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.
We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind justification.
Short of Scientology Auditing there was no means by which a person could relieve himself of consciousness of having done an overt act except to try to lessen the overt.
.
In my opinion,
(1) A person commits an overt because of ignorance and confusion.
(2) He withholds it because he is ashamed of his actions. This feeling of shame demonstrates that he has realized his mistake.
(3) He employs the “social mechanism of justification” only when he feels threatened. Otherwise, he admits his mistake and takes action to correct himself.
(4) In the society there is always the threat of being ridiculed and/or punished. This threat brings the mechanism of justification in play.
Let’s take a look at what is there in Scientology Auditing that handles a person who has committed overts, and the underlying confusions were never handled.
.
Very good Mark NRII. I think these are
PURPOSE PURI of Theta.
GPM effetivi follows. Follows GPM implants.
And Purposes of others.
Where positions inc.1?
Let us know of Thy research, thank you.
Nic ARC infinity
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This was a limited effort to relieve a person of the pressure of his overt acts. Later the mechanism of confession was employed as a kind of blackmail by which increased contribution could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually this is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it can be extremely dangerous. Religious confession does not carry with it any real stress of responsibility for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay responsibility at the door of the Divinity—a sort of blasphemy in itself. I have no axe to grind here with religion. Religion as religion is fairly natural. But psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as we all know, it can become a dangerous fact. That’s why we flatten engrams and processes. Confession to be non-dangerous and effective must be accompanied by a full acceptance of responsibility. All overt acts are the product of irresponsibility on one or more of the dynamics.
.
(1) When one realizes the wrongness of what one has done, one feels ashamed. One also feels the threat of being rejected and punished by those around him.
(2) A confession to a responsible party acts to remove that feeling of shame and threat to some degree. The person feels that he is given a chance to redeem oneself, and he proceeds to do so.
(3) But if the party, to which the confession was made, acts unethically and misuses the confessed data, then the “threat” is not removed, and no benefits come from that confession.
(4) A person confessing does so because he feels a sense of responsibility. A contract is made that the person has acknowledged his wrongness and he would now be allowed to redeem himself without the threat of explicit rejection and punishment.
(5) Any violation of this contract from either party would nullify the benefit of confession, and shall bring about untoward consequences. The key responsibility is not violating this contract by either party. The expression used in the JUSTIFICATION HCOB about “a full acceptance of responsibility” is quite vague and adds to the confusion.
(6) Overts are NOT the product of some vague idea of irresponsibility. Overts are the outcome of specific instances of ignorance and confusion, which would have to be addressed and handled completely. If the person cannot do so by himself, he would need skillful guidance.
.
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
Withholds are a sort of overt act in themselves but have a different source. Oddly enough we have just proven conclusively that man is basically good—a fact which flies in the teeth of old religious beliefs that man is basically evil. Man is good to such an extent that when he realizes he is being very dangerous and in error he seeks to minimize his power and if that doesn’t work and he still finds himself committing overt acts he then seeks to dispose of himself either by leaving or by getting caught and executed. Without this computation Police would be powerless to detect crime—the criminal always assists himself to be caught. Why Police punish the caught criminal is the mystery. The caught criminal wants to be rendered less harmful to the society and wants rehabilitation. Well, if this is true then why does he not unburden himself? The fact is this: unburdening is considered by him to be an overt act. People withhold overt acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. It is as though Thetans are trying to absorb and hold out of sight all the evil of the world. This is wrong-headed, by withholding overt acts these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves as withholds entirely the cause of continued evil. Man is basically good but he could not attain expression of this until now. Nobody but the individual could die for his own sins—to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains.
.
(1) Withholds are NOT “a sort of overt act in themselves” as stated in the HCOB above. The source of withholds is the threat of punishment and rejection by others. It is this threat that the mechanism of confession tries to handle.
(2) The very fact of withhold shows that the person is aware of his transgression, and wants to sort it out. This situation gets complicated when the person is right in his action but it precipitates the threat of rejection and punishment. When Copernicus discovered that it is the earth that goes around the sun, he feared rejection and punishment by the Church. He had to couch that discovery using words that did not offend the Church.
(3) The following is FALSE DATA in the above HCOB, “… when he realizes he is being very dangerous and in error he seeks to minimize his power…” What Hubbard is referring to as “minimize his power” simply means, “withhold from acting further.” Of course, the person will withhold himself because, knowing the overt he has just committed, he is confused even more.
(4) When the person is unable to handle his confusion, he may do other irrational things out of desperation.
(5) Thetans are NOT “trying to absorb and hold out of sight all the evil of the world.” They simply want to get their confusion handled. That is bottom line.
(6) It is pretty straightforward to understand that the source of any evil is ignorance, confusion and unresolved inconsistencies. The handling is pretty obvious.
.
Vin
“(6) It is pretty straightforward to understand that the source of any evil is ignorance, confusion and unresolved inconsistencies. The handling is pretty obvious.”
Mark
According to my observations, quite true. Underlying ALL ABERRATION is confusion, lack of data, false data, inconsistencies.
BUT
Most individuals are not in a condition to handle their aberrations in the obvious, most basic manner. That is why tricks (most Scn. processes) to unburden one of some of his pain, confusions, inconsistencies in a mechanical way are needed and effective, IF ONE CONTINUES AND REACHES HIS BASIC CONFUSIONS. Otherwise, one has a temporary release, then experiences a loss as his basic inconsistencies creep back in. A significant problem for a great many Scientologists. These last two sentences are observations of EXTREME IMPORTANCE.
For most, the artificial, invented, and enforced mechanics MUST be sifted through and understood before the basics can be handled. That is why I have said before, “THE GREATEST GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS IN ANY ENDEAVOR, INCLUDING ENLIGHTENMENT, IS THE ABILITY TO PUT FORTH LONG TERM EFFORT TOWARD A GOAL.”
Slothfulness and spiritual improvement are inconsistent.
My observations.
Mark
When processes to handle unwanted conditions become too mechanical and are applied thoughtlessly, then harm results. We see that happening in the current Church of Scientology where people are leaving in droves.
Tricks in most Scientology processes only get the low hanging fruit. They become harmful in the long run. So the point (1) of Keeping Scientology Working has been falsely declared as complete.
A lot more research is needed to make Scientology universally workable. It is nowhere near that point. This truth needs to be confronted and acknowledged.
I believe that much simpler methods can be worked out with the help of mindfulness to handle the overt mechanism.
.
Vin;
Dianetics when done skillfully can be extremely helpful to an individual. When carried on too long, can validate and solidify the reactive mind. All methods of enlightenment must be done wisely and skillfully.
Mark
Those conditional statements get me.