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
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
In view of these mechanisms, when the burden became too great man was driven to another mechanism—the effort to lessen the size and pressure of the overt. He or she could only do this by attempting to reduce the size and repute of the terminal. Hence, not-isness. Hence when a man or a woman has done an overt act there usually follows an effort to reduce the goodness or importance of the target of the overt. Hence the husband who betrays his wife must then state that the wife was no good in some way. Thus the wife who betrayed her husband had to reduce the husband to reduce the overt. This works on all dynamics. In this light most criticism is justification of having done an overt.
.
(1) The burden here is the amplification of confusion due to the overt committed, and the desperation to handle that confusion. That desperation is worsened by the threat of rejection and punishment by those around the person.
(2) The danger lies in the acts of desperation by the person that are not well thought out because of his confusion.
(3) One of the acts of desperation could be an effort to reduce the goodness or importance of the target of the overt.
(4) But this does not necessarily mean that all such efforts have an underlying an overt on part of the person. An effort to expose some evil activity could very well be genuine.
(5) Therefore, to assert, as this HCOB does, that there is always an overt underlying the effort to reveal unfavorable characteristics of somebody. This is FALSE DATA. If a person is exposing the unfavorable characteristics of the Church of Scientology, it does not necessarily means that the person has overts against the Church.
.
From Justification HCOB
“This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever
merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.”
I do not agree with everything that Ron wrote, but this part of the HCOB appears to address your point #4 and #5. You may say that, of this whole HCOB he spent only a couple of sentences on the disclaimer. Well, he was addressing a particular phenomenon and spent most of the time on the phenomenon. If you write a paper on sick cats, most of the paper is about sick cats with only a small mention of healthy cats, even though most cats are healthy.
You and I may disagree with the principal of this HCOB, but the paper as a whole seems entirely rational.
Mark
I had commented on this paragraph from JUSTIFICATION HCOB, but looks like I forgot to post it.
This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.
.
(1) So certain criticism have merit. The overt act mechanism ought to be criticized here as not a valid scientific principle. An overt is not necessarily a wrong action. Galileo saying that earth goes around the sun was a true statement, but it was an overt in the eyes of the Church. Galileo asserted this truth for the sake of science, and he had to suffer for it in the hands of the Church for going against the doctrine.
(2) A criticism when ignored repeatedly may become random and carping, but that does mean it has no merit. Facts supporting that criticism may be suppressed. A valid effort to expose a criminal may be characterized as “reducing the size of the target of an overt” to blame the critic. This is exactly what Hubbard himself did in real life, and this is what the Church of Scientology has done routinely. So, I don’t think this HCOB lays down a workable principle.
(3) Security checks in Scientology that apply this principle forcefully have been a travesty of justice, and has been quite harmful to people in general.
Yes, there is justification but that justification is not always wrong, and it does not always follow some overt.
So, I do not buy what this HCOB is trying to convince people of. This said principle is dangerous and is not as workable as it pretends to be.
.
Hubbard used the JUSTIFICATION HCOB with the assumption that Scientology is absolutely right.
Unfortunately, there are no absolutes.
.
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt acts unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame. This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.
.
(1) There is no dwindling spiral here. It is the same overt continuing in the form of acts of desperation because the underlying ignorance, confusion, and inconsistency is not handled.
(2) When there is blame and justification, one is simply looking at some unhandled inconsistency in the mind of the person “blaming and justifying.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is wrong. He could be right!
(3) Hubbard seems to be painting the picture that all efforts to criticize him and Scientology are suspect and the person doing so has overts. There is no such “law” as this JUSTIFICATION HCOB seems to imply.
(4) Hubbard has been blaming psychiatrists and justifying his actions for doing so. Does the JUSTIFICATION HCOB apply to him too? Psychiatry has come a long way since the 1950s, but those facts (improvements) were conveniently ignored by Hubbard.
.
“The ability to detect differences, similarities, and identities.”
Sometimes one sees outpoints and points them out. Sometimes one dramatizes his own aberrations and natters. Two different things that can appear similar. Both of our paths are leading us toward an increased ability to recognize which one is occurring in ourselves and others. That, sometimes a real problem exists which needs to be pointed out, is not an exception. It is a different circumstance that needs to be recognized.
That one’s past O/Ws can adversely affect one in the present is a valid principal. Every bit of truth has been used to do harm by someone, Hubbard included. There are obvious errors in his tech on overts, but you yourself are actively working to improve it.
I dream of the day when there are many auditors who can quickly recognize when a misdeed needs to be addressed or not. When a harmful act can be glanced at by a PC and be done, or if it actually needs to be written up and handed to another to get the intended benefit. When the basic inconsistency needs to be ferreted out or when charge only needs to be relieved for now. Independent auditors who have understood Hubbard’s truths and errors (along with other sciences of the spirit) and easily recognized the right thing to do for that individual at that time.
Generally, when used skillfully and wisely, knowledge of O/Ws helps broadly. Confusions and inconsistencies is a basic part of this knowledge.
Mark
We all want a person who is at peace with himself and all others around him. All inconsistencies are sorted out rapidly by the person. There is a fundamental consistency.
How we achieve that, in my opinion, is by recognizing inconsistencies that exist in the processes that we have used to improve ourselves, and resolving them one by one.
.
Hi dear V.. I am a bit late here with comments, but I will be coming back.. tonight I have things to do.
Dear E. I am enjoying your comments. I look forward to you coming back.
I be back if you [here is a bit of black mail] or any one else wont take my comments to heart , since they are just that.. in my reality words spoken are valueless. but it is my reality. 🙂
I am learning about manners now. I promise to take your comments more mindfully than ever.
.
🙂
you have impeccable manners and I have given up having one.
now, what has changed your mind that from now on you will be mindful of my postings! what has triggered of your interest and belief that after all I might just know?
Manners mean to be mindful enough so that no unpleasantness occurs in a conversation. This is a tall order but I am going for it.
Unpleasantness in communication = some inconsistency needs to be resolved
This may provide an opportunity to learn more about human nature and this may help us make some advances over the Tone Scale, which I have hardly used.
.
I never use it in the manner ”now he is at death…or antagonistic” I go by not so much what the person say but what ”energy” I experience while I am in communication.
Words can be misleading when people talk since most of the time the valance is the one who is talking and not the entity.
We experience that all the time but the mistake is being made in communication that we listen to the words, believe in them but they are seldom where the entity truly is.
I have found this out while posting in Geirs blog.. I was continually told that I was not duplicating what was written.. and that made me realise I was responding to the “”REAL”” communication.. those energy which the ‘person” has put out toward me and those energies seldom match the content of verbal communication.
I guess lot of unpleasantness in communication comes from misduplication and misunderstanding. But the key is handling that misduplication and misunderstanding skillfully so there is no unpleasantness.
.
I just written a whole post on the TS. and I got it erased by pushing the wrong thing!
Elizabeth;
“I just written a whole post on the TS. and I got it erased by pushing the wrong thing!”
When I got my first computer I wanted to be a computer wiz. Now I just want to whiz on the computer.
Mark
Computer because having one has opened up communication lines -blogging etc.. and I got lots of restimulation that means sessions!!!! cognitions by the hundreds over this past 3 years. Lots of bashing good times hehehe.. Even V and I killed each other a few times of course he will not admit that.. but he know I love him no matter what.. so that what counts ..
Aw shucks! Sorry to hear that. What is TS?
.
tone scale
I would have loved to read that post. I still have to go back and read all your recent posts.
V … what it means ” Permalink”
That is the link for that specific post. The link shows up on the top if you click on permalink. For example, the link for your post is
You may copy and post the permalink in another post to refer to a post.
.
thank you!
I was writing the real tone of the person since it is there but hidden under the valance of behavior. LRH has explored that too but written a lot but not under that title.
After all social behavior is not where the person is. That kind of behavior should be ignored at all times.. You see, because while posting in Geirs blog I did not “behave” properly, I swore, and just talked plain without any ”nice-nice” addition I was told off more than once that “You are not on OT, could not possibly achieved what ever you claim because you do not behave as on OT.
You see, for those who have judged the behavior had hidden standard and that was how one should behave if that person has attained the claimed level.
That kind of thinking pure none sense. You see it is totally off the wall way of thinking because any behavior is VALANCE BEHAVIOR.
A SAINT behaves this way, a policeman behaves that way, a minister has to behave as it is required by his flock of. A OT should behave as a SAINT because etc..etc..etc..
This is exactly what I am learning under the subject of manners. How can I get my point across without causing unpleasantness?
This is a whole new subject for me to explore. It is like multi-variable algebra. There are so many variables in the other person that one is dealing with. One has to juggle a lot of balls without dropping any.
.
V…” How can I get my point across without causing unpleasantness””
One cannot get around that one because one really never know what buttons one pushes=what restimulation one cause in the other person who is at the receiving end of the communication.
I have no idea how any research in this area is going to proceed. Maybe I would have to break my point down into infinite gradients that I want to get across. This has to be seen. Also, it would involve how to quickly dampen a restimulation if it inadvertantly takes place.
.
The final test would be a sustained pleasant conversation with my wife.
hahaha!
Elizebeth
“A OT should behave as a SAINT because etc..etc..etc”.
Mark:
A phenomenon I have observed many times but must remained unsaid inside the church. I have made many gains and insights during my journey but I am no saint by any means. I have a simple ‘opinion’ on that. Scn., at it’s best, can get one to perhaps 2 or 5% of the way to ones most desirable state. The rest must be done on one’s own as a sort of research project. In order to escape or rather handle all the foibles of this series of universes, one must MASTER every aspect of universes. And there is more beyond that.
Your thoughts? I value your advice.
Mark
Mark you sais 2 or 5%. my reality is the church auditing wont handle more than a fraction of one present. Here is my take on that
.Example: one is an OT 1. runs the processes has a EP one big cognition the church now say.. that person is attained that level. DA??????? that person just had a tinny glimpse of what is there, one cognitions about the subject! No one has any idea just how many sides -reality-beliefs, agreements one has on one item.
I had huge wins on all levels yet, I have worked on the communication what is more than 10 thousand hours.
The church and the auditors don’t have a clue and that included LRH what is waiting for the solo auditor.. After 40 and I solo audited since 76 I still have items occasionally which totally changes the reality I had on the subject before.
Example, I never looked at ”fame” before till 2 days back.. I have looked at important valuable and the minus side of things on 4 flows plus all the related considerations going with those but never the word ”fame” what is. I was blown away by how much charge it has contained=my realities what fame meant. and I have seen people and places and what people do to gain fame and the reason for such.
people kill in order to gain fame even if just for a moment, since fame establishes that person in others eye-reality, in their universe that he is existing, has value and is important and that is a huge anchor solid valance one has gained. Fame having fame is a WINNING VALANCE and that valance will be used over and over in different lifetimes. So a killer will kill again because he will be known again . A singer will sing again etc.. etc..
I have discovered things about auditing… solo auditing that no matter how much tech one has under their belt and know LRH’s words verbatim will never find out.
Without solo auditing what one has learned is somebody else knowledge but cognitions which are the end product of the sessions are the pure undiluted knowledge one has.
A quadrillion years is a long long long long time. An awful lot of water has passed under the bridge, and that’s just since water was invented. Ha Ha..
Mark
Right, that must be a long time if one counts the years, I don’t.. since to me time do not exist and that goes for many other concepts.. 🙂 time having time, having past, having future, like or death these are just created concept..You must know that by now ..
Eliz;
I have found that, for me, it has been very important to establish the date and location of occurrences while sorting out my past. It establishes cause (an incident) and effect (incidents which followed as a result). Time and order of events was important at the moment these incidents occurred and has been necessary for me to straighten out the confusions. Past incidents are often very nebulous until I establish a location, at which point the details become much more clear. Clarity, to me is the opposite of confusion. This applies to the work I am currently doing. There are other methods of understanding which I have done where this is not the case.
There were games which could be played over and over, hundreds of times where the date on my track was less important that the order of events during that particular game. There were also times when myself and my opponents would learn something during one run through a game and use that knowledge during subsequent runs. The date on my track then became important.
There was a battle game where I had a partner that got killed several times. I had an affection for this ally and my opponent discovered that my tactics would suffer after my partners death. I ‘LEARNED’ to hide my affinities in the future. The order of events resolved this undesirable decision.
Hope this helps to understand me a little better.
Mark
Thank you Mark… The recreation of the track offers the greatest adventure any Entity can create because this time one has awareness and most of all the most important element which LRH has given is the confront.. When I realised without knowing what confront do one just floundering about but when one really understand its value now that is something. Oh we all have confronted before-faced situations in our games but we did not know the power-value it has.
Fantastic… I cant find your email address please drop it off again. Thank You.
Eliz.:
MarkNR@hushmail.com
I have written to you but the mail has come back..
To Elizabeth Hamre:
marknr@hushmail.com
Eliz:
Perhaps you could send your address to Vin, He could send it to me and I could e-mail you.
“Our lives are controlled by blips of static on slivers of glass” MNR
Mark
endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
MARK I have written to hushmail… it did not come back. Sorry Vin for using your blog as a communication board.. I hope you don’t mind it to much!
Elizabeth, no problem!
Eliz;
Viewing and understanding the complexities (invented concepts, considerations) have exposed the simplicities for me. Not fully understanding the artificial mechanics in the past has enslaved me to them.
I enjoyed your info on ‘fame’. That relates to my ‘effort to be funny’ in a group. I will look at that in the future.
I found out some time ago that some common areas of case that didn’t seem to be a problem for me were being avoided by me due to past pains or failures. Dancing is an example. I didn’t consider it important, so, no problem. I tracked it back to an individual whom I respected who was acting in a suppressive manner. Turns out dancing is kinda fun.
Mark.
You have good reality, I know I am evaluating but that is part of the communication.
Eliz;
Thanks, I have a practical viewpoint on enlightenment, if that is possible.
Mark
Yes.. it is.. but have you had a session what Enlightenment really is?
Happy to continue the comm. and what I have done is all in the blog.. every step.. I am not very found of husmail. but you have my email address and you can have the phone number too if you care to call. I am off all lines so I don’t need to hide my e-mail. or phone number.
Are you a well trained auditor if I may ask that? I do not know you.. but I don’t know many scientologist so please don’t take it badly.
Eliz.;
Purchased Cl-5 a few years ago at the Nashville org. I want to sharpen and correct my skills at an Independent training center soon. I have been working on my own recently, as my posts have indicated. Have been a Scientologist since I was 12, 1969, but have noticed many outpoints, especially since ’84’.
Mark
Eliz;
I was delivering the purif. away from the Org a few years ago and I got this hushmail account in order to encrypt and send PC reports.
Mark
I understand.
I wonder what is your reason you are looking into scientology.. searching for what is write or wrong in LRH’s work.
In my reality we cant take the reality what that work is from those who has not fully qualified By that I mean, had all the auditing side which includes solo auditing of course and the other side, have total understanding of all materials because one not only has taken all the courses but studied everything what ever he has written.
From that person I would except their reality, but again it would be only theirs and not my conclusion.
If I would really wanted to understand his motives, behavior than I would study read his words and conclude for self.
Any ones OPINION who has just a bit of knowledge here and there, VIN.. my dear … using your own word” is just looking through many layers of filters” they just judge from what they see and definitely don’t have the fact clearly.
Filters wont allow the person to see other than what they own belief allow them to see.
If the person who passes of information which is effected by his occluded thinking will not give correct information… therefor that information I would call “opinions, assuming only what is there ” Of course this is my reality.
My reason for looking into Sciuentology is to see what Scientology processes I can fruitfully convert into KHTK exercises. In a KHTK exercise mindfulness replaces the e-meter. Also most KHTK exercises may be done solo.
I must take apart visible inconsistencies in Scientology processes to truly understand what works in them. I am experimenting with False Data Stripping right now. You shall see the results soon.
As I said earlier, I want to arrive at a reality that is independent of the filter of self. I think that it is possible to get there.
It has nothing to do with agreement. It will have to do with mindfulness as described here.
.
.
Removing the filters would bring wonderful results.. I know that from the work I have done.
I am very interested how you will accomplish such a results.
It would not be just me. It would be all of us together.
We shall all be going up together… not in smoke, I hope. 🙂
.
Now you really got me! 🙂 Baby should I pack a bag? 🙂 Or naked will do? 🙂
Just as you are is fine! 🙂
.
Right… I am watching my sisters married life, her husband has become a very quiet man by now. after 36 years of wonderful togetherness!!! Seldom expresses any opinions… It is not easy for two persons to live under the same roof.
Has your sister become quiet too? I am curious.
NOOOOOOOO…. she has finished full OT7 in the same year as I have in 76. She never looked back and never solo audited. but ”read” books by those who have read books by those who have read books and become enlightened! So my sister reached the stage when she too know it all. She corrects me on everything and explains what I really meant what I said! 🙂
She know it all. and she believes since I still have a session when something comes into my space like ”fame” concept has that I am in REALLY BAD SHAPE because I still need auditing.
She has concluded, that I am insecure, full of fears, lonely and don’t have a life… hehehe… she judges where she is at.
Those who have fears which is every human since being human is just a bunch of considerations what is a human should be, behave etc.. haven’t got a clue what it is like not having fears… and when one do not have fear than one can not be insecure-lonely and not having life.
Vin… dear bug… you see those are considerations humans have.. One cant be without fear and have still those considerations.
Your brother-in-law seems to become enlightened.
.
He is!! He is one of the most wonderful gentle persons I have met.. and he never had auditing..
Good for him.
V… I have expressed In Gears blog my admiration for your willingness to look.. There are millions of critics out there but very few who is going beyond being the critic, but you have put to use what you have learned-experienced and move on..
Well, that is a lot.. great deal in fact.. My reality of course. 🙂
When you have tasted the blood, it is difficult to stop.
🙂 Right you are!
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
Scientologists have been completely right in objecting to the idea of punishment. Punishment is just another worsening of the overt sequence and degrades the punisher. But people who are guilty of overts demand punishment. They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics. It is the victim who demands punishment and it is a wrong-headed society that awards it. People get right down and beg to be executed. And when you don’t oblige, the woman scorned is sweet-tempered by comparison. I ought to know—I have more people try to elect me an executioner than you would care to imagine. And many a preclear who sits down in your pc chair for a session is there just to be executed and when you insist on making such a pc better, why you’ve had it, for they start on this desire for execution as a new overt chain and seek to justify it by telling people you’re a bad auditor.
.
(1) I believe that people simply want to clear up their confusion and their unwanted condition. Rest is just an appearance.
(2) People who think in terms of punishment will see others demanding to be punished, when all they want is to be relieved of their confusions.
(3) It is the resolution of confusions that ultimately brings relief to a person.
(4) It is only when the person doesn’t get the relief that he blames the auditor, and rightly so, because he was promised a relief.
(5) You cannot blame the preclear who trusted the auditor to relieve him from his suffering.
(6) Here Hubbard seems to be justifying his lack of ability to handle all cases.
.
V…. do keep it in mind that LRH did say it “Take what ever real for you and use it and flush the rest.” I know I have read that so have my sister because that we talked about that.
LRH did have too many irons in the fire.. unfortunately he has not fallowed up his major finding, how simple it is blowing the charge.
I believe he wanted which would be much faster and that way one would not have to spend one’s whole life in the auditing chair.. He too was looking for the magic wand… but that magic wand if would be used would erase much more than the unwanted charge.
ALL CASES CAN BE HANDLED WITH ORNARY REGULAR SIMPLE auditing:confronting.
Yes I am accepting what is workable in Scientology and flushing the rest.
Hubbard was full of wonderful ideas but he was not very scientific about them.
The principle here is that one needs to look at all the relevant data about a situation to resolve it. Thus, one needs to look at what he feels he has done wrong and therefore, withholding from even himself in that situation.
Rest of Hubbard’s ideas on this subject, such as, “carping criticism = the critic has overts” are questionable. Such ideas were used by him to manipulate others.
It is the application of these questionable ideas that have harmed many cases.
.
My favorite definition of a cognition: “The resolution of a confusion.”
I realized that a few years ago. We align quite often.
Mark
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticized person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.
.
The above is not always the case so it is a false datum. One must always look at both sides of a situation to uncover all the facts, and should not one-sidedly blame the critic for overts.
.
From JUSTIFICATION HCOB:
And remember, by and by, that if you make your pc write these overts and withholds down and sign them and send them off to me he’ll be less reluctant to hold on to the shreds of them—it makes for a further blow of overts and less blow of pc. And always run responsibility on a pc when he unloads a lot of overts or just one.
We have our hands here on the mechanism that makes this a crazy universe so let’s go for broke on it and play it all the way out.
.
(1) It is ok to get the preclear to put these overts and withholds down and observe closely if it brings relief to the person. If yes then the purpose of this auditing action is achieved and those writeups should be destroyed immediately.
(2) But if it didn’t bring relief to the pc then the process did not work. Maybe there is some validity to what the pc is complaining about. A reasonable fact-finding effort must be made to verify what the pc is talking about.
(3) Hubbard is posing certainty where that certainty is about a questionable “principle”.
.
Overt are not something that should be written up as something special.. they were just actions which have happen in the past and had lot of charge on them that means the person still had that incident un-confronted. But so what? There were millions of other incidents there too needed to be sorted out by the same PC.
It is OK to write up one’s overts. It helps one look at them in a systematic and complete fashion.
The key principle is to look at things as they are, and not as they seem to be.
Once one has looked at all his overts and withholds and gotten relief, the write-ups have no value and need to be destroyed.
.
Now I am done looking at the core “principle” on which the L-11 is based. I have found that this “principle” has holes in it.
Now I shall be looking at the actual auditing actions taken as part of L-11.
.
LRH.. “Scientologists have been completely right in objecting to the idea of punishment. Punishment is just another worsening of the overt sequence and degrades the punisher. But people who are guilty of overts demand punishment. They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics. It is the victim who demands punishment and it is a wrong-headed society that awards it. People get right down and beg to be executed. And when you don’t oblige, the woman scorned is sweet-tempered by comparison. I ought to know—I have more people try to elect me an executioner than you would care to imagine. And many a preclear who sits down in your pc chair for a session is there just to be executed and when you insist on making such a pc better, why you’ve had it, for they start on this desire for execution as a new overt chain and seek to justify it by telling people you’re a bad auditor.”
WEEEEEEEEEEELLLLL.
As you can see for your self this above is nothing more than blowing wind. Not much point paying attention to that.
Yes, it is good to have the OVERTS OFF.. but what really changes the case is getting to know ones -the selfs withholds.. I would like to post here something from my blog about Withold only if you are interested to read it of course.
I have pulled off Overst and of course that changed how my realities and any cognition will do that..and it is fantastic to understand what Overts one commits but not all nattering has a Overt base! Good heavens.. noooooo
You are welcome to post here from your blog.
.
I believe that LRH was dramatizing his case and his overts were bothering him a lot” had attention an them.. so that means he was keyed into those overts while he was creating.
Every person who ever live or lived on this Planet have EQUAL AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY UNDER THEIR BELT. as HE HAD BUT NOT MORE OR NOT LESS.
We are creative very powerful Entities who love drama bigger the better.. we love to create and with that Experience at the same time.
I would not speculate about Hubbard’s case using his own theories because one will then find a lot of complex inconsistencies.
Simply look at Hubbard’s accomplishments. He accomplished a lot, but many of those said accomplishments are questionable, and certainly not complete.
Here is how I look at Scientology.
.
I do not speculate about LRH’s case.. I know when one is talking about items which only can exist as part of his case… Please give a bit of credit for a solo auditor who has confronted the MEST.. with that I mean ALL the considerations-beliefs-agreements which holds the MEST in place and those are who believe in any of those thoughts that they are real… existing and therefore they having a body and life.
My realities are from experiences and not learned words from others writings and beliefs.
Of course, you do not speculate about LRH’s case. Your realities are definitely from your experiences.
.
I DO have reality on LRH’s work and I have all ready sorted out what is workable and what is not.
I have taken apart Everything what he talked about and systematically I have taken it apart and examined it and not just part time I have worked but I have worked every day all these years.
By now I have sorted out all the unworkable and workable, I don’t have doubts what works and how effective his TECH is.. I do not assume, guess any longer.. I looked at not only Scientology but the MEST universe which is compiled from Thoughts, beliefs, considerations and glued together by agreements and it is served up an a large platter which is FEAR IT SELF..
You have ignored the content of my posts I am OK with that since you are not the first and wont be the lost person who do not understand its meaning.
Of course, you do have reality on LRH’s work and you have already sorted out what is workable and what is not.
.
The theory of L-11 says,
(d) That when an Implant to Harm gets keyed in, the person has the choice of dramatizing it (i.e., committing the harmful act), or, suppressing the dramatization (and himself). But in any event, because the person has an impulse to do something evil or harmful, he tends to consider himself harmful or evil and thus tends to restrain himself generally.
.
(1) Hubbard assumes that there is an implant to harm in the beginning. He apparently got that datum from studying his own and other people’s cases.
(2) In any such research one starts out with the interpretation of one’s own experience and then verifies it by examining other people’s experiences.
(3) However, this can lead to wrong theories if one is not being mindful. One can easily introduce one’s own biases if one is not being scientific.
(4) Where did such an implant came from? Hubbard blames psychs. Who gave this implant to Psychs? Hubbard doesn’t go there.
(5) What is the mechanism of such an implant? For it to be an implant there must be an intention underlying it. Is there really such an intention? What is the makeup of that intention? Hubbard doesn’t go there.
(6) Hubbard’s idea of INTENTION depends on beingness. How does beingness come about? Hubbard doesn’t go there.
(7) Hubbard’s idea of BEINGNESS is “assumimg a viewpoint” and before that “a decision to be”. Well, how does such a decision come about? Hubbard doesn’t go there.
(8) Hubbard assumes CAUSE making the decision to be (please note that he is assuming an intention there on the part of Cause). So we have a circular reasoning here.
(9) Hubbard is basically introducing the arbitrary of INTENTION in his theory without defining it. People buy it because they see intentions within them without understanding it.
(10) But what is the mechanism of INTENTION? Not fully understanding it, the manipulation begins.
.
The theory of L-11 says,
(e) If the person dramatizes the Implant to Harm, he commits overts and becomes more susceptible to the Implant being restimulated and dramatized again in the future.
.
Hubbard is basically saying that “evil intention is implanted” without explaining the basis of it.
Essentially, this amounts to saying that some men are basically evil.
How can you eradicate that evil intention without scientifically understanding the underlying mechanism? Just sayin that it is implanted gets one nowhere. There is no knowledge of the mechanism provided here.
.
The theory of L-11 says,
(f) Subsequently, the person will probably form an evil purpose of his own and commit overts as a result. These overts form a chain on that evil purpose. There is usually one such evil purpose and chain of overts on any case, or one major one (most dramatized).
.
Hubbard’s theory is just a rehash of God and Satan.
There is no science there.
And that means that there is no mindfulness underlying Hubbard’s theory of L-11.
.
It all boils down to the fact that there is inconsistency, and no amount of theorizing will handle it.
When there is an inconsistency, such as, evil intention, one simply needs to look at it mindfully until it resolves.
The 12 aspects of mindfulness are as follows:
.