Scientology 101.....

[17th Angel]

I was tired yesterday and didn't fully take on posts.....

Snoopy, how many religions have I studied? And how many have I been -apart- of?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

everyone has amazing quotes if we would look through all their writings, in my case i only quote Source which is not his science fiction work. many beings also only quote Source for it is the Source which is, itself, the subject of discussion in many cases.

You mean like everyone also has bad quotes?

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...4-post135.html

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i would doubt it as our language has more rules that simply picking one word out of the context of the sentence and then interpolating all manner of permutations for the meaning of the sentence.

Ok phrase then?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i can send you some bills.

For me personally to pay? I have seen from sites that claim you are charged in the thousands to take just one course... I have now met some Scientologists in the flesh... Asked questions, they allowed me to freely look through their stuff... The three tests I got to look at cost £25.00 from their office, or £15.00 in your own home... I feel as if there is like a test per book it can't really peak into the thousands... They said that no test costs that much. ;/

I have started listening to Dianetics and that is... Different lol. I think I may need to listen to the audio book a fair few times.

LMFAO!!! Snoopy...

Sorry I didn't see your reply!

Zen... lol...

All I am saying spoop a loop... Is Sure I've looked into Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shinto, Christianity, Judaism and so on... But i have actually only ever been apart of ONE religion and that was the Jehovah Witnesses for two years or so.... I have never been to any other religions place of worship and been "signed in" or gone to help them and so on... Just got very into my studies of them, but have found them all not to be for me :P There are some bits here and there yah sure that are ok... But... Meh... So yeah just to help you catch up, I am looking into Scientology. However I do like the Voulnteer ministers... And as there is a unit of them nearby I am looking to help them.. Not sure if you can do it without being a Scientologist but will see. Just to make it clear that I haven't been in every religion known to man....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste GP,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

Compared to what? People attend colleges and say "the courses are excellent" without taking ALL of the courses offered. So I say the courses are great and you would put it down if I didnt become a professor?

i said that you responded *not* because you thought that what was being posted was crap but because you choose to respond. i posted not because what was being posted was crap but because i choose to respond.

this response that you've given is in relation to my asking you how you would know if the teachings of $cientology were excellent if you've not taken them all.

your response is nonesensical in several areas a) you can read all of a students course work materials prior to completeing the course work that the professor assigns, i.e. you can read the text from cover to cover. you cannot read $cientology teachings cover to cover even if they were available, which they are not. b) proclaiming that the courses one has taken in a particular subject is not a very good way to determine if all the courses at a university are excellent or not, it is, in fact, the same situation that you are in.

Do you have a link on this? Doesnt Xenu.net maintain a status page listing the different countries official standing on Scientology? I couldnt find it. Im not sure of Italy.

unfortunately i don't have a link on it as it was complied from various government sources and media. i'm not sure what Xenu.net has on its site as i don't often find much occasion to visit there.

Of course even then we would need to play the "compared to what" game. CoS seems to be in 171 countries now? I wonder how other religions would stack up. LDS is listed the same in many of those countries. And wouldnt Cathlocism have as many countries banning it?

since that wasn't part of what i said there is no need to compare it to anything else. this is an example of the tu quoque fallacy which i mentioned previously. we aren't talking about any other ideology other than $cientology.

Please do.

having a rough time finding the audio file, in any event it's the audio transcript of this:

Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.

"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"

I didnt say they all could be found in psychology. I mentioned psychology, and religions, and self-help programs. I also said engram was basically the same.

fair enough, though note i didn't ask about all. can you give me *any* psychology book, religious text or self help program which describes the ARC and/or and ARC Break, for instance?

engram is a copyrighted word which existed, until quite recently, only in official Co$ material. my current paper dictionaries do not contain this term though they are published circa 1998.

Thats what I thought. All of them becomes all of him. The fact that other doctors stayed, and that doctors are still members would be beside the point.

it doesn't seem like what you thought at all.

there was only one medical doctor and he left, ipso facto, all the medical doctors left. there are no doctors that are still members for, indeed, the old Dianetics Institute was swept away to be replaced by the edifice known as the Co$.

Again, compared to what?

we aren't comparing anything to anything, we are talking about $cientology and only $cientology in this particular thread. i realize that you'd like to bring other topics into this discussion so perhaps a new thread related to those topics would be in order?

The usual ones.

i'm sorry, that is totally a non-answer and you well know it. there are multiple courses for the things which you've listed though it seems you are suggesting that you were an auditor. what Grade did you obtain in your auditing? how far did you progress up the Bridge? did you make it to Clear?

Thats nice of you. Im usually quite clear in identifying myself as an ex-scientoloist. In general I found the scientology part enlightening, but the church part very lacking.

it seems more practical than nice but i take that approach for every religious adherent.

Not at all. Im not seeking to declare that two wrongs make a right. Well maybe water it down abit. But Im more interested in gaining acknowledgment that two wrongs are still two wrongs.

that was never the question to begin with so what is the purpose in asking it? there is only one, which you alluded to "to water it down a bit". there is no watering down, a wrong is a wrong is a wrong irrespective if anyone or any organization has done the same thing. i would suggest that if you'd like to discuss those organizations and their actions that you start a thread for it.

Keep in mind that we are discussing some "cut them off at the pass" statements that I made. Not specifically aimed at anything you said. I was simply trying to warn those who would "open my eyes" to the horrors of the Church of Scientology that they might want to do abit of googling and comparative thinking on their own religion along the same subject. Along the lines of warning an attacker that I come armed.

i didn't take your comments personally though they messed enough with mine that a conversation ensued.

i'm well aware that you are armed. i have confidence that my armament is far superior.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Alex P

You mean like everyone also has bad quotes?

no, i mean that everyone that has ever written anything down is apt to have a "good quote" as such things as "good quotes" are subjective.

I have seen from sites that claim you are charged in the thousands to take just one course... I have now met some Scientologists in the flesh... Asked questions, they allowed me to freely look through their stuff... The three tests I got to look at cost £25.00 from their office, or £15.00 in your own home... I feel as if there is like a test per book it can't really peak into the thousands... They said that no test costs that much.

you are asking the wrong questions. the tests, themselves, are fairly inexpensive and even your first auditing session is relatively cheap at $1/hr. the price for auditing sessions, however, quickly escalates to the $25-$30/hr range, which is irrespective of the testing. additionally, you can be compelled to re-take auditing sessions at later times if your Superior deems it necessary for overts and witholds, for instance.

the cost, therefore, isn't in the tests it's in the auditors time.

i'm afraid that they are simply being duplicitous with you Alex P. my list is somewhat outdated as it was published in 1997 and it is the FLAG price list, i.e. the official one which is used through out the Co$:

========== ========== ========= =====
Processing Intensives Cost per Total
Step Required Intensive Cost
or Course (IAS)
========== ========== ========= =====
Life Repair 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Purification RD ----------- $2,560 $2,560
TRs & Objectives 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Scn Drug Rundown 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
ARC Straightwire 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 0 3 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $16,800
Grade 1 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 2 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 3 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 4 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
New Era Dianetics 3 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $16,800
Clear Certainty RD 1 x 5 hr $2,800 $2,800

SUB-TOTAL TO CLEAR $128,560

*Solo Course Part 1 ----------- $3,200 $3,200
*OT Preparations 2 x 12.5 hr $3,300 $6,600
*Solo Course Part 2 ----------- $1,900 $1,900
*OT Eligibility 2 x 12.5 hr $3,300 $6,600
*OT I ----------- $2,000 $2,000
*OT II ----------- $3,800 $3,800
*OT III ----------- $6,500 $6,500
OT IV ?2 x 12.5 hr $6,500 $13,000
OT V 4 x 12.5 hr $7,400 $29,600
OT VI set-ups 2 x 12.5 hr $9,250 $18,500
OT VI ----------- $12,800 $12,800
Pledge Intensive 1 x 12.5 hr $9,250 $9,250
OT VII ----------- $3,500 $3,500
OT VII C/Sing
(per year) over 2 years $3,200 $6,400
OT VIII ----------- $10,000 $10,000
OT VIII auditing ?2 x 12.5 hr $7,400 $14,800

TOTAL BILL FROM RAW MEAT TO OT VIII $277,010
========

of course you may have to repeat any of these courses, at full cost and you could lose the discount which is being applied.

(i've got this as a chart but i can't get it formatted properly here)

metta,

~v

[17th Angel]

You are an Ex-Scientologist?

Oh here is what I have got so far for the 2.0 issue... (still researching bare with me:S)

"I heard this quote being used to insinuate that Scientology tries to separate out destructive people. That is not true. Most of "Science of Survival" is about how to get people "up the tone scale", meaning freeing them spiritually, so that they do not feel compelled to be destructive. This book is a handbook for an auditor (it says so in the beginning) for use in session (which is where the auditor helps a person). It is not an organizational book nor anything else but a handbook for an auditor. Aside from that, nothing L. Ron Hubbard wrote is meant to be interpreted in a way to violate laws. That's a core rule in Scientology and a firm one too. As a Scientologist you can get in a lot of trouble internally - up to the point where they throw you out as has happened to many current "critics of Scientology" - if you try to "bend" or factually break the law.

But here is what is actually happening, in real life: People who are a danger for themselves or others usually get involuntarily committed and stripped off their civil rights and even their human rights (pls note the difference between those two). Scientologists are usually opposed against involuntary commitment because it is used by political psychiatry as a means of oppression, still now. Many Scientologists I know have been rallying against these human rights abuses and have gotten people out of this confinement psychiatry calls "help".

Hope I could un-confuse you."

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i said that you responded *not* because you thought that what was being posted was crap but because you choose to respond. i posted not because what was being posted was crap but because i choose to respond.

As a diplomacist I so hate debates with logicists.

this response that you've given is in relation to my asking you how you would know if the teachings of $cientology were excellent if you've not taken them all.

The courses I took were excellent. The scientologists I have met seem to reflect that their courses were also excellent. So I am taking for granted that the courses are excellent. Havent the scientologists you met seem happy, focused, clear minded, and capable?

your response is nonesensical in several areas a) you can read all of a students course work materials prior to completeing the course work that the professor assigns, i.e. you can read the text from cover to cover. you cannot read $cientology teachings cover to cover even if they were available, which they are not.

The material for most of the courses that most people take are available in the towns public libraries. The courses you would probably zero in on would compare to PhD level at a college so Im not sure if the same statement can be made. Or in a religion such as catholocism Im guessing it would compare to vatican levels.

b) proclaiming that the courses one has taken in a particular subject is not a very good way to determine if all the courses at a university are excellent or not, it is, in fact, the same situation that you are in.

Heehee. True enough.
But of course (get ready for another fallacie) most people tend to operate that way anyway. They will declare that they feel a school or religion or whatever is excellent without having tried every part of it. Most people do not operate by logic-tables. Im taking for granted that there is no school or experience that you would make such a statement about now?

The problem with this form of debate is that everything can be declared a fallacie. Even if I had taken all of the courses and declared them excellent it would be Argument from Authority. A fallacie isnt a fallacie unless its used as a fallacie. Declaring it one does not remove it from the discussion.

unfortunately i don't have a link on it as it was complied from various government sources and media. i'm not sure what Xenu.net has on its site as i don't often find much occasion to visit there.

Of course those would be fine also if they are fairly recent. Maybe the CIA factbook has a page. I just know that Xenu.net is very prompt and up-to-date on any detrimental news concerning scientology. It helps to weed out the ups and downs of changes in status.

since that wasn't part of what i said there is no need to compare it to anything else. this is an example of the tu quoque fallacy which i mentioned previously. we aren't talking about any other ideology other than $cientology.

Hmmm would that be a Reduction Fallacie on your part? I did not join your conversation. You joined mine. I understand why you would prefer to limit any mention of xxxxxxxx only to such things as they pertain to Scientology. But that is not the conversation I was having.

having a rough time finding the audio file, in any event it's the audio transcript of this:

fair enough, though note i didn't ask about all. can you give me *any* psychology book, religious text or self help program which describes the ARC and/or and ARC Break, for instance?

Do you feel there are no other sources for the idea that increasing shared expereinces will help raise affinity and therefore communication? You feel that Hubbard made all that up? If so then you give him far more credit than Im willing to give.

engram is a copyrighted word which existed, until quite recently, only in official Co$ material. my current paper dictionaries do not contain this term though they are published circa 1998.

Ok fine. Then what is the psychiatrist word for a memory which is charged and can affect you when something pings it?

there was only one medical doctor and he left, ipso facto, all the medical doctors left.

Would that be fallacy of composition? By "only one medical doctor" Im assuming you mean that there was only one who involved himself in the claims being made?

there are no doctors that are still members for, indeed, the old Dianetics Institute was swept away to be replaced by the edifice known as the Co$.

I guess I can give you that as a win. Altho I dont think that anyone cares too much if doctors who were dianeticists later became scientologists dont technically count as "still" being members.

we aren't comparing anything to anything, we are talking about $cientology and only $cientology in this particular thread. i realize that you'd like to bring other topics into this discussion so perhaps a new thread related to those topics would be in order?

Unless you are a moderator here I will take that to be a desire more than a fact. Or if the original poster wishes to clarify. It seems rather a pre-made argument to demand that people react to how "horrible" something is in the religion of Scientology and disallow any reference to other religions. Or how fraudulent something is in the teachings of Scientology without mentioning the same in other teachings. I guess it would depend on the point you wanted to make, but since you arent the one making the point then that seems moot.

[quote]i'm sorry, that is totally a non-answer and you well know it.[quote]
Not at all. Xenu.net and other anti-scientology sites make it quite clear that the large majority of people only take the first couple of cheaper courses and then leave. I believe the quote was 62%. With corresponding lesser percentages as you go up thru the courses. Definetly a higher loss than most colleges.

there are multiple courses for the things which you've listed though it seems you are suggesting that you were an auditor. what Grade did you obtain in your auditing? how far did you progress up the Bridge? did you make it to Clear?

Auditor? Wow, no. Not at all. In the 70's anyone who had taken a course could assist in the teaching of the course. Im not sure if its true now. The only things I did were some across-the-chair items for the communications and study courses. But I do have fond memories of bull-baiting staff going thru refresher courses who felt that I had a particular gift for finding buttons involving the methods people used to defend their personal space.

it seems more practical than nice but i take that approach for every religious adherent.

Ahhhhh I see. So you are a devout atheist? That makes some things clear. You have no interest in Scientology as it compares to other religions. Just in deprogramming scientology itself.

that was never the question to begin with so what is the purpose in asking it? there is only one, which you alluded to "to water it down a bit". there is no watering down, a wrong is a wrong is a wrong irrespective if anyone or any organization has done the same thing. i would suggest that if you'd like to discuss those organizations and their actions that you start a thread for it.

Then what was the question? Someone posted that they wish to discuss Scientology in the InterFaith forums on a site called Comparative-Religion.com and you feel that comparisons are inappropriate?

i'm well aware that you are armed. i have confidence that my armament is far superior.

An atheists armor in a battle such as this is makes them downright ethereal
They win all arguments.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

TOTAL BILL FROM RAW MEAT TO OT VIII $277,010

I suppose that comparisons with things outside of scientology are out of the question?

[17th Angel]

Scientology has no objection to it's followers smoking? lol Sweet.

[17th Angel]

"Purification Rundown"

Who can tell me what the formula is and what dose's are there within this?.... I've heard it is heavy in Niacin??.. lol How heavy?

[17th Angel]

Who else has studied Dianetics? Is it just me, or are there many unnesessary(sp?) -crude- examples?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Alex P

You are an Ex-Scientologist?

i am a Buddhist such to the extent that a label applies. generally speaking i tend to self identify with my current beliefs and views rather than with my former beliefs and views. i studied $cientology for 12 years.

"I heard this quote being used to insinuate that Scientology tries to separate out destructive people.

which quote? the one that i quoted in our discussion?

That is not true. Most of "Science of Survival" is about how to get people "up the tone scale", meaning freeing them spiritually, so that they do not feel compelled to be destructive.

whilst that may be true it is somewhat irrelevant to the point which is precisely as indicated. the treatment of beings on the Tone Scale is covered in other literature within $cientology. this is precisely the sort of answer which is given to beings that are raw meat. that doesn't mean, however, that the Science of Survival doesn't contain it's own ideas on this subject.

This book is a handbook for an auditor (it says so in the beginning) for use in session (which is where the auditor helps a person). It is not an organizational book nor anything else but a handbook for an auditor. Aside from that, nothing L. Ron Hubbard wrote is meant to be interpreted in a way to violate laws.

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170


"The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170


"A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 171


"Unfortunately, it is all too often true that suppressors to a creative action must be removed before construction and creation takes place. Any person very high on the Tone Scale may level destruction toward a suppressor." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 159

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"


metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste gp,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

As a diplomacist I so hate debates with logicists.

why is that?

The courses I took were excellent. The scientologists I have met seem to reflect that their courses were also excellent. So I am taking for granted that the courses are excellent. Havent the scientologists you met seem happy, focused, clear minded, and capable?

no, quite the contrary. the vast majority of $cientologists demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Tech. you and i may have had interaction with very different beings and thus may have had very different experiences.

The material for most of the courses that most people take are available in the towns public libraries. The courses you would probably zero in on would compare to PhD level at a college so Im not sure if the same statement can be made. Or in a religion such as catholocism Im guessing it would compare to vatican levels.

Catholics are Christians. that said, i don't know what a "vatican level" means. it seems that you are suggesting that as a being, in any religious tradition, enters into the priest/minister/clergy aspect of a tradition different teachings are made available to them as they progress through the hierarchy. is that a fair summation?

Heehee. True enough.
But of course (get ready for another fallacie) most people tend to operate that way anyway. They will declare that they feel a school or religion or whatever is excellent without having tried every part of it. Most people do not operate by logic-tables. Im taking for granted that there is no school or experience that you would make such a statement about now?

you are correct, i would not make such a claim. i would say, for instance, that Naropa has an excellent Sanskrit and Tibetan language class and the courses related to those are exceptional though the school completely lacks any athletic endeavors and thus is horrible at them. it is, in my estimation, quite difficult to generalize an entity composed of many parts with the same term and come close to the actuality of the entity. some parts may be excellent and others may not be. it would allow a more accurate understanding of the whole to have a proper appreciation of the parts excellent or otherwise.

The problem with this form of debate is that everything can be declared a fallacie. Even if I had taken all of the courses and declared them excellent it would be Argument from Authority. A fallacie isnt a fallacie unless its used as a fallacie. Declaring it one does not remove it from the discussion.

only fallacies can be declared as fallacies. that which is not fallacious is without fallacy by definition. the fallacy remains whether pointed out or not. the difference is that once it becomes clear all parties can avoid it in the course of the discussion whereas they may have not been able to.

Maybe the CIA factbook has a page.

hmm.. i've not checked the CIA factbook pages in quite a while and i didn't figure they would have files on $cientology, perhaps the IAS would be more feasible to me.

Hmmm would that be a Reduction Fallacie on your part? I did not join your conversation. You joined mine. I understand why you would prefer to limit any mention of xxxxxxxx only to such things as they pertain to Scientology. But that is not the conversation I was having.

actually we both joined Alex P's conversation and as near as i can tell his OP isn't asking for a comparison to other religious traditions, it seems to be focused on $cientology, as am i.

Do you feel there are no other sources for the idea that increasing shared expereinces will help raise affinity and therefore communication? You feel that Hubbard made all that up? If so then you give him far more credit than Im willing to give.

why are my feelings relevant to information in a text? i'm simply curious if you know of any that talk about ARC Break or Tone Scale, things which LRH asserts are spiritual or religious in nature. i'm not saying he didn't borrow things from others, quite the opposite in fact, but there are original teachings of his as well.

Ok fine. Then what is the psychiatrist word for a memory which is charged and can affect you when something pings it?

memory.

Memory: 1. The ability to recover information about past events or knowledge. 2. The process of recovering information about past events or knowledge. 3. Cognitive reconstruction. The brain engages in a remarkable reshuffling process in an attempt to extract what is general and what is particular about each passing moment.

Would that be fallacy of composition? By "only one medical doctor" Im assuming you mean that there was only one who involved himself in the claims being made?

i mean that there was only one M.D. involved with the creation of Dianetics and the opening of the Dianetics Institute. when the claims made were demonstrated to be false he left.

Unless you are a moderator here I will take that to be a desire more than a fact.

i am and you should. it is common enough to have tangents arise in an internet discussion and it is often better to start a new thread when the tangent takes on its own conversation since there may be people that would contribute to the new conversation but are not reading the current one.

It seems rather a pre-made argument to demand that people react to how "horrible" something is in the religion of Scientology and disallow any reference to other religions. Or how fraudulent something is in the teachings of Scientology without mentioning the same in other teachings. I guess it would depend on the point you wanted to make, but since you arent the one making the point then that seems moot.

who said that you couldn't mention them? you can and have. it is not the point of the OP which you can re-read for yourself. if you would like to create a thread comparing the horrible and fraudulent things in $cientology with other religions no one will prevent you from doing so.

the argument is premade for the simple fact that the OP was narrow with his questions. he could have started a thread, like you can, that sought to compare and contrast the horrible and fraudulent things of $cientology with other religions but he didn't.

you are, as you've already admitted, wanting to include the other religions and their horrible and fraudulent things in this discussion to water-down the impact such a discussion has upon $cientology. it is a fallacy which you are well aware of now and has no place in our conversation.

i am happy to participate in a thread which seeks to compare and contrast the horrible and fraudulent things in $cientology with those of other religions. i read the forum every day but on some days do not have time to post. if i've not responded to your thread in a few days send me a PM, please, and i'll hop on and give it a go.

[quote]

Originally Posted by vajra

i'm sorry, that is totally a non-answer and you well know it.

Originally Posted by gp

Not at all.

it is since all the courses have specific names and there are multiple courses on the same subject in various degrees. i'm fine with your answer in a general way though.

Xenu.net and other anti-scientology sites make it quite clear that the large majority of people only take the first couple of cheaper courses and then leave. I believe the quote was 62%. With corresponding lesser percentages as you go up thru the courses. Definetly a higher loss than most colleges.

i agree completely.

Auditor? Wow, no. Not at all.

you claimed you were auditing...

In the 70's anyone who had taken a course could assist in the teaching of the course. Im not sure if its true now.

ah.. that is not the accepted practice now though with the release of SOLO NOTS it is somewhat determined on an individual basis.

The only things I did were some across-the-chair items for the communications and study courses. But I do have fond memories of bull-baiting staff going thru refresher courses who felt that I had a particular gift for finding buttons involving the methods people used to defend their personal space.

indeed. i don't find bull baiting to be an effective anything let alone spiritual practice. then again, it's not supposed to be.

Ahhhhh I see. So you are a devout atheist? That makes some things clear. You have no interest in Scientology as it compares to other religions. Just in deprogramming scientology itself.

perhaps your vision is not as clear as you think. i am a devout Buddhist insofar as such labels apply. in this conversation i'm only discussing $cientology. i am happy to discuss $cientology in relation to other religions in the appropriate thread. please start one and i'll join in as i'm able.

Then what was the question? Someone posted that they wish to discuss Scientology in the InterFaith forums on a site called Comparative-Religion.com and you feel that comparisons are inappropriate?

you stated that you are seeking to make the claim that two wrongs are two wrongs. who has disagreed with this notion? any sentient being, provided they share the same understanding of the notion "wrong", would agree that a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, which i have explicitly stated in this thread already. the reason that you gave for wanting to do this is to lessen the impact it will have upon $cientology.

this site does not have a section called "interfaith" we do have a Comparative section, this post is in the Modern Religions section.

metta,

~v

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Who else has studied Dianetics? Is it just me, or are there many unnesessary(sp?) -crude- examples?

Well it was a rather crude author, and in the 1950's.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Scientology has no objection to it's followers smoking? lol Sweet.

Scientology is more into mental health than physical health. Plus in the 1950s Im not sure if it was considered a bad thing. Amazing enough that they condemned many common practices that later were also condemned by others but I guess they didnt catch them all.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste gp,
why is that?

Because both declare the arguments of the other to be worthless. A logician considers the opinions of the crowd to be a fallacy. A diplomacist considers logic arguments a fallacy when it doesnt change the opinions of the crowd.

no, quite the contrary. the vast majority of $cientologists demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Tech. you and i may have had interaction with very different beings and thus may have had very different experiences.

Well at least you have met some in real life. Its not worth much otherwise.

Catholics are Christians. that said, i don't know what a "vatican level" means. it seems that you are suggesting that as a being, in any religious tradition, enters into the priest/minister/clergy aspect of a tradition different teachings are made available to them as they progress through the hierarchy. is that a fair summation?

More along the line that its generally of the opinion outside a religion that the higher attainers within the religion are privy to non-public learnings.

i am and you should.

Noted and I shall.