Your opinion, yes, I believe I understand.
Alan has said or written much regarding Spiritual Teammates. You seem to have but scratched the surface. Check the a.c.t. archives.
What Hubbard said? A being is in Treason on the first dynamic of he fails to get rid of all his BT's. (OT-3 pack)
Hubbard said a being will do with entities in the mind as he does with entities in the physical universe. (DMSMH) A corollary vise versa would naturally follow.
Around the time of OT-3 being originated as a level, you also find Scientology emphasis on Lower Ethics Conditions, heavy ethics actions, RPF, and more. Looks to me like Hubbard was doing with entities in the mind as he was doing with entities in the physical universe.
Many people have come and gone in Scientology. In a sense they were people who woke up because they were "scanned" by a book or someone setting a good example of Scientology. After those people joined they met with differing levels of abuse, then they were gone. But, many didn't leave cleanly. Scientology has created most, if not all, of its own enemies.
"Many are called and few are chosen" is both a slogan and a justification for the innies who remain.
To relate to BT's as if they are Spiritual teammates is a new perception. And, I might add, a huge improvement over perceiving them as a hinderance that needs to be audited off.
I related to BT's as if they were any other pc, infinitely capable, only needing a bit of good, non-evaluative, non-invalidative auditing to help them along.
My own finding on the matter is that some leave, some stay. They shouldn't be forced in either direction. That would be bad auditing. The one's that stay belong. Whether that's an actual entity or a piece of one's self is a matter for philosophers to debate.
All in all, I don't see how anyone could complete any auditing where other beings or entities are involved if the auditor did anything other than a professional level of auditing following its most basic of rules.
Surely a man of your experience (6 nooses) can spot the inconsistency in a scn defender, Alex in this case, accusing Alan of the "flaw" of openly discussing something that most scientologists believe?
Dave Gibbons - Sydney, Australia. 34 years in scientology 1974 - 2008
No longer a scientologist.
I don't believe everything I read on the Internet.
I do believe everything I write.
"Chastise the scoundrels, unmask the charlatans, and tutor the unschooled mob."
They never answer a question or talk to anyone about Kn who seems to be critical or challenging any of their concepts.
I think that Alex made a perfectly legitimate post for discussion. And what he got back was ad hom.
So I pointed it out because I have seen it many times before from them.
It's the worst of Scientology.
They should go ahead and drop that Hubbard technique.
You were his friends and the ones who could have helped him.
I see a ser fac at play here....he "betrayed" you....you'll be right, somehow.
Your accusations speak loud of the overt.
thoughts are real, its the things you think that are the illusion
Look at the title - "The major Flaw in Knowledgism"
Then the category - "Cults in general"
Then the content of the op - Quite a misrepresentation of a concept in Knowledgism I gather.
It all came across as pretty slanderous and ad hom to me, and then Dart responded by calling a spade a spade, and fairly politely too I might add.
Pot kettle black on this one.
"Man gets tired, spirit don't. Man surrenders, spirit won't. Man crawls, spirit flies. Spirit lives when man dies.
-Man seems, spirit is. Man dreams, the spirit lives. Man is tethered, spirit free. What spirit is man can be.............What spirit is, the man, can, be" - The Waterboys "Spirit" lyrics