True for yourself!

[OperatingDonkeyIV]

Would it be fair to say that "Truth is only what you discover as being true for yourself" was invented by El Ronno as a basic principle - or postulated as one - because it makes sure you cannot possibly prove the wrongness (or rightness, of course) of what someone experiences in $cientology, like e.g. the exteriorizations or "handling of mass" - as long as he or she, no matter what sex the weirdo is of - experiences it as true.

[Bea Kiddo]

I believe...


I believe....


I believe ....



in gravity.


I tried to disbelieve.


And it hurt.

So therefore, I believe.

[Gadfly]

Would it be fair to say that "Truth is only what you discover as being true for yourself" was invented by El Ronno as a basic principle - or postulated as one - because it makes sure you cannot possibly prove the wrongness (or rightness, of course) of what someone experiences in $cientology, like e.g. the exteriorizations or "handling of mass" - as long as he or she, no matter what sex the weirdo is of - experiences it as true.

I don't think Hubby "invented" the idea at all. Like so much in Scientology, the idea has been around for a very long time (in some form or another).

It is VERY exactly true in one regard, and entirely redundant in another.

From a pure magickal occult view, where one accepts the theory that you are a creator, basically invisible, yet an eternal spiritual entity, who can bring things into existence by "thought" (postulates, considerations, visualization), the idea is that once you ACCEPT something as true (on a mental/spiritual level), that it will manifest as a REALITY for you.

What is true for you (as an antecedent agreement) is true for you (as a subsequent manifested reality). But, it is "thought" that precedes and determines how and what manifests. That notion is common to the realm of occult/eastern/magical thought.

But also, how you see things is HOW YOU SEE THINGS. Your viewpoint at any time dictates WHAT is "true" for you. That is different for any two people. People may say they agree, and APPEAR to view things the same way, but in fact, no two entities EVER view anything exactly the SAME way. THAT is part of the diversity of all that is. The notion of "equality" or "complete sameness" is JUST an IDEA, and has not and will not ever exist as an observable reality (unless you are lacking discrimination as an observer).

There has always been a problem "proving" what are basically invisible phenomena. Your thoughts are entirely invisible, they do exist, and we all assume everyone else has them. You feel "love", yet it is undectable by any of the physical senses. It is entirely invisible to all others except you - as a feeling. This dilemma with proving or verifying mental and spiritual "gains" is not at all unique to Scientology. Monks in the mountains of Tibet had the same problems - though supposedly advanced beings with "transcendant vision" could perceive real versus imaginary gains and phenomena in others. Who knows?

[DCAnon]

I have a lot of trouble with the "true for you" statement. I feel like it's an excuse to close your eyes, plug your ears, and ignore everything in the world you don't like or don't understand. Beliefs are true for you, but what is "true" and what is "real" sometimes just IS. You can believe as hard as you can the sky is green, it won't change it. You can believe as hard as you want you'll win the lottery, it won't happen. You can believe as hard as you want Scientology isn't abusive, it won't change all the abuse that happens inside. Using this statement just lets someone afraid of the world lie to themselves and feel justified in doing it.

Like the founders of my nations wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident."

[Sai Ninja 2000]

i honestly think it isn't that cut and dry. it depends on what you are applying it to. it means more than just that. at least to me i guess, it means that unless i've seen for myself what is, whatever i'm evaluating shouldn't be taken at face value and just blindly accepted until i've had the proper chance to make a go of it.

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

i honestly think it isn't that cut and dry. it depends on what you are applying it to. it means more than just that. at least to me i guess, it means that unless i've seen for myself what is, whatever i'm evaluating shouldn't be taken at face value and just blindly accepted until i've had the proper chance to make a go of it.

Yes indeed! It is a way of being skeptical.

[degraded being]

It is taken to mean that "if it is true for me, then I do not need to get proof from others, confirmation from others; my own subjective "reality" is enough."

Great for when you don't like the fact that what you want to believe is not the way the world really is.

[justaguy]

Perhaps the problem here is that philosophers have been trying to define truth for thousands of years - and failing to agree.

However, my gut agrees with the OP. The statement is a mind control technique and on the surface patently ridiculous.

[OperatingDonkeyIV]

It is taken to mean that "if it is true for me, then I do not need to get proof from others, confirmation from others; my own subjective "reality" is enough."

Great for when you don't like the fact that what you want to believe is not the way the world really is.

Yes, that's exactly what I believe it was designed for - or used by ElRon.
He must have known in advance that anyone digging deeper into his "axioms" (that he called "demonstrably true") could only find most of them not laughable if saying "Oh, this is true for myself".

[MrNobody]

Would it be fair to say that "Truth is only what you discover as being true for yourself" was invented by El Ronno as a basic principle - or postulated as one - because it makes sure you cannot possibly prove the wrongness (or rightness, of course) of what someone experiences in $cientology, like e.g. the exteriorizations or "handling of mass" - as long as he or she, no matter what sex the weirdo is of - experiences it as true.

I'd say it's not LRon's invention. it's just common sense. If you let's say question 10 witnesses about a certain bankrobbery they all had witnessed, you'll probably get 10 or more different versions of "truth".

I believe...


I believe....


I believe ....



in gravity.


I tried to disbelieve.


And it hurt.

So therefore, I believe.

Thanks for that example, which seems to prove a statement I recently made in another thread: "Truth can only exist within it's own defined environment." Of course you have every right to believe in gravity, and so do I, but out in space, with no gravity well near by (yes, I'm aware of the fact that "near" lacks of definition) gravity doesn't exist.