Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 85

Thread: Claire's theory on where L Ron Hubbard truly went wrong

  1. #61
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Nov 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Veda View Post
    "Wow!, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow x 10." Steve Hall. 2011

    Reading Steve Hall's account of 1979 in Scientology - before David Miscavige took over and "altered the tech" - and how excited Steve Hall was about the "tech breakthroughs" made by Hubbard in '79, reminded me of why I - around the same time - ceased taking Scientologists seriously.

    Yes, enthusiastic people can be such a drag....

  2. #62
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Christchurch, New Zealand


    Good stuff.

    Let’s take your reply in the sections that you have,

    First one is OK. Second one – “other-determinism doesn’t only mean that one is doing it under duress. Merely adopting the viewpoint that “LRH knows best and even if I don’t understand it all nor agree with it all I will just do it the way he says” – this in itself is a MAJOR source of other determinism and many many people did their Scio in this way.

    Hubbard certainl did get totally stuck in the endless trap of seeking out prior causes – no doubt about it. As you say, he never got free of his mind. And if one sticks to Scio as practiced by the CofS then it is guarranteed that one will never go free. But there is an immense amount of data given by Hubbard in the period up to about 1953 or 4 which, if he hadn’t ignored it, would have produced a very different subject altogether, even though still called Scientology. Where he got all the data and insights from is anone’s guess. I am sure that he himself never fully comprehended what he was writing or saying. Or his ego and his dark side swamped and submerged him totally. One needs to study the tapes of that period very thoroughly.

    Third - you must recognise too that data and “tech” on entities being stuck to one’s body and mind-space predates Scientology. Apart from the Catholic Church’s exorcism rituals, which BTW are interesting because the process they use is one of getting the entity to identify and name itself accurately so closely parallels the NOTs technique; apart from that there is work by others e.g. Quatermain, Findlay and also Prof, Whiteman whom I met and had the chance to converse with. These are a few that I have come across, all of them predate Scio and all of them are fully aware of the liability of having entities as unwilling passengers. I don’t think Hubbard knew or followed any of these people though. Also the data is known (so I have been told) by the Rosacrucians (not AMORC but the real ones) and probably the Golden Dawn chaps. Croweley’s autobiography refers to them too.

    So this is not new with Hubard, and neither is an appreciation of the value of handling the compulsive misidentification of self with them and vice-versa.

    “You could also view the entire universe as life connected to life.” Sure you could. You could view it in an infinite number of different ways. But this leads nowhere too.

    “Without these connections, there is truly nothing at all. Not what you create, but simply - nothing, nobody. Zero time, zero awareness, zero perception (nothing to perceive) zero space. Nothing. Not even you.” As, for example, we all experience every night during a period of dreamless sleep.

    Last section: You are correct in saying that I have studied Scio more intensively than any other subject. But I have always studied periferal subjects too, wherever I could get hold of them. At present I’m busy with a study of New Thought writings. Thomas Troward I find particularly interesting.

    One thing Hubbard taught and which I have not found anywhere else to date, is that the mind has mass, actual physical mass (and not the brain either) which is in a space of its own and which can yet be measured physically. Also his teachings of as-isness, that mental mass can be as-ised and that it then ceases to exist. I’ve not come across these aywhere else and they are fundamental to the whole subject. Other subjects tend for the most part to shift mental masses about into new and untroublesome patterns – but this is no more than re-arranging furniture really. The as-isness of mass – that is something special that he came up with. Or if he got it somewhere else then I don’t know where that somewhere is.

    “Personally, I've found both Christian and Hindu tenets were far more comprehensive and spiritually enlightening than Scn. Some philosophers, like Kant, just knock me out. Plato changed my life.” Good on you! I got a lot out of Christianity on both the positive and negative sides. The others I just couldn’t get into much. Plato somewhat but not Kant or Eastern teachings.

    Be well.

    Standard tech is a subset of LRH tech. LRH tech is a subset of freezone tech. Freezone tech is a subset of all possible tech. - Pilot

    I think that the future lies in understanding and developing the capabilities of the mind and spirit. I might sometimes loosely call this Scientology, but I don't mean the CofS. I mean anything which works in this direction, which would even include you if you ever achieve real wisdom. - Pilot

  3. #63
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Atalantan View Post
    Yes, enthusiastic people can be such a drag....
    Enthusiasm is wonderful. But a fool can be enthusiastic.

    I witnessed a lot of that kind of enthusiasm - foolish enthusiasm - around the time that I started backing away from Scientology. There was lots and lots of it. But there wasn't much wisdom. There were plenty of foolish childlike people, who'd change their minds as quickly as they could read the newest announcement from Ron. They'd be super-enthusiastic about "a" on Monday, and then "a" would be canceled by Ron on Tuesday, and it would be replaced by "b," and then they'd be super-enthusiastic about "b." It was idiotic.

    I suppose I should be accustomed to it by now, but it still seems remarkable to me that there are such people. It's even more remarkable seeing them, now calling themselves Independent Scientologists, and seeing that they've learned little or nothing in years and years.

  4. #64
    Gold Meritorious Sponsor HelluvaHoax!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    I'm not discouraged at all. It's just that HH decided what there was for him in Scio - i.e. nothing at all - then he found that and now he complains about it. He confirms exactly what I said in my first post on this thread.
    My apologies, I mistakenly thought I was expressing an opinion, but now I see that I was complaining. And without an approved CSW!

    Let me fix that:


    SITUATION: I was conned.

    DATA: Ron did it.

    SOLUTION: Since I cannot get my money or time back, I hereby request permission to talk about it so others don't get conned.

    This is greatest good. Really, this time no kidding.

    ________ approved

    _________not approved

    Scientology literally saved my life! Without Ron's books I would have frozen to death!!! (see avatar)

    Scientology in one word? HelluvaHoax!

    I never felt as free as when I freed myself from "Total Freedom".

    For offended Scientologists reading this blasphemy about L. Ron Hubbard---my apologies for talking about real life without lying to you, like Scientology, with goo-goo theta-talk. I know you don't have a floating needle right now. You're not supposed to.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Whanganui A Tara


    Quote Originally Posted by Atalantan View Post
    Whatever rolls you over, dude, I guess that would be "compelling evidence".

    I did notice you didn't "DOX PLOX" for Synthia's "compelling evidence" that scientology is booby-trapped in some way.

    Would you care to do that for me - produce the DOX, PLOX, for that "compelling evidence?"

    Or would you rather sit back, sneer and snide about my posts? Good luck with that. But it would be OK with me too. I don't want to make you work or have to step out of your mental box.
    You're trying to DOX me for something someone else said? Seriously, dude . . .

  6. #66
    Operating teatime Jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    South Pacific.


    Quote Originally Posted by Synthia View Post
    We're so sorry............... Uncle Elbert.

    I'm not following much of this, but thanks Synthia

    "Of course, if it's true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war,
    then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles,
    then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie." - Tommy Davis

  7. #67
    Crusader ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Marcabian Institute of Psychiatry


    Quote Originally Posted by Gottabrain View Post
    The problem with your theory, Claire, is L Ron didn't ever live an extravagant life, financially, despite the money.

    He wanted to be better than Buddha, he wanted to be the one who discovered the deepest secrets of mankind. He wanted it so badly, he re-wrote his own personal history and tried to re-make his own personality.

    Unfortunately, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, no matter how many people are coerced or brainwashed into believing it is.
    Living an extravagant lifestyle when you are micromanaging a cult, acting as it's prison warden, and on the run from law enforcement of just about every civilized country on the planet, is easier said than done, besides Hubbard's vices were his need to live out his delusional fantasies, feed his drug habit, and build a myth of himself being a great man, and forcing the slaves of his cult to forfeit their life's savings and abandon their families in order to fund a private navy to indulge his delusions may be considered extravagant by some.
    Yes lurkers you are not alone, everyone thinks Scientology is creepy, it's not just you

  8. #68
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    New York


    Quote Originally Posted by Helena Handbasket View Post
    I don't understand your confusion.

    Sec Checking was originally developed to detect "SP's" who were sent to join staff by anti-scn groups (government agencies, etc) and wreck scn. But some of these got themselves promoted to executive positions, and then they were able to make sure that other infiltrators were NOT effective checked. As these SP's got into higher and higher positions, they were able to promote their own kind into key positions (not that that doesn't happen in the non-scn world all the time). LRH's own Special Zone Plan used against him!

    Originally, it was firm policy only to let trained, proven auditors take higher management positions. Later, this was changed as new recruits were divided into "tech" and "admin" and only the latter made it into senior management. IMHO if this change had not been made the church would not have been taken over.

    No, not true.

    The origins of sec checking are way before the notion of SP in Scn.

    The first sec check goes back to things like the Joberg, circa 1961-2. It was a development of the think following the "Clean Hands Congress" tech of 1960 . . . this is the tech to do with getting off all your "overts" in order to have clean hands and thus make case gain. This then morphed into withhold and MWH tech circa '63 and emphasized with a vengeance in '64.

    The original "tech" for handling "Security Risks" was the use of the Scientology List 1 assessed for R/Ss. That was around September '62.
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!

  9. #69
    Gold Meritorious Patron GreyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Forest Grove, OR, USA


    I think you hit the nail right on the head Claire. Alot of the TV preachers are the same way.

  10. #70


    Quote Originally Posted by Synthia View Post
    We're so sorry............... Uncle Elbert.
    "Message to Garcia" guy...
    "Religion is free; Scientology is neither."

    "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984

    "L. Ron Hubbard is the cult leader for the crime that is Scientology." - Cleverbot

    "And while we're at it I might as well toss this in for a good laugh. We were doing a lot of "research" on Rockslams at that time and one of the Hubbard thing's rockslamming items was...(oh you're going to love this)...'unlimited wealth'" - Mystic

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ron, got his facts wrong:
    By Lohan2008 in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 14th September 2009, 12:01 AM
  2. A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.
    By Kha Khan in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 25th August 2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Everything Hubbard said was WRONG, everything.
    By AnonOrange in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 4th July 2009, 08:22 PM
  4. Dianetics R3R(A) Theory - What's Right and What's Wrong and Why?
    By Dulloldfart in forum Scientology Technology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 20th May 2009, 08:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts