Natural Clears

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

The more likely thing is, once indoctrinated, a Scientologist has a 'stable datum' and, once 'Clear' he recognizes that he *can't* do all the things promised by 'Clear' so, since he has a 'stable datum' he 's a sucker for 'you're clear! But, you're infested with dead space aliens! And, *they're* not clear! Aha!'

Zinj

The only cognition in Scientology which is worth making, is the cognition of realizing you have been taken for a ride. It happens when you realize that you have learned the only aspect of Scientology worth remembering is the fact that it's a con game. This is the cognition that allows you walk out the door and not be foolish enough to ever look back. This is the true 'Clear Cognition'.

If by chance you happen to drift out of this State of Clear and decide to give Hubbard's material another look, just go to the Tech outside COS: Success stories thread, read some of those Success Stories, and remember you were once that delusional too. Ask yourself, Do you really want to go back there? That should slap you back into present time and the state of Clear.

 

[gfyork]

BeCause

Unfortunately the 'you pulled it in' theory isn't *only* Scientology's. It's common to many 'New Age Religions'/gagas, although it runs under other names. What seems like merely fluffy pollyannaism when it limits itself to 'positive thinking' becomes truly mean-spirited when it's expressed in absolutes and with it's corollaries. For example, 'keep yourself from getting cancer with positive thinking' is immutably tied to 'You have cancer? You had bad thoughts!'

At its worst it becomes a rationalization for victimization and exploitation of others; 'He *let* me cheat him! He really *wanted* it or he wouldn't have let it happen!' etc.

Zinj

Zinj,

I completely agree with you that the accusation, "He pulled it in," is wretched and could well be used to justify or excuse criminality.

But that's utterly different than the assertion: "Nothing happens to me absent my own creation or agreement." This, "assumption of causation," might be true or it might be false. If false, it might be false occasionally, or it might be often false; doesn't matter. While held, one cannot possibly become a 'victim' and claim all the baggage doing so entails. And 'becoming a victim' is best reserved for the deliberate creation of drama.

It's not important to hold this viewpoint tightly,
no need to clutch it to one's chest;
better to hold it lightly,
it lends life zest.

Of course, if you're going to assume this viewpoint, it's also helpful to abandon the "shame, blame, and regret" troika too and merely concentrate on correcting unintended effects, repairing damage done, and, well, "making it go right" as often as one can manage.

I'm not quite sure if I deliberately adopted this viewpoint or if it just, crept up on me. I know I've 'held' it for many years now and think I probably picked it up reading Scientology books.

I like it.

And it's a Causative Assumption. I assume the position or viewpoint of cause with regard to my actions and the things that happen to me. I believe it an error of magnitude to foist that assumption upon another. (Though I'm perfectly willing to help others assume it if that's where they'd like to go.)

One of the nicer spin-offs seems to be that, perhaps because I don't inflict "shame, blame, and regret" on myself, I seldom am tempted to inflict them on others, either. (And I suspect that doing so is rarely useful to anyone but control freaks.)

Someone once wrote words to this effect:
1. Be able to experience anything;
2. Cause only that which others can experience easily.

I can generally manage the second bit; the first I'm still working on.

Best,

G.