Source of Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by johnAnchovie, Jan 30, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. johnAnchovie

    johnAnchovie Still raging

    I think the following links and descriptions are great importance to anyone seeking to rationalise how Hubbard created the great con. Nothing in Scientology is original, unless you count the science fiction of OT III. forwarded to me by an OT III ex Scientologist, he has done some great research, and iin doing so, struck the proverbial gold vein.

    Please look at this material and give me your thoughts and conclusions.

    For me, this is of great importance.

    LRH PR 'tech' is exactly the same as Dale Carnegies 'How to win friends'. LRH reckons he'll "make you sick".
    Ernest Holmes to me was LRH's main reference point for an organised religion that offered courses (cheap ones :) : http://ernestholmes.wwwhubs.com/
    William Walker Atkinson (aka Theron Q.Dumont) was another. Used to teach procedures for focusing the mind. Like TR's. http://williamwalkeratkinson.wwwhubs.com
    Thomas Troward was the main originator of contempory metaphysics and influenced all these guys. http://thomastroward.wwwhubs.com
    Troward discussed the idea of an electronic though detector.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson was the American equivalent of T. Troward. Big influence on American Success literature but his prose is a bit harder to interpret given the time it was written. Brilliant man.
    In Hubbards time there was a huge amount of these 'New Thought' writers who would give seminars and talks over a day or two in community halls etc. They were entertaining and brilliant men and women. My favorite is Neville Goddard http://nevillegoddard.wwwhubs.com/
    Route To Infinity is a complete re-write (in the usual impenetrable LRH prose) of these teachings.
    ie. To create the life you want you must visualise/imagine it to be so already and forces come into play to bring the vision to actuality.
    The Law Of Psychic phenomena by Thomson Jay Hudson (1893) seems to be the contemporary start point for all ideas about Subconscious/Conscious mind analogies. He called it subjective/objective mind. He was prior to freud as far as I can work out. Bit of a tome but fascinating.

    John A.
     
  2. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    This is a good start. The thing is, depending upon your orientation, one can trace this stuff back to MANY sources. I have been reading a fascinating little book (http://processmediainc.com/titles/new_releases/the_secret_source.php)
    that traces some of this stuff back to Greece and Egyptian times. Just read the biography of Appolonius of Tyana for example. Another being that simply laid down his body and resurrected...or disappeared.

    The idea of mind over matter goes way back. Quimby and Christian Science were huge influences in the century before Hubbard was born.

    So maybe it is just something that we all created, ultimately.
     
  3. johnAnchovie

    johnAnchovie Still raging

    He was too lazy for that...

    You are absolutly correct Div 6, but the main point I am making is that Hubbard cobbled together the 'scriptures' from then current and popular sources. Yes the actual source that the New Thought movement used is ancient, but Hubbard was too lazy to really research, he siimply took the popularly available material from the sources listed and banged together the essential Bridge, then he mixed in the manipulative stuff, a sprinkle of Crowley, hypmotism and left it on a low heat, and voila! We all swallowed it.

    John
     
  4. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    I'm not saying that there isn't a strong element of truth in what you say but it does seem to be a simplification.

    There is actual tech which, while it may in part have been extrapolated from the work of others, is uniquely Scn. Objectives, rehab tech, ARC-X assessments, R3RA, GPM tech, NOTS tech, plus tons of stuff through the early-mid 50s. How well it works is another issue. I believe Hubbard took from others without recognising their contributions, for sure, but I also believe he had more of a handle on aberration than any other person who's ever lived. Although much good it did him, in the end. :melodramatic:
     
  5. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    Just as Hubbard described Simon Bolivar, he too relied very heavily on his ability to shine on people. He knew he could wow people with his great personal charm, with a hint of boyish naivete thrown in. He critiqued Simon for being stuck in that viewpoint. He knew how to project an image onto people. I've done it too, so I know what he was doing. Who knows, someday we will become Ron, just to punish ourselves :)
     
  6. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    I think too that Hubbard did originate some tech, in the sense that he recalled it in much the same way he claimed that he recalled the ancient Org Board. Based on the work that he had been involved in in a way back past life, he was able to make a contribution.
     
  7. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Why can't he have developed something himself, in a new unit of time?

    Paul
     
  8. Alan

    Alan Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for posting the above John - I love studying the history of this whole field.

    Alan
     
  9. chipgallo

    chipgallo Patron Meritorious

  10. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Banned

    Oh goody; RoadRunner/SpaceTraveler. His usual point is that nothing post 1980 is actually Hubbard and that even earlier stuff was not Hubbard and therefore not Ron's fault.

    That's not to say that his 'research' is inherently invalid; just that any conclusions should be judged with a view towards the intended 'purpose'; i.e. to exonerate Ron from responsibility for criminal or abusive conduct.

    And, a few shovels' full of salt would be good too.

    Zinj
     
  11. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    He did, consider my post background data.
     
  12. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Neither the "objectives" or "NOTS" is completely unique to scientology. Both have "similar" precursors in Buddhist & Tantric practices.


    Mark A. Baker
     

Share This Page