Ex or A.R.C. Broken

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

The point of meditation is to bring us to stillness "be still and know that I am God", and since God is love meditation will bring us to love.

The whole point of ethics should be to rehabilitate the offender or in Sino.language to get tech. in.


The nearest the world gets to having the right motive for getting in ethics is, as you say, what a parent might do - we call it 'tough love'. Ron has said man in his aberrated state cannot be trusted with ethics.

L. Ron Hubbard, in his best state, could not be trusted with ethics.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you use his ideas as a premise.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Sautez]

Hahaha!

Remind me . . . where's LOVE and UNDERSTANDING on the Tone Scale?

It is outside of the Exit door on a good day.

 

[Pip]

Fluffy, I mean no disrespect but WTF are you talking about??????? :confused2:

To find a place that practices "ChristianScientology"? That notion is a figment of Pip's imagination. It is not a real anything.

Mmm? Maybe I will start MuslimEST, JewishTranscentalMeditation, HinduSatanists, BuddhistEckankar, or TaoistMoonies. Ah, the possibilities are endless!

Don't worry Voltair's Child I know what you are talking about. The place that ChristianScientology is practiced is in the human heart.

If Gadfly wants to practice some "squirrel" technology that is his choice.

 

[Pip]

Yeah but nobody is going to top Dave Chappelle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITchV88Gjk

Thanks for the good laugh. Wellworth sending to some of my friends.

 

[Gadfly]

Don't worry Voltair's Child I know what you are talking about. The place that ChristianScientology is practiced is in the human heart.

If Gadfly wants to practice some "squirrel" technology that is his choice.

Squirrel technology!

Good one Pip!

 

[Smilla]

L. Ron Hubbard, in his best state, could not be trusted with ethics.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you use his ideas as a premise.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Hubbard, true to his Orwellian intentions, redefined the term *ethics* into Scientology newspeak, and created a system of *ethics* that has nothing to do with ethics.

“ By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

--Orwell, 1984.

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

Thank you for your post SofG it really gave me food for thought. When one “sits at the feet” of a master, it could be seen as “sitting under” a master. To stand under would be to put oneself under the authority of another.

We all did that at least to some degree when we became Scientologists when we came
under the authority of LRH through H.C.O. The problem was that LRH himself was not
under authority and as such he was a “self-made master”. Compare him with Jesus who
was a “man under authority” and we see the difference between understanding and
Wisdom. God is the final authority and God is love so when we stand under God we truly
understand. The bible says “Get wisdom, get understanding” and it also says “The fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” and I see that as fear in terms of respect or deep
reverence.

Incidentally the dictionary defines authority as “the right or power to control”. Only God
has the right to control, self-styled Gurus often end up with the power to control but not the
right, Hitler being a prime example.

Thanks again for your thought provoking post.

Hmm, I think that your usage of the term "understanding" is a bit sophisticated; "to stand under" in the sense of being below or at a lower level is a rather bizare application of the term in my opinion. The deriviation of a word is certainly interesting and it can also be important, but the actual usage of the word is rather cruzial. I would say that "understanding" is normally applied in a way that refers to comprehending or being aware of or knowing or grasping or being in alignment with someone or something, can also refer to empathy and sympathy. You can of course have a superior understanding of something so others kind of "stand under" but since you in that situation "stand over" it is somewhat tricky to talk about "stand under".

But as long as you clearly state how you apply the term it is OK of course.

***

Is God love? What about the idea that God is Live, Love and Truth?

***

Doesn't a person who know his subject have the right to control? Maybe even the responsibility or duty to control? Wouldn't you normally expect that a professional in an area where you do not have the know-how has a great level of control and you would be willing to be under his control? But if he mis-uses his power and demands control beyond his right then we have entered a situation with no right to control.

 

[Pip]

Mine above in COLOR.

It seems to me that ethics will always be a relative thing. It will depend on what you first agree upon as a worthwhile goal, and then "good" becomes anything that helps realize the goal, and "bad" is anything that detracts from the goal. Counter-intentions and other-intentions ARE "bad" from the view of some purpose or goal. All earthly goals and purposes are relative and arbitrary. There are as many purposes and goals as there are people on the planet. And, if you add the many different alien races and other disembodied entities into the mix, also with MANY conflicting goals and purposes, well fuck me!!!!!

What a mess!

All goals are relative and arbitrary (also conforming to a "cycle of action", and eventually dying or changing into something else). All IS change - including the purposes and goals of sentient creatures.

Scientology ethics is primarily that system of morality that is defined as assisting LRH and Scientology. It has no value past that. Now, yes if someone removes EVERY 3rd dynamic mention at every point in the ethics codes, then maybe it might be able to be reformulated into a useful system. This is a rather BIG "maybe".

“Be still and know that I am God is from Psalm 46 V.10.

See www.hebrew4christians.com/Meditations/Be_Still/be_still.html also for a deeper understanding of meditation.

As for God’s love, this is also from the Bible 1 John 4v16. You ask for something real well I have just typed in ‘God is love’ and there seem to be pages upon pages of people who agree with that statement, is that enough reality?

I don’t think it is accurate to say that there is ‘no God’ in Buddhism, in fact this guy at www.hebrew4christians.com/Meditations/Be_Still/be_still.html makes out a good case for just the reverse.

You ask me “What ‘tech’ “well I use both tech and ethics in my business of renting rooms. Part of the tech. I use as a Landlord is that a tenant pays their rent regularly and on time. One of my tenants is invariably late with his rent and does not clear it with me if he wants to be late, another bit of essential tech (communication is the universal solvent and all that). Anyway I found this lackadaisical attitude that he had over his rent was enturbulating me and so I assigned him a condition of liability. Immediately the feeling of being enturbulated vanished. This guy maintains he is a born again Christian and that’s fine but he sure is not clear, certainly not on the standard tech. of what is expected of a tenant.

Ethics is an integral part of my setup and each of my tenants are “grooved in” as to how they are expected to conduct themselves, and as a result they find the environment very safe and can get out there and earn their wages and subsequently pay their rent willingly. In fact I don’t collect the rent they bring it to me, mostly without any prompting. That’s part of what makes my job so worthwhile.

 

[Pip]

I've said for years (and I said this when I still considered myself an indie Scientologist, when various people were insisting that I wanted to proselytize and that I was a KSW Scn'ist- which I wasn't)- that it's up to each person to make his or her own path and to be one's own "...ologist" rather than a Christian or Scientologist or whatnot.

That's been my stance for years. Those who claimed (and there were several and they kept saying it) that I wanted people to do Scn and/or join the FZ were/are either stupid or lying. Or both.

So I can't confer credibility upon you. You already have it. You are the only one you have to please. Not me, not Gaddy, not anyone.

Thanks for that V.C. I concur with what you say, only between you and me pleasing you does it for me!

 

[Pip]

And that's exactly why so many people are pissed off at "organized religion" and yet have spiritual beliefs. (Atheists and agnostics are often pissed off at organized religion, too, but they aren't the only ones).

While I appreciate the fact that churches often give spiritual advice and that sometimes individuals need guidance, there are so many problems with organized religion- not just Scn. The thing about Scn is it claimed to be immune from all the crap and corruption seen in history with organized religion. Then it not only was not immune, it was worse than many!!!!!!!!!

So get guidance and read books as you wish but strive for independence from organized religion and/or organized churches and cults.

I completely agree with you Claire, that’s why I attend the local Unitarian Church. Speaking of which here is a reading from the other Sunday which I thought was lovely and sort of backs up your point.

Love Pip – Enjoy!


At the centre of our being … by Thomas Merton

(from A Call to Contemplation).
​

At the centre of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our mind or the brutalities of our own will.

This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely …

I have no programme for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is everywhere.

 

[Pip]

L. Ron Hubbard, in his best state, could not be trusted with ethics.

You are barking up the wrong tree if you use his ideas as a premise.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes I would agree, because Ron had no authority above him, as far as he was concerned, he ended up playing god. Not a happy state of affairs.

His ideas are as valid as anyone else’s. If they work I will entertain them, if not I will disregard them.

 

[Pip]

Hahaha!

It is outside of the Exit door on a good day.

We have already had this discussion

 

[Pip]

Squirrel technology!

Good one Pip!

I’m glad you liked it!

 

[Pip]

Hubbard, true to his Orwellian intentions, redefined the term *ethics* into Scientology newspeak, and created a system of *ethics* that has nothing to do with ethics.

“ By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

--Orwell, 1984.

Give the guy a break no one is all bad!

 

[Greg Rice]

I was interested to read in a post by Knn, number 64, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11527-You-know-your-an-Ex-Scientologist-when../page7 that an ex-Scientologist is someone who has started their own religion.

I can only speak for myself but when I went into Scientology I was looking for love and understanding, and I thought I had found it in L. Ron Hubbard (a father figure) and the technology (understanding), that he had developed.

Following the analogy of "a love affair" when I was first rejected by Ron and Scientologists, I felt hurt and ARC broken. My question is, when is an "affair" over - when can one truly say "that person or group is my ex." I would suggest that as long as one holds any bitterness towards "a terminal" that relationship is not over, it has just turned from love to hate; and when it is a religion that is the focus of one's attention it is not over until that religion is replaced with another, or better still one has started their own religion.


ChristianScientology - The Religion For the 21st Century Approved By God - James 1:27

So many people I met were coming to Dianetics and Scientology for personal gains and insight... much the way I did, ... it was only after I joined staff, that I saw the staff members for what they really are...
It became obvious when I realized that the staff, are not what they are selling... and they never assign themselves the condition of treason....

 

[Jachs]

Maybe you should go back Greg and re-educate "the staff"

i mean hubbards psycho-political victims.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Maybe you should go back Greg and re-educate "the staff"

i mean hubbards psycho-political victims.

Has Pip said his name is Greg? I missed that. If not, then why would you post that?

 

[Type4_PTS]

Has Pip said his name is Greg? I missed that. If not, then why would you post that?

Maybe because he's talking to Greg and not Pip?

"So many people I met were co...........".

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Ohhh, now I see. I was confused. Not the first time it's happened, as we all know.

 

[Jachs]

Maybe Pip is a Greg too...