ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Featured The Nature of Evil

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Gadfly, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    The Nature of Evil

    While reading some of the threads here today, an idea came to mind. For me, it seems that true evil rears its ugly head when a person (or group) suddenly finds his or herself willing to harm another because of an IDEA.

    LRH stated this in the Code of Honor as:

    "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."

    Realize that "causes" are usually abstract IDEAS, and that while having "something" to do with reality, there is not usually a total exact direct correlation between the two.

    For me, after careful examination and thought, it seems that the only time that I can justify harming another is in pure physical self-defense. For example, if a robber entered my home and was threatening to rape or kill one of my children, I would put a 38 slug in his forehead without a second thought. I would do it with no regrets, and I wouldn't worry myself much with ideas about what possible horrible life and abuse may have led this sorry person to commit such an act.

    Where would emotional and verbal abuse fit in? I don't like it at all, but I don't consider that it is an excuse to harm back in revenge or reprisal with physical harm. If one is experiencing emotional or verbal abuse, usually you can walk away. If you choose NOT to walk away, as many members choose not to do in the Church of Scientology, then you are aiding and abetting the abuse. In that case, then you are quietly agreeing and co-creating it, because YOU choose to stay and take it. The reasons why you do that are unimportant, but you are part of the problem by your choice to participate in the abuse. If someone were abusing me verbally or emotionally, which is unlikely because I simply don't attract or participate in such nonsense, I would walk away. The moment the person escalated the abuse to physical harm is the exact moment I would happily harm back to stop it - in physical self-defense.

    Basically, I have a Buddhist attitude about it. Harm nothing. I consider that there is no excuse to harm anything, other than pure physical self-defense. Granted, a purist Buddhist might not agree with me on the self-defense part.

    What about bombing abortion clinics by fanatical Christians? The belief held by the strict absolutist Christian is that once the egg and sperm combine, that life has started. There are all sorts of other "ideas" attached to this - and realize these are IDEAS about largely unverifiable topics. The Christian fanatic believes that "life is sacred", that "the soul exists in the Zygote", and all sorts of other mental concepts based on arbitrary interpretations of what I consider to be largely an extensive fairy tale - the Bible and related documents. The point is that some connection of IDEAS, some concatenation of logic, makes it acceptable for some fanatic to directly HARM another human being. Of course, it is always completely justified in the mind of the hurter. Always. It makes complete sense to the fanatic.

    I am an equal-opportunity despiser of fanatics of all sorts. Scientology is simply one version of this rather rampant idiocy on planet Earth.

    Or, take the common example of the torture and murder of witches in New England a few centuries back by the Christian Church. Again, there were all sorts of IDEAS wrapped up with the words "paganism", "witchcraft", "mother nature", "herbal curing", "midwifery", "Satan", "the devil", "evil", "goodness" and on and on ad nauseum. Again, this was largely a phenomena of the mind, where IDEAS had much more validity than anything observable or able to be honestly experienced. Add in the idiotic greed and desire for power by the male Church leaders, and it was a recipe for disaster.

    Modern Muslims extremists follow the same pattern. The members have accepted a belief system involving all sorts of IDEAS about "God", "heathens", "sacred", "Satan", "heaven", "paradise" and again, on and on. Of course, all of these morons "believe what they think is true". That is a common denominator of this sort of pattern. These sort of folks really get wrapped up in and take very seriously their IDEAS. Watch it when and if you do that about anything!

    What is common in all of these examples, and there are plenty more, is that the participants deal with IDEAS more than with actual observable and able-to-be-experienced reality. The environment of a "mental system of beliefs" is necessary for this sort of inhumanity. In fact, modern science is not without its own examples. The theory and concepts involving the evolution of species as envisioned by Darwin are largely NOT validated by observable facts, YET the dedicated and devoted followers believe it, defend it, and get all worked up about it just like the corresponding religious fanatics. In a very real sense, the advocates forward an orthodoxy and ideology far removed from observable reality. They are also BELIEVERS above anything else.

    Here is the point, now that the stage has been set.

    I have no qualms with anyone believing and thinking whatever he or she chooses to believe or think. In fact I encourage it. If I actually discussed what I think and consider as possible, most of you might consider me insane. I don't care. There are as many ways to conceive of things as there are independent aware conscious viewpoints (you and me). But, I would never consider demanding or forcing others to accept what I say, and I would never think to silent anyone in saying whatever he or she chooses to say. That is one major problem, that there are many others who happily and without any compunction at all, demand and force others to follow their beliefs (because only THEY are right, and everyone else is wrong). THAT is the formula for idiocy. "We are right and everyone else is wrong". Read KSW again. The idea is right there.

    Where I stop is at the point where one becomes willing to harm another because of an IDEA.

    The Church of Scientology crossed that line when it was willing to set up Paulette Cooper in a phony crime to shut her up when she was going to release her book about Scientology. They were willing to hurt her - send her to prison - due to an entirely fabricated and contrived crime, thought up and enacted by the Guardian's Office, that she NEVER committed. The Church of Scientology was willing to HURT her because of their IDEAS. What are these ideas? Basically, the ideas of KSW.

    1) We are the only ones with the truth
    2) Nobody else has the ways and means to free, save and expand beings forever
    3) Everybody is against us
    4) We are fighting a battle with little time, against severe odds
    5) Anyone against us MUST be evil, have crimes, and be deserving of harm, because WE ARE GOOD
    6) Fair Game information

    If one just sits back and studies these concepts AS CONCEPTS, and looks at how they logically relate together, it is easy to see how Church members can and do justify harming others to "forward their goals". Heck, LRH even says so in the above quote in the Code of Honor. There are many examples where the Church has inflicted harm and has justified harm to "expand and defend our religion". As David Miscavige said, "we are not a turn-the-other-cheek religion". They are far more than that when it comes to the willingness to cause violence and harm to anyone it perceives as being "against the Church".

    Interestingly, a Muslim fanatic would fully agree with LRH's quote. I am sure that an Inquisition priest tightening the thumb screws on a young "witch" would also agree entirely. Nothing wrong with hurting another in a "just cause" to these people. Of course, the big question becomes, "what is a just cause"? Again, there can be as many "right" answers to that as there are different opinions and belief systems.

    For me, I don't think there is any human being alive capable of making that decision or determination correctly.

    I envision this as a more perfect world. A world where all people are guaranteed the right to:

    1) Think and believe whatever one chooses, no matter how absurd to others
    2) Freely communicate about anything they so choose (a right not supported in repeated behavior by the C of S).

    These rights continue up until the point where any person HARMS another because of anything other than pure physical self-defense. Generally, a great deal of harm has been and continues to be committed on Earth in the name of some IDEA or set of IDEAS. This is human idiocy in full bloom. It is active today in many parts of the world. It is active in religion, politics, and science.

    For me, I have the opinion that a legitimate spiritual path would choose to NOT harm others due to ANY belief, idea or abstract notion. If you can't win on a battlefield of simple honest communication and free understanding, then you don't deserve to win. This is a major flaw of the subject and organization of Scientology. It contains the idea that it is okay to harm others in alignment with its convoluted belief system. Attacking critics, fabricating crimes against enemies, noisy investigations, Fair Game, and other Scientology concepts all relate to, enable and encourage harming others.

    There is a great deal more to all of this, such as creating ideas of "good guys" and "bad guys". That is what made the actions of Christianity so horrible for about 1000 years of its history. Creating the idea of "total evil", in the concept of the "devil" and "satan", directly opened the door to attacking, harming and destroying any imagined manifestation of that "evil". Realize that most of the thinking had to do with nothing real. People tortured and killed each other for centuries over fantasies, delusions, fairy tales - IDEAS entertained in the minds of thinking beings.

    LRH and the Church of Scientology conveniently create and support similar ideas of the "bad guy" who can be attacked forever, and who also conveniently explains away their failures and weaknesses. The same is true in Christianity. "The devil" made me do it. The devil is to blame. The devil must be crushed. Just exchange the word "devil" with "SP" or "critic", and the same logic applies exactly. The Nazis had their Jews to blame for all of their problems. Solution? Wipe them out. Scientology has the "SPs" to blame. Solution? Crush them!

    The same was true for the manifestations of Communism where Stalin killed about 50 million of his own people to realize a damned IDEA.

    The way I see it, one of Mankind's greatest evils is its willingness to harm others because of a belief or idea. It never seems to stop. IDEAS are always incomplete, rarely come anywhere near "the truth", and usually fail to connect up exactly with REALITY.

    Scientology and the actions of Scientology in many ways follow the same exact pattern. They may not torture and kill people, but at times the pain and suffering caused is real and entirely in accordance with the above ideas.

    I have zero affinity for tyrants of all sorts. Tyrants always get others to accept certain IDEAS, that usually have little connection to observable reality, and get these folks to hurt others in the NAME of these IDEAS. Lying, misrepresenting facts, and deception are simply other aspects of how others can be harmed because of the belief in some set of (arbitrary) IDEAS.

    I have a very loose and all-encompassing definition for the word "fanatic". It is "any person or group who uses ANY idea or set of ideas as an excuse to harm another human being". For me, and this is just my opinion, a top level quality of a legitimate spiritual path would take away all judging, divisions and inhumanity toward others. In other words, the highest activity is to treat all others as living beings, to grant all complete beingness, to basically "love" all others, despite differences in IDEAS. Any concept or idea that enables harm to be enacted against another pulls the person or group down from that lofty legitimacy in my eyes.

    Scientology has utterly failed in this regard as a spiritual activity.
  2. justaguy

    justaguy Patron Meritorious

    "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."


    Classic LRH, right there.

    *angry noises can be heard from somewhere near where justaguy is*

    Edit: OH! You're new! :welcome: :D
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Another wonderful analysis!

    The great red herring here is "just cause." The person reading that Code of Honor, interprets it per his own sense of justice and agrees with it. He doesn't see that there is hardly a universal "just cause," and that one could oneself become the target of somebody's "just cause."

  4. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Good essay, Gadfly. Well done. :thumbsup:
  5. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Agreement...but a question comes to mind...

    Gadfly, you have earned my unconditional respect and admiration in two posts! :yes: :clap:

    But I must ask you to consider this...such things as we abhor and eschew and which we agree upon may be the only feeble, misguided and futile attempts at population control on this limited patch of ground! :nervous: :omg:

    What is to be done with all this excess, unwanted and useless population? :confused2:

    I/we await your studied response. :whistling:

  6. Markus

    Markus Silver Meritorious Patron

    Just perfect!!

    "THAT is the formula for idiocy. "We are right and everyone else is wrong". Read KSW again. The idea is right there."

    Or to say it with Albert Einstein:

    To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.

    Thus there is no "creative imagination" and no "real advance" in the Church of Scientology

    What a marvellous post! I love it!

    Thank you so much Gadfly.


  7. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    Well, the subject of Nazis came up, so I have one question for you Gadfly.

    I'm curious what your solution is when a tyrant like Hitler or hubbard comes along, and has no respect for the 'idea' of rights of others, shows a pattern of squashing them, and things get out of control, to the point where there is no peaceful way of turning back. Seeing as how the Nazis intended to take over the world, should the Allies have put up a fight like we did, and lost many lives, for the 'ideas' of freedom, and our future self determination, or should we have just let them take over?
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  8. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Cornpie. The action of the Nazis involved actual and real physical harm. ATTACK BACK. That wasn't just an "idea" in the heads of thinking people. The harm was REAL. Bombs and guns kill real people. My view on "self-defense" applies entirely. While there are similarities between the Nazis and other oppressive groups, like Scientology in certain regards, the magnitude is VERY different. Scientology isn't killing people en masse. Scientology isn't conducting horrible medical experiments on young children. Scientology isn't starving people to death in concentration camps. There are very real large differences involved here. Yes, there ARE similarities, but the aspect of magnitude is not minor and must be honestly considered. The harm is often very subtle, and also quite subjective in groups like Scientology.

    Also though, as with ANY cult-like group, people have a choice to get in, stay in and to get out. People have a funny habit of staying in Scientology far longer than he or she thinks he or she should have once he or she has finally left. There are various reasons for that, and that is an interesting subject in itself with many aspects, but the dilemma is that in a "free society" people have the freedom to be idiots. You are free to be whatever moron you want to be, and to endure whatever lunacy you choose to submit to. That is one of the "down sides" of "freedom". In other words, if people want to join a group like the Church of Scientology, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Moonies or some UFO-cult, well they can do that. If they want to suffer ordeals in RPFs, and rice and beans, and all-nighters under the command of some 13 year-old CMO brat, well also, that is their prerogative. You or I might not want to do it, but in the end people have that choice. With Scientology for the most part, it involves emotional and mental abuse - and THAT involves participation and willingness to stay and take it. I am not condoning it; it just is. The solution is mentioned further below.

    It is very sad that we live in a force universe, where force is the primary tool of getting others to do what one wants. For me, I prefer "free communication", but if you can't get someone to do what you want by calm intelligent talking, then that's that. Walk away. At least that is what one should do in my viewpoint. But no, not here, instead one will pick up a stick and beat someone into compliance. "Do what I say or else". This aspect of Earth and life in this physical reality does truly suck in that regard. Man has been beating up ones fellow Man since time immemorial - or so it at least seems. But (see my other recent post down a bit on this thread), in the end one must ultimately choose to participate and be a victim. I know this sounds heartless, but in the end I think LRH was right when he said that each of us is entirely 100% responsible for exactly who were are, where we are and what condition we each find ourselves in on Earth, in this solar system, and in this universe. Each of us in a certain regard gets exactly what we can only get based on who we are at that moment. Maybe I am wrong. This idea is far from only unique to Scientology.

    Otherwise, try to keep the channels of communication open and free, allow people to express their views, and oppression can be spotted, talked about, and stopped by exposing it wherever it rears its ugly little head.

    I am sure that LRH never envisioned how the deceit, harm and manipulation by the Church would come to be so extremely obvious and discussed on the then non-existent Internet. Without the Internet it is very possible that the Church would have been able to keep the charade going for much longer. But just the sheer quantity of heartfelt stories by so many people cannot but help create an effect detrimental to the continued harmful behavior by the Church. It can and will reach a saturation point, a critical level where the negative information about the Church is just so overwhelming that there will be nothing that the Church can do to counter it. The Church's tactics and behaviors will have been seen over and over, for so long, that it will become quite obvious and simply "trite". Nothing the Church says or claims will be paid attention to. I see that this is inevitable.

    It seems to me that honest, caring people communicating with sincerity and truth about the excesses and abuses of the Church can only act to hinder what the Church has been doing and continues to do. The clock is ticking, and it is definitely AGAINST them. The Church has created its own situation, and its downfall has been written by the Church's own authors though its own continued behavior. In a sense, if you agree with the concept of the overt-motivator sequence, they will get what's coming. Or from a viewpoint of Karma, they can and will only get what is coming to them. Nobody has to "do it to them". They have very effectively done it to themselves by their own behavior and actions. All the PR to Church members and staff about how the SPs are so "bad" won't change what they have created for themselves. They are also 100% responsible for who and what they are, and what they will reap as a result of their often nasty behaviors.

    Communicating in a free society is the only way to bring to light this sort of oppression, and to address and handle it. I would never want to see "laws passed" or "oversight committees" formed to monitor and restrict "beliefs and opinions". That will always degenerate into some version of a bureaucratic monstrosity of some NEW version of abuse and oppression.
  9. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Why thank-you EP! :yes:

    EP, could you expound a bit more on what you mean exactly. Please discuss and define the ideas and concepts that you brush upon. Sorry, but I can take what you say from too many different perspectives, and I need you to clarify it some if I am to possibly answer.

    "excess, unwanted and useless population"? Sorry, I don't see it that way. Maybe some fanatical member or adherent of the New World Order sees it that way, but I don't. EVERY thing, every living form, every anything anywhere is an idea in the mind of the Absolute. As far as I choose to see it. In another regard, everything is just as it should be, just as it can only be. Until one can comfortably accept all that is, just as it is, with absolutely no resistance on ANY level of mind or emotions, you will never be able to "see" what is actually there. Why? Because you are endlessly filling in the blanks with your own ideas, opinions, attitudes and biases. Or said another way, you are creating reality for yourself moment by moment, and then viewing it as if you weren't actively making it yourself. The crap we do to not be bored!

    But, no matter how you respond, I suppose that fundamentally I have an entirely Hindu view of things. I currently have the view that manifested physical reality on Earth and anywhere in this universe, now, in the past and anytime in the future, is part of the unavoidable inherent unfolding "drama". Cycles within cycles within cycles. Some small and some covering tremendous amounts of time (Hindu idea of Yugas or Ages or Eras). Life, patterns and events coming and going, and coming and going, and coming and going. Waxing and waning. Breathing out and breathing in. Expanding and contracting. Vibrating (faster versions of expanding and contracting - like what may be going on in atoms and sub-atomic particles). Constant endless motion, strangely derived from absolutely "nothing". Note: modern sub-atomic physics and quantum theories pretty much are starting to say the same thing. Everything seems to come - well from simply nothing.

    The overall big picture pattern never changes - by direct observation. What I can know by looking "outside" around me, is that things are always becoming, changing into something else, dying, and reforming into something else again. Forms, patterns, conditions, arrangements, and relationships are just endlessly becoming something else. There is no static state in any version of manifested reality. Everything is change. Maybe, forever, but on that I am not sure. This ever-changing cycle of birth, growth and death (LRH's Start, Change and Stop) appears over and over from the very small realm of sub-atomic particles all the way up apparently to entire universes. The same pattern of endless flux manifests at all levels between the smallest quark (where a "quark is just an idea mind you - nobody has ever "seen" one) up to the entire known universe containing possibly billions of galaxies (again, just an idea that nobody has "seen"). But, you CAN experience and observe living things, populations, societies, groups, people, houses, planets, stars, arrangements and the terrain, and there is not one thing that you can observe that isn't right now becoming something else. THAT is what happens here. THAT is "nature" and that is "natural". All form is endlessly changing into other forms. Why fret about it and get all worked up about it? It only takes any person to simply shut up for awhile inside (mentally and emotionally) and just LOOK and pay attention to what is everywhere all around you. It's not like anybody is hiding it.

    By "inner" observation, based on many hours of sincere meditation, mental experimentation, analysis and tearing apart of my "ego" (granted a more Buddhist notion), I see the same endless change and flux. Ideas, sensations, feelings, imaginings, hopes, likes, dislikes, and much more endlessly coming and going. But also, at times, while comfortably being there with what is, both externally and internally, at some moments I connect up with something that seems to underlie everything else. It may be just another illusion, but at this point of my journey I will assume it to be true and real, because one will only try to achieve something if one conceives it as a possibility. That is a funny aspect of occult topics. Or magick, or spiritual development, or any of so many related subjects. While invisible to most of the people most of the time, one must take it to be true, as an assumption, and just take a chance and walk the path, and see where it leads. For me, I keep seeing more there than I saw before. What is it that I "see"?

    The ground of all being. The Void. Pure unadulterated awareness with no manifested or conditioned anything. LRH's static. God. Brahma. The nothingness from which modern Quantum physics imagines the first small excitations of "motion" to sneak out from. That which exists before and after the Ying & Yang ever split into their two component but interrelated aspects.

    Where does the individual spirit fit in? The thetan? The soul? I am not sure, but I don't need to know. I have theories, ideas, but I take none of them seriously. That is one fault of most people - they have this sick, driving compulsion to know, to be "certain" - and in the end far too many usually settle for some mediocre explanation simply to satisfy the urge. I could explain much of modern philosophy, religion and science as emanating from that. I just keep looking, pay attention as best that I can, and expand my experimenting with largely self-created drills by which I explore the "invisible realm". Granted I have studied a huge amount in this area.

    Also, I agree with LRH and with Hindu thought that it is all fundamentally an illusion - not that it isn't there, it is, but that it is NOT the basic reality. It as if you somehow got stuck in a dream and started taking the dream a bit too seriously. For me, the analogy is appropriate. We each are very much stuck in a sort of a dream. Who is dreaming the dream? As best as I can explain, some aspect of the fundamental invisible reality from which all else derives its existence is dreaming the dream. But it will come and go just as do all other dreams. Why get worked up about it? Population? Who gives a shit? It is quite arbitrary and very temporary anyway. It is just another changing form. The best that you can do is to help alleviate the suffering of those who still take it all too seriously. One error in Scientology is that it tends to overly concentrate on that which is changing and dying (the forms, the conditions, the state of the MEST, the state of the organization, etc), instead of on the true source of all legitimate religion - the invisible "spirit" (i.e. LRH's "static") from which all else derives and subsists. To me LRH actually said it better than most in many ways, yet he still screwed it up entirely.

    Of course, I may be entirely deluded, and it may be true that consciousness and this thing I imagine to be awareness, instead are only some by-product of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain, and where the body and brain are just the accidental result of billions of years of non-caused random "evolution" following some unintended "Big Bang".

    One of the primary errors of LRH and Scientology is this obsession with "survival". It is a basic aberration of Scientology. It places exaggerated attention on the temporary forms, patterns, and manifested realities instead of upon the invisible source of it all. Stats, conditions, making things continue and expand. Blah-blah-blah. Everything is changing anyway. Nobody is going to stop it. No action by any Sea Org mission is going to stop the forests from doing what they do, the planet from doing what it does, or the universe from doing what it does. LRH was right when he discussed the concept "insouciance". The proper attitude should entirely be one of no concern. Complete indifference. Lack of all seriousness. I agree with that view. But boy, look how serious the Church and Church members can get to be about all sorts of things! These people, as are so many people, are WAY TOO WRAPPED UP in "reality" and especially with their IDEAS about reality in its many versions and aspects. Ick! Thick, sludgey involvement with stuff and things. I have the notion that "nonattachment" is the way to go. Non-resistance and non-attachment. Everything is all changing into something else anyway. There is not one thing that is today what it was yesterday. There is nothing anyone can do anywhere to maintain the state or condition of anything. Don't labor the point. Relax and calm the fuck down! Go with the flow. BE the flow.

    This attitude and view can appear as apathy to certain low-toned folks. But true serenity can be easily confused with apathy to the uninitiated and inexperienced. As an example, I would take the Dalai Lama over David Miscavige of LRH any day of the week. Why? His humanity. His utter and complete compassion for every aspect of all that is. He can be LOVE at every level of manifested is-ness.

    Change and endless flux. THAT is the nature of where we are, and WHO we are. Apparently. That is how I see it today. I may see it differently tomorrow. I could be entirely wrong. But, either way I am not going to get too worked up about it.

    See, I first got involved in Scientology, not to get better at making money or to "succeed" in life, but to find TRUTH. I came to find out that for most people SCN was just a big happy club and a "self-help" group. That's fine and well. I like some aspects of self-help subjects. But, I quickly came to see the lies, deceptions, nasty behaviors and contradictions. It was a little too MEST-oriented for me. I always could see where LRH seemed to have gotten it right, but it was always obvious to me where he also got it very wrong. Plus, simply, and I can say it no other way, he always was a pompous ass with a very exaggerated sense of his own worth and value to the world. The word "ego-maniac" applies to some degree. And that brings me to another point about all of this.

    Lastly, just because I am rambling here, and why not keep going, one can and will never "expand spiritually" unless one eradicates the "ego". That is an opinion. I may be wrong. But, I don't think so. It is another illusion entirely. It is just another endlessly changing and non-essential form and pattern of relationships. But, and this is very important, the "ego" is fed, glorified and expanded through involvement with Scientology. People get "big heads". "We are so much better than everyone else". "I have the truth and you don't". "Wogs are inferior". "It is out duty and out duty alone to save humanity since we are the only ones with the knowledge to do so".

    The glorification of any form is NOT the way to "truth". I could write a book on this and how Scientology so much violates this aspect of spiritual growth. As one grows the ego gets smaller. But, look at many Scientologists. That is so FAR from the truth about most of them. Again, look at the Dalai Lama, or some other "high" being". The way I see it, and maybe this is there for me because I want to see it this way, but what I see is an entirely "empty" clean awareness, with no attention or concern on itself or anything related to itself at all, outpouring complete love, infinite concern and incredible compassion. What a great way for ANY person to live and interact with their fellow living beings. I aspire to that. THAT is not obvious in most Scientologist, by virtue of the subject and what it teaches and promotes. Scientology creates the ideas of enemies, conflict and battle with outside forces. To me, THAT is not a good thing.

    On that also, Scientology is very much like magick in certain regards. The goals of magick are to give the practitioner an edge over everyone else. The goal is not "spiritual enlightenment" but "making things happen to my own benefit". Granted, there are higher forms of magick that are more selfless and aim at helping "others". But, it is mostly about gaining control and domination over MEST and people. True, paths of magick can and do also lead to spiritual expansion for some. But it is a slippery slope, and many fall victim to the enticements of personal gain and advantage over ones fellow man. I have an affinity for the subjects of magick and alchemy. But, I see and use them on a "higher" level. In the end most Scientology public want OT powers and abilities so that they can "win", "beat others", "succeed in the competition of life" and "do as thou wilt" (as Aleister Crowley would say). Note, I enjoy the writings of Crowley and admire him. I am not one of these people who has some Christian antagonism against all things occult and magical. But, the path of magick is NOT the path of enlightenment. And wanting OT powers in the Scientology context is more often than not about ego-gratification, personal success and winning over others. It is so NOT "spiritual" as I see it.

    I know that I got off topic here, but the ideas came and I went with the flow. Maybe it will encourage some interesting responses.

    I think that the ideas LRH touched upon regarding the spirit and its relationship to all else were often interesting and valid. Just because he was wrong in certain ways, and just because the Church is so very wrong in certain other ways never made me feel that I had to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I take what I liked, and I discard the rest. Of course, THAT is not allowed in the official Church and THAT is another reason for its oppressive and extremely controlling nature. In the official Church environment one must accept and like it all just as it is presented to you. There is no picking and choosing tolerated at any level. THAT is so sad.
  10. Opter

    Opter Silver Meritorious Patron



    Great posts:thumbsup:

  11. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    I am sure that the day has come for people to realize that all the mental and physical weapons that we have built so far are redundant and that they cannot be used anymore. We have arrived at a point where you cannot destroy your adversary without destroying yourself. So it is that kind of terror, and not the notion of an ideal and perfect place or state where everyone lives in harmony and everything is for the best that will help us to live together. But this has to percolate to the level of human consciousness. Until this percolates to the level of human consciousness, in the sense that man sees that he cannot destroy his neighbor without destroying himself, I don't think it will help. I am sure that we have come to that point. Whenever and wherever you have an edge over your adversary or your neighbor, you will still continue to exercise what you have been holding on to for decades. So how are you going to solve the problem? All utopias have failed.

    The whole mischief originated in the misapplied religious thinking of man. Now there is no use in blaming the religious thinking of man, because all the political ideologies, even your legal structures, are the warty outgrowth of the religious thinking of man. It is not so easy to flush out the whole series of experiences which have been accumulated through centuries, and which are based upon the twisted, privately interpreted religious thinking of man. There is a tendency to replace one belief with another belief, one illusion with another illusion. That is all we can do.

    Look at the world. The developed nations know fully well that if there is a war today they will face total annihilation. There will be no victor left anywhere. But still there are these skirmishes here and there, and there is so much violence everywhere. Why is it so? Is it because that human nature, as some people say, is basically violent? It is. Because thought is violent. Anything that is born out of the divisive nature of thought is destructive. You may cover it up with all wonderful and romantic phrases: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Don't forget that in the name of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" millions and millions of people have died, more than in all the recent wars put together. But we now have come to a point where we can realize that violence is not the answer, that it is not the way to solve human problems. So, terror seems to be the only way. I am not talking of terrorists blowing up churches, temples, and all that kind of thing, but the terror that if you try to destroy your neighbor you will possibly destroy yourself. That realization has to come down to the level of the common man.

    This is the way the human organism is functioning too. Every cell is interested in its own survival. It knows in some way that its survival depends upon the survival of the cell that is next to it. It is for this reason that there is a sort of cooperation between the cells. That is how the whole organism can survive. It is not interested in utopias. It is not interested in your wonderful ideas. It is not interested in peace, bliss, or anything. Its only interest is to survive. That is all it is interested in. The survival of a cell depends upon the survival of the cell next to it. And your survival and my survival depend upon the survival of our neighbor.
  12. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    In essence, I agree with the OP. I think it boils down to a core principle:

    if you think your rightness justifies your harmful acts, you're on the way to doing evil.
  13. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Gadfly - fantastic posts and much to think about.
    Thanks! :thumbsup:
  14. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I have yet to read the rest of your post, but I must point to this paragraph as a wonderful philosophy stated quite succinctly.

  15. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Yes, I have felt the same way... cycles within cycles within cycles... a fractal actually.

  16. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    You are describing the Hindu view of existence very nicely. Thanks from a Hindu.

  17. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Buddhism was simply an attempt to take Hinduism back to its basics of Vedas. In India, Buddhism got absorbed into Hinduism. But outside India, Buddhism acquired an identity of its own.

    Your way of expressing the core philosophy is wonderful.

  18. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    Wonderful postings!

    Gadfly, in truth I was probably being perversely provocative in my post.:blush: :duh: Your thoughtful and splendidly structured response to mine and others is both appreciated and applauded. :thumbsup: :clap:


    Mike aka EP

    Vin's below quote refers to Gad's 2nd paragraph....

    And another paragraph in one of Gad's...

    I have felt the same way too...
  19. Dark Phoenix

    Dark Phoenix Patron Meritorious

    Interesting post Gladfly.

    The way I see it, It is precisely these points, quoted above, that give rise to fanaticism. The fanatic chooses to think and believe whatever he/she chooses, despite no corresponding basis in reality, and goes on to freely communicate their beliefs to whomever they choose, and find, as many a dictator has, they have a captive audience.

    What if we add this other point: Everybody is guaranteed the right to pursue the Truth.

    Would this mean that as much as people are free to believe and think what they want, they are also just as free to question all and every idea and belief, to test out the ideas of the fanatic against logic, reason and reality.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2012
  20. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Let me emphasize the last sentence, “To me LRH actually said it better than most in many ways, yet he still screwed it up entirely.”

    Hubbard seems to second guess himself (maybe when he was out of his “whatever experience”) and then used to mess it up royally by altering it.