*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Mac,
Thank you for your reply. Your viewpoint is indeed that of someone
very experienced in scientology.
I posted this comment on the workability of scientology on IVy
posts back in May:
It similarly applies to TROM and DS in some respects.
David
>
>>
>> 1. Evaluating the word "work". ([email protected])
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> In regards to the thread on the workability of Scientology:
>>
>> - the word "works" as used in "Scientology works", and the word
>> "working"
>> as used in "Keep Scientology working" must be honestly evaluated
and it
>> is my evaluation that those words are much misused and exaggerated
and
>> benefits or wins exaggerated.
>>
>> There are a lot of very zealotic small minds out there, defending
>> Scientology and standard tech because it gave them a release and
they
>> momentarily saw the light. But like has been said; beware of the
one who
>> has read only one book. There are those kind in every spiritual or
>> religious group.
>>
>> In order to properly evaluate something, you have to rise above
bias,
>> opinions, beliefs, limited thinking and develop impartial, honest
>> critical thinking. See article by LRH "How to study a science."
>>
>> Based on my experience and evaluating many products of the bridge, I
>> have
>> to be honest and say that there is insufficient evidence that it
really
>> "works" anywhere near as well as claimed. Many of these "products"
are
>> disgusting and some are frightening.
>>
>> But from my experience I can certainly say it helps. It also
greatly
>> helps me understand, put in more useful perspective, glean and use
>> everything else I have done.
>>
>> It helps to some and various degrees for some people. It relieves
some
>> forms of insanity and aberrations but far from all. The same can be
>> said
>> of other paths. But it is my viewpoint that LRH spent his efforts
on
>> looking for ways to cure forms of insanity and aberrations that
other
>> existing paths could not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the best that can be said is that LRH was on the right
track
>> and
>> his most important words were, "I blazed a trail, now go and
build a
>> better bridge."
>>
>> Like the Pilot, Filbert, Dennis Stephens and Joe Larabell who did
fairly
>> honest evaluations and pointed out LRH's mistakes basically came
to the
>> conclusion that only a small fraction of LRH's works were correct.
>> There
>> is a lot of "almost truths" , "partial truths", "sometimes truths"
and
>> even "false truths". Every word, phrase, paragraph, concept has to
be
>> impartially "as ised".
>>
>> Again from my experience I think Rolf is also on the right track
with
>> "Christian Scientology and Meta Scientology". The better the
>> Scientology
>> data is studied, evaluated, understood and the good stuff
gleaned and
>> kept and the same done to other religious data , and personal
>> development
>> work (the more the better) integrated and used collectively, the
better
>> "Scientology" works. (Different "paths" resolve different forms of
>> insanity and aberrations.) If Hubbard had a solid background in
Christianity Scientology would of become a lot more workable subject,
and had higher caliber students. He may well have died a much more
admirable
being or in much more saintly state. It is my observation that the
people
who had a good background in Christianity make the best products of
the scientology bridge. They make the best examples of homo novus,
of which was
Hubbard's goal.
>>
>> The bridge to human perfection and enlightenment is still under
>> construction and possibly a job that is never finished.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although the complete definition of Scientology could be more
broad,
>> the
>> best and most simplified definition of Scientology for this
purpose is
>> the study of truth and knowing how to know the truth of something.
>> Therefore by that definition it should be applied to everything as
well
>> as
>> to itself.
>>
>> Because we fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is
for the
>> lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand.
>>
>> It is also important to remember that for everything genuine there
is a
>> perfect counterfeit.
>>
>> So if we look at the overall picture, in this context, be
intellectually
>> honest and keep an open mind, we are likely on the right track
and
>> realize that there is a lot more work to be done.
>>
>> Hubbard's contribution to the path of personal development, life
>> improvement and enlightenment is certainly a very great one and
may not
>> be appreciated by the masses until society deteriorates a lot
more and
>> more people learn to see the overall picture of the path to
>> enlightenment, or man's evolution instead of this way or that way
or
>> via
>> this guru or that guru ( limited thinking vs unlimited
thinking ). And
>> the CO$ will have to die and maybe all but forgotten about also.
The
>> CO$
>> is certainly a cancer ( one of several) in the field of
enlightenment.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David
>>
> David,
>
> Just to say that this was a truly brilliant post. Thank you for the
> sanity!
>
> Bets regards,
> Kim
>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
