************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
David
I'm on the Ivy list but I have trouble keeping up with reading everything. I must have missed your post there. Its very well written, you have expressed yourself well. I notice you have an ability to write well, particularly on subjects that are important to you. You have clearly invested a lot of time into studying the various schools of thought out there. You mention Filbert and The Pilot and while I admire the sheer work that they must have put into their books I have to say I wasnt a fan of some of their ideas and claims. Nevertheless there contribution to stimulating discussion on the Net about the COS and spirituality generally is quite an achievement. Everybodies point of view is valuable and somewhere down the track another Einstien or Tesla will come out and with unique insight tie it all together for us. Mac >> >> 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
