Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:15 pm

Author and TV religion pundit author Reza Aslan is reaching out to ex-Scientologists practicing a form of Scientology, called Freezone.* The problem is, the typical Scientology-based Freezone is a form of primitive magic to gain personal superiority and manipulate people, things, and events. This makes it NOT a religion, according to the widely respected author of The Golden Bough Sir James Frazer. Aslan should consider the following when planning questions for Freezoners.
Frazer calls what primitives and Scientologists do "magic" but that ambiguous word has too many positive connotations. Allow me (Don Carlo) to use the phrase me-the-magician, to clarify that it's not magic card tricks, or marvelous art, or a dazzling new gadget. It's the idea of a Scientologist calling up his or her OT (Operating Thetan) abilities to make traffic lights change, or hurricanes change course, or sending thought beams to cause a pedestrian to back off from a near-collision. There is no appeal to God, or Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard; the Scientologist claims these so-called powers come from within himself.
Frazer quotes:
magic is a spurious system...as well as a fallacious guide of conduct. It is a false science as well as an abortive art. (p. 11)
This magic
assumes that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy (p. 12)
the doctrine of contagious magic...between a wounded man and the agent of the wound (p. 41)
(Compare to Scientologists trying to heal themselves by touching the object that hurt them)
amongst the aborigines of Australia...magic is universally practiced, whereas religion in the sense of a propitiation or conciliation of the higher powers seems to be nearly unknown. Roughly speaking, all men in Australia are magicians, but not one is a priest; everybody fancies he can influence his fellows or the course of nature by sympathetic magic, but nobody dreams of propitiating gods by prayer or sacrifice. (p. 55)
- exactly like Scientology's OT abilities!
Among the ignorant and superstitious classes of modern Europe, it is very much...what it is now among the lowest savages... The dispassionate observer...can hardly regard it otherwise than as a standing menace to civilization....the uniformity, the universality, and the permanence of a belief in magic, compared with the endless variety and the shifting character of religious creeds, raises a presumption that the former represents a ruder and earlier phase of the human mind, through which all the races of mankind have passed or are passing on their way to religion and science (p 56)
...recognition of the inherent falsehood and barrenness of magic set the more thoughtful part of mankind to cast about for a truer theory of nature and a more fruitful method...He had been pulling a strings to which nothing was attached; he had only been treading in a narrow circle.(p 57)
How was it that intelligent men did not sooner detect the fallacy of magic?...in many cases the desired event did actually follow, at a longer or shorter interval, the performance of the rite which was designed to bring it about. (p. 59)
Frazer has a chapter on the magical control of the weather - an ability mentioned often in "wins" by Scientologists (p 60)
Scientology claims that belief in reincarnation (transmigration) makes it a religion right up there with Buddhism. Frazer disagrees:
Animism is not a Buddhist philosophy. It is simply a common savage dogma incorporated in the system of an historical religion. To suppose...that the theories of animism and transmigration...are derived from Buddhism, is to reverse the facts (p 112).
Frazer describes colorful rituals that "rude" people use to harm enemies, prevent misfortune and bring good fortune. Hubbard claimed to be science-trained, and science is proud of leaving behind superstitions and foolish rituals. No voodoo dolls, no waving antlers to ensure a good hunt, no abracadabra, no bubbling cauldron with eye of newt.
Still, Hubbard wanted to harm his enemies and get away with it. Old-fashioned fumbling with hair, nail clippings, feathers, dolls, rabbits' feet, charms and candles would look ridiculous. He stripped the magic down to "kill with a thought" involving staring. The technique is an ancient one, "The Evil Eye." Hubbard might have picked up this idea from a bookstore:
In 1946, the American magician Henri Gamache published a text called Terrors of the Evil Eye Exposed!*
No matter what the source, "kill-with-a-thought" is a me-the-magician technique. Critics claimed with amusement that CoS lawyer Helena Kobrin gave the "Scientology Death Stare" at a 1995 hearing.**
While Scientologists have no reverence for hair clippings and feathers, they do have reverence for the e-meter, which they believe allows the auditor to read their mind. The e-meter ritual puts the student in a passive, fantasy-and-memory-seeking reverie, a me-me-me state where the person is guided to believe they can influence nature and other people if they can just get rid of their overts, withholds, misunderstood words, and people (non-Scientologists, usually) who are "potential trouble sources." This is the training to be me-the-magician, and starts early in the training, long before the OT levels. The students are not guided to pray to God or Hubbard to turn their wishful thinking into reality - they are taught to "demonstrate the abilities" themselves, as me-the-magician.

Scientologists and some Freezoners imitate Hubbard, in what Frazer would call "sympathetic magic." They avoid perfumed soaps, psychiatrists, "degraded beings," and "suppressive people. They use Hubbard's magic phrases like "wins," "beingness," "cause over life," or "increased ability."
Scientology and typical Freezone does have a hierarchy where the more courses you have taken, the more people "under" you think you are brimming with OT abilities (supposed magic powers). But the best they can offer is euphoria during auditing, and screwing with the student's sense of reality to simulate inside the head the sensation of an out-of-body experience. Neither of these permanently improve the student's life or abilities; it just strengthens the me-me-me focus. Frazer doesn't talk about euphoria and out of body experiences, but much is written about native American and other tribal experiences that also produce these two results. So, CoS has no pipeline to anything paranormal, here.
My Scientology relative claimed to heal by touch. However, ill people often get a placebo effect or a mood lift from a caring person's touch; this is not a paranormal power. Pain and many ailments like arthritis come and go mysteriously and are greatly affected by emotions. Scientists study the placebo effect with interest, hoping to better reduce pain and symptoms.
Body thetans, as troublesome spirits that need to be removed from the body, are an old "evil-spirits" superstition.
When a Cingalese is dangerously ill..a devil-dancer is called in, who by making offerings to the devils, and dancing in the masks appropriate to them, conjures these demons of disease, one after the other, out of the sick man's body...(page 542)
Scientology has different incantations/spells (oops OT levels) for regular body thetans, drugged body thetans, and sleeping body thetans.
Above page numbers are from The Golden Bough paperback published 1993 by Wordsworth. The Golden Bough is free to read online at http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/frazer/james/golden/
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_eye
**http://www.whyaretheydead.info/UK/HELENA/HO_STARE.HTM
The Golden Bough analysis is extracted from my original thread at
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37805

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:33 pm

Scientologists may sputter that Scientology names a Supreme Being as its 8th Dynamic.* But I have never heard Scientologists say or do anything about this 8th Dynamic. As long as a Scientologist only uses his/her own abilities, and never prays humbly to a power higher than self, it's not religion, according to the renowned scholar James Frazer. I never was a Scientologist, so they may call ME ignorant of its complex practices, but when it gets past the admittedly secular communications courses, it becomes hugely 1st Dynamic (self-centered), 3rd Dynamic (Church-of-Scientology-centered) and 7th Dynamic (self-centered on one's individual soul). A brief summary of the Dynamics, boldfacing the 1st, 3rd and 7th which are central to Scientology:*

1st DYNAMIC - Me-me-me (my-hurt-feelings-from-childhood-and-my-fascinating-prior-lives-and-my-immortal-soul and-my-body-thetans-and-my-gains-and-wins-and- MY-INEVITABLE-OT-ABILITIES-SO-I-WILL-BE-HOMO-NOVIS-ABOVE-ORDINARY-PEOPLE).
2nd DYNAMIC is Sex and Family - which CoS tries to tame and handle since a lover or family member can leave Scientology. CoS readily rips up marriages and families to protect itself.
3rd DYNAMIC - the Group, mostly the Church of Scientology Internation, Inc and its affiliates. The phrase "My Church" is spoken by Scientologists with reverence as a holy entity similar to how the Catholic Church regards itself.
4th DYNAMIC - Humanity. Scientologists do humanitarian things like fight drugs, promote human rights, etc. and claim to deflect hurricanes (ignoring the plight of those in the hurricane's new path). But good deeds don't = religion; plenty of atheists help humanity, too.
5th DYNAMIC: The Planet - Again, plenty of atheists fight for the environment. This is not religion.
6th DYNAMIC: Survival of Matter Energy Space Time (M.E.S.T.). This is absurd. The Law of Conservation of Matter makes sure the universe still exists; Scientologists don't do rituals that keep matter and time intact. M.E.S.T. is an outdated concept.**
7th DYNAMIC: I'm calling this the individual soul. This is the focus of me-the-magician magic and the belief in reincarnation - a big part of Scientology.

The definition of "Theta" which is the most "spiritual" word in Scientology, is quite clear that it is an individual soul or spirit, The 7th Dynamic, The Theta soul doesn't merge with other Theta souls, whereas, in the movie Avatar, the worshippers together beseech the Tree of Souls as a repository of their ancestor's souls and a source of healing power. In Star Wars, Skywalker had to learn humility from Yoda to fully tap into the Source. Buddhism has the Universal Soul that individual soul merge into. There is no comparable flow of power or obliteration of self that Scientologists are welcoming from the universe. The "OT abilities" are supposed to come from inside their petty isolated soul-with-a-little "s", and of course they (and Scientology) take the credit for turning the traffic light green; no Supreme Being is ever acknowledged in the "gains" and "wins." No Scientologist ever says, "Praise to the Supreme Being that helped me stay quiet during childbirth." They will instead praise their me-the-magician training.

8th DYNAMIC:
The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. This can be called the infinity or God dynamic.*
Hubbard took this phrase from the Masons when he decided to turn his self-improvement biz into a religion. The Masons cleverly allowed in new members who acknowledged a Supreme Being, a vague deity that any religion could acknowledge. CoS is even more vague calling the 8th Dynamic "An urge toward infinity." There is no mention of humility toward a Supreme Being as a source of help and blessing, it appears an individual soul can, within Scientology, become infinite and Supreme-Deity-like.

CoS minimizes the Supreme Being dogma, except when they are angling for a government to give them privileges of a religion. A Supreme Being is awkward, in that it will repel potential recruits who are Atheists, or religious people who think it equalizes religions when their old religion is the best. For some seekers, acknowledging a Supreme Being may be a plus; they dream of one-ness with It/Him/Her. However, Scientology doesn't plan to give those seekers the bliss of becoming One with the Universe. It only teaches them to worship their own self, their own Church of Scientology, and their own soul. The euphoria they get from auditing, is not Buddist Enlightenment and is sadly temporary. I maintain that the 8th Dynamic is lip service, tax dodge, window-dressing, and marketing.

CoS teaches no ecstatic or beseeching worship of The Supreme Being. CoS uses The Supreme Being for a few hoops to jump through, a kind of imagination-exercise. It uses the phrase Supreme Being and as a synonym the phrase 8th Dynamic, (I highlighted both in red) in the OT VIII training. As a side affect, the training causes the student to regard matter as not solid, and a being can be independent of time. Yet no OT VIII has demonstrated walking through walls or time-travel. It's true, matter is not solid at a molecular level, and time is mysterious. But for those with a shaky grasp on reality, this training could cause them to not trust their senses, and become even more vulnerable to CoS demands for money, labor, and disconnection from relatives.
OT VIII STUDY AND PROCEDURE, TOP SECRET DEBRIEF, 1991
From recall this is a record of the full OT VIII procedure of the Church of Scientology given on the Free Winds ship as delivered in 1991…
The whole secret involves what truly is the relationship of the Supreme Being to each individual thetan. To simply say it's `me" is oversimplified to tears but has some truth to it. The real key is the perception and ability to have full certainty and, therefore, perception on all confusions and distortions of MEST (matter, energy, space, and time) and form and life units as well as the ability to perceive exact identity and its full relationship to its true source and history from its origin as the theta body, the true 8th Dynamic In order to truly view this as a present time beingness one has to Clean up, once and for all, his own confusions regarding these points...
In doing this procedure one has to acknowledge the lie of time and persistence and the lie of the illusion that MEST is solid and unchangeable. Another key given is the fact that a being can exist independent of time and present time and can chose any point on the track as his present time. The PT (present time) body can confuse this, as attention to some degree is always hung up on the PT body. This fixes the thetan into one present time and one time stream, when in fact there are many as you will discover.
...
[A] Spot a person or object in this L/T [lifetime] or on the backtrack you have identified as or who represented the 8th Dynamic to you

[H] Spot another 8th Dynamic creation as independent from yourself.
Spot where it is.
...
Redo A to L above until, the TA floats or a true unkillable persistent F/N appears and you have had a revelation regarding truth or 8th Dynamic creation. This is the end of OT VIII...

1.) The OT 8 "Confidential Student Briefing" document of this story has been verified in the early 1980's through an Episcopal minister in Baltimore with recent high ranking Scientology defectors. The defectors verifying this confidential document did have the requisite security clearances and initiate\staff positions in Scientology to have had access to this document.
from http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/satanism/ot8.html

My comment : OTVIII appears to promise
full certainty and, therefore, perception on all confusions and distortions of MEST
I cannot see how these trivial imagination-exercises about spotting a person here and spotting a creation there can do any such thing. I offer as contrast this humble and sublime song, I Know That My Redeemer Liveth from Handel's Messiah, with the line: Yet in my flesh I shall see God." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFU9nsG7Oww
That song has no claims of becoming a universal know-it-all, just a hope of standing before God.

* http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH2_2.HTM
** Please see Physicists never talk about M.E.S.T. anymore viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11589&

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:50 pm

Compare primitive me-the magician tribes, in red, to Scientology in blue.
Determination to cast out demons vs. CoS's determination to cast out engrams and (after OT 3) body thetans
Exploitation-by-magicians for donations with threats of bad luck vs. CoS pressuring for courses with threats that you are in danger.
Hundreds of petty taboos
vs. CoS's hundreds of petty laws.
Fears against trivial objects like a certain food, vs. CoS's fears against perfumed soap
People locked in their hut for bad luck hunting food, vs. Sea Org workers locked up for bad luck hunting new members and donors.
Fear and contempt toward outside tribes
, vs. CoS's fear and contempt toward what they call the "wog" world.
Endless rituals to strengthen one's me-the-magician's abilities
, vs. endless auditing to strengthen Scientologists' OT abilities.
Witch-doctor curses if you criticize or abandon him
, vs. CoS telling you you'll die or kill yourself if you quit CoS.

CoS 8th Dynamic is
“Urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. This can be called the infinity or God dynamic.”
Since the second two sentences are only alternate names, they can be disregarded. Let’s take the first sentence word by word, in red, and define each word in blue*
Urge toward existence as infinity
1. Urge: strong desire
2. Toward: in the direction or vicinity of
3. Existence: To have actual being; be real.
4. As: in the role of; being
5. Infinity: endless time, space, or quantity

*All definitions, in blue above, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Discussion and combined definition:
“Things” like planets, clouds or hills can’t have strong desire; only a person or group of people can have “urges.” Thus the first word "Urge" is about one or more people. This really means one person, since Scientologists don’t do auditing as a team. Sometimes two people audit each other, but the progress attaches to each of the two students. The certificate of completion is awarded to only one person at a time, even if the person was part of a large classroom. The second word "Toward" explains what the “Urge” is about, so it again relates to one person. "Existence" means being in the real world, not an alternate or spiritual plane. "As" has many definitions since it is used in many ways, but the only definition that makes sense in this sentence is “in the role of; being.” "Infinity" is mostly thought of as “endless space” rather than endless time or endless quantity, so let’s use “endless space.”
Now, let’s rewrite that first sentence: Urge toward existence as infinity using each word’s definitions.

8th Dynamic Rewrite: A person’s strong desire to be, in the real universe, endless space.

Proof of the rewrite, showing that it uses each of the original words' definitions:
strong desire = Urge
to = Toward
be = As
in the real universe = Existence
endless space = Infinity

Is this the foundation of the Scientology religion? It's not very spiritual, or humanitarian, or even practical.

It's not spiritual - there is no God to merge with, no promised bliss, no astounding insight - you just get to be really really large. OR, rather... you have the urge to get really large.

It's not humanitarian - there's no waving your infinitely large wand and helping humanity - in fact, how do dolphins, giraffes and people fit into the space that has become Infinitely You?

It's not practical – how can a Scientologist dentist be endless space/time, while his Scientologist chiropractor is also endless space/time? Or is it endless power? Does this depend upon the dentist Scientologist creating and ruling an Alternate Universe “A” that the Scientologist chiropractor merely lives in? Then is there an Alternate Universe “B” where the chiropractor = infinity, and the dentist is just an inhabitant? What if the dentist doesn’t LIKE being stuck in any alternative universe where he’s just an underling? Some Scientologists dislike each other; it’s only human to resent your ex-spouse’s second husband - does your alternative universe misbehave and interfere with that second husband’s alternate universe?
Suppose you have loved ones and have become infinite. How do you visit your children or parents?

This 8th Dynamic looks like Me-the-Magician practices, again - it is a single person performing rituals / exercises / levels - intended to make that person more powerful. No beseeching or adoring an entity superior to oneself. Even the Supreme Being mentioned in the second sentence is not an outside entity, it is a role has "the urge toward" - the person wants to BE the Supreme Being, not worship It/Him/Her.

Perhaps the CoS religion-defender will say, This is all speculative…Nobody knows the infinite. It…transcends the details of ordinary existence and the limitations of the ordinary mind. My response is… if Hubbard had all the answers, why didn’t he explain this? Could the five words “Urge toward existence as infinity” be just a phrase concocted to look like religion?

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:56 pm

LRH strengthens the case for Me-the-Magician with quotes about individuals becoming "the universe," and infinity being morally neutral, in red :
But it's very, very fascinating that you are highly individualized and you will never be more than yourself, but your self and your individuality can get up to the high point of your own recognition not only of a brotherhood with the whole universe but a sort of a recognition of yourself as the universe.

This is very dangerous for people if they are low on the tone scale, to get the idea that they're the whole universe. I've been around in institutions occasionally and run into fellows who thought they were God, and other things. And they weren't well, because they tried to reach it by the reverse route. And they backed down tone scale to get there, and the only place a fellow gets when he goes down tone scale to get there is dead.

Well, in this series I'm going to tell you how to get UP tone scale to get there and still retain your potentiality of action. The most important factors involved in thought or the material universe are the subdivisions of thought itself. And these subdivisions are affinity, reality and communication.

There are three parts of thought; there are three parts of life; there are three parts of living. And it makes a very interesting triangle.

And, of course, the eighth dynamic is merely an infinity turned on its side; eight turned on its side gives you an infinity. And so you have, there, "beingness of all." And most creeds and so forth, when they say "beingness of all," they codify this and they say God, and then they put God up in armor or something, put him on a pedestal and reduce him down to a very finite affair. They're very quick to depart from that infinity. So let's not confuse a religious symbol for an infinity of the eighth dynamic, because the infinity of the eighth dynamic simply means, in our terminology here, the "beingness of all." It has no other codification. It doesn't say that all is good, bad or indifferent; it just says it's all. You say an infinity – infinity of beingness.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Lecture 14 May 1952: Beingness
from
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=240

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:57 pm

CoS's 8th Dynamic and creation stories summarized by Dr. Stephen Kent:
Hubbard's cosmology stated that originally there existed an energy "separate and distinct from the physical universe" called "theta' (Hubbard, 1975: 429). Theta may be the same as Scientology's "eighth dynamic"—the Supreme Being, which "the science of Scientology does not intrude into" (Hubbard, 1956: 38). Under obscure and poorly described conditions, the single theta blew apart, and individual thetans formed from the explosion. These thetans are spirits or souls, and each one begins its existence having "no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration [i.e., thought] or postulate [i.e., [p. 103] self-created truth]" (Hubbard, 1975: 432, see 90, 304). In essence, at first these thetans have the same qualities as theta. Hubbard, however, was not clear about how a thetan was different from a static, which "is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position." (Hubbard, 1975: 405). Thetans do have, however, the ability to create, which soon becomes crucial for the unfolding of universes (Hubbard, 1956: 55; 1975: 432).
At some point thetans form their own universes, each of which is called a "home universe" (Hubbard, 1975: 199). The creations of each universe involved "making illusions," almost as forms of play or game (see Hubbard, 1981: 4). Again in a process that Hubbard described poorly, one thetan "got a universe and it just ate [the other thetan's] universe all up. And this is what the mest universe is doing. Evidently it is an expanding universe and it just keeps on eating into everybody's time and space" (Hubbard, 1981: 4; see Hubbard, 1952b: 47).
from
The Creation of 'Religious' Scientology by Dr. Stephen A. Kent
Religious Studies and Theology 18 No. 2 (December 1999): 97-126
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/creation.htm

My comments: For his origin of the Universe, Hubbard mangled astronomy (a Big Bang of one thetan becoming many) and turned physics upside down (thetans with no mass, energy, space OR time, but existing as a "thought" and able to "create" "universes" and "illusions."). There appears no Deity, just "energy" a common sci-fi plot device familiar to Star Trek fans. Also appearing: Alternate Universes, another popular sci-fi plot device. There was increasing evidence in the 1970's and 1980's that the Universe was expanding rapidly, and Hubbard wove that fact in without understanding that space was getting BIGGER; He sounded like Homer Simpson talking about doughnuts "it just keeps eating into everybody's time and space."

The concept of thetans creating universes and illusions depicts the thetans as nearly infinite in power, and competing with each other. However, they are not to be beseeched for favors or adored - Hubbard never says, Please, Thetan, make the storm go away, or Thank you, Thetan, for the sunny day. They're like the broom in the Sorceror's Apprentice, that the Apprentice broke because it carried too many water buckets. The pieces turned into many brooms carrying a flood of water buckets. The thetans are willful yet immature. They are a part of the universe, in Scientology, to be controlled and eventually ruled over. This again seems to be the Me-the-Magician practice, not a religion practice.

When Hubbard said "—the Supreme Being, which "the science of Scientology does not intrude into" this may mean that he either is too lazy, too uninspired, or too wary to flesh out his theory of a Supreme Being. I as yet have found no more explanation for the 8th Dynamic/ Supreme Being than the above-discussed "The Urge toward Existence as Infinity."
After early March, 1954, Scientology auditors began receiving ordination in the Church of American Science (see Aberee, 1954: 4), which had within its chartered creed its intention "[t]o practice the teachings and beliefs and to propagate in accordance with its tenets healing of the sick and suffering by prayer or other spiritual means without the use of drugs or material remedy" (Certificate of Incorporation, 1953: 3).
*

This was an overtly religious description aimed at getting the Church of American Science accepted as a religion, following in the footsteps of the Christian Science Church. Later Church Applications were more vague. Church of Scientology, International in 1993 simply claimed "ministry of religious services." ** CSI was careful to hide its solidified dogma about only helping "the able" and their opinion that the sick and suffering had brought their misfortune upon themselves.

This era appears the only time CoS talked about "prayer" and "sick" and "suffering." Even then it said "prayer or other spiritual means" which means the auditors didn't have to pray at all.

* http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/creation.htm

** Summary Description of Churches of Scientology - RTC, CSI, CSFSSO, CSFSO, Other Churches, Missions, Field Ministers, CSI Prod. 11-4-93, Bate Stamp: 151396 - 151398, Ex. 1-3, Washington, DC, 1993 . Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_ ... ernational

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:59 pm

More proof that thetans are powerful but controllable by Me-the-Magician magic:
In the primordial past, according to Scientologist teachings, thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure.."[14] The universe is thought to have no independent reality, but to derive its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists.[15] Scientologists believe that thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity.[14] Eventually, they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.[15][16]

Thetans are believed to be reborn time and time again in new bodies through a process called "assumption" which is analogous to reincarnation.[14] Dell deChant and Danny Jorgensen liken Scientology to Hinduism, in that both ascribe a causal relationship between the experiences of earlier incarnations and one's present life.[14] With each rebirth, the effects of the "MEST" universe (MEST here stands for matter, energy, space, and time) on the thetan are believed to become stronger.[14]

Jon Atack, whose book A Piece of Blue Sky details how he reached Operating Thetan level V before leaving Scientology, describes Hubbard's doctrines about thetans: "Thetans are all-knowing beings, and became bored because there were no surprises. Hubbard asserted that the single most important desire in all beings is to have a "game". To have a "game" it was necessary to "not know" certain things, so certain perceptions were negated ("not-is-ed")." Since thetans knew everything, this required them to abandon or suppress perceptions and knowledge. Over time, the loss of perception accumulated and certain thetans began to cause harm to others. MEST (physical) beings also sought to "trap" thetans in order to control them. Thetans came to learn contrition, punishing themselves for their own "harmful" acts.[17]

According to Hubbard, an essential part of the thetans' game was the "conquest" of matter, energy, space, and time by the life force, theta. This has produced multiple universes which have ended and begun in succession, each new one being more solid and entrapping than the last. The thetans have by now become so enmeshed in the physical universe that many have identified themselves totally with it, forgetting their quadrillions[18] of years of existence and their original godly powers.[17]

Nonetheless, according to Scientology, thetan powers are said to remain potent and restorable. One of the Church of Scientology's stated goals is "the rehabilitation of the human spirit", by which it means the restoration of the thetan's original abilities. Hubbard claims that thetans are able to change reality through "postulates" — decisions made by the individual about the nature of the reality around them. Some thetans are said to have (mis)used this ability to "implant" others with hypnotic suggestions, forcing other thetans to "cluster" around bodies (hence body thetans). This sort of directed control is referred to as "other-determinism". Scientology seeks to undo it and return the thetan to "self-determinism", where he can control himself and his environment. The eventual goal is to achieve "pan-determinism", where he acts for the good of all.

14. "License Agreement - CSI (Marks)", License Agreement between Religious Technology Center and Church of Scientology International, California, May 18th, 1982
15. "Organizational Covenant - Advanced Technology - US", Covenant between Church of Scientology International & Religious Technology Center, Location: probably Los Angeles, California, January 1, 1982
16. License Agreement CSI/Church (Marks) - License Agreement between Church of Scientology International and the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Los Angeles, California, May 26th, 1982
17. License Agreement CSI/SMI and the Missions (Marks) - License Agreement between Church of Scientology International and Scientology Missions International, Los Angeles, California, May 19th, 1982
Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetan

My comment: While body thetans are like evil spirits to be exorcised, Thetans are almost like the genie-in-the-bottle inside you, that has near-infinite power and can be ruled once you know the right tricks. Like a genie, they're sometimes difficult and playful, rather than a benevolent diety.

Self-determinism is often thought of as do-it-yourself rugged individualism, and many early Scientologists who liked the self-determination of Scientology disliked suddenly belonging to a "religion."

The above description again shows that Scientology practices are self-centered Me-the-Magician rather than Religion, as defined by the scholar James Frazer.

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:00 pm

The problem with one claim that CoS is a religion:
Dr. Frank K. Flinn, adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis...states that religion requires "beliefs in something transcendental or ultimate, practices (rites and codes of behavior) that re-inforce those beliefs and, a community that is sustained by both the beliefs and practices," all of which are present within Scientology.[82]
[82] Flinn, Frank K. (2005-07-05). "Scientology". Live discussion (Washington Post).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01394.html. Retrieved 2008-02-04. Thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

My comment: By definition, "Infinity" (endless) doesn't equal "ultimate" (the top, or the end). So, Scientology fails the "ultimate" test. However, "Transcendental," meaning outside ordinary reality, might relate to thetans, since they lack mass energy space or time. However, Footnote 17 on my previous post states that
thetans have by now become so enmeshed in the physical universe that many have identified themselves totally with it.
So, the thetan is supposedly part of an undescribed outside reality yet deeply within the present real world, and as a bonus creating universes that are alternate to this one. This unlikely situation is the foundation for Scientology's religion status.

Yet, Frank Flinn's standards are amazingly low. For believing in any fantasy, he would a say a group deserves the prestige and benefits of a religion. In the US a religion gets the benefits of a 501(c)3 non-profit, plus it can hide its finances; religions don't have to file the usual Form 990 describing the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. US religions can presently abuse and exploit their workers as long as they call them "ministers." They can claim "scientific proof" for their results while never having to prove it, since anyone demanding proof is a "bigot." To gain this exalted status, according to Dr. Flinn, all a group has to do is believe in ANYTHING that is not real. It could be The Flying Spaghetti Monster. As long as they have ANY teaching, class or ritual that hails The Flying Spaghetti Monster and blesses his Noodly Appendage, and they have a "community" as few as three people, they're in.

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:02 pm

Australia, in the Church of the New Faith case, heard arguments that it was and was not a religion. Although this is a long discussion, it's important because it could help the next anti-Scientologists focus their arguments better against Scientology. My comments in blue.
The pro-Scientology argument:
In a number of cases courts have referred to the difficulty of defining religion, e.g. Fulwood v. Clemmer(10); Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia(11); United States v. Kuch(12). The courts have held that a statement by an individual or by a group to the effect that the group is not a religion is not a critical admission in litigation by that person or group seeking to establish that it is: [*123].
My comments: so Hubbard writing in a book that Scientology is not a religion...can't be used against Scientology.
In Malnak v. Yogi three criteria were provided: first, the nature of the ideas in question — they must be “ultimate” ideas dealing with matters such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, the proper moral code of right and wrong and the like; second, the group must lay claim to an ultimate and comprehensive truth; third, formal external or surface indications such as services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propogation etc.
My comment: Malnick vs. Yogi was the government concluding that Science of Creative Intelligence (Transcendental Meditation -TM) was a religion even though TM leaders claimed it was a non-religious simple scientific technique, and should be allowed in the public schools. (I agree with the government because of the very Hindu puja ceremony preceding teaching the mantra to the student, and because TM has gotten very unscientific with its "flying" instructions)

(pro-Scientolog argument continued
)..there are religious traditions without a God. In classical Hindu thought there are many gods but beyond all the gods there is one Ultimate Reality (Brahman) beyond description or comprehension, who is not the creator, who is utterly transcendent to creation, and to whom no worship is directed...
It can be said that there is no God in Hinduism in the sense that there is a God in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. There is but an Ultimate Principle, abstract, impersonal and transcendent, which is, largely, irrelevant to man’s immediate concerns. Of the six classical Schools of Hindu philosophy, one (Sankhya) is clearly atheistic; cf. Heinrich Zimmer, [*124] The Philosophies of India (1964), pp. 280-294. Buddhism is also often said, at least in its Theradavan tradition, to be atheistic or non-theistic; cf. Helmuth von Glasenapp, Buddhism — A Non-Theistic Religion (1970). The Jain religion (founded circa 460 B.C. by Mahavira, a contemporary of the Buddha, in India) also postulates no Supreme Being or Creator or First Cause. Two of the Chinese religious traditions — Confucianism and Taoism — may also be seen to be without the concept of a person Creator God. Both recognized an abstract principle behind and beyond all things, but it did not fit the Western definition of “God”; cf. Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind (1977), pp. 194-220. ..
My comment: again we've got "ultimate" and "transcendant" as important badges of a religion. Again, CoS flunks the "ultimate" test because "ultimate" means the top and CoS's word "infinite" means there is no top, infinite is endless.
Again CoS passes the "transcendant" test because that means "unreal" and Theta is unreal. CoS has covered its butt by mentioning a "Supreme Being" so the pro-CoS argument could easily leave out non-Supreme-Being faiths like Jainism and Confucianism.


(Pro-Scientology argument continued):
While the areas covered by a group of beliefs claiming to constitute a religion need to be reasonably comprehensive, there is no reason why they cannot be indeterminate in particular areas leaving it to the individual to fill those areas as he sees fit. He may fill them, in particular, by accepting the whole or part of the tenets of another religion.
My comment: So CoS's religion status is not specifically disqualified by the utter vague-ness of CoS's 8th Dynamic phrase "The Urge Towards Existence as Infinity"
Non-empirical faith is not a necessary element of religion; cf. “Natural Theology”, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Etienne Gilson, [*126] The Elements of Christian Philosophy (1960), pp. 116-117; H. Wolfgang Schumann, Buddhism; An Outline of Its Teachings and Schools (1973), p. 39. It follows that the fact that Scientology purports to rely on logic and empirical deduction does not disqualify it from being a religion.
My comment: you can tell this is a pro-Scientology arguer, since logic and empirical deduction are sadly lacking in Scientology. Mostly this means that blabbing about "Science" won't disqualify you as a religion.
The anti-Scientology side tried hard. Some points:
e) commercial aspects of the applicant’s operations including: (i) sale of service to members; (ii) charges for instruction leading to ordination; (iii) financial arrangements with overseas headquarters; (iv) registration as trade names of words such as “Scientology” and other steps taken to protect trade marks, trade names, patents and copyright, all owned by the founder, L. R. Hubbard; (f) that the E-Meter which is central to the applicant’s activities is at once a lie detector and a religious artefact;
My comment: the anti-Scientologist argument should have concentrated on Scientology as a self-help group solely devoted to helping only its loyal members, and on the fixed fees for courses. Trademarks are used by many charities to prevent outsiders cashing in on their good name, Catholic churches send $$$ to the Vatican, and religions use all kinds of devices.
The question correctly propounded and in its proper [*127] context is whether the applicant is in a “religious institution” for the purposes of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971. That question must be approached by looking to the meaning of ordinary words, “religion” and “religious” and determining what they convey as a matter of ordinary understanding. Resort to constitutional cases is not helpful. In particular, resort to American cases decided under the influence of the guarantees of the First Amendment is inappropriate:
My comment: True, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution does not necessarily apply to Australian situations.
An endeavour to define religion for legal purposes gives rise to peculiar difficulties, one of which was stated by Latham C.J. in Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc.(39): "It would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise a definition of religion which would satisfy the adherents of all the many and various religions which exist, or have existed, in the world.”
My comment: I agree.
Here's a great quote:
It is more accurate to say that protection is required for the adherents of religions, not for the religions themselves.
(Continuing)
Of course, the present case is not concerned with a personal freedom of religion; it is concerned with an exemption of a religious institution from a fiscal burden imposed upon other institutions...
My comment: Exactly! They can practice their religion in peace - they just don't get the status of a charity.
And Sir James Frazer, in a passage in his The Golden Bough (abr. ed. (1954), p. 50) cited by Young C.J. in the present case, confirms the opinion of Latham C.J.:

“There is probably no subject in the world about which opinions differ so much as the nature of religion, and to frame a definition of it which would satisfy everyone must obviously be impossible.”
My comment: Even James Frazer, who gave many quotes that self-centered magic practices aren't Religion, couldn't define Religion itself. It's more like he tried to describe what was not Religion.
Under our law, the State has no prophetic role in relation to religious belief; the State can neither declare supernatural truth nor determine the paths through which the human mind must search in a quest for supernatural truth. The courts are constrained to accord freedom to faith in the supernatural, for there are no means of finding upon evidence whether a postulated tenet of supernatural truth is erroneous or whether a supernatural revelation of truth has been made.
My comment: I agree that the State can't pick and choose what is or is not religon. I belonged to the Unitarian Church, and I believe it is a religion despite its lack of a specific Deity.
But the area of legal immunity marked out by the concept of religion cannot extend to all conduct in which a person may engage in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural. The freedom to act [*136] in accordance with one’s religious beliefs is not as inviolate as the freedom to believe, for general laws to preserve and protect society are not defeated by a plea of religious obligation to breach them...the Supreme Court held that to excuse polygamy on religious grounds would “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect … permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” Conduct in which a person engages in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural is religious...canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.
My comment: so forcing abortions on Sea Org staff shouldn't be Sea Org's religious privilege.

Even religions founded by charlatans can be real religions:
charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices and observances accepted by his followers.
(All quotes from above from first half of
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/154CLR120.html
(Continued in next post)

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

More from the Church of the New Faith web page, my comments in blue:
Crockett J. made some findings as to the beliefs now expounded in Mr. Hubbard’s writings and accepted by his followers (70):

“According to the teachings of Mr. Hubbard the existence of a Supreme Being is to be affirmed and life is to be looked at in the terms of eight dynamics. The first is self and the eighth is the Supreme Being. The person himself is not his body but a thetan — equivalent one might say to a soul or spirit. Man’s immortality exists in the power of the thetan to undergo infinite reincarnations. … However, despite an occasional reference in Mr. Hubbard’s books to a ‘Supreme Being’, or ‘Divine Being’ or [*143] God and the placement of the eighth dynamic at the pinnacle of man’s awareness of the other dynamics, it does seem apparent, as Winn L.J. observed in Segerdal’s Case(71) that the doctrines of scientology are more concerned with ‘the transmigration and education … of Thetans than they are with God in any0p-d
3=[-p shape or form, or any concept of a divine, superhuman, all powerful and controlling entity’.
My comment: This strengthens my point that Scientology practices are Me-the-Magician and My Very Own Thetan That I will Learn to Rule
The court then spoke about a code of conduct, and discussed Scientology Ethics. However,
we are unable there to find a connexion between Scientology ethics and Scientology belief; but Mrs. Allen seems, however obscurely, to be pointing to some exercise of the will connected with a belief in the survival of a thetan in association with a Supreme Being.
My translation: CoS talks about Ethics but doesn't relate them to a Supreme Being.
the Scientology confessional”, a part of auditing, which enables an individual to reveal his transgressions against “his own moral codes in terms of the Eight Dynamics, and the mores of his society”. If the practice provides a means for an individual to “regain spiritual integrity and composure”, as Mr. Hubbard claims, it is not stated to be for any reason related to the set of supernatural beliefs accepted by Scientologists.
My translation: CoS talks about a confessional but doesn't relate it to a Supreme Being.
rites and ceremonies - weddings, namings, and funerals...are set out in a book Ceremonies of the Founding Church of Scientology. That book opens with the statement: “In a Scientology Church Service we do not use prayers, attitudes of piety, or threats of damnation”, but Mrs. Allen asserts that a prayer for total freedom is said.
My comment: with all the evidence that Scientology's goal is the individual to become infinite, then the prayer for total freedom would relate to the individual goal, not a universal total freedom for everyone. We're still back to Me-the-Magician. In Scientology, Total Freedom is for loyal Scientologists. Hubbard's fair game attacks on critics denied that critics have freedom of speech and a right to privacy.
A commercial institution which derives its income from the sale of religious objects, the sale of religious services or the organization of church finances can hardly be described as a religious institution merely because its commercial activities incidentally conduce to the advancement of religion.
My comment: So why does Bridge Publications get the status of a religion?
(Much repetition of earlier points follows)
The development of Scientology resembles that of Christian Science. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder, claimed to deal with the development of human personality in a scientific way. Persecution, defections and associated lawsuits threatened to destroy what Mrs. Eddy saw as her contribution to the Welfare of humanity. So she took advantage of the legal privileges extended to religion by obtaining a formal charter for her Church of Christ (Scientist) in 1879
My comment: Yet another parallel between Hubbard and Mary Baker Eddy. See my thread Striking Parallels between CoS and Christian Science viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31220
Modern religions however tend to replace actual with notional sacrifice and to replace propitiation or appeasement with concepts such as “making peace with one’s soul”. Absence of propitiation from Scientology only indicates that Scientology is somewhat removed from the primitive religions.
Mry comment: Where did they get this? Are Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism then "primitive?" They propititate (beg for assistance from) a deity. James Frazer of The Golden Bough says the opposite - that primitive religion evolves from Me-the-Magician to a humble acknowledgement of a higher power.

CoS isn't criticized for supposedly allowing members to have more than one faith, because
the claim to be the one true faith has resulted in great intolerance and persecution.
(More repetition of earlier points - omitted)
the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as “a religion” in Victoria. That does not, of course, mean either that the practices of the applicant or its rules are beyond the control of the law of the State or that the applicant or its members are beyond its taxing powers.
My comment: so it's likely critics will fail to prove Scientology is "not a religion" in the legal world in Australia. however, it still has to obey the law, and it could be taxed.

All above quotes from the second half of http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/154CLR120.html

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:09 pm

Hubbard, perhaps tiring of trying to explain his vaporous Eighth Dynamic, finally used "faith" to stop questions about it.
“You see, the eighth dynamic is faith. It is not even knowledge, and it is certainly not ARC or understanding. It's faith. It's a static. And in a complete static there is no understanding. And the individual is taught,“ You have to understand things in life,” so he goes ahead and tries to understand the eighth. But you can't understand the eighth—that's faith! You accept it! You don't try to wonder about it.
from the lecture “Self-Determinism on the Dynamics” and can be found on page 111 in Volume 8.

So, maybe in spiritual terms, Scientology could be "not-even-knowledge-ology" or "can't-understand-ology." Plus, members can't use "verbal tech" to analyze and argue everyday Scientology. Now they REALLY can't discuss God/Ultimate Reality. Now they are told to just swallow the Eighth Dynamic as "Faith." How convenient.

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoner

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:36 pm

Freezone auditors, like CoS, won't admit that much of the euphoria and feeling of being "helped" comes from the hypnotic techniques. Even though Hubbard openly practiced hypnotism in the early years, auditors likely will sincerely deny there is ANY hypnotism in CoS or Freezone. However, experts in hypnotism readily see a number of hypnotic techniques in auditing. If Aslan ignores the huge impact hypnotism has in Scientology and its offshoots, he is missing a major point.
There are variants on hypnotizability among the overall population, and Hubbard realized quickly that people with high personal boundaries found auditing intrusive, tedious, and unhelpful. He suggested just letting those dissatisfied people quit. Those who were highly hypnotizable, however, loved auditing and wanted to do it again and again. Freezone has the advantage that they are mostly treating ex-Scientologists, those that liked auditing and its effects.

irbcsz4986
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:56 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

Post by irbcsz4986 » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:18 am

not sure I understand Aslan's reason for reaching out to them. Aslan is a muslim apologist who fancies himself a religious scholar (proven false) and somehow is able to gain media exposure. He has a talent as a spin-meister who argues half-truths and makes vague conclusions.

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

Post by Don Carlo » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:08 am

Many have said that Aslan's real agenda is "All religions lead to God" and therefore Islam and Christianity are compatible and good, and it's mean to pick on religion. He needs to use the Google to find the hardcore criminal element in CoS, despite its claims.

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

Post by Don Carlo » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:31 am

Aslan's 6 part series starts this Sunday at 10 on CNN, including an "I joined Scientology" episode.
See Salon.com article by Melanie McFarland.
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/02/failed- ... m-instead/

Don Carlo
Posts: 11765
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Re: Ideas and Cautions for Reza Aslan interviewing Freezoners

Post by Don Carlo » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:07 am

Episode 1 is a mess. Reza Aslan, host of CNN’s ‘Believer,’ catches grief for showcasing religious cannibals in India, by Ben Guarino,Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 5fa461bede

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests