I worked with Rey Robles at his Reno FZ centre Dec 2004 - April 2005. One service I delivered to a paying customer was the FZ equivalent of Level 0, using Clearbird's official printed pack. It went OK, but mainly because I was familiar with the regular tech volumes and how things were done "properly" in the CofS.Thirdly, next to no training goes on. The CofS produced auditors because it was cheaper to take courses than it was to pay for blocks of auditing, so people would train as an alternative to receiving auditing and every org had a course supervisor who could at least say, "What do your materials state?". In the freezone, not so much of this happens because people want auditing more than they want training and can afford to pay for it.
That is not wholly inaccurate in that the individual does get to make certain evaluations along the way in the session, but it doesn't show the whole picture. I'll give an example from the (more or less) entry-level www.paulsrobot.com. Let's say you (the reader) are sessionable, know how sessions go, and are addressing some hot topic (incident, series of incidents, item, whatever came up). You have chosen, out of 3 options, to run Reach & Withdraw on the topic. I know Hubbard didn't specify using it on mental/emotional stuff but it actually works excellently as a light approach fully under the user's control as to how close an approach is acceptable. It's all detailed out at the site. Off we go...Paul's Robot...
That's a good question. I believe the answers are obvious when one thinks outside of the Hubbard mindset:Scientology is not all bad, but no attempt to salvage the non secretive, non devious,
and non abusive parts has amounted to much.
Why does Scientology fall apart and disappear - over time - when the cult aspect is removed?
Because scientology creates more problems, issues, stresses, mental and spiritual upsets and other assorted dramas for anyone unfortunate enough to become involved ... than it ever solves!
.And, finally, who would be qualified to determine what parts of the "tech" is "workable" and which not workable? No one -- because no one can prove their version of the "tech" is "workable".
Aleister Crowley wrote in his 1911 'Batra': "B. It is assumed that he (the student), has conquered the elementary difficulties of Dharana [concentration], and is able to prevent mental pictures from altering shape, size, and color against his will."That's a good question. I believe the answers are obvious when one thinks outside of the Hubbard mindset:
- The fundamental "truths" of Scientology are false. There are no "engrams" as defined by Hubbard. There is no "erasure" as defined by Hubbard. There are no "Mental Image Pictures" as defined by Hubbard. They haven't been proven and cannot be proven. They are re-labeled and redefined things -- misdefined, actually.
- Any "benefits" people get are, for the most part, minor and temporary. No better than Placebo Effect as far as I can see. Which makes sense, given the fact #1.
- Hubbard made a big deal about "Standard Tech" and never looking elsewhere or trying different things so any possibility of the "tech" discarding unworkable stuff was impossible. Granted that Independents aren't necessarily constrained by that but, even today, that attitude of Hubbard-is-perfect (at some year) still pervades the culture.
- And, finally, who would be qualified to determine what parts of the "tech" is "workable" and which not workable? No one -- because no one can prove their version of the "tech" is "workable".
Could it possibly work like this?The fundamental "truths" of Scientology are false. There are no "engrams" as defined by Hubbard. There is no "erasure" as defined by Hubbard. There are no "Mental Image Pictures" as defined by Hubbard. They haven't been proven and cannot be proven. They are re-labeled and redefined things -- misdefined, actually.
One imagines the suggested EP. One imagines and creates the suggested levels EPs.Any "benefits" people get are, for the most part, minor and temporary. No better than Placebo Effect as far as I can see.
I accept that there are "targets" to whom the Scientologists seek to deliver supposedly therapeutic processing, but the targets, to begin with, apparently do NOT want "to honestly look at themselves." To me, this supposed state of affairs, i.e., the Scientologists' indoctrinated assumptions about their targets, the Scientologists' necessary entitlement, ethics presence, etc., are more evidence of the totalitarian nature of the system and necessary mindset of the people who "Keep Scientology Working."Personally I believe that $cientology is a belief system with a few mildly therapeutic effects IF the target is gotten to the point of wanting to honestly look at themselves. Everything else is a totalitarian system designed to enforce obedience within the group. Hubbard hated anything that exposed his inherent dishonesty.
It all falls apart if you take the core away. And that is the totalitarian system of enforcing beliefs.