Using scientology to break free from Scientology.

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Just a note that Hubbard did not originate "Be 3 feet in back of your head". Another person invented it, and Hubbard squirreled it. I met this man, and believe him. He said the original command was "Try not to be 3 feet in back of your head." I do not recall his name. I met him at one of Aida Thomas' oldtimers get-togethers. Maybe she remembers who he was. Or maybe Trey Lotz knows.
.
.

You believe the man when he said that he invented the exteriorization command?

Or, you believe the man when he said that his command sends people exterior?

It's easy to find out if his command works!

1. There are 7.3 billion people on earth.
2. Go find just one (1) of them who goes exterior on any magical command.
3. When you find one (1), do a simple test to see if they are really exterior. Go behind them with any big book or dictionary. Open to some random page and put your finger on any sentence. Then ask them what it says. 4. If they can do that, come back with the video and your huge OT wins and tell us!

So far in 71 years nobody has been able to exteriorize on any commands. We are very excited that you might be the first person to document an exterior being!

If you are unable to find anyone who can go exterior, you need to cut the gradient back and just try to find someone who can clay demo the state of exterior or (minimally) demo it to you with some batteries and paperclips.

We are rootin' for ya!



.
 

Veda

Well-known member
.
You believe the man when he said that he invented the exteriorization command?
I knew Nibs Hubbard and also knew John Sanborn, and they both stated that Evans Farber gave Hubbard the idea for the One Shot Clear Command.

Or, you believe the man when he said that his command sends people exterior?
Subtleties and nuances.

There's are old techniques in various subjects - Magic(k), Zen, etc. - which attempt to separate a person from the mundane - day to day - reality. The motive can be beneficent, or curiosity, or mischievousness, or malevolence.

Once a person agrees that he is three feet back of his head, to what else might he agree?

Or might the bonds to the mundane be broken, sufficient to allow (who knows) ???

Below is a post with a link that provides some background:


Here's a link that contains much information, including some processes from over a hundred years ago. The Drill, drill, drill thread.
The idea of out of body experience was already part of Scientology, but "Be three feet back of your head" (and its variations) made it a "thing."

Hubbard may have simply regarded it as a gimmick (one of his favorite words).

Different people have different experiences with it.

It certainly caught some people's imagination and appears to have been marketable.


It's easy to find out if his command works!

1. There are 7.3 billion people on earth.
2. Go find just one (1) of them who goes exterior on any magical command.
3. When you find one (1), do a simple test to see if they are really exterior. Go behind them with any big book or dictionary. Open to some random page and put your finger on any sentence. Then ask them what it says. 4. If they can do that, come back with the video and your huge OT wins and tell us!
Perception was not required, just agreement that one is "outside." It was a first step to be followed by many other steps.

Was Hubbard - an experienced hypnotist - simply trying to select suggestible people? That possibility certainly cannot be ignored.

Or did Hubbard believe it? (Perhaps just wee bit?) Who knows? It reminds me of an old time Dianetics & Scientology enthusiast who gave a copy of 1950 Dianetics to Albert Einstein, whom he had met. Einstein wrote back: "I know you believe it, but does he believe it?")

So far in 71 years nobody has been able to exteriorize on any commands. We are very excited that you might be the first person to document an exterior being!
I think you're getting a little carried away here. :scratch:

If you are unable to find anyone who can go exterior, you need to cut the gradient back and just try to find someone who can clay demo the state of exterior or (minimally) demo it to you with some batteries and paperclips.

We are rootin' for ya!

.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
Cats, we see things differently, we always have done.
Indeed, all I hope is that there's room enough on this board for both of us to be ourselves.

I'm not keen on what I consider to be the self-absorption of people that take too seriously sites like the one you linked to above (I had a very quick glance) so I doubt we will ever agree on much in that department. I prefer to handle any issues I may have myself and usually do that by being pragmatic and then 'getting on with things'. It works for me.
We're not as far apart on that as you might think. At one point when I was at the AAC, Steve told me he thought I'd had too much auditing recently and should use "in life" handlings instead. It didn't work particularly well at that time but I think he had the right idea.

I believe there is far too much attention these days on mental health, some people seem to wear 'mental illness' as a badge of honour and it has become almost trendy to tell the world about every little thing that flits through the minds of the (self) inflicted and the self-absorbed.
True of some, but it's only side of the story. There are also people who don't reach for or get help and IMO should have it, like my grandad (really my mother's stepfather) who came home from serving in the Army in Egypt, Palestine, South Africa and Iraq during WWII and then basically drank for 30 years. Or Bobby Charlton, whose brother Jack said was never the same again after the Munich air disaster in which eight of his Man United team mates were killed (and coincidentally the month I was born).

I'm aware that I wouldn't have made a good auditor (lol) and certainly won't be volunteering any time soon to be on the end of one of those phones that people ring when they are feeling down ...
Fair enough, although I do know two people who volunteer for the Samaritans, or have done, and have great respect for them. It must be very demanding (especially the all-nighters they have to do and still work the next day).

I'm not talking about people who have very real issues, of course I'm not, I feel nothing but caring towards anyone in genuine need of help ... but why do people want to go looking for issues as if they are on a treasure hunt?

Scientology did that to many people, it gave them problems and issues that had to be resolved, at a price ... issues that they didn't even know they had ... because they didn't.
Agreed. Because LRH claimed a certain incident had been on his timeline, it had to have been on everyone else's timeline - no dissent allowed (in the CofS anyway). The FZ was more liberal in my experience; one of my cognitions in session when running one such item was, "I wasn't there when it happened," and this was accepted (although I probably should have said "if" rather than "when").

You mention that for you scientology didn't go deep enough ... I'm the exact opposite, I feel it (tried) to go way too deep and I resented the attempted intrusion and attempts to create issues that were not there
Exactly, but to me that's not Scn "going deep," that's its inventing a load of cobblers (a very different thing, see my last paragraph). What I was referring to there were the times when I'd be on the cans trying to get to the bottom of something significant and found I just couldn't "get there", and sometimes even though the orthodox case indicators the auditor was seeing told her (all my auditors were female) that things were progressing well.

and that's probably why I take exception now to faux therapists dropping in here and assuming we are all cot cases eagerly awaiting their magnificent ministrations ... I find it rude and condescending at best.
I agree where that's true (David Lawrence?), but I don't think it's true of everyone who suggests a process here. I don't find it rude or condescending where someone mentions a process that's helped them and might help others; I've even done it myself, with Pilot's "Protest" process here and others on the old board.

Maybe though there should be a specific place for this on the board, as I think there was on the old one; so that people who don't want to see it don't have to. It may also depend on how it's done.

I don't understand your final paragraph ... all I was saying (by repeating and rejecting exactly what you had written earlier) is that I don't feel the way you do about "making it clear to newbies that they shouldn't attempt to visit a scn org for any reason either, not even out of curiosity" ... it is not my place to tell people what to do or not do with their lives or their money, scientologists do enough of that for all of us and there are other ways of alerting people to potential danger and these days it is very easy for people to research the cult. :)
Yes, there are different views on that and someone like Stuart Wilde would probably have said, as I think you're saying, that if someone joins the CofS after reading something of mine on here, then that's fine because they needed that experience. I'm just saying that I personally would have a problem if that happened.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Posted Cats Squirrel and snipped.

"Yes, there are different views on that and someone like Stuart Wilde would probably have said, as I think you're saying, that if someone joins the CofS after reading something of mine on here, then that's fine because they needed that experience. I'm just saying that I personally would have a problem if that happened"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

No, I'm not saying that at all Cats ... I'm saying what I said, which is ... "it is not my place to tell people what to do or not do with their lives or their money, scientologists do enough of that for all of us and there are other ways of alerting people to potential danger and these days it is very easy for people to research the cult"

I'm not here trying to save people from themselves, from scientology or from any other cult and I never have been. I don't have the urge to interfere in other people's lives. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would join one as a result of reading anything I have ever said and I think that's the case with most people's posts (except perhaps for some made by indies) because this is an ex scio message board and we don't exactly write rave success stories about the cofs.

ESMB was always a message board for exes ... it wasn't set up to be an activists board, but each to his own.

:)
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Posted Cats Squirrel and snipped.

"Yes, there are different views on that and someone like Stuart Wilde would probably have said, as I think you're saying, that if someone joins the CofS after reading something of mine on here, then that's fine because they needed that experience. I'm just saying that I personally would have a problem if that happened"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

No, I'm not saying that at all Cats ... I'm saying what I said, which is ... "it is not my place to tell people what to do or not do with their lives or their money, scientologists do enough of that for all of us and there are other ways of alerting people to potential danger and these days it is very easy for people to research the cult"

I'm not here trying to save people from themselves, from scientology or from any other cult and I never have been. I don't have the urge to interfere in other people's lives. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would join one as a result of reading anything I have ever said and I think that's the case with most people's posts (except perhaps for some made by indies) because this is an ex scio message board and we don't exactly write rave success stories about the cofs.

ESMB was always a message board for exes ... it wasn't set up to be an activists board, but each to his own.

:)
:booze:

Who the hell are you to go and not tell me what to do? I decide on what I shouldn't not do and you shouldn't sit here and be like, NOT agree to that!

:hide:
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Failure at or with scn could cause many people to dismiss anything which falls into the category of paranormal or supernatural and adopt a scientific realism point of view which is fine. It's hard to say what percentage of the population has had or witnessed experiences which are transcendental or paranormal. Most of the OT success stories are invented nonsense but some people might say they had a transformative experience or a paradigm shift from scn. Most people like myself who split before DM took over might have a more positive attitude.
 
Last edited:

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
In a way I did use the formula for the Condition of Doubt without even knowing it.

CONDITION OF DOUBT
When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project a Condition of Doubt exists. The formula is:
I. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all bias and rumor.
2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
3. Decide on the basis of "the greatest good for the greates...................................................................


And by that time there was no reason to go through the rest of the steps. I realized in an instant that it was a fraud and a scam.

I wonder if Scientology would accept my Success Story on that?
 
Top