From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Subject: Re: questions about scientology
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 23:18:40 GMT
in alt.religion.scientology, firstname.lastname@example.org (joycee) wrote (Messsage-ID <email@example.com>):
>I have been reading up on scientology for a few weeks now and I have a few questions about some of the beliefs. If anyone can help me, I"d be really grateful.
>I understand that scientology sees the individual as the thetan... an immortal being. And, I understand that the thetan uses the mind as a communications center with the world and that he occupies a body. But how does scientology view the human body? Is it sacred, as it is in Christian religions? Or is it merely a vessel which the thetan occupies each lifetime?
Merely a vessel. Only thetans are "Sacred".
>Scientologists believe that the thetan extends beyond a lifetime, but this is distinguished from reincarnation. I don't understand the difference between the two.
Where is that distinguished from reincarnation? I don't remember having read that.
There is, however, a fundamental difference between the Scn concept of reincarnation and the one of Eastern philosophies. For Eastern philosophies, reincarnation is part of a Divine plan, while for Scientology, it is more a kind of lottery, where the thetan goes in an hospital and just pick up a body, if he can.
There is also a fundamental difference about the after life. For Eastern philosophies, the after life period is a period where you reflect about your own experience in the life that just finished, and where you prepare yourself for the "lessons" to come in the next life. For Scn, the after life is again more akin to a random universe, where you get trapped in "theta traps" and get "implanted" by some mysterious "they".
>And if the thetan is immortal and carries his experiences into his other lifetimes, how does he come to remember his experiences? Is it through auditing
>and the goal to be in all 8 dynamics (the 7th being spirituality)?
Yes. You are supposed to have a "whole track" recall at some point.
>On the scientology homepage (www.scientology.org), it is said that spiritual salvation depends on the person himself, his fellows, and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe. I really don't understand this statement. It seems very ambiguous. What exactly does this mean? How do you do this?
I don't understand this statement either. It sounds like empty political babbles to me.
>I also had some more general questions. What exactly does scientology say about the creation of man? Is there a creation story?
No. The universe is the common creation of all thetans.
>Is it evolution?
Yes and no. The thetan does not evolves, since he isn't situated in space or time to start with. He can, however, create "games", in which time and space exist. The problem, however, is that he gets so involved in his game that he forgets that it is just a game. It is a bit like if an actor would get so involved in his play that he would forget that it is just a play. Scn claims that through their techniques, one can remember his true identity and realize that he is not the personage he is playing.
On the other hand, there is a mention in Scn about the "Genetic Entity", which seems to have followed some kind of evolution, but this isn't a central tenets in Scn. It is just being mentioned. Anti-Scientologists like to joke with the fact that LRH mentioned that this genetic entity was one day a "clam", and they claim that Scientologists believe that they evolved out of clams. This isn't true. The clam incident refers to the genetic entity, not the thetan, and is only one of many other incidents mentioned. The vast majority of Scientologists do not hold the believe that they evolved out of clams.
>Also, what does scientology say about alien life?
Thetans live on many planets, and in many different universes. Scn is very science-fictional, with past space opera and inter-galactic wars. Much like Star War, in fact. The "Force", by the way, is a good representation of what Scientologists believe.
>I read a statement about how scientology is about the spirit in relation to himself, the universe, and other life. Is this other life like rabbits and flowers, or is it like non-terrestrial life?
I think that this refers to a very general "life". Basically, everything that isn't the person himself (as a being) or the material universe. It probably refers to "theta". This would include the 5th "dynamic".
>Thank you to anyone who can help me with any of these questions!
You are welcome, Joyce, but if you think that this is a Scientology forum, you make a big mistake. The newsgroup should really be called alt.religion.anti-scientology, since it is mostly populated with people who have a grudge against Scientology. Scientologists don't post here, apart from a very few.
If you want an independent and relatively objective summary about Scientology, I advise you to check web sites that are neither Scientology related nor anti-Scientology related. I only know two of them. Here they are:
Try also to locate pages from individual Scientologists. They are more instructive than the official site.
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Subject: Re: A Great Piece of Scientology Tech
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:34:42 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson) wrote in article <email@example.com> (alt.religion.scientology):
>Remember, the postulate isn't "I'm going to market a product to help people save money on their laundry." Your postulate is "I'm going to become a wealthy and successful businessman." So the Scientologist[tm] doesn't consider what he's doing unethical. Even though he realizes he's duping people, that fact is irrelevant to him, since his goal is to become rich.
That's probably what happens in practice with many people, but this is not really how it is supposed to happen.
In a postulate, you *do* have to take the ethical aspect into account, or it may simply not work.
Ethic is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
If your goal is "to become rich", then that's only a "1st dynamic" goal. It isn't good enough, because you also have to take into account the effect it has on the other dynamics.
You would need to determine, for example, what *service* you could render society. That would be a considerably higher goal on an higher dynamic, and your postulate would be to deliver this service. Becoming rich would only be a consequence.
You could also use the "admin scale", starting by defining your goals and purposes on every dynamics (how many people actually take the time to define their goals and to plan them realistically? Many just run from one thing to the other without ever achieving anything).
Once you have done that, you get into the plan, programs, and projects, in which you realistically set out the means, in increasing details and finer time target, to achieve your purposes.
The "postulate", would only come after all that, and it wouldn't be just one postulate, it would be an ensemble of postulates set out at different levels.
So, you see, it just isn't that simple.
The "tech" is just a tool, and probably just a tool amongst many other tools, but not a bad tool at all.
Because it encompasses both the material and the spiritual aspects (postulates), it can be extremely powerful.
To actually understand and apply it correctly, however, is an altogether different matter.
In this aspect, I agree entirely with the statement of NoGoot:
>The axioms of the "tech" are true in theory. I just don't think that anyone has been able to figure out how to get to these theoretical states in practice.
*That's* where the real problem is, because to achieve that, you need intelligence and insight, and that's where, I am afraid, Scn does not help the individual.
That's the "missing" part of Scn, but a missing part so central that, without it, the tech is rather useless, and can, indeed, even become something destructive rather than something constructive.
Random Quote :
|This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.|
Quick Map :