An old friend sent this to me and I thought it very appropriate, especially as we are trying to get life and the house back in order after last night’s Christmas Party. It is an easy posting to put up for some Sunday food for thought:
Just came across these two verses (73-74) in Gil Fronsdal’s translation of the Dhammapada. [The Dhammapada is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures — Wikipedia]
They struck me as an amazingly apt picture of the Little Emperor [David Miscavige]:
Fools will want unwarranted status,
Deference from fellow monks,
Authority in the monasteries,
And homage from good families.
“Let both householders and renunciants
Believe I did this.
Let them obey me in every task!”
Such are the thoughts of a fool
Who cultivates desire and pride.
@Alanzo:
“In the meantime, can you give me your reasoning for finding flaws in other spiritual teachers and how finding their flaws justifies Hubbard’s?”
She didn’t say that it would justify anything.
Margaret just said, that you look for flaws in Hubbard and if you would look for them in other teachers, you would find some as well. That’s because you finally find what you’re looking for.
In the above conversation I can see, Alanzo, that you are very charged on the subject because, as you said yourself, “it did something to you”.
Margarets experiences are different and she maybe wasn’t hurt to the point where she would decide to run around with “filters” over her eyes.
It’s not enough for you to tell non-scientologists what they should see, you dramatize to the point where you tell scientologists that they are somehow in danger because they don’t look the world trough your filters.
It’s somehow sad sometimes, and I really feel for you. I mean it.
(@Mike, somehow since you changed the WordPress template I have difficulties to place my comments under the correct branch – even though I klick on the correct “Repply” button.)
That was different. And kind of fun.
For a while it felt like we were on Marty’s blog.
I love the quote from Tolle.
I feel Mike’s posting above could serve as a caveat to all readers and posters here- not only DM.
Yes, Alanzo, but it only means that there is a distinction between the things you look at (or the things you are projecting) and the observer (the one who experiences).
“Compulsive projection” could be said is comparable with the “reactive consideration” or a stucked picture.
Scientology is not Buddhism, but very deffinitley they are cousins.
Here is a quote from “The Power of now” by Eckhart Tolle.
He is not the “source” of Buddhism, but you may enjoy his views.
I guess my comment was too long for posting? 🙂
Not sure what this is referring to?
My fault, Mike – this is an answer to one of Alanzos comments above. Thank you.
You are a wise man Mike Rinder!
here enjoy ,people…
laugh…. laugh helps a lot.
here you can find whole play.
http://vid.unitedtalent.com/tomkat
here, just a part of it – to understand…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=f6KRI7oBzH8
It is famous TomKat Project.
Update, just heard another rumor the Sea Org Missionaries are in the U.K. on a witch hunt also. Targets the same as PAC and So. Africa, the customers.
The latest false reports issued to the media from David Miscavige:
“The ecclesiastical leader has not been deposed. It is our understanding that the judge granted a stay to seek appellate review.”
More slander and verbal abuse towards Monique although there is a restraining order, and, she was never expelled and never involved with the Church. Neither is she anti Scientology.
“It is nothing more than a transparent get-rich-quick scheme. The discredited allegations are nothing more than the same tired propaganda spread for nearly five years by the same tiny clique of anti-Scientologists who remain obsessively bitter at having been expelled nearly a decade ago for malfeasance and incompetence from their positions in the Church. The Church is currently experiencing its greatest period of expansion.”
http://pagesix.com/2013/12/15/ex-scientologists-sue-church-for-harassment/
O.K., now others can see for themselves what I have been saying. The pathological lying, the non compliance and discord with common law and civil law. No remorse, no responsibility.
Most sociopaths can commit vile actions and not feel the least bit remorse. Such actions may include physical abuse or public humiliation of others. Here he is still working to humiliate through a press release. And after stalking her with domestic terrorism for years, he writes Mosey off as someone trying to make a buck. Laughter! After having Leah Remini tortured for months at her own expense, he dismissed and devalued her as a “refund case”.
Most human beings live by some moral code of ethics. The sociopath, on the other hand, often skirts morality for personal benefit. Sociopaths understand human weakness and exploit it maximally. Once determined, they can manipulate individuals to do just about anything. But it seems people are not falling for David’s “charms” as they once did. Down in Texas maybe they have different standards. Just like Vegas. Seems what happens in Texas, stays in Texas too.
The pathological lying through the press is outrageous! At least law enforcement can look at these actions and assess the situation.
David’s apt quote for the day: “The ecclesiastical leader has not been deposed.”
He has no concern with credibility these days.
I heard a rumor that the Sea Org missionaries have now swooped into PAC on a witch hunt there. The targets are as in South Africa, the customers.
I heard directly from one who was declared. This Scientology company run by Miscavige has to be the only company in the world where they have a nasty habit of attacking their own volunteers and customers.
Without mockery; A great Thetan has moved on to another game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25393557
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K561m7Nq7kk#t=203
Oh…now who is going to replace O’Tool’s unforgettable, gorgeous blue eyes?
Greta
A fellow Peter O’Tool fan.
🙂
Greta
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/religionvsspirituality.jpg
DM
Damned Misguided
Dinky Misogynist
Allow me to present a little commentary on this passage from the Dhammapada.
From a Scientology viewpoint, this passage is quite sacrilegious.
Fundamental Buddhist teaching, despite any pronouncements from L Ron Hubbard, hold that there is no such thing as a self that inherently exists, let alone survives from lifetime to lifetime.
So a person who wants status and deference from his monks, authority in the monastaries, and homage from good families, to think “*I* did this – so obey me in every task!”
Is a fool.
“I did this” is the major delusion in Buddhist teachings.
I know. Sorry to invalidate the idea of the “thetan as cause”. But Buddhism teaches something very different than Ron said Buddhism teaches.
If you want a very good and very simple, yet extremely profound, summation of what Buddhism actually teaches, read “How to Practice” by the Dalai Lama.
While you read it, as an Ex Scientologist, or a present Scientologist, every time a thought arises “that’s just like Scientology!”, STOP!
…and re-read that passage in a new unit of time – as only and exactly what is written.
Don’t let previous considerations block your duplication and understanding of something new.
Anyway!
Hope you had a great Christmas Party, Mike.
Thanks for all that you do.
Alanzo
Alanzo, answer me this. In the Jakata, the past life stories of the Buddha he talks about his past lifetimes. If there was nobody there to experience it, how come Buddha has memories of it? Someone was there experiencing it.
Nirvana has been misunderstood to mean “no self.” This is a false doctrine. Nirvana means to extinguish. It means to extinguish the false identification of consciousness with externalities, with the body and with the mind. The limitations of name and form. It is a definition using a negative. To blow out. As you will see below there are other words that describe enlightenment in the positive.
If there is nobody there to experience it, why seek the bliss of liberation?
Buddhism talks about reincarnation. There is somebody there. Consciousness/the soul exits.
This is a misunderstanding of nirvana.
Buddha incarnated to update Hinduism because it had fallen into ceremony and priestly classes. Rituals became the focus of India. Buddha basically said,”look here you guys, you are too much into gods and goddesses, animal rituals and pomp. Dump all of that and meditate. Whatever is there you will realize in the cave of silence. No need for the bells and whistles of metaphysics.”
Then around the 8 century, Buddhism became influenced by the intellectual class and had misunderstanding of nirvana. They considered that consciousness did not exist. The soul did not exist. If that was true, then every sage and wise man was wrong and Buddha is the only one to find the truth. That would make Buddhism the “only way.” Hog wash!!
Around the 8th century Shankara incarnated to upgrade India once again. He defined the goal as Satchitananda.
Sat means ever new existence
Chit means ever new awareness
Ananda means ever new bliss
Quite the contrary, we do exist ever newly. And we are aware of that immortal existence. And we are conscious of it being joyful.
Why work so hard for enlightenment if no one will be there to experience it!
This is a misunderstood.
The I exists. It is the ego that needs extinguishing. Then the true Self, the spiritual incorporeal Self becomes self revelatory.
Hi Brian –
Actually anatta means “no self”.
Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
Anatta is a central, fundamental concept in Buddhism, and it does not mean that the self or soul does not exist. It means that it has no inherent existence. There is a lot to this concept, and it takes quite a bit of work to understand it, and it is something that Ron got completely wrong if he said that Scientology was “a cousin to Buddhism”.
That was my point.
Hubbard’s idea of an unchanging, permanent thetan which causes its own existence, and which survives from lifetime to lifetime, has nothing to do with Buddhist teaching.
That’s all I was saying.
Alanzo
That’s why it’s a cousin, and not a twin brother.
Hi Margaret –
I don’t think I have ever taken the time to tell you that I think you are one of the best defenders of Scientology and of L Ron Hubbard that I have ever had the pleasure of writing with on the Internet in the 13 years since I have been out in the clear talking about Scientology.
I wish there were more like you, but there are not. I know that it is a gargantuan task defending Scientology because I did it for many years.
Sisyphus is a clock-watching slacker compared to you.
You are the best.
As for Scientology being a cousin to Buddhism, and not a twin brother, when the central spiritual tenet of one philosophy conflicts so dramatically with another, can you really say they are “cousins”? Ron’s concept of a thetan is much more akin to the Abrahamic faith’s (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) view of the soul than it is to Buddhism’s.
In addition, the “3 parts of man” – another fundamental spiritual tenet of Scientology – is almost an exact copy of Plato’s and Christianity’s teaching than it is to the 5 skandhas of Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandhas
It’s almost as if Ron were picking and choosing things in Scientology for his followers to believe that were well-positioned for them to accept, rather than if they were actual “discoveries” he made in the course of his “scientific research” into the soul.
Even the idea that he used science to support these tenets is more a use of positioning than it is the actual truth.
Don’t you think?
There are so many more fundamental differences between Buddhism and Scientology – that I won’t bore you or anyone else with – that even describing these two as “cousins” is a stretch.
“Red-headed stepchild”, maybe.
“Crazy Aunt in the Attic”, even.
But “cousins”, no.
Alanzo
Alanzo, First thank you for your kind words.
With regard to cousins … I think when one makes an objective, respectful comparison, there are indeed striking similarities between the Buddhist skandhas and the description of static/thetan and mind found in the Factors and Axioms, and other writings and lectures — as well as the overall philosophy itself.
But if you want to question the integrity of the subject, well then … I propose you apply the same standard to your own chosen subject, being equally as cynical.
Margaret wrote:
But if you want to question the integrity of the subject, well then … I propose you apply the same standard to your own chosen subject, being equally as cynical.
I agree with you Margaret – it is only fair that I am as critical and wary of Buddhism as I am with Scientology. You are totally right about that.
My lessons from Scientology taught me a lot when it comes to approaching any religion or spiritual endeavor for myself. I will never forget the lessons I learned from having my spiritual vulnerabilities used and thoroughly exploited by Ron’s teachings in Scientology.
When a person comes to a religion seeking help, they are like a little child, completely open and trusting. Any parent or adult knows this. And they feel the responsibility they have when a small child approaches them like that.
But not L Ron Hubbard. He saw this natural tendency in people to supplicate themselves to the teachings of their chosen religion as a money-making opportunity, and a chance for epic self-aggrandizement.
So yes. There are teachings in Buddhism which are 1000 times more ripe for abuse than anything in Scientology. And I make sure that I am aware of those, and take every precaution to never let any Buddhist exploit my spiritual vulnerabilities like Ron did.
I promise to you that if I ever see Scientology-style spiritual abuse happening in Buddhism, I will speak out about it just as energetically as I have with Scientology.
My question to you: Why haven’t you spoken out more about the abuses in Scientology given all the points in the Code of a Scientologist which say to do exactly that?
http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-code-of-a-scientologist.html
Alanzo
Alanzo wrote:
“I agree with you Margaret – it is only fair that I am as critical and wary of Buddhism as I am with Scientology. …”
“But not L Ron Hubbard. … He saw … a chance for epic self-aggrandizement.”
Could the same argument not be made for Buddha? Or Jesus? Or Joseph Smith? Or … [choose your target of cynicism here]”
Alanzo, Hubbard told you and I this:
“Be true to your own goals.”
“Do not compromise with your own reality.”
He made those apart of the highest code that exists in Scientology — the Code of Honor. There from the beginning. What he later called the “OT Code”.
And he told us to approach Scientology critically … very critically. And not to agree or believe it, just because he said it. In other words, he said to use good sense and judgement.
I have spoken out about the abuses in the Church of Scientology. And I’ve demanded, and gotten, money back. I’ve helped others leave. And I’ve lost friends, one of whom is now dead because, imho, he wouldn’t leave. And frankly, from day one, I could tell that the organization was fucked. And I actively, and knowingly, kept my distance hoping that one day it would actually start applying its own fundamentals and improve.
I’m not letting L. Ron Hubbard off the hook. He created this organizational monster, and he allowed for DM and others to take over. But recognizing those organizational choices and mistakes of Hubbard’s, is far different than calling him a con-man, without integrity, whose only purpose and goal was self-aggrandizement and money.
That view is childish, and frankly, vapid.
Margaret wrote:
I have spoken out about the abuses in the Church of Scientology. And I’ve demanded, and gotten, money back. I’ve helped others leave. And I’ve lost friends, one of whom is now dead because, imho, he wouldn’t leave. And frankly, from day one, I could tell that the organization was fucked. And I actively, and knowingly, kept my distance hoping that one day it would actually start applying its own fundamentals and improve.
I’m not letting L. Ron Hubbard off the hook. He created this organizational monster, and he allowed for DM and others to take over.
You and I are very similar. I saw the same things.
But recognizing those organizational choices and mistakes of Hubbard’s, is far different than calling him a con-man, without integrity, whose only purpose and goal was self-aggrandizement and money.
That view is childish, and frankly, vapid.
The problem is, Margaret, and this is a moral problem for anyone who has been involved in Scientology: For every point of the Code of Honor LRH wrote, he wrote policy and advices and other issues which contradicted them. And those advices and policies carried the force of KSW crimes and high crimes if they were not followed.
Those policies and secret advices that carried the force of ethics and justice actions on Scientologists were never placed on the walls of the organization like “The Code of Honor” was.
So people like you and me, who have been involved and who do know the covert contradictions and hidden data lines that Hubbard worked into Scientology, we have a responsibility to others who have only seen the stuff on the walls, like the Creed and the Codes.
Don’t we have a responsibility to warn people that if you follow “What we of the Church Believe” as it is written in the Creed, then you are likely to be declared, expelled and fair-gamed if you if you follow it to the letter?
So what would you call a guy who structured a covert organization like this, if you do not call him without integrity, or a con man?
Why would it be vapid and childish to call him those things?
In view of our responsibility to others, it would irresponsible of you to NOT call him those things, as publicly and as loudly as you could – would it not?
Alanzo
“So what would you call a guy who structured a covert organization like this..?”
Overly protective.
Margaret wrote:
Overly protective.
Wow.
You know some of the best insights and reminders that I have come to possess over the last few years originated from discussions with original thinking and deeply intelligent Scientologists like yourself.
These two words that you have used to describe your view of why LRH did some of the things he did – which have caused so much damage to so many people – are extremely interesting to me.
“Overly protective.”
Wow. I….wow.
You know, a person can pick up a lot of cognitive distortions around Scientology, and there are certainly a lot of them in use. “Overly protective” certainly does functionally describe the convoluted and covert nature of much of the behavior we are talking about without necessarily catastrophizing or exaggerating the evil that has been done. It is a conservative kind of 3.0 banker’s attitude on the whole thing.
So this is the warning that you would give to a new person who is about to embark on the Bridge in Scientology and has not fallen into the traps yet: You would warn them that LRH was overly protective, and to be on the lookout for this?
Do you think that this overly protective warning is sufficient to protect a new person from one day becoming the victim of bankruptcy, destruction of his livelihood, friends, and family through disconnection and fair game should he actually believe what is written on the wall in the Creed and apply it for blood?
Because that’s all I have ever done.
And look what happened to me.
If someone gave you this warning of “overly protective”, would it have been sufficient for you to have avoided the pitfalls in Scientology that you have experienced?
Alanzo
We aren’t talking about a warning, Alanzo. We’re talking about why and what.
For a warning? I’d say stay away from the organization as if your life depended on it. And that’s the exact warning I give.
And in the same breath I’d say, “The same doesn’t hold true for the underlying techniques and philosophy. Here’s the Code of Honor. And here’s ‘How to Study Scientology’. Have at it.”
Margaret wrote:
For a warning? I’d say stay away from the organization as if your life depended on it. And that’s the exact warning I give.
That’s a common warning that Scientologists on the Internet are giving these days, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.
But my warnings go a little further because, as one would expect from a guy who created a covertly structured organization such as the Church of Scientology, there are quite few concrete examples of the same type of “overly protective” boobytraps being installed in the tech and the philosophy of Scientology, as well.
KSW, for instance, is filled with covert traps, so is the Data Series, the technology on OW write ups and sec checking, as well as the Ethics Tech and PTS/SP tech, too. In fact, there are spiritual deceptions and traps throughout Dianetics and Scientology, all intentionally created and maintained by L Ron Hubbard.
LRH’s “overly protective” side most certainly did not only express itself in his organization. It also expressed itself in his tech and philosophy, too.
And so I believe that a person who comes to Scientology with an open heart, looking for help and spiritual succor, is also in danger of being exploited – even though they have avoided the organization as if their life depended on it, as you warn.
So my warning to new people goes a little farther than yours. But your warning is not nothing. It is not nothing at all. The damage that Scientology can do to people is GREATLY reduced when it is practiced outside the Church power-structure that LRH set up to exploit the spiritual vulnerabilities of Scientologists.
But you really do have to ask yourself: Given what we know about L Ron Hubbard and the traps he laid for Scientologists – is this really the guy you want as a spiritual teacher?
That can be a rhetorical question, if you’d like it to be.
Thank you for communicating with me, Margaret. You always have a choice in people who you communicate with on the Internet, and I appreciate your choice in communicating with me.
Alanzo (The “Southwest Airlines” of Scientology Critics)
(:>)
Alanzo wrote: “Given what we know about L Ron Hubbard and the traps he laid for Scientologists – is this really the guy you want as a spiritual teacher?”
First, Scientology, the philosophy and approach to spiritual improvement, is the best that I’ve come across. So in answer to your question, Yes, absolutely. Second, he didn’t lay traps for Scientologists. He told us to keep our eyes open and draw our own conclusions.
He did create some organizational policy that has proven ill-conceived, especially when applied literally and without good judgement. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t let Hubbard off the hook for this. But his motive, imho, was one of protection and survival. Some of his organizational decisions were poor ones, imho. But ultimately, policy and organizational matters are a secondary, and frankly, disposable/replacable thing in relation to the underlying philosophy and technology that they are attempting to support.
If the standalone tech doesn’t work for you, I say not a problem. Plenty of choices out there. But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.
Excellent comment Margaret. “If the standalone tech doesn’t work for you, I say not a problem. Plenty of choices out there. But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.”
Reply Comments
Margaret:
I’m so glad that you did not take my question rhetorically. Because it really isn’t a rhetorical question – it is one of the most important things a person can do on a spiritual journey: Find the right teacher for themselves.
I do not doubt that you have applied the same rigor to your choice of Hubbard as your spiritual teacher as you have to your apologetics of him and his philosophy.
That’s why I am eager to better understand the reasoning you have used in this area to form the basis for your conclusion that L Ron Hubbard is the best spiritual teacher for you.
Margaret wrote:
But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.
Mandating that the Creed of the Church of Scientology is put on every wall of every org and mission, while giving the Creed no ethics or justice power, and then writing an HCOPL of crimes and high crimes which DOES have ethics power to declare, expel and fair game anyone who would follow the Creed, is a deceptive trap.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Calling security checking an “OT Process”, and one of the fastest routes to OT, as Hubbard did in the late 50’s when he re-introduced sec checking to Scientology, given what we all know about the results of sec checking in totalitarian countries like Iran, Soviet Russia and Communist China, is a deceptive trap.
I could go on and on (and have, as you know). But my point is that of all religious and spiritual teachers that I can find, none misrepresent or outright lie about what “we of the Church believe” in order to recruit people like L Ron Hubbard did.
None dangled “OT States” out in front of their students in order to get them to confess their sins which would then be used as leverage to buy more, and even blackmail them.
None lied about having served in “all five theaters of the war”, blinded and crippled by shrapnel during combat, and cured himself with his spiritual teachings – that he then charges heavily for – like L Ron Hubbard did.
But let’s say we do find some deception in The Dalai Lama, or Buddha, or even Joseph Smith – then what?
It seems to me you believe that if we can find a flaw in another spiritual teacher, this somehow justifies L Ron’s flaws as a spiritual teacher.
Is that correct?
What is your reasoning here for finding flaws in other spiritual teachers? Please help me to understand it.
Here’s my reasoning:
All human beings have flaws.
All spiritual teachers are humans.
Therefore, all spiritual teachers have flaws.
It is the types of flaws, and the types of abilities, that a person must examine closely in a spiritual teacher. That process of examination is extremely critical in choosing the right teacher for yourself.
About a year ago, I found a great piece of writing on this exact subject which communicates how important this examination and evaluation is. (I’ve looked everywhere to try and find it again for you buy I can’t find it. I’ll keep looking.)
In the meantime, can you give me your reasoning for finding flaws in other spiritual teachers and how finding their flaws justifies Hubbard’s?
Alanzo
Comprendo Alanzo, I get your point. Yeah, Ron’s idea of soul was a self created super ego that paid no homage to any Transcedent Benevolence as Supreme Cause.
To him, the thetan made up laws and rules.”What is true for you is true.” Cosmic standards be damned! If you think it to be true, well by golly it must be true!
Ron had no worthy concept of the or a Supreme Being. Cause over life: control was his god. Being cause was his god.
And in the end, as a result of paying no homage to a higher calling, his legacy is infamy. Ron is totally responsible for that legacy.
And his disciples will blame everyone else except him, because for a disciple of Scientology, being critical of Ron could cost you your job, mother, father, son, daughter, grandma, grandpa, wife, husband and the ultimate curse “becoming a solid rock” Scientology’s version of eternal damnation.
No wonder it is so easy to be critical of a critic. Crushing critics is a characteristic of a well informed PTS/SP tech course.
Criticism of Scientology and it’s founder has been effectively equated with being evil. Ad hominem attacts on critics, personal attacts, are common fare for a well trained Scientologist. It is always something else, someone else to blame for their present condition. Never Ron or Scientology.
But I digress, I see your point Alanzo. Ron’s experience with the true nature of the soul was fairly sophmoric compared to true wisemen/women.
That has been my experience in studying Scientology for 11 years and other wisemen for 40.
To him the soul was a desire fufilling machine. He used the selling point of spiritual powers to accomplish that fulfillment.
The funny thing for me, Brian, was that I was just starting out as a Buddhist in the cornfields of Illinois in the early 1980’s, when I walked into the Champaign Mission and they told me that Scientology was Buddhism, updated, (with meters!) and showed me “Hymn of Asia” which I promptly purchased as my first Scientology book.
Had I told them that I was a Christian, they probably would have said something like, “oh! We believe in Jesus, too!”
Unfortunately for me, I had not studied enough Buddhism to know that Ron’s teachings on Buddhism were wrong, and his teachings on Scientology were not Buddhist teachings at all.
The joke was on me when I finally let myself see Buddhist texts for what they were, and had stopped dubbing in Scientology everywhere I looked, and found that when I was studying Scientology I was not studying Buddhism at all.
I hope that others were not taken in by Ron’s positioning of Scientology with Buddhism like I was.
Maybe it was only me.
Alanzo
Alanzo, Hymn of Asia is what got me to say yes to Scientology.
That spiritual lie, that egotistical drug induced channeling of la la land fooled all of us kids. And some adults too. It is a sort of spiritual crime in my opinion. To claim to be Buddha and then act like he did with people. It messed with our perception of a wise man. “Well now, if Buddha can say it’s alright to slap people then maybe slapping is standard tech” lol.
It was a mega betrayal of trust: straight up!
Brian,
very nice explanations. I agree with you.
Thank you SKM
“The Message” is a bible translation written by a man who studied Greek and Hebrew in seminary. After seminary, he did not become a theologian but rather served as pastor of Christian church for 30 years. He wrote his translation after he retired from three decades of dealing with everyday life. The Message is my favorite translation of the Bible because it is tempered by real life. With this in mind, this particular passage from the Book of Galatians struck me as descriptive of the Church of Scientology in 2013:
“It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on.”
The Church of Scientology is an “Ugly Parody of Community” in every sense.
Wow! Spot on!
“….. Do not oppress others or cause them pain; that is not the way of the spiritual aspirant. Do not find fault with others, do not injure others, but live in accordance with the Dharma (the fundamental code of conduct). … This is the teaching of the Buddhas”
Dhammapada 184&185
“There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
– L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170
“Everywhere you are
I can be adressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.”
L Ron Hubbard
Cognitive Dissonance at it’s toppest of the mostest. Because it was an is a lie.
Brian said: “Cognitive Dissonance at it’s toppest of the mostest.”
You mean like this?
“….. Do not oppress others or cause them pain … do not injure others … This is the teaching of the Buddhas” — Dhammapada 184 & 185
vs.
“During a meditation, Tilopa received a vision of Buddha Vajradhara and, according to legend, the [entirety of the body of teachings representing the culmination of all the practices of … Tibetan Buddhism] was directly transmitted to Tilopa”.
[From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilopa%5D
“Naropa then … became an ordained monk in the Buddhist order, becoming educated in the Buddhist teachings. … He traveled to the eastern regions and searched for Tilopa [his teacher] everywhere … Following after [Tilopa], Naropa prostrated at his feet and begged him to teach. [Tilopa] became angry and struck Naropa without saying anything.”
…
“Naropa offered the girl to Tilopa. However, the girl was so attracted to Naropa that she made love-glances at Naropa. Seeing this, Tilopa got very mad and said to the girl: ‘You don’t like me but instead, you like him.’ [Tilopa] then beat both Naropa and the girl.”
…
“Finally, when they were at an empty plain Tilopa said, ‘Now make an … offering so I can give you the [key instructions].’ Naropa looked around and said: ‘There are no flowers nor any water here to make [an] offering.’ Tilopa answered: ‘Does your body not have blood and fingers?’ so Naropa cut himself and sprinkled the ground with his own blood; he then cut off his fingers and arrayed them as if they were flowers. Tilopa then struck him with a muddy sandal and knocked him unconscious.”
[From: http://kagyuoffice.org/kagyu-lineage/the-golden-rosary/naropa/%5D
Seems you can find “cognitive dissonance” and/or contradictions in just about any religious philosophy, Brian. At least if that’s what you’re looking for.
Indeed Margaret. The misinterpretations of disciples abound in religions. Buddhism as it is today in it’s many facets are not exactly what Buddha taught.
But again, it is the students doing these things. The Buddha taught ahimsa, non violence and love. He instigated in India non animal sacrifices. He taught love.
And as your logic of comparing Christian violence to make your point falls short. This one does as well.
It falls short because violence against dissenters was actually orchestrated by the founder, Ron. It was and is not a misinterpretation of the founder.
Stories of idiot students abound.
Jesus, Buddha never orchestrated black ops against those that disagreed. They were enlightened sages who lived Dharma.
There is no comparison Margaret.
To make it simple, we are comparing writings of founders, nor followers.
You use good judgement when it suits you Brian, and then black/white, literal thinking when it doesn’t. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
“Dispose of them without sorrow” doesn’t mean to literally kill people when they are below 2.0 on the tone scale. It means to simply choose not to audit them or have them in your life. But of course thinking literally, and holding to anger and spite, is something you engage in on the subjects of Scientology and Hubbard, but somehow your thinking clears up when it comes to Buddhism and Christianity and all is forgiven.
Jesus did literally take a whip and began whipping innocent people simply because they were selling some stuff in a temple. Using the same set of standards that you apply to Hubbard, where is the love and forgiveness in that? How would Paulette Cooper have responded, if she were one of the merchants in the temple? Should all Christians now condemn Jesus and all of Christian philosophy because of this clear “lie” that Jesus told (again, using the same standard you hold with Hubbard)?
And Tilopa is “misinterpreting” the teachings of the Buddha? Tilopa is/was considered an enlightened sage who lived Dharma. So, again, using your logic … having one’s student spill their blood and lop off their fingers, and then beating them into unconsciousness … where is the “non violence and love” in that?
It’s painfully obvious Brian. On the subjects of Hubbard and Scientology, your anger clouds your mind and you fall into logical inconsistency. Forgiveness and good judgement play no part in your approach to these subjects.
Or to paraphrase the Buddha: you carry your anger around where ever you go and it’s like drinking poison.
Margaret, I tried to respond to you but there was no “reply” button, so I went one up on the thread to respond. Your answer to Brian is sage, truthful, shows restraint on your part so that you don’t resort to name calling and in short, I loved it. Thank you for pointing all this out, Margaret. You make excellent points.
Ad hominem, to me, is a sign of discussion at it’s end.
Again, to equate Buddha and Jesus as somehow condoning violence to justify Ron’s written words of violence is, well…………. Silly.
But as I am not capable of being reasonable I would suggest having pity on me and let me wallow in the anger that you say I have.
We shall agree to disagree Margaret. I have no idea who you are. I have never met you. So it is impossible for me to have knowledge of your psychological make up, as you are so certain of mine.
Thank you Margaret, for sharing with me your passionate views. I appreciate the opportunity to give mine. Thanks Mike
One more thought Margaret: to me, it is a non sequitur reason to say,” so and so did violence so therefore Ron’s violence is somehow ok or justified or understandable.
I thought Scientology was supposed to be superior to other religions. And now I find myself listening to a justification of Ron’s para military philosophy with trained thugs, because of other acts of violence in other religions.
Something is not right with that reasoning Margaret. It is an illogical justification.
Brian, You should really ask yourself why you’re so willing to forgive and overlook the flaws and mistakes of some, but hold a different standard for others. You think that’s justification? No, it’s a recognition of a double standard.
Recognition of abuse comes before forgiveness. Buddhism and Christianity never had me fired from a job for being SP. Christ or Buddha never had my wife fired from a job 2x for being married to an SP.
Jesus or Buddha never refused my working in a recording studio because the owner would be afraid of loosing his daughter.
First the acceptance and recognition of abuse Margaret. You have to see without all the rose colored glasses of wishful thinking and denial.
You have to get past all the lies, the betrayal the indecency. Then you can heal, then you can forgive.
But first you have to be willing to look. First you have to be willing to see.
Maybe you are not ready yet. That is ok too.
Brian wrote: “Buddhism and Christianity never had me fired from a job for being SP. Christ or Buddha never had my wife fired from a job 2x for being married to an SP.”
That’s because they aren’t being “true” Christians, following the literal words of Jesus:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” — Jesus (Matthew 10:34-36).
But they do appear to be taking on certain characteristics of the enlightened Tilopa in the Buddhist example above.
Brian: “Then you can heal, then you can forgive.”
No offense Brian, but I don’t think I’m the one having the trouble healing and forgiving.
The last word is yours Margaret. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
In order to analyze a system’s unwanted behavior it is very important to differentiate between the intrinsic versus the extrinsic properties of the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties
A complex system is a very good characterization of Scientology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
This OP (An Apt Quote) is an example which shows that the Co$ unwanted behavior(s) has a strong extrinsic factor.
Extrinsic factors can be distinguished with data of comparable magnitude: similar unwanted behaviors common to similar systems and similar unwanted behaviors common to all systems.
Failing to recognize the extrinsic factors leads to a lot of the faulty (pseudo-)analysis I have read about Scn: these faulty (pseudo-)analysis blame everything bad as intrinsic of Scn.
Your right
Merry Christmas to you Mike & family, from this occasional poster. I trust you sold many “Be free” intensives and your statistics of Pure Happiness are soaring.
Nice post, especially since we are so close to Christmas. It’s a time when many people practice forgiveness and letting go and just grant each other beingness, leaving the terminal and opposition terminal game alone for the time being.
So in the spirit of Christmas, I think I will grant miscavige the beingness conferred to him by his atty in court the other day. Pope of Scientology, or PoS shall be his nom de plume, just as he desires.
Doesn’t that also mean “Piece of ….”?
Thanks for the post and a place to gather with many others that are on a similar path of enlightenment.
Hey Mike,
Putting any differences aside I wish you and your family a Happy Holiday season.
LR
You too Robin.
What an utterly appropriate quote to the self-delusion not only of David Miscavige, but also to every OSA and HCO staff member who thinks in their vanity that they are so much more superior to other Scientologists. This truly epitomizes what I have encountered in many Sea Org members; in fact, it is an attitude that is carefully cultivated within that group.
This idea is the polar opposite of “granting beingness” which I believe LRH states is one of the highest virtues a being can have.
The old saying remains applicable: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” -Lord Acton. And it *always* comes crashing down in time.
This is so right on point that there is nothing else to say! Except that I’m getting this book too.
Me too, gr!
Love this. So apt. Wish I could have been at the party 🙂
Mike, wishing you, your wonderful family and all who post here, a very blessed Holiday Season! May 2014 be your best year yet!
Thanks, also, for the quote. It was like it was written just for him…
What OSD said. Thank you Mike for this blog. I am thankful for you and for all the posters here. May you all have a wonderful holiday season and the best year yet in 2014.
Merry Christmas Miscavige, The fruits of your brown nosing platitudes for Hubbard are coming to fruition. YOUR flaws are being exposed. Still can’t find any redeeming factors, though.
Amen, D.M.s fools paradise
Happy to see caring friends celebrating the holidays together.
I would say that this quote totally identifies Captain David Miscavige.
Very fitting as a description for the COB and also for a previous ED from Vancouver and previously declared SP, Richard Monette. Both peas from the same slick, fast talking pod. Initially, such smooth PR but once one really had a look, it became very evident they were unable to really help, or even let someone else help another.
Having met both, I’m still surprised at the similarities in their natures. They seem to have both gone to the same ‘Fools’ school.
Wow. Beautiful. Thank you for contrasting what’s going on in this supposed “religion” with the teachings of the great masters. 🙂 It puts it in perspective.
And thank you for this amazing blog.