The public in the photo is pretty sparse too, with lots of platters and trays full of food. Things don’t look so good in this picture and certainly don’t sound so good either.

Valerie wrote:

Once you start analyzing the wins you had in Scientology, it’s pretty interesting trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I know exactly what you mean, Valerie. I’ve had to face that since getting out, and it does start off a very profound bout of self-refection.

I had to examine why I have a leaning toward spiritual things at all, and went into total bitter materialism for a while. And then I studied Plato, which helped pull me up out of all that and expressed to me why I have spiritual leanings in the first place, which then rehabilitated me spiritually.

Spiritual abuse like you experience in a cult can be very damaging if you let it sit there and don’t keep moving.

As Viktor Frankl said, “That which gives light, must endure burning,”

After studying Plato, I came to understand that logic and reason can be applied to spiritual things, and must be, if you are to build something sustainable.

It takes courage to confront these things without any ethics officer to handle you, or to validate your Rah! Rah! wins for you. And sometimes you find yourself stumbling around totally alone.

But if Alanzo can be a spiritual guy again after Scientology, then anybody can.

Alanzo

Alanzo,

Someone said something in a comment a few days ago about people who have been in Scientology their whole lives and are still mucking around at the bottom of the bridge, which has led me down an interesting path of self-reflection, and I do appreciate the fact that although Mike does not always agree with comments posted at his blog, he very seldom moderates them out unless they are posted for merely inflammatory purposes.

Once you start analyzing the wins you had in Scientology, it’s pretty interesting trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Bottom line: Do you even remember the “ruin” that brought you into Scientology? If Scientology were what it claims to be, wouldn’t its’ entire goal be to focus on and fix you. to make you more able? During my time in Scientology, I did not get my original ruin handled, although I, like everyone else who was sucked into Scientology was promised “Scientology can handle that.”

It wasn’t until I left and (a) got rid of the arrogant attitude that I was a “superior being” simply by having been touched by Scientology and (b) did some serious reflection on what was causing my self-destructive tendencies and how to take control of my life that I finally handled my own ruin.

It actually frightens me to see people advance up the bridge and become severely crazy (and yes, John Allender, I’m looking at you when I say that). Why do people in Sea Org go to Gold and Int, where they are considered the elite of the elite, the Mecca of Perfection of Scientology, where no one is supposed to have a case and get beat and degraded on a regular basis?

I remember some of my time in Scientology (I was a pre-Miscavigite) as a bright, cheery time, but I seriously believe less of that had to do with the tech than the people I hung around with. The worst times I had in Scientology were when “standard ethics tech” was being applied. That bodes ill for at least that tech IMHO.

I could say more, but I do not want to wear out my welcome in “Mike’s House”. People need to figure things out for themselves. I wonder if people actually listened to what they are told when they first got in that “what is true for you is true for you,” a lot of them would leave shortly after they got in. It’s when I began to doubt what was true for me that I got sucked into the make wrong and incessant regging and it all went downhill from there.

Yes, I would consider that delusional.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Mike.

You wrote:

“You seem to want anyone who has a win in scientology to be classified as delusional. That’s pretty arrogant if so.”

This isn’t true, and I’ll give you my own specific experience with my own auditing as proof that it is not true.

During the 16 years I was a Scientologist, I ran hundreds, maybe even thousands, of incidents which supposedly occurred in my past lives. After 13 or 14 years of being out, and no longer calling myself a Scientologist, I consider about 95% of those incidents as pure imagination in response to auditing questions, and what was expected of me as a pc in a typically controlled auditing environment.

I consider 5% or so of those incidents of mine that I ran as “valid”.

I consider them “valid” because they solved some longstanding problem of mine, or explained some situation that I had always had trouble with, or because they correspond so closely to who I think I really am.

Those are the criteria I used to critically examine my own “wins” from running past life incidents in Scientology.

So no. I do not want anyone who has a win in Scientology to be classified as delusional. That would be an extremely inaccurate view of how I think about wins in Scientology, or any other spiritual practice.

This is a “win” that L Ron Hubbard said came from attaining the state of “Cleared Theta Clear”

A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.
—L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology 8-8008, p. 114 (1st ed), p. 151 (1990 ed.)

Per your answer above, and given your considerable experience with the results of Scientology delivery, whether in the “RCS” or Independent Scientology, would you consider someone who gave this win as “delusional”?

Alanzo

These are pretty silly “questions” apparently not questions but intended only to provoke some sort of reaction.

The answers are obvious:

1. Depends what the wins supposedly are. I havent seen “independent scientologists” express wins like they are somehow clearing the planet or reversing the dwindling spiral or changing the history of mankind.

2. You stop when it is not delusional. You cannot call someone’s personal realizations about themselves delusional, as who are you to judge? You can say that someone who believes that a “win” on stage in changing the planet is delusional. It’s not hard to figure out Alanzo.

You seem to want anyone who has a win in scientology to be classified as delusional. That’s pretty arrogant if so.

1. Are the wins that Scientologists experience in David Miscavige’s “RCS” delusions, while the wins that Scientologists experience in Independent Scientology are not?

Why?

2. Once you start calling some Scientologists’ self-described spiritual gains or “wins” as delusions, where should it stop?

Alanzo

How very sad.

The food isn’t wasted….they just serve it up the
next day to unsuspecting diners in the buffet at
the sandcastle restaurant.