Erhard’s est did take some things from Dianetics and Scientology, and my understanding is that in its earliest incarnations, a couple of those were obvious. But again, it took from many other things, as well – plus maybe even Erhard deserves credit for some new things of his own.

est was in some ways informed by things Erhard saw in Scientology that he didn’t think worked – probably rightly so, even though some would disagree with what he did instead. Besides converting to the LGAT format, he dialed down the intensity and harshness of anything he did borrow; and created an organization that largely offered a limited curriculum with minimum time requirements, designed for people to “graduate” and move on (a basic course, and a handful of topical follow-up courses, later expanded somewhat) rather than demanding virtually a lifetime of daily devotion. From what I can tell Landmark took that a step further, with its “Forum” being even kinder and gentler, relatively.

In my view, just about anything humans get themselves involved in, can get a bit culty. I don’t know quite how to rate Landmark, but it does appear to me that they have deliberately tried to avoid a lot of what is seen in Scientology for example, even if they haven’t succeeded entirely.

Thanks for that. What you wrote was more my understanding of it. Erhard studied a bunch of stuff, a small bit was Scientology. Erhard started est from pulling from all those with nothing specific to Scientology, but Hubbard went nuts anyway. But I asked because I don’t know much about Erhard.

Though I don’t know much, I do get the sense that while Landmark originated with est, that it’s something very different and distinct from it.

I’m not Mike, but what I have gleaned is that Davey considers all that below him. He failed to complete his Class IV internship at St Hill after he punched his female co-auditor out in session, and has never been seen in the Academy studying L. Ron’s sacred text. Famously, when highly classed auditors offered to take him into session to help him through a rough patch, he categorically refused. I believe he glances through Hubbard’s writings sometimes in order to twist them to his own purposes, but doesn’t put much credence in them except as ways to control those he wants to damage or destroy.

Erhard was an interesting figure in that he was involved in a lot of key things in the 1960s, from Zen Buddhism to Esalen. He was also a leader for one or more early LGATs (Large Group Awareness Trainings) and was probably more involved in those, than Dianetics and Scientology.

I think that unfortunately that it falls into Scientology’s propaganda trap, and Hubbard’s self-aggrandizing, to look back and say anyone who did Scientology and then did anything afterwards, did it just as an offshoot or “squirrel” of Hubbard’s “work” and the CofS. There was a whole stew of ideas and groups, often referred to as the Human Potential Movement, and Scientology was just one of the better-known (and most self-promoting) things for seekers and explorers to put on their dance cards. And Hubbard himself plagiarized so many things (including through others around him who did much of the real leg work), and then so deviously tried to cover it up and take credit for himself, that it’s hard to tell where anything came from; for example, if Erhard’s est/Landmark adapted Buddhist ideas, did those come via Hubbard’s covert copying of them (reportedly in good part via LRH, Jr. “Nibs”), or Erhard’s own personal study of the subject?

I don’t want to usurp Mike, who may know more of the nitty gritty of Erhard’s involvement (though I base what I write, in part on talking to old timers who provided details I haven’t gotten in to), and have a perspective on Landmark though his work, but I think I can speak to the big picture of the 1960s

Like Neal above, I’ve done Landmark courses and haven’t experienced any kind of coercion, requests for money, or abusive practices. I don’t know what it was like when it was est, so I can’t speak to what’s different now versus then. I was following Scientology and cults before I did Landmark, and I never get the culty vibe from them. I feel like I’m hyperaware of red flags for that, and I don’t see any.

It’s like a risk vs reward calculation that goes on in my head.

I know if they’re in one of these groups that they won’t sell me out to the cult, but if they aren’t then I can only trust them so far and with things I’m already out about on the internet. My trust of neverins is limited to having had other experiences similar to scientology or having attacked similar/related groups.

Hopefully this makes sense to others? the technical term is hypervigilance.

The second wave of Cults after 2nd World war is the by product of Cold War Era under the mentorship of BIG Brothers as they need it against Soviet block.

After the fall of Berlin war they were orphan , as their utility were marginalised.

Now they are struggling for their survival against the Time which bringing new communication technology every 5 years .

Making internet time less and geographically free.

In coming years with Covid restrictions in place till 2025 ( as per World Bank ) and new technology every 2 years ……it’s a final count down for them.

They should get isolated ASAP , other wise , their youth shall revolt .