I think your response is an indication that what he said about fundamentalism is true. There is no rule that because someone has an interest in buddhism they are not welcome here?? Hell, I have an interest in buddhism, should I not be here? And your comment “I will wait for you on the other side of the NOTS case” is really kind of bizarre and condescending. Chill out dude. If scientology is your thing, that’s totally OK. Others having differing views is just as OK.

What a load of utter twaddle Conan,

What an earth are you doing in this blog if you have an interest in Buddhism.

instead of moaning about Scientology go and practice Buddhism for 50 years and see if it handles PTS’ness.

I will wait for you on the other side of the NOTS case.

See Ya

Of course that was thier purpose. Harvey Jaques came to London with a monster at his side a very ugly,spindly woman called Challef or was it Sherriff?

I was told these two creeps were totally responsible for the worst time Ldn Staff had had since the Battle of Britain in the 70’s so what did the managment do for Harvey “Fookin” Jaques?

Made him CO FSO You couldn’t make it up son!

If the future lives are real, then there’s apparantly going to be quite a lot of them, not only here on earth, but elsewhere, and that “knowingness” (of the “tech” urging of LRH’s in the Briefing Course tech film “Why TRs”) is indeed what you take with you, so you can like the kid in that tech film, when you find yourself on some distant decayed civilization planet, you can start and run a TRs Course from memory, like the narrator of that film, Isaac Hayes, tells you (per the LRH script).

Then there is that loose comment somewhere in 8-8008 or 8-80, LRH saying fear of the future is basically absurd, we will live through it all, in the long future anyways, so the fear of complete of destruction is nothing to fear!

It’s all unproven, it’s all subjective, this future lives, past lives “knowingness” or acquired “certainty”.

The selling of all these ideas, all these ideas can be gotten for free with some study, and even just someone going through all the various Scientology chat sites, freezone discussions, laying out the “cream” of LRH’s ideas for free, is about all that should be done, and let outsiders wanting to know the Hubbard theoretical shebang, just read the simple summary for free.

And decide to go the freezone route of far cheaper auditing and/or training if they want to become auditors.

Subreption,

The thrust of my post was not whether Scn is preferable or more valid than Christianity, but more that they both relied on the element of faith.

But since you bring up “life after death” as an example… LRH has spoken and written much about the subject, and Scnists consider themselves to be experts on the matter. I believe much of this comes about from personal experiences in auditing sessions. In other words, these are subjective “truths” adopted by the individual, and to a great extent by the group.

As with much of Scn theology, objective analysis and inspection is discouraged. I know of no documented case which gives credence to the idea that Scn training and processing breaks the age-old birth/death cycle, or that beingness and knowingness survives the transition.

Case in point – LRH himself. Few Scnists would disagree, that if any Clear or OT could survive death with their identity intact, it would be LRH. Yet, when you read Sarge’s account of LRH’s last days, any hopes of that occurring are pretty much dashed. And I have to ask – WHERE IS LRH? Why hasn’t he returned? Was he not a Sea Org member? Easy to say “We come back”, much harder to actually do it.

If Scn actually did have the solutions to this area, why not lift the veil and reveal it to world? With fully documented, indisputable evidence? People would flock to orgs. If you want to clear a planet, that’s a big step in the right direction.

They don’t do it because they don’t have any evidence to back it up. Like the 85% success rate Narconon claims – they just made it up.

We’re a bit far afield from the original posting. But, I wanted to illustrate the fact that Scn truly is based on FAITH and BELIEF, no matter how hard they assert otherwise.

Subreption –

The major problem to be solved in looking at Scientology is what you mention. The subject is not “new” in the sense that there is no precedent search for answers. As Hubbard said, it is based on very old wisdom. It is simply a resolution. The difficulty is that it covers so much ground in the midst of such massive unknowns about life (I don’t think even Hubbard ever said he knew everything), as well the confusions generated by the reactive mind, that it is extremely difficult to assimilate in practical and workable terms. It is apparently tough for an individual to conceive that his life and living are in his control, and are his responsibility. Turns out we were right when we were kids – there is something under the bed, and there is something in the closet. In fact, they’re walking around in real life every day. We all have to grow up and learn to deal with them, not run away.

Interesting observation indeed, Pepper

Aqua ……. Yes.

Of course. How much more DB can you get than by growing old and unfit?