For me, "actually defining spirit" is what makes it so attractive. It defines the subject exactly and then proceeds to extrapolate theories and corollaries from those definitions and then make predictions based on those theories. As with any orderly (i.e. "scientific") exploration/examination, you can hardly understand the results if you don't have a good understanding of the initial conditions. To borrow a computer saying - "Garbage in, Garbage out". Without precise meanings for the terms being used to describe the subject matter, the description itself is meaningless.


As you say, those few words I quoted are mostly just definitions. And note that those few words are only a hundred or so out of a few tens of millions of written and spoken words on the subject. So I'd hate to see any concrete conclusions drawn about the entire subject from less then a thousandth of one percent of the whole body of data.


Most definitely. The major thrust of Scientology has always been in application. Hubbard has described Scientology as "an applied religious philosophy", with heavy emphasis on the "applied".



I'm not aware of anything they do that is similar to what is generally though of as "meditating." There are quite a few processes that can be used to help in certain specific conditions such as injury, depression, exhaustion and even intoxication. But none of them are anything like the classic idea of "meditation".


If by that you mean something along the lines of "separting the 'I' from the body", then yes. In Scientology it is called "exteriorization" or "being exterior to the body". That particular phenomenon is very well known and understood and is talked about in very nonchalant terms. In fact, in his early research, Hubbard says he discovered a simple procedeure that would induce that exact phenomenon in approximately 60% of the people he encountered. But, as I understand it, he abandoned it as having no practical use because it had some pretty drastic effects on some people. Apparently it had a tendency to restimulate the fear, grief and loss associated with death. However, I have also been told that a simlar process, which is 100% effective, is used in another procedure, after a person has been specifically prepared to handle the phenomenon - i.e. the causes of the restimulation have been dealt with and are no longer a concern.


Not sure what you mean by "manifestation". I think maybe Axiom #3 above might address that though.


To quote from "The Creed of the Curch of Scientology": "And we of the Church believe that the spirit can be saved and that the spirit alone can save or heal the body." (But then, that concept is pretty much implicit in Axiom #3.)


From what I've read, there seems to be a time of hanging around the body until it is "taken care of" - i.e. either buried or creamated or whatever it is the person who "owned it" thinks should be done with it. Following that is the assumption of a new (i.e. newborn) body. But interestingly enough, that whole process seems to be of very little interest. And in his writings, Hubbard only mentions it as sort of a side note. Kind of an anecdote about an interesting, but irrelevant, side effect of some experimental research.


I would agree with that wholeheartedly. If you're going to skin a cat, you want to use the process that will result in the best skin (or whatever it is you want the end product of "skinning the cat" to be).


I believe the "static" in Axiom #1 is the "I". I know there is a very sharp delineation between "self", "body" and "mind" in Scientology. My interpretation is that the "static", from Axiom #1, is the "self" (spirit, soul, essence, consciousness, whatever label you want to use.) The "universal mind" is not a concept I have heard used or referred to in either those words, or any others that imply a single "shared resource" that is accessed by everyone.


Being almost fanatic about "workability", I think Hubbard would recognize anything that "works". His main concern seems to have been to find what worked best.


Personally, I am almost ashamed that you took those few words as a "synopsis." Calling one hundred words out of ten million a synopsis is almost criminal negligence.


And finally, let me say, and emphasize, that what you read here is my interpretation of what I've read and listened to and any of it may be way off the mark. One of the principles Hubbard drives home again and again is "what is true for you is true for you."

In the Code of Honor he says "Be your own advisor, keep your counsel, and select your own decisions." Well, what I've written here are mydecisions. You may end up with completely different ones.

As I recall Abra, you have a slow internet connection. But if you want to spend only half an hour - as opposed to "hours of reading" - to get a decent overview, find to a high-speed connection and see www.scientology.org.

Otherwise the book "Scientology: A New Slant on Life" is probably the best introductory book from which to get a concise overview. It is fairly small and can be read cover-to-cover in a couple of hours.

Thanks for the explanations Sky.

I think I'll just go with the following principle:



I'm actually studying witchcraft and shamanism, and I almost hate to use those words specifically because I'm looking at core beliefs from all of human history. I'm not just looking at one tradition. In fact, I would dare say that the European tradition of Witchcraft and Shamanism has been greatly influenced by the Mediterranean view, expecially in terms of 'evil powers' that need to be protected against.

I've also made the connection between shamanism and Eastern Mysticism and see this as all being basically the same recognition of how spirit becomes manifest as being. So I'm actually quite comfortable with my current path.

Everything that you've stated thus far about Hubbard's beliefs appear to be reflections of these "CORE" beliefs.

So while Hubbard may be onto investigating these things using "His Scientific Method", I feel that I'm already onto the very same things using "My Scientific Method".

Moreover, even as a scientist, I learned very early on that intuitition is very important to science. Most scientific theories would not have been considered had they not first been inspired by intuition.

Even as non-intuitive as Einstein's relativity might seem to be, it's actually quite intuitive, in fact, it was intuition that drove his development of it actually. Same goes for the discovers of Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and many others.

So the process that I'm following is indeed driven by both intuition and logic, and it's lead me to core shamanism.

So that's where I continue to focus my attention. I'm enjoying studying the folklore of many ancient civlizations, and their dreams. I've begun to recognize that dreams are indeed as real as reality because they are indeed a very real part of reality.

But thanks for the criminal synopsis. If I ever get high-speed internet I might watch some videos.

As far as book-reading goes, I've already got my eyes full.

buddha is not worshiped.buddhism is not a religion.if i did'nt believe in nonviolence i'd hit you with a stick.my primary passion is physics.please don't pull us into a religious debate.its true our science is based on knowing we could be wrong,thats why we start every expression with "IF"or "from the point of view of the observer".physics is an honest science,thats what makes it beautiful...ever notice that two of the hallmarks of mental illness are charm and carisma,now check out the teachers of most religions and take this into consideration...peace...

^^This is Xenu ^^

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/bfm/

http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/lrhpaper.htm

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html

As I said before, it's a shame that ad hominem attacks work so well. There is much in the subject of Scientology that has benefitted many meople.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20031012/ai_n12585867/

From that article...



I agree wholeheartedly.

wow 20 million copies sold if not more!

I need to ground a religion