Once again, the number of questions on the most recent Ask a Question have gotten unwieldy, so I’ll start a new one.
There really are some great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, Ask a Question 2 and Ask a Question 3. I always enjoy going back and reading them.
You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here! You have a suggestion? Put it here. You want to start an argument or discussion? Here is the place. All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.
As always, I love to hear from you.
Re: "Going up the Bridge"David Miscavige started OT VII but hasn't audited in many, many years. Tommy Davis? Don't know but he'd have to be above OT III to be in his position (exposed to questions about "Xenu"). Other SO and ex-SO people, you'd have to ask them.The public doesn't care about Sea Org members. Everyone knows that SO members get all that stuff for free! So they must all be OT VIII by now, right?
Are people encouraged to question certain aspects of Scientology? In terms of validity, has Scientology been proven to work?
Re: QuestionsOn the Public courses, those inexpensive, beginner's courses offered to "raw public", yes. Questions are tolerated — as long as you accept their answers. If you keep arguing, you will be asked to leave.Beyond that, no. Questioning Hubbard is not encouraged. If you have questions, the answer is always to "find out why you don't understand and accept Hubbard's 'Truth'."Anyone persisting in questioning Hubbard's data is kicked out. You must accept everything that Hubbard says as absolute truth.
Re: "The public doesn't care about Sea Org members."I don't think the statement that Public don't care about SO members is completely accurate. I think they recognize the burdens and efforts of staff members, and care about them as fellow humans. But I also think there is a good deal of unspoken resentment, from both Public and SO, towards each other.The SO staff resent that the Public have money, weekends, kids, etc., etc., and that Public are getting auditing. There is general sentiment amongst SO that the Public they serve are "basically all dilletantes", for having lives and not sharing the level of commitment that they, the SO members, bear.The Public, on the other hand, are often resentful of the SO members, in that the Public are paying huge amounts of money, and yet the staff they have to interact with are unhealthy looking, poorly dressed, some times poor hygiene, and yes, RESENTFUL!It is hard, as a Public person, to not feel resentment when you have to discuss the details of your confessional "sec check" with a 16 year old Ethics Officer, who has no life experience to speak of, yet wields a great deal of power over you and your "eternity".It is hard, as an SO member, to not feel resentment when you haven't had a day off in months and one of your students tells you they can't be on course Tuesdays because they have to watch their favorite TV show that night.This two-way resentment almost seems built-in, inevitable.Re: "Everyone knows that SO members get all that stuff for free! So they must all be OT VIII by now, right?"I do note the deserved sarcasm, but I think you'll agree that most public do know that most staff barely move on the bridge, if at all! I was one of the few SO members in my circle that actually did get a lot of auditing while in the SO. At least for a couple of years.But there was always this attitude, or culture of "No Case On Post". In other words, "just tough it out, because staff are the super beings and don't really need auditing. That is for those wimpy public."So here is a question, Just Bill: What purpose could there be in making it really difficult for staff to get auditing, or getting trained as auditors?
@Just Bruce"What purpose could there be in making it really difficult for staff to get auditing and training?"Why should the church provide it? Sure it was promised but a lot of stuff is promised to get people to join the Sea Org — vacations, decent pay, essentials paid for, good food, time off, etc. — and none of those promises are kept. Why should they keep the "free training and processing" promises?It uses up valuable resources to train and process staff and there is no money in it. From the church's viewpoint it's all loss.Besides, within the Sea Org it is well accepted that Sea Org members don't deserve any benefits. If they aren't "downstat" this week, they surely will be next week. If they aren't downstat, their department, division or org is certainly downstat.Sea Org members accept this because they have all come to believe they are all "downstat". They deserve nothing but punishment.No, in the Sea Org, nobody deserves benefits like training, auditing, time off, food or sleep. (Except, of course, David Miscavige).
Hello Just BillI don't know where to ask a question, so I ask here.When new scientologists for the first time are introduced to the concepts of Ethics, supressive persons and security checks do they protest, at least internally? Do they think their rights have been violated, their freedom restricted and they are under constsnt watch? Do they think ethics is absurd and SP is paranoia? Do they feel threatened?ThanksAlle
@AlleRe: Scientology EthicsThis is an excellent place to ask questions about Scientology and Scientologists, since I've promised to answer questions as honestly as possible (which Scientologists cannot do and the church will not do).Anyway, to your question: How do new Scientologists react to the concepts of Scientology Ethics?We can assume that each person's internal reaction is different but we'll never know. You see, Scientology Ethics is presented carefully. One is, very early on, introduced to the idea of a "Suppressive Person". These are horrible people who wish only destruction and harm. "Hitler" is the usual example given.Then one is told that Scientology Ethics is "good" and that "Suppressive Persons hate Scientology Ethics because it exposes them for what they are."And then one is presented with the full details of Scientology Ethics — which, of course, the new person accepts without argument because they certainly aren't a suppressive person.Get it? You can't express any disagreement or objection to Scientology Ethics without incriminating oneself as a "Suppressive Person".It's very clever, actually.
Hello Just BillThanks for a quick answer. I read Dianetics years ago and don't remember much, apart from abnormal number of abortions. My understanding is it almost all incorrect and was replaced with something new. But I was curious about yawning, do people really yawn when they remember something, does yawning mean anything? Thank youAlle
@AlleAccording to Hubbard, yawning is solely a sign that one has gone past a word they don't understand. So, all Scientologists attempt to suppress their spontaneous yawns to keep from looking up words.What are yawns really? I don't know.
Hello Just BillDo scientologists come up with Xenu story independently or they are told about it first and then try it with the e meter?If Xenu story was changed a bit, say his name was Rigm, he used crocodiles, instead of volcanos people were drowned in the sea, the date was different and Earth was called Brru, will it work just the same? E-meter will read, body thetans will leave etc? Or it must be Xenu? Has anyone tried such experiments? Sorry if my questions are stupid.Thanks Alle
@AlleRe: XenuActually, your questions are quite astute. If you were a Scientologist the questions would be good enough to get you kicked out.Scientologists, of course, are not told about Xenu until OT3. Then they must carefully study what Hubbard wrote. No changes are permitted because any slipups "could kill you".However, in reality, no one has died or even gotten sick from this material. Most ex-Scientologists and many outside Scientologists now recognize it's all Hubbard's delusions and nothing is true about it.So, yes you could change some or all of the details and still "run it" and get the same (lack of) results.
Hello Just BillCan you please explain the purpose behind objective processes? I read some descriptions, they sound really, really boring, but harmless. However, I read (in Anderson’s report, I think) that people start hallucinating, become hysterical, confess their most intimate thoughts etc. I find this surprising. Is it hypnosis? Are objective processes used to lower someone’s defences, or to weaken someone’s will or to induce obedience? How does it work?Thank you Alle
@AlleRe: ObjectivesI would doubt that anyone being run on objective processes would start doing what you describe. Certainly a person could get upset but not, I think hysterical. If they did, it would be because they were quite unstable to begin with. Scientology really isn't powerful enough to do that.The idea with objective processes is to get a person so that they are aware of the physical universe. Hubbard claimed that people were already in a hypnotic state and this was supposed to help them break out of it.Is it hypnosis? Not under normal circumstances. Is it boring? Definitely. Does it induce obedience? Yes, most of Scientology is designed to do that.How does it work? The theory behind much of Hubbard's techniques was that repetition of a command would eventually cause the preclear to "exactly duplicate" something that is bothering ("aberrating") them — at which point the problem would literally vanish.Hubbard taught that "exact duplication" of something, anything, would inevitably cause it to vanish. That explains why there is so much repetition in Scientology.
Whatever happened to the "silly OT Success stories" essay"?You said you would get to this in one of your essays.This was MONTHS AGO.Where ARE they?- Chris
@ChrisIf I can remember what I was going to do on this, I'll write it up. Right now, I just don't remember.
Hi Bill,I don't see anything here from you after August. What's up? Would like to ask a question. Thank you.
There is a newer As a Question than this one. After the number of comments goes past 200, it just gets awkward. So, I created a new place for asking questions.Please, ask your question on the newest place.
Pingback: Ask a Question | Ask the Scientologist