Entrapment

Today,  while reading the transcript of an L. Ron Hubbard lectured titled Dealing With Attacks On Scientology, 26 June 1961, a particular authoritatively spoken datum caught my attention.   LRH was distinguishing Scientology from other spiritual and religious philosophies over the years that had become entrapments to one degree or another.   He said:

So these former efforts were entrapments, and this is not an entrapment.  It is not even a total freedom.  I’ve even told you occasionally total freedom would be existence without barriers, and I think you would find everybody very miserable.   All right.  We’re an incomprehensible factor.  This is the first time, actually, a high-powered, rather selfless philosophy has hit Earth which didn’t at once demand of its practitioner or in – the person who embraces it – that he totally subjugate himself utterly and become enslaved by the philosophy, don’t you see; and which didn’t say that the originator of the philosophy must then be carried as an imperishable valence from there on to the end of the track, and everybody should bow down to this, don’t you see.  That alone is incomprehensible amongst the – the works of man.  These are different.  These are different.

I would like to hear your views about this.   Did Scientology go astray from this unique position and join the ranks of entrapments?   If so, when, how, why?

351 responses to “Entrapment

  1. This is sort of the 3D equivalent of asking a husband at what point his wife started to become so bitchy.

  2. I think over all the tech was developed not to entrap but to free, later on it was a turn around thanks to Davey boy. Worsel I agree, any early developments were tainted by the times and due to the tribulations LRH endured. Again we need to apply and adjust for the here and now. What do you call that? Present time? So, see that barrier, Go over and touch it. What is its color? ARC Bill Dupree

  3. A great comment by J. Swift who writes : “Scientology can only make Scientologists ….. Buddhism can only make Buddhists. Christianity can only make Christians. Enforced identity-creating happens in any proprietary spiritual path, it consists of: Creating and enforcing doctrinal-based identities,
keeping organizations financed at the expense of parishioners, the need to make converts, creating good PR and countering bad PR …. demand to send money and power to the top… In its present form, the Church of Scientology is a trap…”
    The question that I have seen in many new religious movements then is: “What does a person, who likes the essence of the religion but becomes aware of a trap?” I have seen 4 scenarios in which people respond:
    1) If you still dig this path for yourself but are not into starting a new group, your just step back and practice your religion in a “light” manner, and refuse to adopt a doctrinal-based identity, finance an organization and make converts.
    2) If you still dig this path for yourself and want to spread a different approach to this path and bring in new converts, you create your own group. A challenge is that dissident groups, if they exclude the original group, become a proprietary path at the very moment they get created, and they go through the same pains of exclusion than the organization it rejected. See what happened with the protestants, the Orthodox, etc.. The Orthodox churches are among the most corrupt on earth in terms of collusion with the political powers. And Protestantism has given us Michelle Bachman and people like that.
    3) If you like the religion but are intent on hurting the religion that you believe entrapped you, you can battle the original religion. Problem is that the energy absorbed by criticizing, from what I have observed in other religious movements, hinders spiritual progress, i.e the mind gives you the illusion that you can wage war and life a non-judgmental life, for example. Soon, “wins” are achieved by hurting the original religion, rather than from inner victories. The lines are blurred, the changes are imperceptible.
    4) If you like the religion and believe you have found a better way, and would like the world to know about it, but at same time you are aware of the pitfalls and traps of creating your own new movement, and of becoming absorbed by battling the original religion, then an option is to create a new movement that, from the conception, is immune to the traps of the original one. You need a few core principles that will immunize the new movement against developing the same flaws as the one from which you came. These principles could include: inclusion of different faiths, non-judgment as a rule, forgiveness as an operating principle, kindness in actions, etc..Not to imitate Gandhi. But look at what he accomplished and the courage he had.. There are many positions available for new leaders to emerge, each with their original, new way to propose a solution to make this world a better place. What is missing is clarity and vision..

  4. [Third attempt to post this. Hope it goes through this time, and that it isn't a duplicate/triplicate.]

    INGO SWANN (1933 – 2013)

    For those who missed it, Ingo Swann passed away on February 1, 2013.

    He was 79.

    Ingo Swann is generally considered the “father of remote viewing” (aka exteriorization) and he wrote several books on the subject. He was also a big name in US government-funded paranormal/psi research through the 1970s and 1980s. He was also a Scientology OT.

    Some details of Ingo’s life can be found here: http://www.rviewer.com/IngoSwann_encyclopedia.html

    His website can be found here: http://biomindsuperpowers.com/

    Though unmentioned in most biographies of Ingo Swann (such as the one above and in his wikipedia article today) was his prominence in the world of Scientology in the 1970s. He had done the OT levels and had completed the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC) making him a Class VI auditor.

    He also authored and presented a paper titled “Scientological Techniques: A Modern Paradigm for the Exploration of Consciousness and Psychic Integtration” at the “First Conference on Psychotronic Research” in Prague in 1973 on behalf of the Church of Scientology. (The proceedings were published on 6-Sep-1974 and can be found online at ntis.gov.)

    Ingo gave credit for his control of his psychic [OT] abilities to both the Scientology Grades and the OT levels in two articles in Scientology’s “Advance!” magazine in the 1970s.

    From “Advance!” issue 21 (Oct/Nov 1973, UK edition, published by the Church of Scientology):

    ADVANCE!: “How did these [psychic] abilities develop with relationship to your auditing on the [Scientology] OT Levels?”

    INGO SWANN: “They are solely the result of auditing. Not particularly even the OT Levels. I had extremely good gains from the lower grades. And some had developed certainly by the time [Scientology] Power Processing took place. But steady good control over them, the control I have now — which is not perfect by the way — occurred after the completion of OT III Expanded, and is even better than ever now that I have finished OT VII. So they are solely the result of auditing.”

    (In the introduction to the interview, it states that he started in Scientology in 1966.)

    From “Advance!” issue 44 (Jan/Feb 1977, US edition), Ingo Swann was a member of a five-person panel — an “OT Symposium” — discussing, among other things, his involvement in the scientific testing of paranormal/psi abilities at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) [with Pat Price, Hal Puthoff (two other Scientology OTs), Uri Geller, Russel Targ and several others] in Menlo Park, CA.

    From “Advance!” issue #53 (Jul/Aug 1978, US edition):

    ADVANCE!: “How did your psychic abilities develop in relationship to your auditing on the [Scientology] Advanced Courses?”

    INGO SWANN: “They are totally the result of auditing. The point of going Clear and attaining the OT Sections is to rid oneself of reactivity and to enable one to confront life better, more completely, more productively. And I view psychic abilities as only a part of that.”

    (Ingo apparently left the Church of Scientology in the early 1980s with the mass exodus of long-time Scientologists at that time, and was quoted in a May 1984 newsletter from David Mayo’s Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara regarding the fact that Ingo was taking services there; Ingo had earlier mentioned in the 1978 Advance! article above that he was looking forward to doing New Era Dianetics for OTs [NOTs] in the Church of Scientology.) (The newsletter was at one time available online at freezoneamerica.org; unsure if it is still there.)

    In 1994, once the US government had declassified much of their paranormal/psi research through the 1970s and 80s, Ingo began publishing an online history of his involvement in SRI and the government research.

    The whole history is very fascinating and one can find it at online at:

    http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/2.html (for the early years)

    The history of the later years can be found in books/papers by both Ingo and Hal Puthoff and others.

    With regard to Ingo’s involvement with Scientology and his opinion of the difference between the subject and the organization, he stated this in 1996 on his website:

    “What mattered to me, as in all things I’ve studied, was what I got from Hubbard’s ideas, concepts and theories — and which was considerable, and none of which I’m ashamed of or regret in anyway.

    “The story of what I got, and the evolving, complicated story of Mr. Hubbard’s organizations are two different matters. People who want to learn and know more always have to labor to separate the wheat from the chaff — while throwing the baby out with the bathwater gets one nowhere.”

    (Source: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RealStoryCh24.html )

    Fly in peace, Ingo.

    • Margaret,Thanks for this posting! I didn’t know he died, but his name was just mentioned on Coast to Coast radio show.

      • Ingo Swan was a regular guest when Art Bell was still hosting. I’ve read his accounts of remote viewing. Some of it I believe, but his accounts of extraterrestrial encounters are hard to swallow. One can make outlandish claims. Unless one has proof, they are just science fiction.

    • Thank you for sharing this news on Igo Swann Sad to here this
      I had the pleasure to meet him and found him a special character/

  5. This is just my opinion. Feel free to reject any or all of it.

    It seems to me there were two LRHs, the one prior to the KSW era and the one that comes after. And I’ve asked myself, “Why would LRH morph from the guy who was collaborative to the guy that had to be the most important guy on the planet?”

    In the early lectures and written material, it seemed to me that LRH was right in the fray working with other groups of auditors and like-folks interested in Dianetics and Scientology. You know, he seemed more like “one of us”, a man of the people.

    Then later, he mocks himself up as the “one and only discoverer”, wrote PLs such as KSW, created the ethics and justice framework, GO really gets going, and such… IMO, he may have considered himself a multi-lifetime provider of the means for escaping planet earth. Mocking up the Sea Org was just another step in forwarding his own purpose.

    I think the purpose of Scientology as a group changes in the mid-60s from “Let’s work together to free each other” to “Let’s remake the planet in Scientology’s image” (with the caveat that LRH was the supreme dictator of the group and the image to be created was his vision alone). For me, this is where it goes off the rails.

    Pure speculation: Did some person or group try to take Scientology / Dianetics away from LRH in the mid-60s?

    How else can one explain such a shift away from the basic purpose of helping each other to go free?

    I think Scientology spreads the best when it is used in life and in context. The original purpose was the best one.

    • There were a lot more than two! There was Ron the photographer, Ron the writer, Ron the Mariner, Ron the executive, Ron the husbands, Ron the magician, Ron the hustler, Ron the poet, Ron the C/S, Ron the intelligence spy, Ron the sailor, Ron the yacht salesman, Ron the explorer, Ron the Don Juan, Ron the father, Ron the auditor, Ron the American, Ron the citizen, Ron the millionaire, Ron the defendent, Ron the judge, Ron the co conspirator, Ron the researcher, etc. etc. etc. So, he viewed life from many different angles and I can understand why he contradicted himself sometimes. And I could probably say that about anyone living on this planet. It’s wardrobe department for thetans.

    • ExScnDude – this is THE key question for me in the history of Scientology and really, we can only speculate on it. My best guess is that at some point before KSW, LRH lowered his estimation greatly in re: to the condition of Earth beings and decided that if Scientology had any chance of making an impact as a movement, he had to get tough, tough, tough (and very, very “unreasonable”) on even the individuals who were already IN Scientology to get them to rise to the next highest level as a group. In the DMSMH description of a Clear, you get all these very high level attritbutes like being rational, moral, constructive, creative, etc. I think once LRH decided that there was a lot more to handle than just one’s own reactive mind, he also decided that no way do you really come close to those attributes in a clear (if you DID, then you could obviously leave the clear alone to ACT that way, right?). Thus came all the PLs in the 60s about all the outpoints of juniors that you run into when trying to be a senior; all the different types of dev-t, counter intention, the emphasis on non-compliance being the biggest problem for a senior, all the ethics and lists of crimes and high crimes and penalties and “justice” procedures, and then in early 1970 with the coming of the FEBC, the idea of HE&R being the biggest barrier to production and having to bait and badger and handle juniors’ ethics, and then of course the whoe emphasis on handling OWs and evil ints, from integrity processing (confessionals) to Ex Dn, False Purpose RD. and all the other rundowns where OWs are handled, the OW write-ups, etc. I really do think Ron’s estimation of the condition of Earth beings, including staff was one of the key factors that led him to change his approach and no longer respect the self determinism of the very people that were working to help him (and so no longer having this self determinism as any type of real practical goal – now “duty” was the highest motivation). Though I think this was also accompanied by his own case problems, his tone level dropping – you can read many reports of him getting pissed off a lot, getting rid of tr.usted friends, etc

      • I’d like to add one other comment to my above post. I think the biggest error in judgement Ron made during these years (though I will freely admit that his methods WORKED – with all of the bullshit going on, Scientology still went into a definate affluence over the years from the early St. Hill days of the early 60s to the start of the 80s) – anyway, this huge error in judgment in my opinion was to copy many of the successful actions of Earth religions, as those religions DID in fact go into high affluences on numbers and had large impacts on this planet. I’m talking specifically about Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. LRH took from these religions many things, but I’ll just note their emphasis on righteousness, being the ONLY true religion and way to salvation, the tons of sins that can be committed, and the many penalties that one can be subject to when breaking any law, the total committment demanded, the total obedience demanded, etc etc etc Really I could write pages and pages on this and draw many parelleles with many, many specifics. These religions (and others) did in fact HAVE successful actions and methods that worked in growing their religions. And so yes, many of them worked in Scientology too. But DRAMATIZING the practices of these religions, even when successful, came with ultimately a huge price (yeah, the current Scientology Pope is just one of them) as ALL DRAMATIZATIONS MUST DO.

    • I agree that there appear to be 2 LRHs, but I don’t see any mystery surrounding it. I think it is because he shifted gears from, first, researching, discovering and codifying the basic philosophy and auditing tech, to, second, creating, establishing and trying to ensure the survival of temporal organizations for preserving, transmitting and delivering this tech.

      Those are two very different purposes.

      Early Christianity faced some similar issues, and what happened there is very well described in a vivid little book by Elaine Pagels, titled “Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas”, available as a free PDF download here:

      http://ebookee.org/Beyond-Belief-The-Secret-Gospel-of-Thomas_322357.html

      This book describes how the established “scriptures” came to be created, and why. The original liberating teachings were gutted and re-written to the form they have now; many significant writings like the “gospel” of the title were left out or de-emphasized, in favor of those which fostered a more sheep-like and obedient-to-authority attitude among Christians, and essentially replaced the original teachings of immediate “salvation”(liberation) through “gnosis” (knowing), with the entrapment of “Heaven someday, if you’re good enough”.

      I highly recommend this book for achieving a broader, more “horizontal” understanding of what Scientology has been and still is going through.

      • Those are two very different purposes.

        I do agree with this Valkov … but I also think Ron should/could have stuck to the core Codes and Creeds more, in the admin policy.

  6. Great many comments in this tread have touched upon the crude reality of survival. All valid of course but, something that would not be entrapping if time where really considered arbitrarily.

    ML/A

  7. Entrapment:
    It is not in the nature of the philosophy as I have ever understood it. I have never felt entrapped by the information, but only felt freed by it. I have also not felt compelled to force myself to agree or follow that which isn’t true for me, even before reading Scientology. The reason I chose this philosophy over others is because I didn’t feel like I had to follow a bunch of rules about living my life: dressing a certain way, eating or not eating certain foods, or monitoring my behavior to align with someone else’s version of right and wrong. I just wanted to experience more as a spiritual being, not a body.

    However, if I view the organization as a separate entity, and define entrapment by being boxed by group think or by the command of a dictator, then in that sense Scientology has always involved a certain degree of mental entrapment, if one followed the rules of the game. It has also been a legal entrapment for those who fight the game. It is the policies of ‘justice’ which not only allow for revenge against individuals but promote attacking others for what they say, which I consider to be entrapping, rather than freeing. Fighting for the legal right to practice the religion is one thing, but covert aggression against the critics is quite another kettle of fish. Yet, this is considered to be ‘fighting back’ and anything under that agenda is okay. In fact, in Scientology, not fighting back is considered apathetic or simply wrong. Turn the other cheek is not ever a strategy. But, if any individual Scientologist ‘pulled in’ a bunch of negative actions and became a victim, he/she would be told that “you are pulling in motivators”. The overt/motivator sequence somehow does not apply to the church, and never has. It has, from day one, been using the persecuted religion card to justify any action against others in the name of freedom for all. You can’t act in an anti-social manner and expect that you are freeing anyone. Those who committ overts against their fellow human being ‘for the greatest good’ need to reexamine what the greatest good really means. I have observed that greatest good, means good for Scientology only. Ron says to never defend and to always fight back. Yet, all the church has ever done is defend by showing how individuals, the government, the media et al have been picking on it unfairly. Would this justification/explanation fly for an individual in an ethics interview or in session? “What have YOU done to…” would be the million dollar question directed to the person who was the recipient of any attacks. Do as I say, not as I do, is closer to the organizational mantra. Creating strategic plans to ruin indvidiuals reputations, jobs, family and so on is suppressive. Threatening Phone calls and verbal degrades are not in the high band of the tone scale. Ron, (tongue in cheek) says that anyone below 2.0 should be shot and the planet would rise in tone level (paraphrase). Well, the activities that have been normal for the church since its inception have been lies and threats regarding enemies. Again, an indvidual Scientologist who was guilty of the above would be kicked out and (correctly) viewed as anti-social.

    The justice rules Scientologist are supposed to follow are quesitonable-or should be, if questioning was allowed. The action of talking to a person who is deemed suppressive or is somehow ‘in bad’ with Scientology is a crime but it is ridiculous and thought stopping. If we can’t use the pts/sp data based on our own judgement then to that degree we agree to be entrapped by organizational command. Finally, there is iron clad group think regarding the mental health industry, education, politics, professions, and other practices. These ideas, from what I can tell, all come from LRH’s comments which are duplicated or sometimes misduplicated by Scientologist who adopt anything which LRH has said as their own opinion.

    I would say that there is an entrapment side to Scientology. It begins and ends with the rules and the group think both explicit and implicit(and often hypocritical), which surround the philosophy. I think that this has always been a part of organization as Ron had no intention of making it a democracy. However, the group think has gotten more solid because now there is a person running it who has HIS OWN IDEAS OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN ALL MATTERS OF SCIENTOLOGY AND LIFE, and those still in the church who adopted LRH’s views have now assimilated DM’s views.

    The driving force of life may be ‘SURVIVE !’, but the driving force of Scientology is ‘AGREE !’ which is the twin brother of ‘OBEY’, and we all know that is NOT what we signed up to do.

  8. Hi Marty, for the spanish comunity I put my blog back most for spanish people, but today I put a short story regarding Taiwan.

    http://www.cristianlandivar.wordpress.com

  9. My humble opinion is that this entrapment centers on three things.

    1. The language. You still see vestigial language on this blog, though not nearly as much as if you watch event videos, or graduations, or read church promo. The language is isolating, and so often, it’s entirely unnecessary. Scientologese serves to isolate Scientologists from the world around them. I bet you most Scientologists would not have a way to honestly explain their beliefs to someone who was interested, without totally confusing that person with a series of acronyms, strange portmanteaus, or words used in ways that don’t match a normal usage. You see this same kind of isolating language in evangelical Christianity, too. I grew up in an evangelical Christian home and we’d use words and phrases that an outsider would be confused by. I imagine it’s 50 times worse for Scientology. For example, the technical dictionary is unintelligible for someone who has not been in the church or who has not studied the church intensely. When you isolate yourself by creating an unnecessary language, you create an insular culture. And that breeds that “entrapment.” Nobody else understands the world the way I do, because nobody describes it the way I do- nobody has anything to offer, because only LRH and church doctrine speak the way I speak.

    2. The “church.” Scientology becoming a “church,” something it is not, was a big factor I think. Why not just stay a self-help group, or a group that teaches you tools for your life? Why try to take on the garb of a religion? LRH and church leaders should’ve realized that this comes with all the baggage of being a religon- dogma, most of all, and dogma is entrapment. Furthermore, the “church” concept is completely deceptive. Scientology insists on aping the Catholic church publicly- by insisting that the Sea Org is like a monastic order, or that there is “priest-penitent” privilege, or by talking about ministers… clergy… Sunday service… why keep aping all of these words and concepts? Scientology has little in common with Christianity or the Catholic church, and that’s fine! That’s not a bad thing. So why take on the deception? Be true to yourself. A lie causes entrapment and an insular way of thinking. Why try to become something you are not (and should not be)?

    3. The force. I see plenty of comments already explaining that the formation of the Sea Org (a paramilitary group) is a factor, as is the steely-eyed KSW material. That goes without saying- the introduction of all these factors breeds entrapment. Forcing people to change their lives just leads to dogma and is the exact opposite of a way to enlightenment.

    If you watch DM at the LRH death announcement event, I think you see everything you need to see… a little man in his bossy, forceful paramilitary uniform, up telling blatant lies in Scientologese on a stage to protect “church” dogma. That is the living embodiment of the entrapment right there.

  10. A 3rd Person Perspective.
    A problem inherent in most religions is that there is typically a large amount of scripture that’s been written over an extended period time. The natural result is that some of it will seem to contradict something that was mentioned earlier. Even though I haven’t read a lot of what LRH wrote, I’ve seen contradictions. A perfect example, is something he said about ensuring that the new recruit is fully in, rather than sitting on the fence so to speak.
    This has served Miscavige well, as he can pick & choose the quotes that seem to provide him with some creditability. Even in the video of Tom Cruise, he talks about either your on board or your not on board, giving the impression that there is only one way to practice or apply this philosophy.
    That’s what’s causing some of the biggest problem in your religion. Miscavige has made it clear, there is only one way to be a scientologist, that’s his way. While this approach has proved to make Miscavige extremely powerful, it has weakened your faith as a whole.
    Just imagine if you were allowed to practice Scientology as you perceive it & as you want. You guys would be so much more powerful & effective than you are now. By causing huge divides within your church, Miscavige has reduced Scientology’s ability to expand. The more people you have to demonstrate what Scientology is & what a scientologist is like, the more appealing it would be, because there would be more diversity, more options, that will appeal to a wider variety of people.
    Simply put, Miscavige’s strategy strengthened his power, however it was at the expense of Scientology as a whole. He’s divided you guys to the point where the resouces you have (ie people & money) are being used to fight each other rather spread the word of Scientology. The longer this fight goes on, the less likely you are to grow as a church & time is running out. With all the negative attention Miscavige has caused, eventually it will be too late because the ‘brand’ of corp. Scientology will be too soiled to revived.

  11. I enjoyed reading this sentence written by Maria: “In a few short sentences he (LRH) dismisses thousands of years of philosophical works and vilifies the intentions of all other thinkers or leaders. It is quite a challenge for anyone who is not a part of the movement to listen to appreciatively, fighting words for those he offends and an alarming mistreatment of truth to free thinkers and scholars both. You can bet no one in his organization or in his lecture hall took him to task for his obvious exaggerations. ……It is my observation that there have been philosophies that did not at once demand subservience and subjugation. “
    I have seen the same phenomenon at work in other new religious movement. The founder is so thrilled to have discovered a new path to truth that the first enthusiasm among the disciples is soon followed by criticism of other paths. A “holier than thou” attitude soon becomes the norm. What was once awe in front of the discovery gets replaced by arrogance. As arrogance gets institutionalized, ignorance settles it. There are indeed, as Maria points out, philosophies (and religions) that did not at once demand subservience and subjugation. The first that come to mind are Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism, although there Hindu fundamentalists who are rather intolerant. Also Ahimsa, which is not a religion per se, but a set of universal principles that have been incorporated into Jainism, Buddhism and Jainism. Ahimsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle, although ahimsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit. It is closely connected with the notion that all kinds of violence entail negative karmic consequences. Ahimsa refrain from criticism and speak up only if they are actively threatened and only to defend themselves, not to harm the other party. Mahatma Gandhi was a follower of Ahimsa. Ahimsa principles are also incorporated in other religions. In Jainism, the understanding and implementation of ahimsa is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive than in any other religion.[4] Non-violence is seen as the most essential religious duty for everyone (ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ, a statement often inscribed on Jain temples).[5] Like in Hinduism, the aim is to prevent the accumulation of harmful karma.

    Interestingly, all these religions have precepts, which one can also see, depending how one look at them, as entrapments if they applied to the extreme. Here are 8 Buddhist princinples, the “strong” version of Buddhism for those for whom the traditional 5 precepts are not enough. The Buddha himself gave these 8 precepts, as well as instructions on how to practice them. Some implementation terms are pretty extreme:

    For example, precept #1 means that Jains cant go out at night for fear to kill an insect that they may not be able to see.
    1. I undertake to abstain from causing harm and taking life (both human and non-human).
    2. I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given (for example stealing, displacements that may cause misunderstandings).
    3. I undertake to abstain from sexual activity.
    4. I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words.
    5. I undertake to abstain from using intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness.
    6. I undertake to abstain from eating at the wrong time (the right time is after sunrise, before noon).
    7. I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
    8. I undertake to abstain from luxurious places for sitting or sleeping, and overindulging in sleep.

    So do all religions enable entrapment? It looks like every religion has one or several “light” versions, and one or several “rigid”, “fundamentalist” versions. Then its up to the individual to choose whether they want the decaffeinated version or the caffeinated version.
    Some people will feel free in the “rigid” version. Others will feel constrained even in the “light” version.” Because all religions, at least to my knowledge, have the potential to be practiced in an extreme, totalitarian manner, my view is that it is important to never been constrained in one.

    I like this sentence from Mahatma Gandhi, who was a deeply religious man: “God does not have a religion.” By that, I understand he meant that no religion should be seen as having the exclusivity of self-realization and access to God.

    Extreme dedication not to a religion, but to the pursuit of truth may be the best way to harmoniously lead a life spiritually fulfilled, void of entrapment and conflict.

  12. Phil Spickler on the subject at hand…

  13. I do not consider total freedom to be an absence of barriers, but I see it as an ultimate ability to overcome the barriers through ability to learn and to know how to increase own ability to the level necessary to overcome any barrier. Which is a Scientology – knowing how to know [enough to overcome any barrier].

  14. Scientology went off the rails the moment people stopped treating it as an applied religious philosophy and started treating it as a ‘religion’, instead.

    Applied Religious Philosophy: you actually have to *do* something.
    Religion: You don’t have to do anything, because you are ‘tied together’ with others who “are doing things” and therefore, by some form of ‘osmosis’ you are “just as good as everyone else in the religion”.

    Classic case of 3rd-dynamic Bank Agreement versus ARC/KRC on all Dynamics and all flows…

  15. This is a little beside the point, but what I always wonder is, how people like Lawrence Wright,Tony Ortega, Ursula Caberta, et. al. can read texts like that by LRH and still think he is some sort of a con man…
    Marcel Wenger

    • There is a little mechanism running by those people.
      They don’t want to increase their R (reality) on the beneficial aspects of Scientology. For, as soon as they would recognize Scientology for what it is, they would cave themselves in.
      Therefore they only “see” things in the materials which they can “prove” wrong. Doing otherwise could “kill” them.

      It’s interesting to see that (for instance) Caberta is giving up shortly after she met with Marty in Gernany. It may be that she for first time in her life has seen something beneficial in the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. I don’t know. It just could be.

      • It seems possible that this is a deliberately adopted defense against brainwashing as outlined by Edward Hunter in the book Brainwashing – the Men Who Defied It.

        Hunter describes a closed-minded attitude as one of the key strategies to preserving one’s own mind under the onslaught of brainwashing in a POW camp, while suffering from deprivation, as described in the following quotations:

        “A remarkable proportion of the outstanding cases of mental survival was of men with a closed mind on communism. They shut their ears and closed their eyes to what the Reds were saying. They based their attitude on two simple premises. They knew that the Reds were telling them lies, and they knew, too, that when the Reds did tell them something truthful, it was for the purpose of harming them.”

        [...]

        “Perhaps the strongest confirmation of the importance of the closed mind came from a man who broke speedily, providing the false evidence on which his associates were framed.

        Near the close of a long discussion with him, I mentioned the closed-mind factor. “Other men whom I interviewed considered communism bad and refused even to discuss it,” I said. “They had a closed mind on it.”

        In a subdued voice that betrayed his shock, he replied, ‘But that is the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life. A civilized man doesn’t close his mind to anything.’

        He could not have better phrased the confusion that led to the undoing of himself and so many others. He had mistaken a brainwashing chamber for a college classroom and a brainwashing session for a collegiate debate. His liberal upbringing had blinded him to the fact that an open mind is useless and even dangerous when it is calculatingly cut off from the information it needs. What this man was defending, although he did not realize it, was not an open but a perpetually indecisive mind.

        I thought of those who had survived brainwashing and who told me what a great help a closed mind on communism had been to them. They were not intolerant or illiberal men. They had merely decided upon a counter-tactic to the enemy’s, recognizing that this was an all-out fight in which they were engaged.”

        [...]

        “A closed mind, of course, is a radical preventative. Fanaticism can easily be confused with it, and this is not what it means. A fanatic not only closes a door in his mind, he cements it shut so it can never be opened again, and shuts every other nearby door the same way, irrespective of where it leads. An intelligent person closes the door when he reaches a conclusion, moving on to other problems, but keeping the key safely in his pocket so he can open it again if he wishes. If he does, it is by his own free will and judgment and not at a brainwasher’s insistence.”

  16. Scale of entrapment:
    1) Force
    2) Ideas from external sources
    3) onw ideas

    practical:
    1) force screens that hold you in place (on a physical universe level with body would be a wall)
    2) You should not do… kind of stuff. Or you should do … in order to …
    3) I should not do

    The perfect trap is conviction that one has to be this or that in order to be this or that. This is the most effective or lasting traps of all. I should not eat animals. I should not have evil thoughts. I should quit smoking is a perfect trap. All attention is on not smoking instead of enjoy the smoking. Stuff like that.

  17. Keeping Scientology Working.
    This, in my humble opinion, is one of the points where things went astray.
    There is only one Source: LRH. If it isn’t written, it isn’t true. And if he didn’t write it, then throw it out!

    That’s how that little introduction in S.O.S. got tossed out. Plato and Socrates? Children! Locke? Confusious? Buddah? Morons. ONLY LRH!!!

    I remember having to F.D.S. the hell outta this on the FEBC. And at the end of the FDS, what do you read to replace the false data? ONLY RON!!

    Got wrapped around a telephone pole over this for a while, till I finally made up my own mind … what was true for me. AND could have just that.

    Scientologist choose to over-look Ron’s humility as humor. That he REALLY IS 100% knowledgable in all things, and when he says otherwise, he’s just being silly and cutting up with the audience.

    What is TRUE… for You… is what is true. Period. Everyone else can piss off. It’s really that simple, and don’t listen to anyone tell you otherwise.

    But where have we heard that before?

  18. By you own words Marty: “Obviously I had zero faith in anybody in the hierarchy of Scientology…”

    Is it possible this to be the answer?!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s