Home

Helping-others

By Lana M.

Someone shared a video on FB recently that was shocking. It was a 10 min video that showed a young boy of about 10 years old, trying to shield himself from the cold in New York, wearing very light clothing and holding a garbage bag. By the end of the video he had placed himself inside the bag and was curled up on the concrete footpath, shivering uncontrollably, and people just kept walking past him, ignoring what was happening. I had trouble getting to sleep after watching the video. It was really disturbing to me that people would not stop and ask the child if he was OK and needed help. The video was already 6 months old and took place in NY city, leaving me feel helpless to do anything — but still I wondered, why did someone video this kid and not give him a hand. They were more interested in capturing it on tape and posting it to social media that actually doing something. Just seemed completely unreal to me.

Then I was reading a local article called it’s time we had that talk and that discusses the same situation, on a broader scale. It talks about Australians doing little to nothing about major situations that are, or will have, negative impact on local life in times ahead, but they are not even discussed or talked about. I know that Australia is not alone in experiencing the phenomena of people non-confronting or blatantly ignoring situations around them. It is a planet-wide issue.

Some 20 years ago, when I was living in the USA, I found that I started to become numb to social situations that were just wrong. I remember walking down Hollywood Blvd one Sunday morning, in the early 90’s, and a youth was lying unconscious/sleeping (or dead) across the pavement, half undressed. I, along with others, walked around the body, not sure what to do, so did nothing. I am ashamed that I had become so insensitive and irresponsible to those around me. At the time I remember hoping that no one saw me there, on that street, walking past this person.

Coming forward to PT, I was recently travelling in Sydney and there was a homeless man sitting cross-legged on the pavement holding a hand-scrawled cardboard sign asking for money to buy food. I stopped and gave him five dollars and then continued on to catch my plane, but I wondered why someone who lives in Sydney could not stop and offer a hand/place to sleep/job. In only a matter of 30 minutes there would have been more than 100 people who would have seen him, read his sign, and walked on.

I will see a person walking along a rural road, and I will stop and ask if they need any help. Maybe they ran out of gas, or their car broke down? Heck, if I was in that circumstance I would hope that someone would stop for me. Maybe I am unusual in this way, but I find that by reaching out and at least asking if there is something I can do, minimally brightens someone’s day.

There are many things in this world that should not be. Poverty, injustice, war and natural disasters are just a few of them. I know that with my own two hands I cannot deal with all of them — particularly on such a vast planet and with such massive numbers who are impacted — but I realised that I can DO something about each one that crosses my own path, or any that come within my immediate sphere of influence.  A local child who is autistic, I can help. A child who is illiterate, I can help. A lonely elderly women, I can help. Conflict and upset within the local community, I can do something about. Local disasters or fires, I am trained to assist. I can support local charities. I provide all second-hand clothes to the local organisations that provide to those who are in need. And I work in an organization that helps people across the nation when they are injured, sick, vulnerable or in pain.

Wouldn’t it be great if each person, everywhere, decided to just do something to help improve conditions in their immediate sphere? To step outside their comfort zone, and help a stranger? To ask someone if they need help, and then provide it?  To reach out to someone who is past reaching and has sunken into despair, and assist them to regain their feet?

As Scientologists we can help ourselves, but even more importantly, we can help others.

We can bring people to a point of cause, in some small way, which enables them to get a foothold and continue to climb.

I think it is really important we don’t forget that, after all, that is what LRH did for us.

Do you agree?

41 thoughts on “Its time we had THAT talk

  1. These are often staged “documentaries” or clips for the likes of FB and YT. And they are the same ilk as news media stories that the chaos merchants foment. And they are meant to key in the GPMs and implants that shock us and depress us. That’s the intent.

    Compassion and love are what the world needs, and many push back with that message, that Man is capable of that, as you show above, Lana, and as, I suspect, most of us here show in our daily lives. As you say, and as LRH and the Dalai Lama and many others of similar beingness have said, it’s what our daily actions are that determine who we are being. Thankfully, Scientology has a road that is white=taped and easy to follow to achieve this. 🙂

  2. It’s the old “How Help Became Betrayal” gambit on this planet (HCOB 19 May 1960) . It isn’t just NYC or Sydney or LA, it’s systemic across the globe. “Help is betrayal” is what people are taught all throughout their lives across the world and now mankind has a huge button on helping others. We have all been bitten by someone when we tried to help or have been helped and now we shy away from the very subject of help. In the above mentioned HCOB LRH says that “Scientology Helps so therefore Scientology must be bad”. And that’s one of the reasons we get the bum rap.
    Fortunately LRH solved this situation with Grade One processing where there are plenty of “help” processes. This is why it is important to get people up the Grade Chart and clear them of this aberration along with other social aberrations.

    • Hi MO,
      There is a 9 yr old autistic boy in the Cub Scout pack that I lead and I use many different Scientology tools to help him improve his social skills and problems with simple actions like catching a ball, tying his shoes, spelling and writing. Some of the Scientology tools I have used include word clearing, locationals, the communication formula, start-change-stop, Tone Scale, etc.
      I know a lady who is auditing an autistic child on Objectives and he is making fantastic gains, with his parents commenting on the vast differences and improvements.
      Austism is a very broad term and people are complex beings. There is not a one solution that fits all, but by learning about the mind and the spirit (thetan) in Dianetics and Scientology you are provided with many different ways to assist a person who may have the label autistic.

  3. I work downtown of a large city, and there are about seven shelters within walking distance, where they receive food, a bed, laundry, showers, and counselling.
    I talked to some of these people, especially those who seem to be more “there”. The usual story is that they live in a shelter, and they need money for smokes, or they feel like having a burger.
    Or, one was on a detox program and he needed to buy that drug-replacement-legal drug, and he was begging for his 20 bucks co-payment. A couple of the guys refused to go to any shelter.
    If you live in a country and you find a fella in need of help, usually that help makes a difference and it is appreciated.
    However, I feel most of these people do not want to be helped. And if you break that shield and make it through to the person, then it would take hundreds of hours of skilled auditing to make a difference.

    • I can vouch for that Ian.

      Here in Glendale there was a bag lady who was hanging out at the Bus Stop on Glen Oaks and Central.

      Several people including my wife offered food and assistance and she refused these acts of charity and wanted to be left alone.

      Back in the day we lived in Hollywood. We had a bunch of Vietnam vets who lived on the street that we took care of by giving them blankets, money, food and cigarettes when they asked for it.

      Got to know them on a first name basis and who would tell us interesting stories about their time “in country”.

      Charity is a good thing for those who need and want it.

      But some people don’t.

  4. For years I fell in to the trap of avoiding really confronting the situation and sifting through the legitimation ‘help’ organizations and the scams by donating to the IAS. I always believed they would do the right thing with my help flows. Wow, was I wrong! But it’s just another example of where I stepped down from personal responsibility and allowed the Church to do my thinking for me. Any time we do that we set ourselves up for potential betrayal.

    • “…stepped down from personal responsibility…”

      Bravo, Nora. Nice realization on your part. What you describe was just (bad) control and an attempt to prevent you from REACHING across your dynamics. Glad you saw it for what it was/is.

      I’ll take this opportunity to again post an LRH quote that is quite relevant to your comment and to this article of Lana’s:

      “A thetan’s always had the impulse to help but not the technology…

      The composition of what is an overt act contains omission seldom looked at, it’s omission…not to do things for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

      That becomes an overt act; and one cannot maintain his freedom in the face of an overt act of that magnitude.

      A guy will only go as OT as he is responsible and can accept the definition of an overt. There is no other barrier to OT.

      I’m telling you this is shortsighted irresponsibility which will wind us up in the soup.

      We have to continue to take on responsibility for our fellows – we cannot continue to exist on an irresponsible line of just forget and abandon anybody…that attitude breeds for each one of us entrapment….

      We have to learn to take care of our own.” LRH (from the lecture “The Free Being”)

      • I can proudly say that the IAS practically had to hold me a gun point to get any money from me for my yearly membership.

        As far as I was concerned right from the beginning I considered the IAS and their various “statuses” an off policy blight on Scientology that would eventually corrupt the whole organization which they eventually did.

    • Me too Nora. It is interesting to sit back and look at how irresponsible I have been in earlier times, expecting someone else to deal with something, or tell me what to do. And then if course it was the perfect setting for betrayal.
      Love your comment Nora. Thank you. 🙂

  5. Living in NYC I’ve seen various aspects of this. On the plus side, there is a very large program whereby restaurants and grocery stores donate either their unused food for the day or their soon to expire items. They are collected by a fleet of trucks and distributed to churches mostly and some city agencies to feed the less well to do. It is a shame that there aren’t enough “hats” to go around as I’m sure most of these folks would rather work for a living. It is mismanagement pure and simple for the most part as there surely is plenty of work to do. I think there are many European systems that handle this far better. For example, I don’t think Denmark has any “homeless” people, or very few. The USA has this “survival of fittest” social Darwinism idea (completely false) that does not take into account the rest of the dynamics.

    • Some of these nations that are highly socialized countries hide the homeless by institutionalizing them in “mental health” facilities.

      I agree we have too much social Darwinism here promoted by our greedy elitists but the word is getting out what scum these people really are.

      That said. There seems to be more of an effort here in America to localize charity instead of turning it over to the state which I think is a good thing.

  6. So much to say.

    Large cities have more than their share of this kind of neglect because the people in cities have less space. It causes them to be less sane and lower toned. By contrast, rural dwellers have more space and a more sane, rational viewpoint. This isn’t just my assertion. Ron remarked about it as well. Also note, as I mentioned earlier this week, the amount of space a thetan claims as his own is what he is responsible for. Urban dwellers thus claim less responsibility and have more of a tendency to insist that some other entity (usually government) take care of these things. Correspondingly, they tend to be more communistic/fascistic than rural dwellers, who tend to be more democratic/libertarian/anarchistic (and natively helpful).

    Many people insist that government handle situations like the above. Governments are almost always dismally inefficient and expensive. Worse many people insist that federal governments have the biggest hand in handling. This is the exact opposite of what should be happening, because federal governments always insist on wasteful one-size-fits-all solutions. Local governments, on the other hand, know best the situations they face. Not that they are more efficient; they aren’t. But they do know the local area better than the federal government. Localized charitable entities can always do it better than local governments.

    These days, there is a dearth of charitable entities worth supporting, because a huge percentage of their income goes towards management, and not towards the eventual targets of their charity. Like governments, unions and other such entities, they ultimately become more interested in their own continuance than in delivering the charity goods and services they claim to represent.

    Incidentally, though I have no skin in this game, entities who do micro-loans to local entrepreneurs are one of the best ideas for charities to appear. They loan very small amounts to entrepreneurs who wish to start or expand small businesses. A small business in the hands of an eager entrepreneur is of tremendous benefit in many ways. It helps the local community with more locally manufactured goods they can use at reasonable prices. It greatly assists the state of mind of the entrepreneur who manages the whole thing successfully. It makes the local community that much more self-sufficient, since large and even medium size businesses are usually not interested in helping anyone but their shareholders.

    Charity is often delivered in the form of large cash grants or similar. This money often goes to the wrong people (the fascist leaders or governments of impoverished nations). LRH’s work in South Africa is instructive here. The better idea was to gather the locals to build a factory which relies on available local resources and personnel to deliver a valuable product. This is exactly what LRH did. But executing such a plan does require some original source of planning, organizing and expertise (which LRH provided). Thus involving retired executives and those with real world (successful) experience is often essential to such a plan. The problem is that too few of such people are recruited when undertaking such a plan.

    There are bright spots, though. There is one organization which specializes in delivering clean water to communities where it doesn’t exist. The personnel of the program do not sink the shafts and build the wells. Instead, they provide guidance to local people who do the actual labor but don’t have the expertise or planning savvy to do it themselves. In the end, the community now has clean water from a source they built, and a source of pride in accomplishment for their community.

    The points about help, ethics and aberration contributed by the original poster and commenters are also well-taken. And yes, there are those who, because of “pride” or service facs or other aberration, refuse help. There will always be some of those. As we de-aberrate this planet, perhaps there will be fewer.

    Lastly, it’s a fact that those who have been genuinely helped (by whatever means and in whatever areas) are more likely to help others down the line. Worth keeping in mind.

    Paul

    • I have to laugh at your comments on folks from the city being communistic/fascistic and irresponsible. Seriously, I’m laughing. LRH advised orgs be set up in cities with populations of 1 million or more and that is where all of the orgs were located in the ’70s. I worked in one of them and the public were not from the rural areas but from the city mainly. With that off my mind, I do know the reference where LRH talks about the advantage of greats spaces of the West (in the US). I’m from NYC and am currently in the southwest of the US and next week will be in the Grand Canyon and then the other National Parks in the general area. One of the natural beauties of planet earth – and I can’t wait to see the night sky in the desert!

      • MT:

        Well, I can’t imagine LRH saying, “People from the city are more crazy, so let’s locate Orgs in the great open spaces of the world”. It would be self-defeating, and kind of like LRH saying, “Hey guys, we all know Christmas traffic is going to suck, so why don’t all you guys just take off and come back in a week”. Never happen.

        There are references about the differences in behavior of people out West. But there are references (one or more) about the differences in space between urban dwellers and rural dwellers as regards political leanings. And you can see it playing out today in any red-blue political map of the United States. This is also reinforced by the axioms, which talk about a thetan’s anchor points and the amount of space (and thus magnitude of responsibility) he takes as his own.

        BTW, say, “Hi!” to the Milky Way for me while you’re out and about. I live in one of those crowded cities and don’t get to see it much. 😉

        Paul

        • Actually, Paul, I agree with MT on this. You made some very broad assumptions, one of which is that people in cities can’t have space. Not true. It depends on the being, not where they live, as some in rural “spacey” areas can be very close-minded (no space) while some in cities can be quite accepting (ability to tolerate lots of space). Then there’s the issue of randomity differentials. It is true that “generally” certain locales can engender certain political leanings, but I think you’ll see that shifting as the old gives way to the new. 😉

          • I agree Chris.

            Grew up in a small town and it wasn’t the Utopian paradise (at least for me) that John Mellencamp makes it out to be.

            Hit the big city lights when I was 18 and never looked back.

            Personally I found places like LA to me more tolerant and less stifling then the small towns I lived in when I was a kid.

            But maybe that’s just me.

            Regarding space. According to the factors Space is a viewpoint of dimension. You either create it or you don’t.

            • RV: “According to the factors Space is a viewpoint of dimension. You either create it or you don’t.”

              Yup. Exactly.

              “THE POWER (defined as light-year kilotons per microsecond) OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE DISTANCE (defined as spherical spatial length) AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.” LRH (HCOB 10 Aug 82, OT Maxims)

          • CB:

            Not really a question of “tolerance” of space, and we’re not talking about OTs and Scientologists. I’m talking about regular humans. By definition, the thetan in the (large) city would “own” less space, and the thetan in the rural context would “own” more space. And we’re talking in broad generalities, not specific exceptions. There will always be exceptions, but they don’t disprove the general rule. These differences in amount of space ownership also monitor general tone level. In SOS (Science of Survival) column Q, Ron talks extensively about the political leanings which attach themselves to various tone levels, and which are as I indicated in my original comment. Unfortunately, SOS doesn’t address space as it relates to tone level, because Ron didn’t begin to fully research or discuss the role of space in the behavior of thetans until later.

            Wish I could remember the original place where I got this idea of space and politics. Could well be the PDC, but I’m too lazy and too busy to try to go back through the “wall of tapes” to find it.

            BTW, “close-mindedness” does not equate with no space. I’m very close-minded in many areas. Or at least I would be considered so by many people. The reason is this: I’ve thought the thought through, come to a conclusion, and determined no further investigation is necessary. In these areas, I’m perfectly willing to listen to alternative points of view, but it’s unlikely you will change my mind. Most likely, my conclusion is based on observation and its conformance with axiomatic extension. That is, this is what I’ve observed. Asking why it appears to be that way, I’ve found that when axioms are extended logically, they arrive naturally at what I’ve observed. Thus, no further investigation is necessary. And I’ve normally found that for situations like this, the alternative arguer either hasn’t thought the thought through or ignored obvious facts which contradict the argument he makes. I’m not completely unwilling to change my mind, but your burden of proof in cases like would be enormous. (Thanks for bringing this up. Searching in my blog for a post on this, I see I haven’t done one. So it must be time for one.)

            Paul

            • Hi Paul,

              You don’t have to change your mind. I still disagree on some basic principles and fundamental assumptions. Much of my study outside of Scientology was in this area (sociology of cities; land use; cities, places and spaces; rural/urban conflicts etc.), so I think I’ve been able to think it through enough to come to a conclusion.

              I also don’t get where you get this idea: “by definition, the thetan in the (large) city would “own’ less space, and the thetan in the rural context would “own” more space” as that seems to be an empirical assumption and possibly and incorrect one?. People in cities can own as much space as they want. And many do. Anyway, don’t go changing your mind. You’re fine just the way you are. lol

              • CB:

                Okay, I’ll go through it again. A thetan has no position in space or time and effectively exists beyond both. Axiomatic. A thetan puts out a viewpoint from which to view the universe. Axiomatic. He puts out anchor points to view. Axiomatic.

                Now, thetans typically consider themselves to be of a certain size. I don’t recall where LRH pegged this, but let’s just theoretically agree that it’s on the order of a piece of sports equipment, say a baseball or basketball or something of the sort. This size is defined (as is all space) by anchor points the thetan generates. Axiomatic. In any case, it is an artificial and arbitrarily selected size. It is selected at this size because it seems to be adequate to associate with and handle his most important set of anchor points, his body.

                Now, the thetan also determines how much space is “his”. That is, how much space he “owns”, is responsible for, and feels free to operate in. For example, right now I’m sitting in my office, which is about 10 ft by 22 ft. My common anchor points (one set of them) corresponds to the corners of this room. Why? Just because. That’s the way thetans tend to react to this universe. In fact, when LRH was recommending the command, “Be three feet back of your head”, he followed this up with the proviso that one should only give this command to someone who actually had three feet of clear space in the room behind them in order to execute the command. Having a PC exteriorize into the next room (because they were a foot from the wall behind them) would probably serve mostly to confuse the thetan when they exteriorized.

                In any event, the thetan has many anchor points, including the ones he leaves at the 7-11 down the street where he buys his cigarettes and soda pop. But certain ones are unique in that he considers these as the boundaries of what he “owns” and is responsible for. In my case, some of my “ownership” anchor points are my office, the 2400 or so square feet of my house, and the third of an acre or so on which my house sits. These are mine. As a further example, perhaps more intimate, is how much “personal space” is mine. For most people, there is a radius of space around them which, when invaded by others, makes them uncomfortable. Typically that space is anywhere from a foot to three feet. 2Ds are typically exempt from this, but others are not. I had a friend once who used to stand six inches away and talk to me, often putting his hands on my shoulders or arms to make some point or another. Made me uncomfortable until I realized that’s just the way he was, and the space was still mine, even though he was invading it. Even psychologists and social scientists have recognized the existence of this “personal space”, though they have no idea from whence it comes.

                When I speak of “ownership” I don’t mean in legal terms. I mean the consideration of the thetan about what amount of space he actually “owns” and is responsible for.

                Some of this isn’t exactly axiomatic, but is based on observations of how thetans react and what considerations they tend to hold.

                In big cities (New York being a prime example), the thetan, living in what is typically a smaller space and forced to move about in spaces where many many people must also be (buses, subways), people would obviously contract their space or tailor it so that it conformed to the places they tended to inhabit and so as not to interfere with the spaces of others. By contrast, those in rural settings, would likely have personal spaces which were larger. When they walk out their back doors, they don’t see the next building three feet away. They see the fence a quarter of a mile away. That’s “their” space. If a rattlesnake shows up in that space, they feel free to lop its head off. I’ve been in both types of environment, and I know factually that I contract my space in the city, and expand it when in the country (or at the beach).

                Now, that’s not to say one cannot change one’s consideration about it. I mentioned this as an exercise a few days ago in the discussion about orders of magnitude of objects in the universe. One can simply consider that one’s space is twice as large as he would normally consider it. Or ten times more. Or a hundred times more. You want to know why people ignore someone injured on the sidewalk in front of them? Part of the explanation is that that’s not my space and so I’m not responsible for it. Believe me, if the thetan considered that solidly “his” space, he’d do something about it. But he can change his consideration, and it’s (at least from my perspective) a relatively simple process.

                Another example of space I “own” is the space around my car. There is a buffer zone around it which is handy in parking and such. Keeps me from running it into other cars. It also alerts me when other cars on the road invade it. I flinch and begin to react differently (and with heightened awareness) when some idiot begins to move his car into the space around my car that I consider “mine”. I also “own” the kitchen sink in my house. Why? Because, in my consideration, my wife leaves it messy and I don’t like it that way. So I made that space mine and I’m the one who handles what’s in it (and not in it).

                Anyway, that’s my not-so-brief summary of anchor points, space ownership and such. Some of it is axiomatic, as indicated, and some of it is simply based on things LRH said, but more likely based on observation of actual thetan reactions in various environments.

                And gee, I’m glad I’m just fine the way I am. I was pretty concerned about that until you gave a license to survive. 😉 Whew!

                Just remember this: “[I]f there’s anybody in the world that’s calculated to believe what he wants to believe, and to reject what he doesn’t want to believe, it is I.” LRH, The Story of Dianetics and Scientology. I’m right there with ya, Ronnie.

                Paul

                • Nice dissertation, Paul. Some shaky arguments, IMO, such as people in smaller spaces obviously contract their spaces (oh, it’s obvious? How was that assumption arrived at?); same with your rural anecdote. Me, I’ve lived in both types of areas and my space is big or small by my own consideration, not by whether there’s a wall there or not. As with all us “humans”, we’re thetans first, bodies a distant second, regardless of consideration.

                  As you said Ron says, we can reject the other’s ideas. After all, it’s just a consideration. 😉

                  • CB:

                    “… bodies, a distant second.” You might want to check with your nearest wog on that. He thinks he IS a body, and doesn’t even know thetans exist. His reactions and considerations may be different from yours. I’m just sayin’.

                    Paul

            • P.S. Closed-mindedness, in my view, does tie in with ability to have or not have space as it defines intolerance, which can be equated to an inability to BE the other whatever, including an inability to be, have or own/occupy that space = lack of space. At least, that makes sense to me! (Caveat: I make no sense at times, I’ve been told by my wife.).

              • CB:

                Yeah, that’s what your wife told me about you. Ah hah hah hah hah. (Kidding.)

                I think we’re talking about two types of closed-mindedness. There is the kind based on prejudice, false data, service facs and religious fervor. “The Earth could not possibly rotate around the Sun. For the Bible says…” “Negros are obviously inferior in intelligence, because…” “You can’t go faster than the speed of light, because…” “Anyone with long hair is a hippie, and all hippies are drug addicts…” I agree with you there. Just try getting grant money to do research proving that global climate change is NOT anthropogenic.

                But there is a second type of what would be called “closed-mindedness”, which is based on research and observation and facts. This type of closed-mindedness precludes further serious argument. “The Laws of Listing and Nulling are thus…” “Space is built from anchor points…” “The No-Interference Zone is from here to here…”

                In fact, this latter kind of closed-mindedness, when applied in the context of Scientology technology, drives many in the Field bonkers. They want to apply Power Processes (Grade V) to exteriorization problems and such, and they fault us (“with LRH”) for being “closed-minded”.

                Paul

                • “Closed-minded: adj. obstinately resistant to argument or to unfamiliar or unwelcome ideas” (Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, Unabridged)

                  Just so we define our terms. 😉

                  Ok, so I think both of what you are saying are different definitions above fall under this one definition (the only one in two dictionaries, by the way). And in my opinion, I think this aligns with what I said, about an inability to have space. However, I’m open to new ideas, should you submit some that are logical. Heheh. 😀

                  But basically, to cut this short, a lot of it has to do with Scales: the Havingness Scale; he Tone Scale; the Reality and Communicaiton Scale; Scale of Identification; etc. A being higher on these scales, whether in a city or countryside, will have a higher capability of space than one lower on the scale. Further, as one ascends the Tone Scale, one’s space increases to infinity; as one falls on the Tone Scale, one’s space solidifies until one is MEST.

  7. I liked this post, Lana, and to answer your question, I agree.

    LRH is a very able being and got himself to a very OT state but as he did so he didn’t just say to himself, “Wow, ain’t I cool ! ” No, he also dedicated his life to helping others (us!) move up to higher states of cause and improvement. He took the time to develope Scientology and Dianetics so that others can use it too. He entertained us with his charm, and personally answered our letters to him.
    If everyone just took responsibility for whatever and whoever came across their path, this would be a whole different world. It’s called the 4th dynamic. And it’s not somebody else’s job to bring order to that. No act of kindness or love is ever wasted and one can always do something to ease another’s burden with whatever tools one has. We all need to actually operate in this sphere and make doing that some part of our lives.

    As for people being “worthy” or “un-worthy” of our help, Here is one of my all time favorite LRH policy letters ever:

    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 September 1978
    Remimeo

    An old poem which has been newly adapted as policy:

    There is so much bad in the best of us
    And so much good in the worst of us
    That it ill behooves any of us
    To talk about the rest of us.

    L. Ron Hubbard
    Founder

  8. A great subject to open up Lana, thank you.
    My view on the matter may be over simplified, but sometimes simple works.

    The problem with “helping” the less fortunate, or greatly challenged (our fellow Man) is a COMPLEX PROBLEM. There is no one size fits all solution.

    We can say, “Scientology can handle that,” but those are mere words in the face of a global meltdown of overwhelm, non confront and wide spread apathy. Add to this the global CREATION OF CHAOS” on a daly basis by powerful entities and we quickly see that the word COMPLEX is an understatement.

    That said, I believe there is a solution – dare I say, “Something can be done about it,” with a straight face and a clean heart. But yes! There is something we can all do, without getting overwhelmed by the sheer mass and magnitude of the problem as a whole.

    My belief is that complexity can be converted into simplicity and losses into an ever increasing stream of wins. (No re-stimulation of GPMs – Goals Problems Mass necessary.)

    The cornerstones of a workable solution would read as follows: Writers write – builders build – Auditors audit – potato farmers grow potatoes.

    In other words, DO WHAT YOU LOVE TO DO – and employ that joy, that love, those actions in some way, big or small to help improve one person’s one group’s one community’s well being, for the better.

    Organizing a soup line is not my thing. The soup would induce suicidal thoughts and arrive 2 hours late. But someone in this world can make delicious, nutritious soup for 2 cents on the dollar, have 200 gallons perfectly distributed before 9 AM and experience pure joy in the doing. God bless them – I am not that person and just maybe you are not either.

    But you love to sing, for example. Then leave the soup and the blankets and the shelter and the transport of medicines to those who love to shine in those areas. Go find a wooden box, a local stage or the finest concert theater in the area and sing like heaven has opened and the angel’s are descending on Your-Town-USA. All for the worthy purpose of buying lots of carrots and potatoes for the soup makers.

    It may sound like a John Lennon lyric when I say that what our lesser fortunate fellow Man needs is LOVE. But that is the SIMPLICITY I refer to at the outset of this comment.

    A bowl of potato soup may sustain the body for another day. But a bowl of soup made by someone who loves what they do, how they do it and the joy of “soups” is LOVE MANIFEST. That is the healing power, the spirit-lifter. That is the WAVELENGTH that cuts through the masses and tears lesser, more gross wavelengths to shreds.

    Be it one hour of an auditors help, or the help of a handyman with his hammer; and yes, even the look in your eye when you speed passed a troubled soul, but can not stop at that exact moment.

    Love manifest and that love shared with one’s fellows.

    A poem can change a million minds, if love is at its source. One hammer can build a thousand houses, if the love driving the nails is sufficient to inspire a thousand more willing carpenters.

    That’s my belief. Scientology is a set of tools. It is not a solution to anything, or for any being in and of itself. But put it in the hands of someone in love with who they are and what they are doing and look out.

    The love of one’s fellow man naturally follows.

    The Charity mindset, the enforced “responsibility” speeches on TV, the campaigns to “help” those poor, unable, unwilling souls – all produce greater apathy because they reduce the flow to insult and degradation of both the giver and the receiver.

    The joy of doing and expressing oneself, as oneself, and in a manner that lights up Christmas trees and leaves lips uttering, ‘Wow,” that’s God in a bottle.

    Charity programs and fat-cat donations are not “The solution” to any major (global) problem affecting the Thetan, mind or body of our fellows on this planet. They are mere Band-Aids, welcome, of course, but always temporary, at best.

    A billon dollars, so what. Some corporately contrived OT VIII, dishing out bowls of soup to the homeless for “PR PURPOSES” – so what!

    But love, and someone truly being it,doing it and having it and spreading it around like butter on a world of fresh cornbread cupcakes, well now. That is something to behold. That is scalable, right down to one man, one woman one child. Any one can do something, big or small.

    And I’ll be damned if it can not turn any so called “social problem” on its tail and into extinction.

    But then, that’s just my opinion. As for me, I am going back to see what I can do with that one poem, just that one, with love enough to change a few million minds, on the subject of homeless, hungry children.

    It may not be easy. But I am fairly sure it starts with the words, “I love you.”

  9. LRH wrote about “Acceptance Level Processing” in the early 50’s and I believe it was mainly to educate about the havingness levels of other people, as well as ourselves!

    Its a fascinating read, because you do begin to realise that there are people who have exactly what they want, no matter how bad off their mest or personal circumstances are. This is something I have observed, many times.

    This is not to say people dont fall on hard times and deserve a hand up, but with some people, the reality is they are exactly where they want to be.

    This is why, for me anyway, charity is fine as a means to give a person a hand up, to get on his/her own 2 feet, but if that charity is abused or taken for granted or there is no sign the person (or group) is doing anything to lift themselves up, then something else is going on and that “charity” should be pulled.

    I occasionally consider the “down trodden”, as to what is the best possible solution for them improving their lot. If after they have been taught how to sink a well, and they are still drinking from stagnant puddles, Im afraid my viewpoint of them sours somewhat.

    It is very easy to see, with many people they need to realise about the condition they are in and how it affects others, and the only thing I know that does that effectively and consistently is Scientology training and auditing.

    • 4a: “…there are people who have exactly what they want, no matter how bad off their mest or personal circumstances are.”

      This is how my brother was, 4a; always living in studio or bachelor apartments or in a rented bedroom of a house. He was always borrowing to make ends meet, but was happy just doing what he wanted to do in life. (Jim was an “inventor”; some of his ideas were years ahead of his time – e.g. NASA is just now using one of his “discoveries”.) It took me a long while to realize this, and that I was enforcing my viewpoint as to how he should live and how “wrong he was” for living the way he was. Once I saw that, I was much more able to support him in his purpose in life. Some people need a helping hand; others don’t; and one has to respect their right to make their own decisions in life and not enforce moral codes upon another that may not be wanted or their reality. It’s an “affliction” prevalent in societies it seems, especially western societies.

      ENFORCED HAVE, making someone accept what they didn’t want. (HCOB 3 Jun 72R)

      ENFORCED OVERT HAVE, forcing upon another a substance, action or thing not wanted or refused by the other. (HCO PL 12 May 72)

      ENFORCED REALITY, the demand on the individual that he experience or admit reality when he has not felt it. Any time a person is made to agree by force or threat or deprivation, to another’s reality and yet does not feel that reality himself, an aberrative condition exists. (SOS, Bk. 2, pp. 72-73)

      Incidentally, it was my brother who got me into Scientology back in 1976. If not for him, there would be many fewer Clears, fewer OTs, and one less Class VIII C/S. 🙂

      • All these responses are very interesting.

        Then I thought what the hell.

        Why not include what Ron has to say about this area:

        HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE ANNOUNCEMENT
        1954 [ca. October]

        Official Publication of
        The Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Phoenix, Arizona

        Dianetics and Scientology . . . a Crusade

        L. Ron Hubbard

        Dianetics and Scientology are more a crusade for sanity than they are a business.

        The Foundations and other organizations in Dianetics have suffered only when the insistence that they be run as “business” overpowered their will to help humanity.

        If all we wanted to do with Dianetics and Scientology was make money, we would all be rich, for it is an easy thing to sell those hitherto unpurchasable things health, long life, and happiness.
        But there is the extreme of charity which neglects the first dynamic.

        An optimum solution would be that one which brought the greatest good to the greatest number of dynamics. Thus the auditor must not neglect the first dynamic—himself. Too many have. And their work has been impeded by lack of funds.

        The Foundation is not a business, the auditor is not a businessman. But both the Foundation and the auditor must live and work in a commercial and economic conscious world.

        It is no disgrace for an auditor to earn several thousand dollars in a few weeks. It would only be a disgrace if he worked only to earn it.

        With money made from those who can afford auditing, an auditor can himself afford to undertake the assistance of those in hospitals and asylums or who have lost in life.

        It is a luxury to be so generous. It is not a luxury to earn, only—who was it said that he who is without charity is as empty as sounding brass and the tinkling of the temple bell.

        But remember, there is a happy mean between an overburden of wealth and an overburden of charity. Either way loses.

        And so, when we speak of an auditor’s income, we speak of his potential charity. And when we speak of an auditor’s charity, we hope he can have enough paying preclears to afford it.

        An auditor is wasted on a routine job—his time is lost. He is also wasted processing nothing but movie stars and millionaires—if he forgets that these can only buy him the luxury of charity in the backwaters of the world.

        • Good words; words to live by. Reminds me of something I read recently by the Dalai Lama:

          “Experience has shown me that the greatest inner tranquility comes from developing love and compassion. The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warm-hearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove our fears and insecurities and gives us strength to face obstacles – it is the ultimate source of success in life.”

      • CB:

        Glad you finally cognited on your brother’s approach to life. I’m uniquely sensitive to those who march to a different drummer, because I am one too. According to my family, I coulda shoulda been an engineer, pastor, scientist, stand-up comedian, musician, radio DJ, writer, draftsman, calligrapher, fine artist, film critic, lawyer, etc., and above all, rich. Never worked out that way, though. Why? No interest. I was the first born of my family. But I was also pretty much a “surfer dude”. My attitude was always laid back (part of why I loved LA). I never had a “clique” of friends. My friends were from other cliques. My younger step-brother always tried to compete with me, but never could (which drove him nuts). Why? Because I wasn’t interested in competing. I didn’t have anything to prove and no one I was trying to impress. I didn’t need a license to survive.

        I learned that you never know from whence genius will emerge, and you never argue with people over how they choose to handle their lives, except in cases like drug addiction. And even then, it became clear to me early on that the only addicts who will be “cured” are those who wish to be.

        Bottom line, if someone’s happy with their life, let them live it as they like. It may not be your idea of happiness, but then you don’t have to live it.

        Paul

What is your view?

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