Home

tolerance5

By Lana M.

L.Ron Hubbard is not and never was a God.

He was a man who spent a lifetime looking for answers as to what haunts man. He was looking to discover the underlying causes for unhappiness, violence, evil, pain and suffering. And through his research over a lifetime, he found the underlying fundamental truths that allow a person to not only understand, but also improve life for himself, his family, his work and community and the planet.

He saw that what travails man is not complicated, but the fundamental truths require confront and a desire to change, accompanied with real action to learn and apply in life.

This is not real to those who have little knowledge of the way the universe works – and it is certainly not real to those who have trouble seeing outside of life’s problems.

That does not give any reason to be intolerant, or to consider such people in bad light. What is real to them is real to them. There is no “them” versus “us” – and certainly there should be no idea of superiority or inferiority on either side of the Scientology fence.

There are people of many faiths in this world and there are also people with no faith. The vast majority are good, well-intentioned people.

Talking to others about one’s own beliefs, views and attitudes raises ARC and KRC.

Talking to others about solving life’s problems increases tone and understanding.

Applying tech in your life to assist others, demonstrates for others that life can be improved and there are tools that can bring about change.

Many don’t have the reality that we have – but we can change that by talking to others.

It saddens me that some  Scientologists I have run into don’t talk to others about Scientology, don’t look for opportunities to provide assists or apply basic tech to others, or feel that they cannot simply apply LRH tech to another without first explaining what they are doing, where it is from, and what their own involvement is.

It also concerns me that I have run into a handful of Scientologists who have a “holier than thou” attitude, and view “wogs” as some lower life form. It is simply  not the case and certainly not reflected in LRH’s writings. I consider it just bank dramatisation, or unhandled overts and witholds that have led to such critical views.

And I also cannot think with Scientologists who are outside the church and point the finger at those who are still within the C of S – blaming them for cooperating, agreeing, supporting the current scene within the C of S. There are many who are under the radar, and there are many “still in”. They are good people. They are doing the best they can, operating off the information and data they have, and making decisions based on what they feel is best for their dynamics.

I make all efforts to be tolerant. We don’t have to agree. We don’t have to have the same reality. But let’s be tolerant, listen and understand the realities of others.

It is only with that basic TR 0 in, that you have the foundation for a comm formula, which is the underlying basic that must be in for any auditing (and thus any case gain) to occur.

There is my rant for the week.

Hope the New Year is treating you all well.  It certainly is down under. 🙂

31 thoughts on “Tolerance

  1. In general I like your posts and viewpoint. |Some who knew you
    back in the day say good things about you.

    I’m an FZer who has promoted FZ tech for 15 years or so

    I agree that in the main scentologists are good people. 🙂

    • Terril,

      I know it doesn’t amount to much, but you’re alright by me. I think some Scientologists go into the deep end on “brands” of Scientology. The more pan-determined view, of course, is that any brand of Scientology is better than no Scientology at all. Am I right?

      ARC,
      — Jonathon

      • I know it doesn’t amount to much, but you’re alright by me. I think some Scientologists go into the deep end on “brands” of Scientology. The more pan-determined view, of course, is that any brand of Scientology is better than no Scientology at all. Am I right?

        Hi Jonathan,

        I know where you’re coming from and get what you’re trying to say, but in reality it’s not correct that “any brand of Scientology is better than no Scientology at all”. Same with “any auditing is better than no auditing”, which LRH rescinded when the Class VIII course came out. The problem with any “brand” of Scientology is that it gives the tech and philosophy of Scientology a bad name as it is not fully workable. This violates KSW in re poor results and no results and eventually winds us up in the soup. And on top of this, the tech eventually gets watered down and changed and altered to where it is no longer a “workable technology”. Better to give simple bits of the philosophy rather than alter it for whatever reason, still calling it Scientology (when in reality it is really squirrel, off-beat tech). And this is a pan-determined view. 🙂

        “In order to make Scientology work, it is necessary to hold a standard and this standard must be held very relentlessly. And unless all the actions and all the various techniques applied can be held to a standard of rendition, then Scientology doesn’t work; Scientology doesn’t work if it’s badly done. In other words, the disciplines of Scientology are fully as important as the thoughts or discoveries of Scientology.” LRH

        “Where does Standard Tech begin? What is it?

        It is the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT. The exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route.

        So the net result of all of this is that when it is not standard he will have had some gain; it’s not all bad, but he’ll also have not achieved his full gain.

        And the difference between some gain and the difference between that and full gain, is the difference between wobbly-bobbly tech and very standard, precise tech.” LRH

        Class VIII Tape #2, “WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES” (25Sep68)

        • Chris,

          When I was in David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology, the only Scientologists guaranteed 100% Standard Tech were the celebrities and the wealthy donors. (I was a Sea Org crew member, so my experience with the tech was very different.)

          In a perfect world, we’d all have access to 100% Standard Tech — but this isn’t a perfect world yet.

          I had to quit David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology in order to solo-audit a simple repair action that I was told for three years I needed before I could make further progress in Scientology. The day I had to solo-audit my own repair, Standard Tech went out the window for me personally.

          I’m glad you won with Standard Tech. It remains a mystery to me — and I’m sure there are a multitude of ex-Scientologists who experienced the church the way I did. The only difference between me and the others is that I took the time to study the tech and solo-audit my repair action while the others just drifted away from Scientology altogether.

          — Jonathon

          • Hi Jonathon,

            I can assure you that those celebrities and rich donors you think were getting standard tech were in fact NOT getting standard Scientology technology, but some altered version of it. I even worked with a couple who did not get standard ethics or tech and were quite upset about it. In DM’s church, about the only guarantee you have is that you will not get standard LRH tech, but will become part of DM’s efforts to subvert and block the Bridge.

            The fact you had to go unusual and off-beat to handle a case difficulty shows just how bad the scene has gotten. In my view, though, there is never sufficient reason to go unusual. But that’s a hard-won viewpoint. In order to get Standard Tech, all one has to do is either put it in themselves, or go to someone who is delivering standard tech. This can occur even in an “imperfect” world.

            So to rehabilitate your belief in Standard Tech, all you need to do is to go see an auditor who practices standard tech. With a standard tech auditor and C/S, you WILL win again with LRH tech (not some other “brand”) and it will cease to be a mystery to you. I KNOW this to be fact.

            I wish you all the best and hope you can re-kindle your purpose in this regard.

            ARC,
            Chris

            • Chris and Milestone Two,

              From where I’m sitting, I see “Standard Tech” being used to invalidate other Scientologists. It’s the suppressive old adage: “If you aren’t going to do it right, then don’t try to do it at all.”

              Has anyone from Milestone Two ever reached out to Terril Park, the Ron’s Orgs, the FZ, etc. and tried to help them upgrade to “Standard Tech?” (Instead of invalidating other Scientologists, why not correct them?)

              What I see are Scientologists bashing other Scientologists. You guys couldn’t clean up the Church of Scientology — so now you want to clean up the field?

              I disconnected from the “critics” of Scientology when I saw that their endless criticism for LRH, the tech, the church and all Scientologists was destructive without providing any hope of an alternative.

              Now “Standard Tech” is the tool used to invalidate and attack other Scientologists.

              Didn’t Scientologists start out by wanting to help others with the technology? Why attack other groups of Scientologists if you aren’t willing to help them with Scientology? Are you trying to steal their students and PCs — or will you abandon their people after destroying their groups?

              ARC,
              — Jonathon

              • Jonathan – nope. Don’t agree on any of your points here.

                You are welcome to your viewpoint. You can contact persons who are calling themselves Scientologists (but are engaged in altering, squirreling, changing or mis-applying Scientology) and see if you can help them “upgrade” if you wish. Good luck.

                We just do Ron’s brand of Scientology here and we provide support to anyone who wishes to do the same. We won’t support persons who are not. That does not make us mean, nasty or otherwise. It just means there is a line drawn in the sand, and we are on Ron’s side of that line. 🙂

              • Hi Jonathan,

                I can well imagine – from reading what you have written here and in the past about your experiences in the CoS especially in regards your Bridge – that this is well your viewpoint. But IF it happens, I’m pretty certain it would be a “one-off” or isolated incident. Don’t confuse certainty and dedication with what you are intimating as occurring, or suggesting happens. One is certainly free to choose the route they find is best for them. But for those who choose to follow Standard Tech – LRH Tech – there is no compromise with KSW and Safeguarding Scientology. After all, without Scientology, there would be no offshoots or “other techs”.

                And to answer your question, yes, many have reached out and tried to help.

                “Where does Standard Tech begin? What is it?

                It is the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT. The exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route.

                So the net result of all of this is that when it is not standard he will have had some gain; it’s not all bad, but he’ll also have not achieved his full gain.

                And the difference between some gain and the difference between that and full gain, is the difference between wobbly-bobbly tech and very standard, precise tech.” LRH

                Class VIII TAPE 2, 25 September 1968 “WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES”

                • Chris,

                  I am certainly not opposed to Standard Tech. What I am saying is that many of us have already heard the refrain, “We are the only ones with Standard Tech. We are the only ones who are on-Source.” from David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology. (And he lied to us.)

                  Please don’t invalidate other Scientologists only because their route was less standard due to the church’s ineptitude. Invalidating the wins of others seems more like something David Miscavige would do and no one wants that from you.

                  Scientology is awesome — even for someone with my viewpoint and history.

                  ARC,
                  — Jonathon

                  • Jonathon,

                    I didn’t think I was invalidating other Scientologists, or their wins. Can you point to where that occurred so I can understand? Thx.

                    However, it was/is everyone’s responsibility for Scientology, and for the standard delivery of it. After all, we all had access to LRH on it in the form of HCOBs and HCO PLs. Many Scientologists, trained and not, wrote KRs and reports on the changes occurring in the CoS. Maybe if we had all stood our ground in regards to Keeping Scientology Working, things would have turned out differently.

                    Finally, again, as LRH says, there is only one tech, and that is Standard Tech. And that tech is available to everyone. So any variations from it (and here I’m referring mainly to the off-beat, off-shoot practices “based on” LRH tech) are chosen deviations from standard tech.

                    • Chris,

                      Many of us started with the Church of Scientology, looking for Standard Tech and wins from that tech.

                      Now you and I qualify the church as an out-tech, off-Source Scientology group.

                      Therefore, alternatives were sought or created.

                      Immediately after the 1982 implosion, some of the alternatives created included Mayo’s tech and the Ron’s Orgs as started by CBR. These technologies were designed, in part, to avoid copyright restrictions on the original materials by L. Ron Hubbard (but controlled by RTC and David Miscavige).

                      I didn’t win from the Church of Scientology’s weird tech. I didn’t blame L. Ron Hubbard for it, however, so I continue to study LRH’s books, references and lectures even into PT. Others blamed LRH for the current Church of Scientology, so they felt a need to “sterilize” the technology by removing Scientology from it (TIR is a good example).

                      I’m pro-LRH, pro-Standard Tech in theory. In actual practice, I’ve only won with non-Standard Tech after leaving the squirrel group known as the Church of Scientology.

                      If you and your friends are winning with Standard Tech, then by all means promote that tech. I’m not stopping you. However, don’t be quick to dismiss those who didn’t experience those same wins. (Otherwise, you are running a reverse vector flow wherein you are pushing others further toward non-Standard Tech!)

                      ARC,
                      — Jonathon

                    • “However, don’t be quick to dismiss those who didn’t experience those same wins. (Otherwise, you are running a reverse vector flow wherein you are pushing others further toward non-Standard Tech!)”

                      Jonathon,

                      First, I’m not dismissing those who didn’t experience the same wins. As I said, one is free to choose one’s path in life. And one will experience wins in whatever it is they do, if they put effort and integrity into it. However, in no way is applying KSW running a reverse vector flow, and in no way does it “push” others towards non-standard tech. That’s just plain bullshit and a denial of responsibility for oneself and the choices one makes. One may feel they are being “pushed”, but not until one gives up responsibility and drops into blame and agrees with the supposed “pusher” does one then go effect. And even then, it’s causative effect. One DECIDES one’s life, including what path one follows in life. And again, one is free to choose in that regard. But it is factually one’s own choice.

                      As RV says, “nuff said”.

  2. I totally agree with this Lana,,,,,but,,,,,,:)

    I believe we have been way too tolerant of out tech, ethics and admin, to the point of a church that rarely produces the products it was created for.

    I have come to see KSW in a different light. Not too long ago, I used to think it was what was occurring, and all that frantic motion and shouting was a part of it. When I pulled my head out of the sand I discovered it was rarely being applied.

    No matter what is said about Ron Hubbard, true or not, we know the Tech can work when done properly and that if a persons dynamics are not improving to his/her satisfaction, the Tech is not being applied. I believe that should be a yardstick to measure the success of this applied philosophy by. And frankly, if it didnt do that, and I didnt think it could and I hadnt experienced it for myself I would drop the subject all together. So thats not going to happen!

    I think that next time around, on our way to clearing the planet, we make sure the guy/gal in front of us, on staff, in the SO or whatever, is doing well too, and we don’t tolerate anything less, and that the enforcing of the Tech to bring that about, is what KSW is about.

    • “I think that next time around, on our way to clearing the planet, we make sure the guy/gal in front of us, on staff, in the SO or whatever, is doing well too”

      “From the viewpoint of positive postulates there is no negative aspect. You just skip the whole category of negativism. This has something to do with the granting of beingness. If you can conceive of a postulate that doesn’t also conceive any negative then you know what I’m talking about when I talk about a positive postulate. It’s not only that there is no negative given attention to but it does not assume that any negative is possible. It doesn’t pay any attention to negatives. It isn’t in the positive-negative to the degree that there is a dichotomy. It just is itself. Your determination or intention that somebody be a good, effective staff member is of course a positive postulate. It will be ineffective to the degree that you doubt it. (ESTO 6, 7203CO3 SO II)

  3. Great post, Lana. This phenomenon is an elephant in the corner of the room that is too often ignored. Scientologists should apply Scientology to each other on an individual basis. There is no need or reason or excuse for strife among us. Where there is disagreement, communication is the Universal Solvent, always. And he best way to lead is by setting a good example.

    Your words are a theme that needs to be repeated over and over until the message gets through. They made me think of several wise quotes, most of which are by LRH. Here are four of them:

    “Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe.”
    -LRH from his essay “What is Greatness”.

    “Go Placidly [peacefully] amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others, even the dull nad the ignorant; they too have their story.
    Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter……”
    -The Disiderata

    “Love thy neighbor as thyself”
    -Jesus of Nazareth

    And last but not least, one of my favorite LRH policies (and possibly the shortest):

    “An old Poem which has been newly adopted 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”

    -LRH (HCOPL 13 September 1978)

  4. Beautiful article, Lana.

    And even if this tolerance concept could bring a questionable point with KSW Series 1, I think it should be smoothed out in a gentle way, like a good cramming officer would do, with ARC, patiently showing references or definitions, and if that doesn’t handle, pointing other definitions and references.

    Especially in the current situation where trying to correct other people out-tech is often cramming over out-ruds, due to the loss of stable data and collapse of the 3rd Dynamic.

    Class VIII conference N° 14, Auditor Attitude and the Bank:

    “Auditing requires unlimited tolerance and charity.”

    Knowing Tech alterations are due to Misunderstood Words and since per Word Clearing Series 23:

    “All Word Clearing is done under the discipline of the Auditor’s Code.”

    I guess the basic tenet of the first 1950 Auditor Code, “Be Kind”, still applies to cramming.

    From what I can see today, the major out-tech that prevents most independent scientologists to build up a “true group” is not the way one should audit such and such process, but a failure to apply the Standard Tech of the ARC triangle, which by the way is the first item on the Keeping Scientology Working Technical Course.

    This was fine to be adamant and bold, in the 70’s, when the group was strong, but today many people I see are rather “repair pcs”, wherever as cases or regarding Ethics Conditions (need of Repair of Past Ethics Conditions).

    C/S Series 10: “Remember that pcs who need lots of repair are DELICATE cases. Feather touch is the watchword.”

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