I've been a little distracted the past few weeks with a wisdom tooth infection that about drove me crazy. I was reluctant to have it taken out since it was my most expensive tooth because of past work to save it, but finally bit the bullet and had it removed the other day. Then to top things off I got the flu from which I am attempting to recover.
I spent a good portion of the evening just catching up on all my unread posts so I do not have much time left for writing.
That said, I will make a few comments on the recent interchange.
It looks like John C has been bombarded with questions about Scientology. I see no problem with sincere questions, but I think John has been put more on the defensive than he deserves.
I think we can all agree that based on John's history here that his motives around any of his thoughts on scientology are good. Even if some think it is a cult and undesirable we must acknowledge that what John has presented from time to time from its philosophy has been in harmony with the discussions and he certainly has not been on any campaign to convert us or proselytize.
The fact is this. If you study any movement that has an impact on the world you will generally find that its finest hour was the beginning period of its development. If you look at the beginnings of even the most irritating of the religions and cults you will generally find some very good motives and inspiration.
This corruption (the principle of corruption) even settles in with the most inspired works. Look at Christianity initiated by the Christ. It began as a great and holy work persecuted by the most vile of men. But then in other times it was the Christians who persecuted the enlightened and burned the "heretics" at the stake as a "act of faith."
Scientology, just like other philosophies must be examined through the eyes of the soul. One must take that which registers as true and leave the rest behind.
So far when John quotes from the Scientology philosophy he seems to bring up some good material that has registered with his own soul. I've never seen him bring up and wild-eyed teachings that would lead us astray.
One point I wish to clarify is this. I did say that soul contact will basically make a person a "clear" as defined in scientology.
A clear is one who has all his engrams, or negative emotional programming removed.
One with soul contact may not have all engrams technically removed, but the effects are removed. He may feel the negative pull from an engram but he can override it through the power of the soul as if it does not exist.
Even though those with soul contact are essentially clear al who are clear by means of auditing do not have soul contact. Soul contact is merely a higher way to neutralize engrams. In fact he who has firm soul contact is closer to L Ron Hubbard's definition of clear than are the clears of Scientology.
For Instance, LRH stated that a clear, freed of the emotional interference from engrams, would be logical in most every situation. But the one with soul contact will follow the path of wisdom with greater surety than the audited clear.
One thing that LRH definitely discovered which has merit is the power to neutralize engrams. I have tested this out and used it positively several times.
The second thing I find of interest is that his group has done a lot of research into our past dating back millions of years through the auditing process. Now you can't rely on everything that comes up but in looking through a fairly large number one can often find some truth.
If John has studied this aspect of Scientology I would be interested in his shedding more light on their version of the history of mankind in the universe, the earth's role and the struggle of good and evil. I am particularly interested in the big secret that we are not supposed to know that I mentioned.
Keep cool and you command everybody. Louis de Saint-Just (1767 - 1794)
Copyright 2004 by J J Dewey