Spirituality
22 Dec 07
26 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAre you truly ignorant enough to think that "the Buddha charged $$$$ for his "classes"? Are you truly stupid enough to think that Nirvana = Physical Death?
And mine was a rhetorical answer.
And yes I am contemptuous of any religion or belief system that requires people to pay $$$ for help in healing/salvation etc etc. It runs counter to everything within the Bible!!
26 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is true. The kilesa is actually analogous to the effects of engrams according to Dianetics...irrational emotions, strange pains, odd phobias, etc. The engram would be "the causes themselves" (Sankara) referred to in the passage I quoted.
According to this Scientiology site, http://www.authenticscientology.org/page04.htm, engrams are recordings of past events and all the perceptions that occurred during these events. That doesn't sound anything like the concept of kilesa to me.
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdLow- and high-brow pseudo-science respectively. Engrams are copied directly from Freud's 'theory' of repressed memories, which in itself is a crock of the purest.
What I’ve read about engrams and such led me to think that Scientology is at least as complicated in its approach as, say, psycho-analysis.
Here's a good site on Freud: http://www.richardwebster.net/
As for scientology...I wouldn't waste my time, even for laughs.
29 Dec 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou don't live in my neighborhood. The Scientologists practically own a good chuck of Los Angeles and aggressively drive out businesses they disapprove of in their area.
Low- and high-brow pseudo-science respectively. Engrams are copied directly from Freud's 'theory' of repressed memories, which in itself is a crock of the purest.
Here's a good site on Freud: http://www.richardwebster.net/
As for scientology...I wouldn't waste my time, even for laughs.
Like with the Christians, I study them because they are the opposition, and I must understand them to be able to wake up their minions via logic and intelligence.
02 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not speaking from a position of ignorance. I'm well aware of the power wielded by the Hubbard gang and other organisations such as the Brazil-based Universal Church of God, on which, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i04.html
You don't live in my neighborhood. The Scientologists practically own a good chuck of Los Angeles and aggressively drive out businesses they disapprove of in their area.
Like with the Christians, I study them because they are the opposition, and I must understand them to be able to wake up their minions via logic and intelligence.
However, logic and intelligence will be of no avail to you. You can't reason with the brain-washed ... Unless you have heavier artillery available, and absent more compelling grounds for engagement (such as a family member in their grip) I would urge you to steer clear of them. Hence my earlier comment.
This looks like a case for Governor Schwarzenegger to sort out in person!
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, he derived it from the (mistaken) medical theories of Charcot on hysteria (the disease that didn't exist) and took it from there. Freud's genius was in turning commonplace facts (eg. people aren't always aware of what drives them) into impressive-sounding 'scientific' discoveries (eg. the Unconscious is a part of the brain resembling a black box of repressed urges and other psychic toxins). Freud constantly claimed to be a radical innovator, although mining a venerable vein of quackery.
Did Freud copy his theory from Buddhism? I imagine that Hubbard spent some time studying it.
Buddha, on the other hand, took traditional materials (Upanishadic teachings) and made them somewhat new. A handy update shorn of superstition, in my assessment, maintaining the valuable insights of the old tradition.
Hubbard studied every system of control that was available at the time, from Thelemic magic to psychoanalysis. The best guide to Scientology, in my opinion, is William S. Burroughs.
Was Buddha a better psychologist than Freud?
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have to agree with Bosse here. People who truly believe in religion are not up for a philosophical debate. They may tell you they are, but they'll never be convinced by your arguments, because you are lost, and they are saved.
You don't live in my neighborhood. The Scientologists practically own a good chuck of Los Angeles and aggressively drive out businesses they disapprove of in their area.
Like with the Christians, I study them because they are the opposition, and I must understand them to be able to wake up their minions via logic and intelligence.
I went to dinner on New Year's eve with my flatmate, an Australian, and a friend of his, an American lady. Now, they say never talk about religion or politics at dinner, and I now see why. My flatmate's friend, the American spouted the usual "America is the freest country in the world" crap. Now, my flatmate, Craig, proceeded to list freedoms he enjoys here in Japan that he would not enjoy in the US, or the UK or Australia. Minor things perhaps, things like bicycle riding on the wrong side of the road with no lights and no helmet at night. Walking down the street at 8AM with a beer that he just bought at the vending machine. Of course, one could counter with the things he's NOT free to do here in Japan. Get caught with any type of drugs and you're pretty much going to jail. Especially if you're a gaijin.
Of course, being the seasoned debater (I had pepper rubbed into my skin at this point) that I am, I asked her to back up her blanket assertion, or retract it. At this point she went nuts, complaining that she didn't have to defend herself, and that "every debate where America is the topic ends up at the same place", although she wouldn't tell us where that place was. Denver, presumably.
She stormed off, whilst myself and Craig finished her beer.
We discussed the matter afterwards, and I managed to calm him down somewhat. However, this is the way I rationalise this behaviour.
She has been taught since a young age that America is the freest country in the world. Some might call it propaganda. However, when faced with evidence to the contrary, she was unable to defend her position because propaganda is not founded in logic, or on facts, and refused to listen to debate. Thus causes her to feel anger and resentment, not positions from where one can debate rationally.
So, you see, debate can only work to convince people who are willing to concede that they might be wrong in their position. You've seen it often enough here; two sides, neither willing to compromise their position, neither really listening to the other, neither giving any credibility to the other's position.
I would love to live in a world filled with rational theists, who could be persuaded to become atheist by sheer logic; however, that world is as far away as ever.
02 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course you can reason with anyone. I read Dianetics and some Scientology Ethics book. I have sat and had conversations with Scientologists. People can be influenced. Anyone can be.
I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance. I'm well aware of the power wielded by the Hubbard gang and other organisations such as the Brazil-based Universal Church of God, on which, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i04.html
However, logic and intelligence will be of no avail to you. You can't reason with the brain-washed ... Unless you have heav ...[text shortened]... arlier comment.
This looks like a case for Governor Schwarzenegger to sort out in person!
And if Mr. Scientologist isn't, maybe that kid eavesdropping will be.
All it takes to be a "Scientologist" is to call yourself one and pay their Church some money. Just doing that is not going to turn you into a mindless zombie. These people are still normal humans with minds who are capable of listening to reason...at least some of them.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzGood story.
People who truly believe in religion are not up for a philosophical debate. /// She has been taught since a young age that America is the freest country in the world. Some might call it propaganda. However, when faced with evidence to the contrary, she was unable to defend her position because propaganda is not founded in logic, or on facts, and ...[text shortened]... hus causes her to feel anger and resentment, not positions from where one can debate rationally.
Some people put their faith in religion; others, their country...but what is this 'faith' and why would you want to put it anywhere?
Something that comes into play (loosely) here for me is the notion of some kind of enemy. People can be expert at unmasking the deficiencies of another's worldview while remaining pleasantly unaware of how ropey their own is. Hence my, uh, radical agnosticism (I'm having an Australian friend to stay at the moment -- he's a self-proclaimed 'radical atheist' -- very funny).
02 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust look at their eyes and see if they're listening to you or being polite while plotting to convert you. And ask yourself exactly how the org has taken control of parts of LA (which parts by the way?)
Of course you can reason with anyone.
Ever see the look in the eyes of a committed Jehovah's Witness? That combination of neediness and aggression, so nasty... Make you want to vomit down the front of that cheap suit.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh, absolutely. However, there will always be a hardcore of people (think KellyJay, JayWill, etc) who will never concede that they might be wrong. These people are thus beyond debating with.
Of course you can reason with anyone. I read Dianetics and some Scientology Ethics book. I have sat and had conversations with Scientologists. People can be influenced. Anyone can be.
And if Mr. Scientologist isn't, maybe that kid eavesdropping will be.
All it takes to be a "Scientologist" is to call yourself one and pay their Church some mo ...[text shortened]... till normal humans with minds who are capable of listening to reason...at least some of them.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzShe's easily convinced otherwise if the facts are there to support you. You start with that kind of person by pointing out how emotionally attached to the topic they are. You do it in public and let her humiliate herself by flipping out at very reasonable logic. Just keep talking to her about it. If she tells you she never wants to talk about it again, you start talking to the people she knows. Point out how aggressive and irrational she is, how pushy she is with her irrational beliefs.
I have to agree with Bosse here. People who truly believe in religion are not up for a philosophical debate. They may tell you they are, but they'll never be convinced by your arguments, because you are lost, and they are saved.
I went to dinner on New Year's eve with my flatmate, an Australian, and a friend of his, an American lady. Now, they say ...[text shortened]... aded to become atheist by sheer logic; however, that world is as far away as ever.
If you're honest with her, her friends and yourself, then you will have tremendous influence doing this. You might not show her she's wrong, but she's only one person. All the people watching this drama between you two will be more receptive. Person A is logical and calm, Person B is a hysterical nut. People will listen.
02 Jan 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThey own L. Ron Hubbard Way and the surrounding area, east of Hollywood.
Just look at their eyes and see if they're listening to you or being polite while plotting to convert you. And ask yourself exactly how the org has taken control of parts of LA (which parts by the way?)
Ever see the look in the eyes of a committed Jehovah's Witness? That combination of neediness and aggression, so nasty... Make you want to vomit down the front of that cheap suit.
The fact that the street is named after their prophet suggests there is more ownership than you imply. Their many story complex takes up many square blocks...bigger than most shopping malls I've seen by far. Maybe bigger than any. Something like the Glendale Galleria, but like ten floors instead of three.
They control things via lawsuits, financial donations and harassment. Lawsuits which are decided by non Scientologists who are receptive to logic and reasoning.