Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Questions to the Freezoners Out There...
6 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2008 - 10:34AM #1
greenbean2
Posts: 4
First, let me apologize if I ask any questions which have already been covered in another thread on this forum.  I have read through several threads, but not nearly all of them.  If these questions have already been answered somewhere else, please provide me the name of the thread, if possible, and disregard my post :)

To the Freezoners:

1.  If I'm understanding the definition of "Freezoner" correctly, a Freezoner is an individual who has separated him or herself from the CoS--but who still believes the basic concepts and principles Scientology teaches.  Is that a correct definition?  You may or may not still consider yourself a Scientologist?

2.  What has been your experience with "auditing?"  In his book, Dianetics, LRH described several different "actual" auditing sessions.  Were your experiences in any way similar to the sessions he outlined in his book?  What I mean is, were you able to actually return to moments of "real unconsciousness" and pick up the sounds and somatics that were present at that time, like the patients did in the sessions LRH described in his book?  Were you able to pick up any prenatal engrams?   I'd really love to hear about your experiences in this area.

3.  Would you say the main reason you have separated yourself from the CoS was because the expense of continuing outweighed the potential benefit of continuing?  Or was it mostly because you were uncomfortable with the way CoS was handling itself as an organization? Any other reason?

4.  All I really know about Scientology is based on the book, Dianetics, which is devoted to explaining the auditing process.  If a person were to become a Release or a Clear simply as a result of the auditing process (which I gleaned from the book is totally possible), wouldn't that be a major accomplishment in itself?  Would there really be a need to go any further in the study and process of Scientology?  Are the potential benefits of continuing that great?

I'd appreciate hearing the Freezoners' thoughts on this.

Thanks :)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2008 - 11:43AM #2
greenbean2
Posts: 4
Thanks Center for your helpful comments!

I think it says a lot for dianetics and scientology when someone who is not a bonifide member of the CoS makes such comments about its success.  That's why I was asking the Freezoners these questions, instead of the "Scientologists."  CoS Scientologists obviously aren't allowed to say anything negative about Scientology.  And, of course, people who were former Scientologists, but who now have nothing to do with it because of their anger over some issue or another, would be expected to cloud their opinions with negativism.

My point is, there's obviously something to it, otherwise you wouldn't still be a part of it, and that's cool :)

Also, thanks for telling me about your experiences with auditing. That's the area where I have been most skeptical--whether people were actually "returning" to early areas of their lives.  I hope others will share their experiences, too.

Now, I suppose my biggest challenge is to find an auditing partner here in Little Rock without having to contact CoS.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 18, 2008 - 1:33PM #3
fluffygirl
Posts: 191

greenbean2 wrote:

First, let me apologize if I ask any questions which have already been covered in another thread on this forum. I have read through several threads, but not nearly all of them. If these questions have already been answered somewhere else, please provide me the name of the thread, if possible, and disregard my post :)

To the Freezoners:

1. If I'm understanding the definition of "Freezoner" correctly, a Freezoner is an individual who has separated him or herself from the CoS--but who still believes the basic concepts and principles Scientology teaches. Is that a correct definition? You may or may not still consider yourself a Scientologist?

2. What has been your experience with "auditing?" In his book, Dianetics, LRH described several different "actual" auditing sessions. Were your experiences in any way similar to the sessions he outlined in his book? What I mean is, were you able to actually return to moments of "real unconsciousness" and pick up the sounds and somatics that were present at that time, like the patients did in the sessions LRH described in his book? Were you able to pick up any prenatal engrams? I'd really love to hear about your experiences in this area.

3. Would you say the main reason you have separated yourself from the CoS was because the expense of continuing outweighed the potential benefit of continuing? Or was it mostly because you were uncomfortable with the way CoS was handling itself as an organization? Any other reason?

4. All I really know about Scientology is based on the book, Dianetics, which is devoted to explaining the auditing process. If a person were to become a Release or a Clear simply as a result of the auditing process (which I gleaned from the book is totally possible), wouldn't that be a major accomplishment in itself? Would there really be a need to go any further in the study and process of Scientology? Are the potential benefits of continuing that great?

I'd appreciate hearing the Freezoners' thoughts on this.

Thanks :)



There are a number of people who practice Scn in their lives outside CofS. Some call themselves Freezoners, some prefer not to be called such. (like me). There are other spinoffs, too, though, point of fact, the FZ is not an official organization. It's a looseknit collection of independent practitioners.

I left CofS because of freedom of speech issues and many disagreements with the way they act. I wasn't leaving to become a FZer though I did later decide to set up some ties to the FZ.

In Scn, the sky's the limit (according to their ideology and set of theories). The ultimate goal is something akin to the state of Nirvana. This is NOT how they phrase it, it's not exactly the same thing but I use that term to give you an idea.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 19, 2008 - 9:24AM #4
greenbean2
Posts: 4
Darn, I see what you're saying.  I should have asked for responses from anyone who believes in the principles of Dianetics and Scientology, but who is not a member of the CoS. 

And, gee, "nirvana" seems like a pretty worthwhile goal to me :)

Thanks for your response, fluffy :)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 19, 2008 - 6:09PM #5
pr_la_verdad
Posts: 118
[QUOTE=greenbean2;701188]Darn, I see what you're saying.  I should have asked for responses from anyone who believes in the principles of Dianetics and Scientology, but who is not a member of the CoS. 

And, gee, "nirvana" seems like a pretty worthwhile goal to me :)

Thanks for your response, fluffy :)[/QUOTE]

It seems that many in these forums want the truth found in the tech
without all the group-enforcement stuff.  It seems that
some here feel that you can extract what you like and leave
what you don't. 

To those, a word a encouragement perhaps.
Many of the ideas that LRH wrote about pre-existed.
Consider the ARC triangle for example.  First, LRH didn't invent
the phenomenon - just wrote about it and talked about it
and emphasized it.  Next, people wrote about this before.
In the book, L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah or Madman, the author researches
ARC back to Crowley's symbol of the cup, and i believe it was also expounded
in Indian philosophy (where affinity = bliss, etc.).
Isn't it ironic that LRH is a big proponent of knowing the source,
questioning someone else's sources, but rarely reveals his own sources?

Consider auditing.  Propietary to Scn?  How many help groups exist that use listening as some form of therapy (12 step programs, counseling of all types)?  Countless.  Take Buddhism.  Compassion is key.  If you want to help someone, you try to understand them and what happened to them.  You listen.  Say you're a kid and you go out and fall down and get really hurt.  You go back home and someone asks you about it and gives you compassion (and by the way, Mom never needed an e-meter.) 

Consider memory.  Scn isn't the first and only group to emphasize memory.  Do a little research on Nordic beliefs or Greek mythology.  Perhaps you could find a slew of others as well.  You'll find that memory has been held as very important in these religious cultures.  So important that in some cases, memory itself is seen as a god.

Consider study tech.  Ask any teacher of language arts.  It's pretty well accepted and taught by those who have an inclincation to - when you don't understand something you first of all are aware of it and get to a point where you are not afraid of it, then you re-read the passage using context clues, if that fails then you ask someone knowledgeable, if that fails then you look it up in a dictionary, if that fails  you possibly get another source or something more simple if necessary.  As for using manipulatives, tactile learning is nothing new.  But in fact, it is not necessary depending on your learning style.  There are other learning styles - visual, musical, logical, body-kinesthetic, spatial, emotional, intrapersonal, interpersonal, etc.  The point is that if you "do something" with what you learned even if it's just talking about it, then you'll know it better.  Study tech - good reminder but we do better.

Scn is compilation of ideas, an eclecticism, a syncretic thing.  Perhaps some research went into it, but tough luck, people pick up what they can because society doesn't have that much time to mess around, to be continually saluting some long-dead sci-fi writer who wanted all the credit.  We need to move on, and i think it should be possible to do a better job, and i think we as a society have to do it (or someone has to).  Our study of the nature of reality and the nature of humanity must evolve, diversify, or die.  CoS is at a point of schism or disintegration.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 19, 2008 - 8:02PM #6
fluffygirl
Posts: 191
Sure, you're right . He was trying to codify existing phenomena.

If something exists but isn't really thought of or understood, then if someone else writes about it, that can be helpful.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2008 - 10:22AM #7
greenbean2
Posts: 4
[QUOTE=fluffygirl;702743]Sure, you're right . He was trying to codify existing phenomena.

If something exists but isn't really thought of or understood, then if someone else writes about it, that can be helpful.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing only to a greater degree.  I am possibly the least educated or "well-read" of anyone in this forum.  So, had it not been for the book, Dianetics, I wouldn't have had a clue that anything beyond my own depressed existence was possible without the aid of a psychologist or some other highly-paid, trained professional. 

To his credit, in my opinion, LRH did write the book Dianetics and presented it to the public.  Regardless of whether most (if not all) of the information he wrote about already existed, his book did open up a new way of thinking for many people, including myself, who would never have known about such things.  And, I intend to explore these things on my own, without CoS.

So, for that, I give LRH credit.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 20, 2008 - 3:28PM #8
fluffygirl
Posts: 191
Hi! Yes, I sure don't think he got everything right, but I think he really tried and that he came up with some very good methods and set out some good points.

I think there are others who've also done a good job in codifying existing phenomena but I think Hubbard is one of the very best of those.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook