Scientology and New Agey beliefs

[Grundy]

[RLSteve]

I'm curious.... did Hubbard come up with "Be Do Have?"

When I did the Landmark Forum (formerly known as EST), they taught about Be Do Have.

When I read Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsch, he talked about Be Do Have. Walsch mentions Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, who used to work for the Co$.

I'm sure I've read other books which talk about "Be Do Have."

But when I did Landmark, their emphasis was that lot of people think they have to have something before they can be something, like, "If I only had a lot of money and a huge house, I could be happy." Their emphasis was that you should BE happy first before you can HAVE all those manifestations.

From what I remember from being in Scientology, Hubbard never talked about Be Do Have this way. He only talked about it from a planning/admin point of view -- What do you want to HAVE? What do you need to DO to have that? What do you need to BE to do that?

But from most New Age books I've read, the big emphasis is that you don't need anything to be happy, and that happiness is actually what brings the manifestations, not the manifestations that bring the happiness. Focus on being happy first, then you can have what you want.

But Hubbard defines happiness as "The contemplation of achieving one's purposes and overcoming known obstacles to achieving those purposes," or something like that. I actually have nothing against this definition, I think it makes sense that that is how happiness works. However, from a New Age point of view, I find this definition to be quite limiting, because it implies that you have to achieve your purposes before you can be happy, rather than just being happy for no reason.

IMO, Hubbard was more interested in coming up with terminology to describe the mechanics of the mind, human relations, happiness, and "tech" to handle different problems. Like, if you're not happy, you have a failed purpose, or you have a present time problem, or you are being out ethics, or you are PTS, or you have an ARC Break, etc. And Scientology technology could handle all these different things that were blocking you from achieving your goals and being happy.

So, for me, the New Age movement is on a totally different wavelength than Scientology.

[RLSteve]

I've wondered about whether LRH seeded any Alastair Crowley gobbledy goops in Dianetics. He sort of hung around the OTO in late forties and based on the reports of others, Crowley (who never met him face to face) thought he was an idiot. (Not that Crowley was anything less than a con, but at least he told everyone he was a con, sort of like Gurdjieff)

There is a thread of Gnosticism that runs through the OTO that borrows a lot from other theosophic traditions, including esoteric Masonry. I guess you could say that the OT levels are an updated version of path of revelation in Freemasonry and other esoteric beliefs.