Old Questions…New Answers?




In this new section of the urqbones blog I am going to take up some questions concerning the failure of Scientology to deliver on its fundamental promises (which may or may not have been explicitly expressed).

The questions have been put to me by someone I have known for a long time and who is close to me. By way of introduction to his questions I should say that in 1966, when I was either Director of Communications or LRH Communicator SH [“Saint Hill”], I alerted him to the possibility that he could get some auditing for free because of a change in the organization of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Students were required to audit on another person the level they’d just been trained in (the Briefing Course covers several sequential levels) in order to demonstrate their proficiency on the level.

The change was that the students were now required to procure their own people to audit (“preclears”); this required them to look outside the Saint Hill [SH] Scientology community, and they were having to scramble because feelings about Scientology locally were mixed. There was, therefore, a bit of a vacuum for would-be preclears. If my friend wanted some auditing—but, being a young family man, had to have it cheap or free—here was his chance.

He arranged at once to come to SH for a week and went into session just about on arrival: there was no shortage of willing auditors, I having made sure the word got around that this preclear would be available. By 1966, the Bridge had been sorted out into the Grades (and other levels), and the Grades auditing consisted of running only the then-current major process for each Grade. My friend went through all his Grades within his week and went home extremely happy. He refers in the quote below to his “four or five floating needles” that week; the standard tech of the moment was to run whatever you were running to the first floating needle and then end the action off. That basis was enough to produce happy gains for him [and for me and many others, although I loved my Expanded Grades as much as any level I’ve had].

My friend, having the needs of a relatively large family to take care of and his immediate environment not disposed to know and respect Scientology, wasn’t able to pursue the subject further after going back home. His Saint Hill adventure took place over fifty years ago. nonetheless, one can see in what I’ve quoted here (below) from his message to me the warmth and respect with which he still regards his treatment at the hands of the students who so gladly found him so willing. Even though technology still had a lot of development to do, it’s clear that the student auditors of the time held their standards high as regards the handling of people as people, and that they handled my friend in exemplary fashion. One wonders, as old people do, if students and auditors have the same standards today?

This old Release, happy in his memories, raises questions that I’ve had at the back of my mind for a long time as issues I’d need to treat sooner or later. Now that he has shoved them under my nose, so to speak, I might as well drag-and-drop them into my crumbling pre-frontal cortex and start kicking them about.

What he wrote to me is, in part:

I find myself as disappointed as you that Scn has not brought about the change that it could and should have made.  My week’s experience of four or five floating needles gave me a brief but very real feeling of compassion, heart-centredness and clarity/simplicity of mind, the latter a putting of the mind’s 99% junk, not just actual experiential conditioning but all the unrealistic hopes and thoughts – brain chatter – into an unlocked cupboard.  This, I thought, was the essence of Scio and felt that this would be the reward of all adherents and on to a better world.

I don’t know if you went to the ultimate level of Scio but there is no sign to me that anyone has so is there something wrong with the tech? Is there a missing process?  Does it actually put the 99% of mental junk into a cupboard?  As mentioned that cupboard isn’t locked and it is easy to reconnect with any item and return to a former state of mind but one nevertheless remains aware of the serenity.  It seems to me that Scio has not given its adherents the means to hold or recover that serenity.

The questions I see to answer here are:

  1. Could Scientology have given its adherents “real feeling of compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind” or (to allow for differences between individuals) some similar kind or range of blessings?
  2. If it could have given all its adherents such blessings, did it?
  3. If not, what might be some reasons why not?
  4. If one agreed that Scientology could give all or some adherents such “serenity” (or similar state), did it fail to give them the means to hold on to or recover it?

I am going to take it, right off the bat, that brief answers to these questions are:

  1. The potential was there; it was not uniformly achieved.
  2. No.
  3. To be considered.
  4. Yes and No. Yes, in that it gave several tools adherents could use to maintain their gains, such as: Ethics and Admin Tech for use out of session, and technical tools for use in session. No, in that whatever platform one considers the Church of Scientology [C of S] to have provided adherents since the early 1980’s, what they have provided doesn’t seem to have been conducive to the maintenance of any kind of serenity. Indeed, I can only believe that serenity for an adherent of the C of S would have to consist firstly of a zealot’s blind bliss in his or her devoted compliance to all C of S domination (in and out of session) and secondly of the possession of unlimited supplies of cash and credit to keep paying for the endless and relentless domination.

I can’t imagine that what I (and so many others) have seen of the C of S’s doings since leaving that fold can bring about real feelings of compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind in adherents. But this invites a whole range of questions beyond my immediate interest, let alone access to all relevant facts on which to offer any useful answers. I’ll base what I have to say on my personal and direct observations and experiences up to my departure in November, 1982, and in my subsequent wanderings.

I doubt we’d look for the C of S as it seems to have become to provide such things as compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity of mind, in the first place. Therefore, whatever facts and figures anyone might have on what the C of S does to people, such information is superfluous in this discussion if one considers (as I assuredly do) the Tone Scale to be an adequate gauge of what one can expect from an individual or group. A group’s habitual behaviours and style of communicating place the group on the Tone Scale. Do the behaviours of that group draw our eyes to a place on the Tone Scale at which compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity/simplicity of mind also manifest? Who could possibly and absurdly think so??

As it happens, I already have on record several addresses to these and other questions, in articles I wrote some fifteen years ago for Antony Phillips’ journal International Viewpoints. Some of what I said then is still valid for me with regard to the questions we’re considering. So rather than repeat myself, I am going to follow this post with the text of one article from that journal series. But since my thoughts have developed in the intervening years, I’ll supplement the old material with fresher bones that will simmer and savour as I go.


10 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers?”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaWhen I look at my experience in Scientology, I had wonderful gains, which I have retained. But I am also quite aware of the insanity that reigned around Hubbard and even emanated from him.LRH was indeed a genius, but his arbitrariness was magnified in the same proportions. Take the example of OT Levels. There are some wonderful ideas there, but what is missing is what Hubbard himself called OBNOSIS elsewhere.As regards compassion, heart-centredness, and clarity of mind, I just wish that it was included in the definition of CLEAR, which I see as follows.“A cleared individual is not absolutely free of flaws, but he is very close to being completely rational. He has a mind in which perceptions continually break down into fine discriminative elements, and get freely associated and assimilated into an orderly mental matrix providing rational solutions.“The cleared individual does not avoid, resist, suppress or deny any thoughts, emotions, and sensations when thinking; and so he perceives things objectively with clarity. He is able to examine and overcome all prejudices, biases and fixations. He is keenly perceptive and knowledgeable and continues to explore new areas of knowledge.“The cleared individual is universal in his outlook. He rises above any idea of self or individuality. He is not subjective, self-centric, or human-centric. There are no conflicts within him. He would not hesitate to sacrifice himself if need be.“The cleared individual can look from the viewpoint of others as well as objectively from the viewpoint of all life and the environment. He continues to expand his understanding of the physical and spiritual aspects of the universe without resorting to superstitions.“The cleared individual is the first to realize his error and correct himself. Whenever he senses resistance or observes some oddity, he follows it up until it is cleared. If he suffers a painful experience, heavy loss, or confusion he is able to sort it out quietly in his mind.“The cleared individual is in good health and has no psychosomatic illnesses. He is purposeful in his demeanor, and graceful in his movements. He is strong and calm even in adversity. In no way is he trying to win or dominate, but he is passionately engaged in bringing order to his environment.“Above all, he is compassionate.”There is the good, the bad, and the ugly in Hubbard and Scientology!
    1. Scott GordonVery nice and very helpful expanded definitions of Clear.Thanks!
  2. Vinay AgarwalaLet me amplify a little bit on what I said about OT Levels and OBNOSIS above.It seems to me that Hubbard was not sure if exteriorization is material or immaterial.Any mystery attached to “exteriorization” would come from not understanding this phenomenon. And any misunderstanding of “exteriorization” can inadvertently create complications with a person trying to interpret his experiences on OT I.Hubbard says on OT I,“A great many phenomena (strange things) can happen while doing these drills if they are done honestly.”This definitely injects trepidation and expectation in the OT process. It thus colors and corrupts one’s ability to simply look.A person’s experience on OT Levels will be messed up to the degree these levels are made mysterious.
    1. chuckbeattyx75to03Vinay,I always thought LRH was quite clear about exteriorization in the “Parts of Man” chapter of “Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought” where he says the optimum position of the thetan is outside and controlling the human body.Additionally, in the “Grand Tour” process in “Creation of Human Ability” book, Hubbard clearly spells out that the preclear is not imagining himself at these far flung locations while being run on the “Grand Tour” process, but that the preclear actually is there (as an exteriorized being).Hubbard additionally in definitions 1 and 3 in the Tech Dicitionary definition of “Operating Thetan” clearly describes being a soul and free of the body entirely, and able to operate without need of a body.Hubbard additionally in the definitions of “Theta Clear” in the same Tech Dictionary also describes out of the body actual continued conscious existence of the thetan, without the body.So, I never ever bought that LRH wished exteriorization to be just what even Hubbard called “exteriorization without visio” or “exteriorization” without 360 visio.Hubbard additionally in the L’s Rundowns promotion, claims when Hubbard was case supervising the L Rundowns he always ensured those preclears he was case supervising one for one achieved out of the body visio experience.So no, I never bought the exteriorization without visio as the “REAL” meaning of Hubbard’s. There’s no case for that by a close complete reading of Hubbard’s writings and lectures.
  3. chuckbeattyx75to03“…One wonders, as old people do, if students and auditors have the
    same standards today?…”Hubbard kept adding auditing technique requirements to the “model session” whole ball of wax, so that by the 70s, the auditors doing the simple auditing process were required to upkeep untold numbers of other little steps.“Model Session” requirements, and Auditor’s Code requirements, and how those requirements were enforced, can wipe out in many trainee auditors their innate counselor demeanor, turn them into wooden rule followers.The factors of what makes a good counselor, I think are those things that “natural auditors” had inherently.And today, since I’m no longer a Scientologist at all, I think the best auditors, the ones who were the Auditors of the Year in the various categories of Auditor of the Year awards that used to be every September each year—it’s really those persons who were auditors of the year caliber innate good people, who infused their auditing with “auditor beingness” (but today outthink all of these Hubbardism categorizations and think it’s massive amount of deflection and pretentiousness on Hubbard’s part that his “auditing” is somehow grander and better than outside world counseling).I in my years placed huge thought into a few key LRH refs, the late 1970s LRH came out with the additional writings that got added to the Hard TRs course, the Auditor Beingness issue, that LRH said their ought be a SECOND TRs Course to polish up the auditor’s “Auditor Beingness” once the auditors were Grade 4 auditors for a while, and they’d audited hundreds or thousands of hours, and now, at this more experienced level of auditing, the auditors were to polish up their auditor beingness.I recall, when this issue came out, it made sense to me. It’s what Class 12 Brian Livingston in effect said to me as I was rightly railing as a Flag Interne auditor in 1976. Brian said, in effect, “Go audit for a couple 3-4 years at an org….” and “…then come back to train on your Internships at Flag…..”The experience of auditing, IF the person is ought there stumbling alone, auditing, for years, and THEN comes does the Hard TRs course (as also in the LRH Tech Film where Dan Koon starred, the auditors were all sloppy and somewhat failing mission auditors and field auditors who just needed some TRs to fix their auditing basics), but even TRs is insufficient.I hate to promote Scientology, in any way, but I can see how Scientology will continue.It will continue to the persistence of the people in history, now and in the future, who stick with their auditor auditing.If they continue auditing, and continue out of their drive and wish to do it, that is number one.Then, they will see which of the key Hubbard ideas (since as practitioners they will be boxed into following Hubbard’s options, and to me, honestly a person who is a decent counselor type of person, I instead would bid them get out of Scientology, go to university, become a legit counselor and counsel people and use your human decency in a more legit and regulated counselor industry of psychology—my hindsight views are for people not be stay Scientology auditors, but instead become legit college educated counselors) principles like “Auditor Beingness” as important points that as experienced auditors they will now understand and grab onto.The training of Hubbard auditors I believe has to include all the Hubbard options, and “Auditor Beingness” and a couple of the keymost points in the Auditor’s Code, and there was another 1976 Hubbard reference about what was the determining factor for why auditing worked, and it was the intention factor of the auditor.If the auditor sincerely and deeply wished for the preclear to achieve gains.Hubbard’s Scientology auditing is based on human decency of the auditor.If the auditor is strongly persistently decent and sincere, then the auditing will work.What Scientology is riding on is human decency that somehow squeaks through all the “Model Session” requirements that Hubbard piled onto auditing over the years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHi, Chuck, and thanks for your comment. I am not so free as you in embracing other approaches although I don’t close any off just because they’r not Scn.
      Decency is all very well, for sure. However, I don’t see how one can eliminate from any client-practitioner relationship the principle (word it as you wish) “PC + Auditor is greater than the PC’s bank.” If the non-Scn approach adheres to the principle, more power to it. If it doesn’t adhere, then it might be better than nothing or could be worse than nothing. Just imho. Is there any approach anywhere that expresses a value/standard that remotely resembles LRH’s?
      We could say much the same for the definition of ‘”in session”: “Willing to talk to auditor [practitioner] and interested in own case.”
      What about the Auditor’s Code ##1 and 2? Who else has thought of such things?
      On what you’re proposing in your comment here, you find me distinctly Conservative. 🙂
      1. chuckbeattyx75to03Thanks Ken. The Auditor’s Code to me, can somewhat contain the auditor’s lack of innate sincerity and decency, but really I think of the best auditors I’ve ever had. In session with them, they were above normal decent. The late Glenn Samuals, for instance, unbelievably decent person. On his own. I had countless good auditors, some just kept the code in naturally, all the time, in and out of session, and were supportive and smart. Auditing I see has worked on persons who had auditors I myself would not have relished being audited by. The beingness of the auditor, their nature and natural comfortableness and interest, and understanding of what I said, all did have great impact to how I enjoyed their auditing.Ken, I have a question, re the auditor plus pc is greater than the pc’s bank. That formula, to me, seemed a sad unfortunate aspect of Hubbard’s life. He needed someone to talk to, and all his solo NOTs in the end of his life, it strikes me that that formula (pc plus auditor greater than the pc’s bank) if slightly adjusted, just the fact that he needed OT 5 NOTs auditing when he was having his final case trouble there, and he instead was doing a bit of dodging around trying to fix it himself. Did you notice he lacked a terminal in his life, re his case?Me, I’ve kind of thought since he was so deeply into his tech as his only options to deal with his case (OT case included), his own case judged by his own case tech rules, I’m wondering what tech people outside with freer license to share their views, think of Hubbard’s case.I wish Ray Mitoff were here able to discuss what he observed when Ray was with LRH at the end there at Creston.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comYes, Chuck, auditors bring into session parts of their own individual beingness and since no two individuals are the same there are going to be many differences between different auditor presences. And then of course each pc has his or her own individuality. The two individualities may work well together or not. LRH did make allowance for this in C/S Series 1, very first paragraph if I remember aright. In it, he gave the right to the auditor to decline to take on a preclear he/she felt unable to help. And he remarked elsewhere that some auditors don’t do well with old ladies. However, your point is taken. Qualities differ between any two individuals anywhere. It’s part of the woof and warp of living, imho.
          With regard to LRH and his approach to his case, I’m not in a position to assert anything. But I believe he never had a terminal of comparable magnitude at his best levels. We who were close to him could have done more to help him focus on his own personal ethics, probably me more than anyone. He seemed to do well with at least some of his auditors but I don’t think he did himself any favours at all by getting rid of David Mayo.
          I tend to believe that towards the very end of his life, LRH didn’t have much of a clue as to what was happening with himself, but this is entirely opinion on my part. For example, since his time, there has been an explosion of information about the human brain, how it can be affected, and how it can affect the body’s owner (even if the researchers don’t believe in spirituality). LRH was a sick man and was on medication. He had had habits of living that tend towards ill-health of body and brain (e.g., smoking, poor diet, working at night, insufficient exercise, constant high-level stress, among others). Had LRH had this information when he could have improved his body and brain health, we might have a very different picture of Scn today.
  4. chuckbeattyx75to03“….If the outside of the cup be not clean, how shall ye know that the inside be clean? …”Ken, I quote this from the first line of your IVy original article. knew with a name like Scientology, the subject was gonna be a bit of a controversial and challenged off-the-mainstream type of group, when I got in, in 1975.Your quoted quote above, means so much, from different viewpoints.“IVy” itself, “International Viewpoints” and what did the “y” in “IVy” stand for?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comIt’s just a ‘y’ stuck on to the acronym, Chuck. If you say the letters “IV” you get a sound like “ivy”.
      And it avoids getting mixed up with “Intravenous”. That could be helpful. 🙂
      Just my take, perhaps dub-in.
      Antony Phillips, who founded and ran IVy, might have a different story.

Comments are closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *