How I relate “Scientology” and “Religion”

Scientology and Religion 

I’ve just associated Jesus and the Buddha strongly with what I’m calling the core philosophy of Scientology, and will be expanding on that in articles to come. In doing so, I might be inviting some readers to take the association further, to connecting Scientology with other established religions and their structures and procedures. I prefer to separate them, not that I have anything against established religion right now.

Before I go further, I’ll interject that I do not question the basis on which corporate Scientology has applied for and gained approved status as a religious body. That they applied for it and got it is entirely the business of the lawyers on all sides, not mine. I have no axe to grind there.

However, a purpose of these articles is to clarify certain things, and, by doing so publicly, to perhaps answer some questions for others. And to encourage further relevant questions.

Corporate Scientology has rather aggressively advanced itself as a religious body, and they’re free to say whatever suits them about themselves. Nonetheless, some clarity is in order, from my perspective as a former member with an abiding interest in the core philosophy. Besides, there is personal history here important at least to me. The word ‘religion’ is a loaded term, apt to be fuzzied.

The Chambers Dictionary gives us its definition: Religion, noun; belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected with such; rites or worship; devoted fidelity; monastic life; a monastic order.

We can note briefly that the Church of Scientology has some rites (christening, marriage, and death ceremonies) of the usual character, it definitely requires devoted fidelity, and partly practices what they can call monastic life. What else they can demonstrate for regulatory compliance is up to them.

I was a witness to a lot of the work Hubbard did in 1973 on firmly establishing the religious legality of the entire corporate Scientology network. I repeat that I don’t question the validity of any legal process the Church of Scientology undertook. Be that as it may, from what I learned about him over the years I can say with some confidence that he had no interest in, belief in, recognition of, or awakened sense of, a higher unseen power or powers. Nor did I notice any emotion or morality connected with such.

Hubbard did state that Scientology [the philosophy] deals with the human spirit and its travails, and devotes itself to bettering people’s spiritual health and abilities. I agree with this. He argued that this work is the responsibility of the priest or minister who, if he does the job, does not do it to the extent that Scientology can. I don’t deny this point either. He was saying that Scientology’s work can be viewed as religious work because it deals with spirituality and its betterment in humans. He was claiming also that in doing its work Scientology does a better religious job than religions usually do and is in fact picking up on the failures of religions. In that Scientology can routinely produce miraculous improvements in individuals’ conditions, I can’t say I could disagree with him on that either. At the same time, we remember that all kinds of wonderful and miraculous changes and events occur or are at least claimed without any connection to Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.

Now, the closest that the philosophy of Scientology got to higher unseen power or powers in Life was to mention “The Supreme Being” in its list of eight Dynamics. These are levels or areas of activity in human life, compartmentalized for analysis and convenience in understanding. It’s a workable concept and can be helpful although not claiming to be the last word on the subject. The Supreme Being is the Eighth and last Dynamic, the senior one embracing all others.

In the early days of Scientology, Hubbard made it clear that all individuals were free to think or believe or feel whatever they wanted as regards the reality of the Supreme Being. He had nothing else to say on the subject. Adherence to any established and accepted religious approach was accepted without question in any member of Scientology. He claimed, and I think validly, that the practice of Scientology would complement any religious practice.

It often struck me as interesting that Hubbard wrote or lectured very little on the subject of the Supreme Being [I must confess that I haven’t listened to all of his recorded lectures], and I never had any conversation with him on it nor heard him speak of it to another. He always busied himself about a wide range of interests and talked of them freely. I assumed that he had no belief in a Supreme Being. Years after I left the Church, I saw some materials of what was supposed to be an advanced level of Scientology he had developed concerning the Supreme Being. I didn’t know if it was authentic or not; what I saw of it didn’t interest me.

A heavy pall of corporate, regulatory-compliant religiosity lies over the pure philosophy of Scientology but only by association forwarded falsely, it seems to me, by lazy observation and lack of thought. Corporate Scientology has had much negative attention over the years, brought on by its own actions and omissions. It is now widely known and referred to always as “The Church of Scientology”,  thus, I have to suppose, positioning Scientology itself in public eyes as a religion with religious baggage.

The corporate body, then, is open to being thought of as having rites, and worship, and systems of belief just like a ‘normal’ church such as, say, the Roman Catholic Church.  I think we can take it that the corporate body is largely comfortable with this image. Nonetheless, the public would mislead itself by believing that the core philosophy of Scientology has anything to do with religious systems and procedures similar to those of a regular established religious body performing holy services in a holy manner with centuries’ worth of holy baggage.

Scientology organizations, like many religious bodies, do have their organization charts and their hierarchies of management along with their operating philosophies and customary interactions with their members. In my early days, all these were tools used mostly for the smooth delivery of the core philosophical practice to individuals in support of their spiritual health, strength, and abilities. And to help the individuals use the results to make their lives happier. Not one individual’s service took place in the presence of or with the assistance of appendages of any conventionally religious nature.

My point here is that there are separations well worth making between

  • Any other church and the Church of Scientology;
  • The core philosophical theory of Scientology and its practical application as a body of knowledge distinct from any organization entity or activity;
  • The minimal organization form and activity necessary to successfully deliver the services associated with the core philosophy;
  • Any corporate activity added on to this basic necessary organizational activity;
  • The various agendas which give rise to the addition of organization activities over and above the purely necessary;
  • The various fusses, flaps, and flying feathers connected to the  added but actually inapplicable agendas and to the fights between the agendas’ originators and supporters.

When I think of Scientology I think of the first three. When I think of the Church of Scientology I think of the last three. I rather hotly resent that the last three make up what the general public must feel is the totality of the first three. The media refers to “The Church of Scientology” and to “Scientology” and they mean always the last three, seemingly oblivious to or in denial of the first. Sad.

Next: Some reasons why it helps to know the truth about who and what we are and how we operate, again with some support from other spiritual leaders.CATEGORIESUNCATEGORIZED

69 Replies to “How I relate “Scientology” and “Religion””

  1. Dan KoonI think it would be helpful to readers and beneficial to yourself to explain a little more thoroughly your position as LRH’s butler at Saint Hill then as LRH Pers Comm aboard the Apollo. You were not just another his staff who might meet with him once a week. This is necessary to provide the context for everything you are writing on the blog.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Dan. Point well taken. Yes, we’ll have to get to that at an early date. There are a million things I could talk about, and at least 50% of them demand expression immediately.
  2. DaveSelf preservation is obviously a need for any organization, but when the Church of Scientology became more interested in its own survival than in carrying out its mission, it stated its decline.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comAgreed, Dave. In my estimation the decline began when LRH decided the c of s had enemies that it had to get rid of. LRH always had a taste for an enemy and a fight.
  3. Chris SpeerHi Ken- hope you are doing well.
    In my experience the gateway to spiritual experience really begins with separation from one’s ego – before this everything is perceived through the lens of the ego’s delusion. Hubbard personally never grasped this, or addressed this – he was a talented but not an enlightened man -hence the limitations of his philosophy and technologies and why Scientology is actually a spiritual dead end. It can however provide a great jumping off point for those who can let go.
    All good wishes to you.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Chrism, not so dusty. 🙂 And thanks for the summary of your experience. If it’s true for you that Scientology is a spiritual dead end, then that’s what it is for you. You relate spiritual experience to the concept of one’s ego; if this helps you on your path to wherever you want to go, then of course you’re right to hold to it and act by it. Wishing you all that your heart desires. 🙂
    2. Patricia KrenikRon mentioned that there might be a time when we have to run out Scientology itself. While I can understand Scientology as a “jumping off point” one also needs to understand that Scientology is designed in a scientific manner, so that as one gains understandings the new understandings can be used to expand Scientology but using its tenants and applying what we know to a greater area. If Scientology becomes a “jumping off place” that is ok, but it doesn’t have to be that way if the tech is truly understood; it can be expanded. I’m sure if Ron had had more time he would have developed more areas to address, both positive and negative.
  4. Robin ScottI have personally long considered that Scientology is a religion, primarily for this reason:Scientology teaches that each of us is an immortal spiritual being; it seems to me that this is actually the basic teaching of all great religions.Buddhism also does not talk much about God, and is often considered to be more of a psychology than a religion. As per The Hymn of Asia, Scientology has considerable similarities with Buddhism; I would consider both Buddhism and Scientology to be genuine religions, in the normally accepted sense.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Robin; I understand and accept your view. For me, it’s important to recognize (for the purpose of the blog) that the definition of the term ‘religion’ is not so clear for everybody, and perhaps, unhappily, for many.
    2. Patricia KrenikVery nicely stated, thank you.
    3. Vinay AgarwalaBuddhism doesn’t teach that an individual is an immortal spiritiual being because Buddhism is objective. Here is a reference:
      1. chuckbeattyWow. very deep stuff.
  5. Vinay AgarwalaAt the fundamental philosophical level, Scientology is 180 degree opposite of Buddhism. Buddhism is objective whereas, Scientology is subjective. Traditionally, the Semitic religions are subjective. Scientology is more similar to the Semitic religions than to Buddhism. In my opinion, Dianetics was not a religion, but Scientology is.The higher power in Scientology was Hubbard; now it is Miscavige. There is no other higher power. In Scientology the biggest thetan wins. That is the practical Scientology religious philosophy in a nutshell.Scientology only does some mental surgery. Its goal is not uplifting the individual spiritually. That may happen as the result of mental surgery, but it is not focused on.The “Supreme Being” is a subjective idea just like “thetan” is from Buddhist point of view. The eight dynamic is essentially the concept of universal beingness, which has both spiritual and physical aspects. These aspects are noted as seventh and sixth dynamics respectively.Scientology seems to be modeled after the Roman Catholic Church. It is trying to acquire properties all over the world, the way Catholic Church owns.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Vinay. I make the distinction between the core philosophy of Scn and its application, on the one hand, and the C of S and it manifestations [misbehaviour] on the other. It strikes me that your remarks here generally apply to the latter. See, for example, your last statement comparing “Scientology” to the RC Church. I am asking you to make the distinction. If you don’t agree with the distinction, please openly state why. Or we are going to have a major problem. Thanks.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaYes, we have a major problem because I see errors in Hubbard’s tech, which this blog is probably not the right place to discuss.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comFair enough, Vinay, and thanks. I respect that you have your viewpoint and am grateful that you are mindful of the limits of this blog.
          Long may you prosper.
      2. Vinay AgarwalaYou may delete my posts that are “waiting to be moderated” including this post, so that I no longer have to pay attention to them.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comOkay, then, Vinay. Am answering this only because I’m not seeing any posts “waiting to be moderated” and although it took me a little while to get used to the protocol on WordPress, I haven’t deliberately ignored or declined to post any response, so far. If you have messages to me that are not acknowledged, you’re welcome to resend them.
          1. Vinay AgarwalaSince you asked, here are two posts dated Jan 21, that are still waiting to be moderated. I do understand that they are highly critical of LRH and their background is not well-explained by me. So, as I said, I shall be withholding my criticism for now. do understand, though, that by starting this blog you might have opened the Pandora’s Box for yourself.
          2. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Vinay. These posts came in the early days of the blog and I have to confess that at that time it hadn’t come home to me that I had to ‘approve’ each comment individually. I thought I was answering these along with another post of yours. Apologies. The first post that you link to here shows up on my screen as already approved. In case it doesn’t show on anybody’s screen and to counter the implication that I’m withholding negative posts, here it is copied and pasted:
            Vinay Agarwala
            JANUARY 21, 2017 AT 4:02 PM EDIT
            I do not judge. I simply observed the following:(1) That LRH did not evolve out of his valence he wanted to ‘survive’. He rather got more sucked into it.(2) That LRH did not believe that anybody else could advance the subject of Scientology, so he closed his eyes to all critique good or bad. He even did his best to suppress all criticism till the end of his days.(3) That LRH did not want the philosophy of Scientology to discussed among its adherents. He wanted his philosophy to be accepted without question. Here I am talking about philosophy and not the tech.(4) LRH promoted a closed mind as it was graded positively on tests.(5) The law of Karma applies to everyone. It applied to LRH too.KU: I have no disagreement with this, Vinay. Here is a copy-and-paste of the second comment of yours linked to:Vinay Agarwala
            JANUARY 21, 2017 AT 4:18 PM EDIT
            I do not think that LRH provided much training for the ‘Source’ Hat. He pretty much kept it to himself. Even though he was widely read he did not encourage others to read widely.I do not think that anyone will find this kind of training “in the best kind of academies and course-rooms.” One simply has to be widely read.Sorry to be critical. I assure you I will let you know of my withholds in this area when I find them. Haha!KU: We were talking about training in two different areas. I referred to technical training in the scientology classroom. You, I think, refer to the development of intelligence through wider education. I accept what you say as applying to the latter but not to the former.
          3. Vinay AgarwalaThanks for allowing the two posts that were waiting for moderation for some time. I do understand that you are still learning to manage this blog.I have a WordPress blog too., Vinay Agarwala
  6. Kent Bengtsson“If it is not true to you, it is not true” was my stable datum and the filter through which I viewed Scn in my years on Staff, SO and as a Public.
    I also realized early in my staff career that if I did not in my heart agree with a post or something I would do for some time, I would mess it up. I could step in and cover for a short while , but keep me there, and it will end in a bad way.
    In the end I concluded I did not want to be there at all as I did not manage to change things and everyone had their priorities screwed up in accordance with what came down the lines. (Early 90s)
    1. urqbones@gmx.comGood for you!
  7. OnuScientology is an official religion and yet in the traditional sense it is not because it does not clearly advocate principles and codes of behaviour other than within a counselling and organisational context.Because Scientology recognises 8th Dynamic yet does not venture into it Scientology is presented with a paradox in that It cannot address and resolve the uniqueness of the person, their relationship with all and their relationship with others as not only source but also origin.Although we may establish that each person determines their own participation in existence by choice as source and origin, both existence and theta itself have a persistence independent of ourselves which we participate in.It is most unfortunate that LRH chose not to penetrate further than the 8th Dynamic which exists as a phenomena of demonstrable and measurable space. A consideration of Existence.Unfortunately there are considerations of existence beyond tge 8th Dynamic concepts of Supremacy which are the core of the issues we need to resolve not only in our immediate relationships but also in the world at large. By limiting the scope of Scientology LRH was unable to resolve these areas and so remained at effect of them.The Science of Knowing how to Know has no limits, not even those set by its founder. Beyond the contextual limitations set by LRH to define yhe scope of his iwn work, there is much to be learned by the simple application of LRH principles in further Theta : MEST contexts and also in the diverse contexts of life.I have always regarded Scientology as a practical philosophy and as a religion solely for tax purposes.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comI second all that.
  8. Vinay AgarwalaKen, you can set up your blog so that you only have to approve the first post from a new person. The rest are automatically approved.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comTks, Vinay 🙂
    2. Chris Speer“Scientology and Religion I’ve just associated Jesus and the Buddha strongly with what I’m calling the core philosophy of Scientology, and will be expanding on that in articles to come. In doing so, I might be inviting some readers to take the association further, to connecting Scientology with other established religions and their structures and […]”
      Here is what is inaccurate with that statement- Scientology at its best deals with mind – regression therapy and talk therapy can be powerful and positive and are responsible for the wins we have observed on others and ourselves on occasion. However – the core of Buddhism and the teachings of Jesus came from mystical experiences that are beyond mind. Spiritual practices seek to contact universal consciousness, spirit, divinity, which is beyond mind. The gateway to mystical experiences is de-identification with ego, Scientology and Hubbard did not encompass this and Scientology tends to produce people with greater egos than before. The ones who avoid this were conscious and compassionate individuals to begin with and they brought their consciousness into their auditing experiences. The technology of Scn. does not come close to addressing the processing of detaching from ego- I say this as someone who studied the subject for 10 years, then studied spiritual practices afterwards, I cannot begin to describe this subject adequately in a few words here – it took me 450 words in my book of my own spiritual journey post Scn. For those who have not had their own mystical experiences this may sound like nonsense- the subject cannot be described adequately with words, only alluded to- it is beyond mind. One of the more destructive concepts of Scn. is the falsehood that it is a complete spiritual system and that one does not- and should not- look further. It is like a Christian who feels it is sacrilegious to investigate other modes of spirituality or practice daily meditation for example. The biggest lie in any religion is that only they have to path to true spirituality. “There are many paths up the mountain but the view from the top is the same.”
      1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chris, and thanks for your comments. I’m taking them up, although you address them to Vinay, because the quoted passage you comment on is mine, not his. With regard to your position, my position is that you’re undoubtedly a World Authority on the subject of “Scientology as Chris Speer Sees It”. And we all bow down to you on that. Thank you. Is this Scientology as I see it? No. Are you saying that we should all see Scientology your way? It sounds like it. Are you going to get far with that? No.
        Now, Sir, I think I have made plain two things about my blog: Firstly, I make a distinction between the core of sanity that is in Scientology philosophy and technology, and Scientology as promulgated and practiced by the C of S. I think you are referring to the latter. Secondly, this blog intends to focus on the positive (and real) aspects of core Scientology, not on the negative.
        I can add that I’ve emphasized the value of focusing on that which is true, necessary, and kind. What’s true and necessary for you is true and necessary for you. This is not a problem. One should say that which is disagreeable because to say it is both true and necessary for one. It is always possible to say what is disagreeable in a kindly fashion.
        As I’ve said before, this blog is my pulpit. Anyone may speak out from it, but speaking out unkindly will not get anyone walking back up the steps to the pulpit.
  9. Vinay AgarwalaRecently, I did a reserach into the bckground of Free Association as the natural activity of the mind. It is used in the application of mindfulness.Here are some observations I made, which , I hope, are objective:

    In early 1890s Freud came up with the system of psychoanalysis for treating mental disorders. He theorized that psychological disturbances are largely caused by personal conflicts existing at the unconscious level. Liberation from the effects of the unconscious is achieved by bringing this material into the conscious mind. This was done by patient talking to the therapist, and the therapist guiding the patient until the patient became aware of the hidden causes of his conflicts. Wikipedia states:“During psychoanalytic sessions…the patient… may lie on a couch, with the analyst often sitting just behind and out of sight. The patient expresses his or her thoughts, including free associations, fantasies and dreams, from which the analyst infers the unconscious conflicts causing the patient’s symptoms and character problems. Through the analysis of these conflicts… the analyst confronts the patient’s pathological defenses to help the patient gain insight.”In psychoanalysis, “free association” is one of the techniques to draw unconscious material out of the patient. However, significant liability exists in terms of the analyst interpreting that material and adding his own ideas, which may then act on the patient as hypnotic suggestions.DianeticsThe next advance came in 1950, when Hubbard expounded the Dianetics process of auditing the mind. He theorized that the cause of all psychosomatic illnesses and irrational behavior was an unknown reactive mind that was always “conscious”. Relief came from helping a person analytically access the painful contents of the reactive mind.Hubbard’s theory was similar to Freud’s except that his procedure minimized the interpretation of preclear’s (patient’s) unconscious material by the auditor. It also prevented the possibility of hypnotic suggestions by the auditor. The early techniques of Dianetics developed over the years into modularized processes that could be programmed for the individual case of the preclear. This programming required collecting detailed information from the preclear during auditing sessions.Hubbard addressed the liabilities of psychoanalysis to a large degree, and came up with a much more efficient procedure. However, in auditing session, the preclear seems to get conditioned by Hubbard’s esoteric beliefs of “thetan” and “past lives”. The preclear’s ability to freely associate is severely limited by some methods used in auditing, which then lead to mental conditioning. In addition there is abundant possibility of misuse of detailed personal information collected from the preclear.

    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Vinay. Intriguing. The contributor gave LRH some credit, and that’s creditable. I’d amend the last paragraph you quote to clarify that the conditioning comes partly from Hubbard himsself, being a manifestation of his lesser self, but now mostly from the way the c of s conducts itself. Just mho, of course.
  10. OnuOne of my biggest shocks has been to recognise beyond any shadow of doubt the total lack of necessity for any form of organised religion in order to ensure individual and collective spiritual evolution.From what I have come to understand spiritual evolution is the birthright of the human, albeit a cloned, bioengineered and programmed version here on Earth. Its a natural trait.
    Perhaps its a natural trait of all life forms.Regarding the human, the entire structure of gnostic/christian religious practise reduces to the human body in posture, movement, relationship and interaction. The temple, the cup of life and all the other paraphernalia and architectural structures including the pyramids reduce to forms of prayer, meditation, contemplation and exercise produced primary by the hands and extended throughout the human body.The forms and practises adopted and imposed by organised religions are mimics of the natural forms and tendancies that any child would discover in innocence as they explore and behold the beauty of nature that surrounds them and evolves into an adult.Chaos versus Order is a lie. There is no such thing as chaos.There are only natural principles, forms of consciousness and types of intelligence awaiting our recognition.So for me personally it is more important to understand our own place in the scheme of things, in the context of understanding our own harmonious equilibrium and relationships with all forms of life, consciousness and intelligence, – than it is to attain some idealised state of being that is merely an aspect of whom we truly are and have become, both individually and collectively.We are no longer in Native State and when we resolve and understand our origins we find we are faced with the development of Character.The sentiments and principles we choose to abide and live by determine the nature of our perceptions experience and existence by choice.Plain old common sense.Organised religion and philosophy are basically instruments of governance. 😊
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you for this, too, Onu. I’m with you up to the para beginning “So for me personally…” but only because I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you are making. Am with you in the last three lines.
      Since you have raised these points, I’ll make clear now that I’m coming from this position: I’ve done my work here (quite a while ago, as it happens) and at the moment I have no indication that I am required to remain here. How this will play out at body death will make itself clear (I hope and trust; it will become clear at some point). At this stage, my perception is that I’m not needed and wanted any more with regard to collective spiritual evolution. I’ve done what I was to do. What I aspire to make with this blog is a simple debrief, an ending, a goodbye for now. In our endings we make our new beginnings. And this is how I see my place in the scheme of things; what is important to me is my relationship with what I conceive of as Supreme Being; as you say or imply, no human agency has any business interfering with that relationship [or with any individual’s conception of that relationship]. I wish with all my heart that humankind will find its way to a higher position on the Tone Scale. What I did didn’t make a damn bit of difference to that as far as I can see. Much better fortune to all others in that work.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, you may by all means express your reality or your opinion. You are expected to present your views here with some humility; there is nobody on this list who grants you superiority of perception, understanding, or wisdom. You are respected greatly as a seeker after truth. You are on your path to your truth. You may not disrespect any other’s path to his or her truth — not in any way. Please do note. You may point out that I have let Onu state his views without editorial/monitoring comment from me; this is true, but if you want to make a point of the fact, please review what he says and tell me if he expresses himself with arcu or antagonistically. Or, does he manifest kindness in what he says is true and necessary for him, and in how he says it? [You can substitute ’empathy’ for ‘kindness’.]
        1. Vinay AgarwalaAnd I thought I was being objective… It is getting too complicated here.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comAll right. Is complexity related to the degree of confront?Suggestion: How about you demo out the three terms: true, necessary, kind, and then how they inter-relate, on F1, F2, F3, F0. ??
          2. Vinay AgarwalaEvaluative!
          3. urqbones@gmx.comNo kidding!
    2. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, your statement “This is rubbish” is not acceptable. If you have a need to disagree, do so in accordance with your necessity and your truth, and do so with kindness.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaOh! Heck! There goes my English gentleman’s valence!
        1. urqbones@gmx.comIs that really what this is all about, Vinay? I know you speak in jest; is this an appropriate jest to make in this context?
          What do you think the issue between us is all about?
          1. Vinay AgarwalaYou are too politically correct and trying to impose it on others.
          2. urqbones@gmx.comAnd you of course are not evaluating, are you?Fine, Vinay, I congratulate you on your understanding of the situation and masterly summary. Well Done! I will follow the advice said to have been given to Gurdjiev (spelling?) by his dying father: My son, I am an old and poor man and have nothing to leave to you but this advice: When someone insults you, tell him “My father bade me on his deathbed that when anyone insulted me, I should say to him, ‘Sir, you have insulted me. I will consider your words for 24 hours. If at the end of that time I find that you have told me the truth, I’ll come to you and thank you. If I find that your words are not truthful, I will go my way’.”
          3. Vinay AgarwalaI still remember the words “hoity toity” that you once wrote to me as LRH Pers Comm on the ship.I am coming to understand you better now.
          4. urqbones@gmx.comAh, yes, Vinay, but did you ever look them up? {JOKE}Wonderful on the coming to understand. PLEASE keep going. It’s a long, steep climb and the going is hard. But the rewards are beyond imagining. {This is not A JOKE}
          5. Vinay AgarwalaI am doing that. That keeps life interesting.
          6. urqbones@gmx.comYou will never be bored. 🙂
          7. Vinay AgarwalaHaha! I got your attention. 🙂
          8. urqbones@gmx.comOh, Vinay, you are soooooooooooooooo politically correct.
  11. chuckbeattyexSO75to03Dear Ken,I’m elated you write your hindsight views. They are so important for history, for those that understand your years of upclose administrative duties to L. Ron Hubbard.(I’m a harsh dismissive critic, but hugely appreciative that all upclose first person people, and particularly people like you, do write for posterity their full views.)A major major question, in my mind, is trying to understand LRH’s mind.Those upclose to him, I feel have the best overview of what he said and what he meant.The biggest hindsight opinions I wish you and others close to LRH in his final 10 years of life, what do you each make of his admission of failure to Sarge Steven Pfauth.It’s laid out in the Rathbun book 3, “Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior” chapter 24 details the Sarge final discussions of LRH’s final months of life, where LRH admitted “failure” to Sarge.What did LRH mean, how much of a failure.You have commented in your first articles what you believed, and I myself (a far far lower down the totem pole guy, I was just obsessed with “getting LRH’s views correct” as a Course Supervisor that I was at Flag Clearwater 1977-1983, during that tumultuous period of management reorganization and LRH fleeing Clearwater area, etc,).To me, opinions of to what extent LRH thought he’d failed, I list out:a) He meant that he’d failed at “all” of it, as Sarge has relayed, and he was being overly hard on himself, since there will be always tens of thousands of people who have large and small benefits from the “tech” and “admin” principles which have undeniably benefited their lives. So he was admitting failure at it all, but he was overly hard on himself (PTS to the overwhelming problems legally he was pinned under, isolated on the Creston Ranch, unable to be public for fear of legal suits sprouting on him if he went more public.)b) He really included his NOTs (since he apparantly was doing Solo NOTs up into the final months of his life), in what he felt he’d failed at, and thus he was not really even capable of really “OT” supernatural stuff, like out-of-the-body “soul flying” at will, himself, nor capable of dealing with the still troublesome “body-thetans” that plagued him at the end, per Sarge’s stories. The question is obviously, he apparently failed at his own “case” handling (to me this rings like a fundamental tech point, in that no one else was putting HIM in session, and weighing against any “case” that he was singly battling, a violation of the most basic principle in TRs, which is pc PLUS auditor is sufficient to take on the pc’s “case”, and thus LRH’s final Solo auditing, and ALL of his Solo auditing violated that principe, again though, in KSW 1 he states he was able to rise above his own bank, and it appears from hindsight he violated his own rules about self Case Supervising his own case non stop from the 1950s onwards, with just a few exceptions when he was ill and people like Otto Roos or David Mayo took on his “case” per the sick pc lower level methods, or in Otto’s instance, I think they were trying to correct LRH’s lists).The Sarge interview that Marty Rathbun and Lawrence Wright did is so important, I think that interview info so needs the closest final people who are detailed aware of LRH’s mindset, to please comment.What did LRH mean by saying he failed at all of it. It’s an important enduring historical question, and those who most closeup knew LRH, are best to answer it.You to me, are just the best, in possibly understanding LRH and his case.David Mayo I hope writes on this, and submits it to posterity so as not to violate his gag agreement.Ray Mitoff I hope gets out, unwinds, and gives his tech hindsight detailed case assessment of LRH in LRH’s own technical terms.I’d really like the still alive Class 12s to also weigh in on LRH’s case, and on what LRH meant with he said he failed.Please give it serious answer.Thankyou for posterity Ken!Chuck Beatty
    an ex but still obsessed Flag Clearwater Admin Courses Course Sup 1977-1983, and I went on til 2003 and finished off my Sea Org career with 7 years on the RPF, which to me wasn’t that bad, I enjoyed most of the RPF just the moments of physical detention and implied/threatened physical violence was humanly upsetting.
    ex Sea Org 1975-2003 (Clearwater, Int Base, PAC, Int again as part of INCOMM, ASI, RPF at Happy Valley and then PAC)
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chuck, and thank for your questions.
      First point, in response: “A major major question, in my mind, is trying to understand LRH’s mind.” I advise that you not try to. Better to work on understanding his heart and his soul, his life, in my opinion. Even though LRH’s mind was in some respects beyond brilliant, it was always a bit of a mix of genius and nonsense, and although I wasn’t present with him after 1976, I’d say that the latter predominated the more he aged.
      Secondly, “What did LRH mean, how much of a failure.” I can’t read his mind, Chuck, any more than you can. I doubt we’d be any the wiser if we could map it all out; the man by the time of Steve Pfauth’s story was evidently in Confusion as a being. Look at a mind in Confusion, let alone a being. It’s confusing, right? Moreover, it seems to me that LRH had serious misunderstoods about the body, always had, and he passed them on to others who took his mistaken word for the truth. Specifically, he encouraged us to believe that the body was simply an obstacle to be ignored and/or bypassed by any self-respecting thetan. Much needs to be said on the subject and some of it I will say in a later post or two. For the present, I say that we should consider the possibility that the body is a friend and colleague with whom we work as a team. It is our responsibility to keep the body healthy and happy, the first action being to grant it beingness. Hubbard did not and perhaps could not do that for himself. He brought ill-health to his body; he “knew” that the body’s responses to the ill-health (emotions — bodies have emotions — and sensations and pains and attitudes) are “case”, all resolvable by addressing mental mass. Through this fatal misconception (in my opinion, of course), he helped drive himself crazy — and many an auditor, c/s, and pc or pre-“OT” to despair. Yes, he did emphasize that when the body is sick or injured, one has to take care of it. He never observed that everything one eats/breathes/drinks/touches/does by way of exercise affects the body, and that what he was eating, and what we were all eating around him, was making the body sick. Omitted Reality, false Why.
      Yes, of course he “failed.” Quite correct. Inarguable. Just look at what became of his legacy: failure was built in before it passed out of his hands. To be very brief about it (these things deserve full treatment), he misestimated the task that he originally took on by developing technology, he took on that task, by choice, on Planet Earth, and he had no clue of how to nurture his philosophy and enterprise in the face of what he (aptly) called the Fourth Dynamic Engram. The 4D Engram chewed him to bits, and rightly so. If you poke a hornet’s nest and expect the hornets to bow down to you, the hornets will bring you a new reality. He clumsily poked at the hornets. He was unhatted in his role as leader of a spiritually-oriented group and launched himself into a power struggle he could not win because he didn’t understand the concept of power. Yet he had tremendous power within his grasp. He could have had the entire world at his feet, loving him. He should have, dammit. Well, he should have had better sense in how he managed his life’s plan, but he never grasped what was actually needed and wanted of him to get his product in the environment he was in. And he blamed the environment.
      I don’t know that his failure was all his fault. He chose a wrong time and place to do his work; I suspect that Life simply had other plans, not purposing that the human race should survive.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaIn my opinion, LRH embarked on this project to handle his case. He failed to handle his case. This is the basic summary.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comAh, well.
        2. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75to03Thanks Vinay,In Hubbard’s own theoretical principles, the auditor PLUS pc is greater than the “case” of the PC, and thus auditing “works” to address the PC’s “case.”I noted that LRH in his final years, and often years earlier I gathered, did much Solo auditing, and thus only if one presumes his claims in KSW #1 about himself being somehow superior to his own case (thus his self trust that his self/Solo auditing was effective) is a point of argument.I, as a trained and thoroughly M-9ed reader closely of all things “tech” relating to “TRs” especially considering LRH’s final “tech films” and specifically the “Why TRs” film that is only on today’s Briefing Course (Class 6) where LRH dramatically stresses the auditor plus pc nature of “WHY TRs” in the first place. TRs are to instill in the auditor the patience and attitude to take on and NOT react to the PC who is blowing their top and dramatising their “case” in session. With TRs, the auditor is to remember this principle, that the auditor is WITH the PC against the “case” of the PC despite the “case” of the PC spurting out and reacting as it does oftentimes in session when the PC acts out against the auditor.Along that line, I instantly think that Hubbard presumed he was above his own case, a foolhardy presumption per his own auditor plus pc is greater than the pc’s case, fundamental.Did that omission of logic on LRH’s part strike you as also another of LRH’s unrealized flaws?It did me, and still sticks my speculation despite LRH’s pronouncement NOT to speculate why LRH was able to rise above his own case and take it on, so to speak, with his fuddling about doing his Solo auditing research.It’s a serious fundamental flaw blindspot of LRH’s, if one even believes in this whole past-lives “case” influence supposedly on oneself.Another angle to this, regarding past lives influence on one’s today case, the final worksheet that Pat Broeker held up in the LRH funeral event, has a date on it, which I suspect highly is from a “Date/Locate” that LRH must have been trying, to date and locate some “case” blockage type of phenomena (a “body thetan”, or some sort of postulate, or some targeted “case” item that LRH was striving to “Date/Locate” ) with the purpose to alleviate something on his own “case.”LRH’s final case folders, thus, I would agree, to anyone who goes the whole Hubbard hog “tech” case handling details procedures, would greatly appreciate looking over LRH’s case folders. I’d agree on that.Now, do I believe any of it, sorry no, not me. I think it is all placebo and mental imagination therapy at best. Self mind manipulation, and one on one (auditor and pc) mind manipulation, per rules that are a kind of laid out labyrinth of do’s and don’t’s that kind of dovetail but even there are non dovetailing aspects to LRH’s whole “case” hierarchy of issues the person’s “case” suffers from.This LRH not trusting another to handle his “case” to the degree he thought he could rise above his own “case” is just one of those non dovetailing aspects of his thinking.
          1. Vinay AgarwalaChuck, I have learnt a lot from LRH, specially from his Study Tech and Data Series. I have applied that knowledge fully to myself.I wish LRH had done that too. The key mistake he made was to invalidate Buddha and the goal of Nirvana.LRH totally misunderstood Buddha’s idea of selflessness by assuming the universal viewpoint. He took it to mean merging with the universe and losing oneself.LRH had a brilliant mind, but the above misunderstood got him. I really feel for him.
          2. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75to03thanks Vinay, It’s good that those who were around LRH do give their input and hindsight views, for posterity, thankyou so much Vinay for doing that.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Vinay. I do agree.
      2. chuckbeattyexSO75to03Thanks so much Ken.Have you ever had the desire to read all of LRH’s later than 1976 “top management” reorganization traffic, up to the end of his life?Did you ever get the inkling to review that later writing? (YOu were intimately aware and had the fullest understanding of all of the administrative “top management” twists and turns from the mid to late 1960s up through 1976 and must have been by osmosis aware of most things up to when you left in 1982—Hubbard wrote for CS-Aides, FB, then for La Quinta (Summer headquarters) and then for W (Winter Headquarters, Gilman Hot Springs), for CMO, for “Special Project Ops” (Miscavige), for ASI (Author Services Inc, which per my historical understanding, it is ASI that took on the LRH Accounts stuff and other of the LRH Pers Office stuff within ASI’s service as a “for profit” company that did LRH’s personal affairs managing.) He also wrote some despatches to the Exec Strata, one giving a bit of authority of decision making relating to dealing with “arbitraries” to ED International post, 3rd round, Guilliaume Leservre got that final LRH tiny big of authority to deal with any policy arbitraries that ED Int might run into. LRH gave Int Management of the early 1980s the rights to having their own “issue type” from which then the Int Management Bulletins were given their rights to even exist. And LRH gave Senior C/S Int Office rights to have “Senior C/S Int Bulletins”, and by extrapolation, RTC felt justified to have their issue types. LRH gave the idea of “Prosperity Bulletins” for the ASI advices traffic to be turned into “timeless tech” for ASI’s own series of hatting issues, all compiled from LRH’s ASI traffic. By extrapolation then for the Gold Base, all of LRH’s hundreds of despatches to the various Gold Base sub units had their issue types.You being Pers Comm, you’d have known ALL of what happened after you left, inside out and backwards, in principle, as you lived all those writings details of Hubbard’s issue types.I so wished someone like you, who is totally so up to speed on all the turmoil up to 1976 in the “top management” setups (CS-Aides, FB, PPRO Int, LRH Pers Office) that you would absolutely grasp how things finally evolved, and you’d just eat up and understand the final administrative details like nobody around!I wish I could just wave a magic wand and transport you to the CST/Archives location where Shelly Miscavige is today, and let you bask, if you wished, in all of Hubbard’s final years of “traffic” and then get your final take on all Hubbard wrote.I spent a considerable amount of hours, as OEC/FEBC Course Sup and Word Clearer, then 5 years on the “routing forms” project making all the finalized routing forms for the Class 4/5 orgs, where I had to read ALL of LRH’s administrative writings, period, as part of the project primary targets, LOL. (Years later I worked in the INCOMM computer branch, and carefully Method 9ed all of the INCOMM computer traffic, most of which were long long despatches to Foster Tompkins then the computer project boss.)Then from 1992-1995 I was the computer guy in ASI, and I was put on a project to proofread all of the ASI traffic.So I read a lot of his final stuff, which is why I know you’d appreciate and be a quick reader of it all, and be able to see things in it no one has ever seen in it.Shelly Miscavige is up at the CST/Archives “mother” site, near the Int Base today, and I so wish she’d invite you up to peruse all the final stuff. You’d be one of the few who could really digest it all quickly and place it all in the overall big patterns LRH had going. And you would be able to make some even more truly excellent hindsight views of all of it, up to the end of it all.I’m just so appreciative of your writing, thankyou so much Ken.Chuck
        1. urqbones@gmx.comChuck, thank you for kind words, again. You have a habit of bringing up large issues.
          Do I want to go through all those dispatches from LRH? At the age of almost 80, when I’m thinking of what I should be doing to end things off? I’m sure there is much of great value in them; that’s something I’ll leave to others to evaluate, thanks. I have an idea of the work I need to do and will stick to that. But thanks for the idea.
          1. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75to03Ken,In my mind, you are the best brain ever to grace “top management” in the Scientology movement’s history!I enjoy all and everything you’ve written, enjoy your life as you wish.Chuck
          2. urqbones@gmx.comDeep bow.
            My interest, Chuck, is in LRH the being that originated and developed the technology. Not so much in Hubbard the administrator/manager.
        2. Vinay AgarwalaChuck, I believe one would understand much of LRH’s case by studying his technical writings. I am currently studying ADVANCED PROCEDURES AND AXIOMS and commenting on it here.
          1. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75to03Dear Vinay,You too, same goes for your incredible understanding of all the details of Hubbard’s writings and practices.If in the future, researchers wish to be given tips on Hubbard studying, you too Vinay, just have laid out incredible hindsight views which I always enjoy reading all you write (born again atheist that I am, just the same, I remember how gracious and unbelievably intelligent and articulate you were in your Sea Org years.)Chuck
          2. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75to03Dear Vinay,
            You truly have a point, and I think your point is historically adopted in even Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear….” book.
            And the mind effects the physical, direction of causation, seems so immediately on the surface correct, unless one slips into the non-self theoretical path where then “witnessing” and delusion of causation are ideas that can be clung to and held onto. I’ve experienced some meditative experience close to the non-self experience and the witnessing meditative experience, and can see how the simple mind causes matter rather than it all being matter jumbling into itself confusing “it”self, whatever “it” is, and in fact, backing up to thinking “mind” is an “it” is exactly the theoretical experience pigeon-holing that Scientology goes wholehog presuming is the case, building from there. I have experienced this “other side” experience of the non-self/witnessing (but not even witnessing, the non witnessing of the non-self) and that experience then IS a genuine “path” or just another brain experience, is my today’s interpretation of that.
            Vinay, you are just one of the best commentors alive, I’ve always enjoyed all you can see in others’ views and you continually share your time, I so appreciate ALL your commenting, and I remember first reading your comments many years back on Clambake or ESMB and I was elated, also, having known you in the Sea Org peripherally, knowing your MIT educated backbround, knowing that you had the brain power to dissect people’s understanding of things, I so appreciate all I ever read of your views.
      3. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03Ken,
        Thankyou so much.
        I rate your views and opinions, due to your background, about the best I’ve ever heard expressed.
        All of your writings, I immediately give higher weight to, thankyou for posterity.
        All you write is major historical material, and I wish some of your young relatives’ offspring DO compile your works.
        Your views, every sentence of them, all deserve preserving for posterity!
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Chuck. I don’t know how much posterity there will be; whatever there will be might have different things to think about. 🙂
          1. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03LRH took care, have you seen the CST videos? LRH wished his wealth go to CST, and CST’s job is preserve the tech long range.The CST (Archives) sites have complete copies of all the raw LRH stuff, a whole massive expensive (no expenses spared, since this WAS LRH’s precautionary against world destruction so pervasive that persons would have to “come back” to uninhabited earth and dig up the “tech.”This whole angle of LRH’s final wishes is a real thing the money is being spent on.Twin Peaks, where Shelly most likely is today:
   Washington site
   California site
   Mexico site
      4. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03Ken,
        I so enjoy hearing every sentence you write above.
        I so appreciate the weight of your thoughts. You are tops in my mind, for grasping L. Ron Hubbard, every angle to him, and for taking up so many of the larger self-views Hubbard had of his own life. Everything you write needs preserving, I rate your views tops.
  12. Vinay AgarwalaSERVICE FACSIMILE OF SCIENTOLOGYThe beingness of a person have basis in the postulate that keeps the data of the mental matrix well integrated. With new experiences, the beingness continually grows, but this does not happen in the presence of unassimilated nodes. Such nodes smother the basic beingness by instituting arbitrary postulates. A service facsimile is just that.Ideally, the prime postulate underlying the beingness of a person is in complete alignment with the postulates underlying the universe. For the person to operate at his full potential his later postulates must also be in alignment. This is the fundamental teaching of Buddhism.In Hubbard’s philosophy, the prime postulate of a person is arbitrarily individualistic. Instead of aligning, it is supposed to be subjugating the postulates underlying the universe. The concept of “thetan” is just that. The “Scientology beingness” is built on this concept of “thetan,” and it is dedicated to subjugating the universe. Thus, Scientology is fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Buddhism.This explains why Scientology is always in conflict with its environment. This is the insanity built into Scientology. One may say that “thetan” is the computation arising from the “service facsimile” of Hubbard and Scientology.

Comments are closed.


Looking at Failure and Success. #2

Why is Hubbard’s best work at all valuable?

The success of Hubbard’s best work is, in my estimation, that it enables abundance of Solution and some mastery of Problem, giving us a key to many gates that Problem locks for us. Often, spiritual leaders of the past, such as the Buddha and Jesus Christ[1], have pointed humankind in a certain direction, which I will encapsulate, daringly, in my own words: If you are unhappy with any part of Life, you could discover the truth you want to live by, live only by your truth, discarding untruth no matter its origin. What we seem to have lacked, though, is methodology by which large numbers of people could feel confident in discovering and respecting their truth. Our spiritual leaders, it seems, believed that hearing their view of truth [often using different language to express thoughts they had in common] would enable every individual who wants to come to his or her own truth to get there.  There’s the rub: to look inwards presents us with a map we can’t always read. Many of us try honestly to discover what is true for us but come up against some uncertainty and confusion. Hubbard produced a key to unlock many aspects of uncertainty and confusion. That he couldn’t stop himself creating intermittent uncertainty and confusion around him in his own living doesn’t reduce the value of his key.

I have the utmost awe, respect, and love for the Buddha and for Jesus although I am not part of any organized activity connected with their names or their work. I believe that the Buddha and Jesus did point us to better ways of seeing and living life[2]. Personal experience, including some that was really painful, convinced me as a teenager that many of us (I one of them) lacked some knowledge of how to live together humanely. I found a lot of such know-how in Scientology; when introduced to it in 1957 I was exploring both Christianity and psychology but not finding support. I was nineteen years of age at the time and I can say that what Scientology quickly taught me saved me from collapse into fearful dysfunctionality. By lucky chance, I got to know Hubbard personally and closely in the 60s; I became a confidential aide of his in the early 70s and although we fell out I stayed in the organization up to 1982. What I learned from Scientology and from Hubbard personally rescued my little bit of frail sanity.

No-one can tell me or any person trained well in Scientology methods, that it doesn’t work when correctly applied for its designed purpose – to help resolve Problem and arrive at Solution. I don’t say that Hubbard’s approach makes anyone else’s unnecessary. It is complementary to any approach dedicated to what is necessary and true and that practices kindness. If you take the best from the Buddha, the best from Jesus, the best from any spiritual truth-teller, the best from anybody who utters that which is true, necessary, and kind, and add to it the constructive, practical wisdom of Hubbard, you can make excellent progress. Anyone who speaks and practices that which is true, necessary, and kind, is working towards Solution. Without Hubbard’s contribution to the analysis and understanding of Problem, success might well be limited or at any rate slower.

I don’t claim to know that Hubbard’s key is available to every individual everywhere at all times: I’m not that smart. There are all sorts and conditions of people and circumstance beyond my ken. If Scientology is not right for a person as he or she is, then it is not right for that individual …period. Every individual must be free to follow the path that feels best and rightest.

If we are honest with ourselves in discerning the truth that is necessary for us to be who we really are, we can be pretty sure that the path that feels right and best will make the life around us better for our presence and actions. Contrariwise, if we are untrue to ourselves we are more likely to find ourselves on a path of mischief or at the mercy of others’ mischief. Do we really need yet more mischief in the world? I don’t think so.

Are you adrift from your truth in some part of your life? Hubbard can help you turn that around, if you want to consider letting him. You don’t have to be a “Scientologist” to use his tools or, more fundamentally, to find the truth at the core of you. The only qualification is to be a human being wanting your truth deeply and strongly enough to trust yourself to relax back into it. It hasn’t gone anywhere; it’s still with you, still waiting for you. Your Problems come from untruths that you hang on to; Solution comes as you expose the falsehoods previously hidden within the problems, and you understand that you are hanging on to each falsehood. Every problem carries with it the underlying truth necessary to resolve it; accessing the necessary truth brings Solution. You come closer to recognizing your individual basic necessary truth. When you reach that point, you support and increase, or awaken and inspire, the spirit of Solution all around you. I think this is a good thing to do in our lives.

I believe that the only person who can fully understand and embrace your truth is YOU, and that no other human being can do it for you. However, some humans can help you with this task, and those most respectful of truth can help you greatly. But a well-trained Scientologist can help you as much if not more than most. How you can tell if a Scientology practitioner is well-trained, ethical, and trustworthy we will consider later. Of course, people of different beliefs can be highly ethical and trustworthy. The deeper and faster an approach can get to Solution the more necessary that the practitioner be thoroughly trained in his or her approach and of highest personal integrity. Scientology can be so fast there is no room for fudging. You are clambering the highest mountain, and you want to do it without a guide who knows the equipment, the ice, the rocks, the weather, and the risks?

Next, I want to deal with some reasons why it is important that we uncover our truth. But first a little detour since I’m linking Scientology so closely here to religion, and some clarification is in order since the term ‘religion’ is loaded.

[1] I apologize for not being familiar enough with the subject to include the names of many other spiritual leaders who have guided us; I acknowledge that there are many and intend disrespect to none.

[2] In speaking of Jesus, I refer to the Jesus of “The Gospel According to Jesus: A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings for Believers and Unbelievers” by Stephen Mitchell, and of the Jefferson Bible.CATEGORIESUNCATEGORIZED

33 Replies to “Looking at Failure and Success. #2”

  1. Vinay AgarwalaI think Hubbard was a pioneer in many ways, and in that sense he has my utmost respect. Yes, he was successful, but ultimately he failed, because there are big holes in his philosophy. He invalidated Buddha’s concept of nirvana in his book “Scientology 8-8008”, which, obviously, he did not understand. That raised a warning flag for me, while I was in Sea Org.But Hubbard’s work has much to offer. Hopefully, others will take his work forward.
  2. Vinay AgarwalaBuddha was very scientific. I don’t think that aspect of Buddha is understood too well in the West, where science is limited to the objectivity of the physical universe. Buddha taught the objectivity of the metaphysical universe, which Hubbard didn’t quite get. Hubbard got stuck with the subjectivity of self, and that did him in.It is true that Hubbard’s methods do bring miraculous changes in a person. But that is in the beginning only, like picking low hanging fruits. In the long run, Hubbard’s methods do not seem to be that effective. That indicates a weakness in his philosophy, which falls short of the philosophies of Buddha and Christ. In my opinion, Hubbard’s philosophy ends up pumping the ego.
  3. Patricia KrenikI can and can’t, both, imagine what it must have been like to work so close to LRH. At his best he was an amazing communicator. He loved games, and had a game with almost everyone he knew. Although I did not myself experience his various oddities, like no tolerance for pepper, I can well imagine what it would be to serve someone who was so volatile, both in a good way as when he was excited over the tech, and in other ways when he felt thwarted.
    One thing he taught was that it was one’s own overts that caused blows, but he also admitted to that being a control mechanism. Truly one who was close to him must run off any arc breaks first, before being concerned with any overts of their own. Run them all out, including any wrong indications he may have made.
    Ron was a unique person, a master of games, he brought both bad and good into my life. I’m so happy to have known him but also happy that I wasn’t like working close with him for a long time. It was easy for me to let go when I heard he passed away, unlike some others to whom I had more exposure.
    He made life interesting, to say the least.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Pat, and thanks for what you have always been and given. 🙂
  4. Stewart WilcoxWhen people are broken mentally, spiritually, ethically, they need a gentle guide back to themselves. Good C/S’d auditing can do that.
  5. Vinay AgarwalaBuddha was very scientific. I don’t think that aspect of Buddha is understood too well in the West, where science is limited to the objectivity of the physical universe only. Buddha taught the objectivity of the metaphysical universe, which Hubbard didn’t quite get. Hubbard got stuck with the subjectivity of self, and that did him in.It is true that Hubbard’s methods do bring miraculous changes in a person. But that is in the beginning only, like picking low hanging fruits. In the long run, Hubbard’s methods do not seem to be that effective. That indicates a weakness in his philosophy, which falls short of the philosophies of Buddha and Christ. In my opinion, Hubbard’s philosophy ends up pumping the ego.Hubbard’s contribution is more in the field of “metaphysical surgery” then in the field of philosophy. That is why it has a quick short-term success and that can be huge. But Hubbard’s philosophy is a failure as a way of life.The phrase, “Being true to ourselves”, sounds good only subjectively. It doesn’t free one from kinkiness and aberrations objectively. This is just an empty phrase, which may be good for boosting the ego. This is where Hubbard deviated from Buddhism at the fundamental level. The basic falsehood is that you are permanent or eternal.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, some things I have to tell you: I get that you have great respect for the good work that Hubbard did, as I do. I get that to you Buddhism has more to offer than Scn does. No problem. I am happy that you are happy with your path. Now, this blog is my pulpit, not yours. By this I am not trying to say that you’re not welcome. You are. But not to preach Buddhism or to promote it or your version of it. If you have something to say that arises out of your Buddhism, you are welcome to point us to a link which tells us what you have in mind.
      Also: I have my own relationship with the Buddha; I read what are said to be his words (in The Dhammapada) and I love to take them in. I don’t know that I always understand them but they are beautifully meaningful to me. I wouldn’t want to live without them. I’ve made it clear in the blog that I am not a member of any organized community connected with his name (or Christ’s). Those organized communities are welcome to do their own things and I’m not interfering with them. [Perhaps I’m arrogant, but I don’t welcome any human interference with my comm lines on the eighth dynamic (to give that part of life a name we’re familiar with). I hope I’m open to anyone who is awake, aware, and enlightened.]Thirdly: I prefer that all expressions of viewpoint conform to the following standard, which I try to adhere to myself: Say and do only that which is True, Necessary, and Kind. You have been saying what to you is True and Necessary to be said. In some of these statements you have declared, for example, that Hubbard didn’t evolve or he didn’t this or that, and that scn is limited in this way or that. Now, Hubbard and Scn had their faults, limitations, misconceptions, as we all know. I’m saying that when we refer to these negative aspects, we will do so in a manner which is kind to the best of Hubbard and of Scn, and kind to all readers. Of course, in order to be kind, we have to be both True and say what is Necessary. But to speak out of a negative attitude towards a subject is to be speaking out of a fixed view; a fixed view has already separated itself from Kindness, is of limited Truth, and adrift from Necessity.Fourthly, Buddhism evidently is not short of dogma. This blog is no place for organized and established dogma; as with attitudes, dogma divorces itself from Truth, Necessity, and Kindness. This, at any rate is my dogma, and as this is my blog, I’m sticking with it.
      To quote The Dhammapada: “In this world,/Hate never yet dispelled hate./Only love dispels hate./Knowing this, how can you quarrel?/ A dismissive attitude is a gradient of Hate. Let’s not invite any quarrels, hey? 🙂
      1. Vinay AgarwalaKen, You get me wrong. I am not beating the drum for Buddhism.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comOkay, Vinay, you’re not beating the drum for Buddhism.
          Can you clarify for me what you want to say?
          1. Vinay AgarwalaI shall withhold any criticism of LRH philosophy and technology for now because it does not belong here. All I can say here is that I wish LRH had a more detailed and explicit model of the mind.
          2. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, you do what suits your purposes, and god speed to you in them. I need to make it clear that I have no problem with criticism of LRH philosophy or technology (as long as it sticks to what is true, necessary, and kind). But you are right; the thrust of this blog is to point up that although there is in LRH’s philosophy and technology much that is unclear, let alone unnecessary, sometimes untrue, and definitely unkind, there is a solid core of sanity. I do agree that he could have had a more detailed and explicit model of the mind. As for criticism of the philosophy and technology, I support all such that starts from a platform of acceptance of that which is sound. We have yet to create for ourselves that platform. I wonder which generation, if any, will get around to it.
  6. freebeeingThanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences Ken.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comDeep bow
  7. OnuProblems : Solutions
    There is always an underlying truth beneath it all that makes sense of it all.Understanding dissolves Truth into practical reality where truth is variable according to context a where the person is looking from.So is truth a subject or an object of perception? Can it be both?People tend to regard fundamental realisations as truths whereas that may only be true from the viewpoint assumed and context.Truth can act as a stable datum, a reference point from which relationships can be extended.So one could say that truth is invented.Are Reality and Actuality independent of Truth or determined by it?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comAs far as I’m personally concerned, Onu, everything which persists does so because it includes as part of itself some unquestioned untruth. Nothing original in the idea. In shared and organized existence, one lives amongst factors that persist. Inescapable. Truth, then, consists of (a) the fundamental Truth that has been altered by the untruth that makes the factor persist, and (b) full understanding of and responsibility for the precise alteration(s) of Truth that make persist the factor we want to remain in place. Were we to choose to return to Truth every single alteration of truth, we would end up with That-Truth-Than-Which-Nothing-Can-Be-Truer, a state of continuous as-isness. For me, this is an outcome much to be desired, but not to everyone’s taste, I know. However, it is my answer to your question.
      Well, reconsidering what I just wrote, I can see that it doesn’t say how I think one would go about returning to Truth. I see it as a stepping-back from each item to be examined for Truth/untruth, an exteriorization from it and from the space which includes it, a permeation of all, and discernment of what keeps persistence in place, and duplication leading to as-isness. Then doing the same with whatever now enters the enlarged space and is persisting. [Doesn’t this happen in session? Doesn’t it happen in meditation? It happens in Life. Excuse me — what else are we here for?]
      Finally, I consider the discipline of accomplishing as-isness to be the central core of LRH’s gift to us. I believe the concept was known before but it was LRH who brought it into immediate application in all aspects of living. He made it available to all, everywhere, always. “Blessed are they who do hunger and seek after Truth, for they shall be filled.” The original has “righteousness” and I’ve changed it to “Truth” for my own purposes. LRH opened up the tap/faucet so it can POUR if we want it to. Fill up the tub!
  8. marildiKen, this is one meaty post. 🙂You wrote: “Every problem carries with it the underlying truth necessary to resolve it; accessing the necessary truth brings Solution. You come closer to recognizing your individual basic necessary truth. When you reach that point, you support and increase, or awaken and inspire, the spirit of Solution all around you.”By “recognizing your individual basic necessary truth.” I guess you’re talking about the individual’s basic purpose this lifetime – or maybe more than one lifetime.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comA hot question, Marildi. Well, thanks for posing it. The most I’ll say about it is that the essence of You is directly connected to the Truth that underlies all existence and it is a state in which there is no untruth. As you reduce any untruth in your own space/existence, you increase your connection to the Truth that underlies all existence. What I was talking about in the post was that you do all this on a gradient, bit by bit, untruth by untruth. The process may or may not be connected with a basic purpose but very likely is.
      The Buddha is said to have said: Mischief is yours./Sorrow is yours./But also yours/Are virtue and purity./You are the source/Of all purity/And all impurity./No-one purifies another. Recognizing that I am the source of all impurity within me, I remove any impurity I can find, as best I can. Seeing impurity in another, I can help him/her address it if he or she wishes it; I can learn from seeing how another deals with his/her own impurity.
      1. marildiKen: “What I was talking about in the post was that you do all this on a gradient, bit by bit, untruth by untruth. The process may or may not be connected with a basic purpose but very likely is.”Okay, got it. It’s the process itself that is likely connected to purpose. Makes sense – it’s like the purpose is the “carrier wave.” The “essence” of You would be more basic than purpose – most basic. We could say You are not your purpose, just as You are not your body. That indicates. Thank you, Ken.I did get that you were describing a gradient approach in using the powerful stable datum you presented: “Anyone who speaks and practices that which is true, necessary, and kind, is working towards Solution.”I would say that is the perfect guiding principle for those of us who have already delved into a lot of significance in Scientology, and along with the practice of it have had enough experience looking inward to be able to trust ourselves – or, as you put it, “to be a human being wanting your truth deeply and strongly enough to trust yourself to relax back into it.”Like I said, that is one meaty blog post. My deepest curtsy. 🙂
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Marildi. I know you’re not suggesting this, but perhaps I should add that ‘necessary, true, and kind’ is not a system nor a process nor anything mechanical; it arises out of trust in self’s ability to know or find out what is unnecessary, untrue, or unkind. But perhaps that is what you are saying already?
          Oops. I bowed so deeply my great big wig fell off.
          1. marildiYes, I was using the word “process” in the sense of “the process of becoming truth.” The best definition I could find was the first one below, as opposed to the second:: something going on : proceeding
            : a series of actions or operations conducing to an end
  “Process” in this context is a proceeding. Wise of you to anticipate any possible ambiguity!And thanks for the LOL. 😀
          2. urqbones@gmx.comVery good then: all done and diddled (for now).
  9. Ken NewtonHi Ken,
    I found your blog through Ant and enjoyed reading it.
    Lang may yer lum reek!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Ken, and welcome, and thanks for your ack and seasonal greeting!
      May there be plenty of reeking in your lum, and may it leek only through the top!
  10. WorselHello Ken, I am so glad that you communicate!
    The observations and things you tell are of great value; they give occasion to enlarge understanding.
    I think that the closest way to understand a person is by looking through this persons eyes and from his viewpoint and consider as many of the circumstances he dealt with or had to consider – as much as that can be approached.
    (For that reason I read recently “Twelve Against The Gods” by William Bolitho, a book Ron had recommended several times from 1952 on. It is about the history of great adventurers and it gave me a new angle from which to view LRH and his life.)
    Thank you very much, Ken!
    p.s.: I found your blog through Ant.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Worsel, and thank you very much for your words of encouragement. So glad you found the blog through Ant. [I tried to send a mailing to my e-mail list but it got so complicated I haven’t confronted getting back to it.] I completely agree that one must look through another’s eyes, walk in his/her shoes, and attempt to share that person’s view of self. Thanks for the reference to the book; I’ll look out for it. Another angle, by the way, is that presented in “The Outsider,” by Colin Wilson — a book I read as I was discovering scn, and it meant a great deal to me personally. LRH was by any measure a true Outsider.
      1. WorselThanks Ken, I will look into the book.
        Below the quotes I referred to:
        “There is never a great adventurer who did not end his career upon having discovered the sacred treasure of Peru. Bolitho, good old Bolitho, with his “Twelve against the Gods” – It’s a wonderful thing to read – gorgeous! And the introduction of “Twelve against the Gods” is one of the best pieces of work I know of, even related to a lot of things, and particularly to this subject.” (Cycles of Action, 521205, PDC 16)
        “Now, when I Say “great criminals of history”, I’m talking about people like Alexander the Great. This man was no less a criminal simply because he was Alexender tha Great. The “Twelve against the Gods” by Bolitho is an index and discussion of this personality. But it’s above enthusiasm. These people were tremendously effective. They were way above tone of the human race. But what they did was very markedly harmful. But they didn’t seem to have any conscience about it at all.” (R2-61: Good and Evil, R 2-62: Overt-Act-Motivator Sequence, 541021, 8 ACC)
        “I would hate to choose a favorite work of fiction of anyone – including myself. You didn’t ask about non-fiction so I offer that I’ve always enjoyed Bolitho’s “Twelve against the Gods”. His introduction is especially good.” (Rocky Mountain News, 20 February 1983)
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Worsel. Quotes are interesting. I take back my connection of LRH with The Outsider. On looking at it again, I can see that although LRH was an outsider, he wasn’t an Outsider in Colin Wilson’s terms.
  11. OnuYes, Ken. I think we have long known that when we see things as they are, they dissolve into understanding, and that when we spot fixed conditions, they disappear. Bhudda is said to.have realised that things appear and disappear. LRH understood this and went several steps further.LRH codified this principle into the Conditions of Existence, As, Alter, Is, Not per Scn Axiom 11. Therein we find the entire process of inspiration, relating, originality and negating. We also find the key to ending cycle on the process at the point of origination. We also fnd the key to resolving conditions of Negation or Not-Isness is to recognise and rehabilitate Isness which brings us to the valuable perspective offered by kindness as a guiding principle, the principle said embodied by Maitreya.Tracing backwards through the conditions we are faced with subjects and objects of perception determined by our own assignments and assumptions.Some things are true for self, others, everyone and all. Other things disappear (simply cease to exist) because we see them as they are and they are gone in an instant, other things dissolve into understanding, isness, reality.So it could be said that there is a condition of Isness which is beyond the dissolution of the mechanical conditions of existence as elucidated in Scn Axioms 12, 20, 23, 24.In fact we find this is a demonstrable truth which people with or without knowledge of Scientology terms define as the Reality of Me, Us, Everyone in a ‘Place’ of Understanding per Total ARC, independent of the mechanical conditions of existence, Here.The hallmark of this recognition is the dissolution of separateness between people whilst each maintains their sense of themselves and each other’s uniqueness.People commonly define this experience as one of Reality, a Place of Understanding and Love, Home, independent of the mechanical conditions of Existence.From this appreciation of the natural underlying sense of understanding and love between people is born a deep sense of Compassion.Thus we come full circle on the topic as introduced by Ken here and may note that LRH principles, correctly and fully applied per the fundamental Axioms of Scientology, result in understandings of a comparable nature to those acheived by both the Bhudda and the Christ and if we go one step further, lead us towards Kindness and Compassion as fundamental principles of spiritual freedom and enlightenment. 😊
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you for this, Onu. Beautifully expressed (and appealing to me not only because you pay the compliment of expanding on what I was saying).
  12. Stewart WilcoxI believe a Bhuddist thought is that each of us is climbing the same mountain from a different base point, so each of our climbs is unique. Our neighbor may help by advising us of what he sees ahead, but he cannot dictate the path we must follow.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comI’ll second that. 🙂
      At the same time, I think we can acknowledge that there is much in “The Bridge” that is extremely helpful to those looking for some hatting on getting along one’s path.
  13. Tim-SI’m late to this party, sorry. An excellent article, well written and concise. I wish I had written it.LRH was a man of many views and activity. Yes, he was a rascal at times and sometimes he was mean. But he was also brilliant and his particular line of pursuit is of benefit to us all. IMO.I am an admirer of the ability of the man to do what he did. Some may like his approach to these spiritual matters and others not. The methods he developed, to assist with our recovery of our true natures is a remarkable feat. There are those that have benefited greatly from his work, I am one such, and desirous of others achieving the same.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Tim-S, and thank you very much for your comments and for joining us. Apologies for delay in posting your comment; for some reason WordPress thought you are a spammer and I didn’t notice this going on. Will remember to watch out for this from now on.Your positive attitude on the subject is well expressed and welcome here. Thank you.
      I agree that not all can work with his approach, and have to say I’m not on top of why this should be. Obviously, there is work to be done on the question(s) involved. [It’s not my work to do. I hope there is someone to do it and that he/she/they have time to do it.]Agreed also that overall his work is of benefit to all. I’ll go so far as to say that he stands with the greatest of spiritual enlighteners in that he is the one who found the key to a long-locked gate across all our paths: the key he gave us is the practical method of achieving as-isness of mental mass. And it is a method that any human being can learn to apply to help both self and others. The use of this key opens paths to the enlightenment promised and urged by our other spiritual leaders. This of course is simply my opinion.Thank you also for your kind words about the post you read and responded to. I can’t say that kind remarks are necessary for me, but I do definitely commit to considering that the kinder they are, the truer they are. 🙂

Comments are closed.