Categories
UrqBones

Responding to a Message

This is the text of an e-mail message received privately at the blog e-mail address. This address forwards to my regular e-mail inbox. The originator sent an earlier message last week, to which I replied at once. It was a simple request to know if I was receiving mail at that address or not. Not receiving any reply, I sent a follow-up. Still no reply.

Today, the sender sent two messages, one to ask why he hadn’t received a reply to his first, and a second which I’ll paste in a moment. It seems that my e-mail forwarding and response system isn’t working. I’ll try to find out why. There has been no other message received at the blog e-mail address, urqbones@gmx.net, that I know of. I don’t have any problems dealing with messages sent to me via other addresses that forward to my regular e-mail.

Since I’m not able to reach the originator of the message and since he/she is asking some slightly challenging questions, I’ll paste the message here and give my answers. Anyone familiar with the C of S scene who reads this will know that the questioner is either anti-Scn or is a loyal member. The signature is a set of initials, but since the message began as a private communication I’ll omit any identification. The message is:Well Ken Urquhart,                                   Did you ever complete your RPF assignment ?   and can a person hide forever ?What should I know about you ?First of all, I take it that the greeting is at least challenging if not aggessive. Not that I care, either way.I was assigned to the RPF, yes, and I went there. I was “with” the RPF, I was never IN it, finding that it was too small to contain me. I was removed from RPF activity before I even thought of beginning the process of graduating from it (being in no hurry to get back into the rat-race of ‘normal’ existence as a member of any organization in Clearwater — and I had my private agenda, incomplete, for being with the RPF). They put me on the post of D of P for Interviews in the then-new NOTs HGC, something I was happy to do. Demand for NOTs was high and the need for a second Interviewer urgent.On that post, I got myself a pretty good reputation among the tech staff and among the public clients. I redid all my technical training up to Class I, including interneships, in my study time, and then trained as a NOTs auditor; two years later I had the highest Well Done Auditing Hours [WDAH] in the NOTs HGC for the year.I don’t believe my RPF assignment was ever cancelled or completed. It never entered my mind and seems never to have entered anybody else’s until this query today. With that demonstrated production (you cannot fudge high WDAH at any level, far less on NOTs), doing over 40 WDAH a week, week in, week out), who in his right mind (whether in the C of S or not) would have said that I was so down-stat and out-ethics it was wrong to take me out of the RPF and that I really needed to complete its processes?Can a person hide forever? Any person can consider he/she is hiding, and consider that he/she is hiding ‘forever’. I think we can suppose that the sender of the message is saying that I have never completed my RPF assignment and should go back there to do it. And that by not going back I am hiding, and trying to hide forever, from the RPF experience. Good luck on that one, friend. If you think that you have the right Why for me and my actions and my life, I’d suggest that you redo the Data Series Evaluator Course.As for what this person or any person should know about me: I have no idea, and couldn’t care less what this writer or anyone else knows about me or doesn’t know about me or cares one way or the other about what there is to know about me or not know about me. Dredge up all you want. There is plenty of dirt to dredge but there is only one beingness to whose authority to judge me I bow.*     *     *     *I have published this exchange firstly so I can present the originator with answers to the questions lest he/she assume I am unwilling to reply to a challenge. It’s the only such message received since I opened the blog. I don’t intend to make a habit of pushing entheta; my appetite for taking up challenges of this nature is not large and I won’t assume that anyone reads this blog in order to get a dose of antagonism.As far as I’m aware, in dealing with this enquiry I’ve respected truth, necessity, and kindness. If not, I will apologise and make amends. Should the originator want to take the thread any further, he/she would have to respect them too. Otherwise, I will ignore the communication.I also give notice that I will take up or refuse any future similar message entirely at my own discretion and that any refusal on my part has no bearing on whether I can confront the contents or not.With goodwill towards all–(c) Kenneth Urquhart 2018.CATEGORIESTHIS’N’THATUNCATEGORIZEDTAGSCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORRPFSCIENTOLOGYSEA ORG

23 Replies to “Responding to a Message”

  1. Robin ScottFascinating, Ken, and very curious that you should receive this just now, when things are hotting up in the independent field, since we’re all writing and publishing books! Your contact must feel threatened by this activity.The questions are spurious, and didn’t deserve a reply, as simply entheta. It was typically noble and generous of you to provide a response. I think you should identify the originator by their initials.In my extensive experience of the RPF, very few actually graduated. Most were invariably reprieved by an amnesty or a post assignment. So the question is based on an entirely false premise.Please keep us posted, Ken!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Robin. Will do.
      In my time of some authority over the RPF on the ship, we had regular graduations.
  2. Dan KoonSpoken like the Ken Urquhart I have come to know over these last several years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comI’ve often wanted to meet him, too. 🙂
      1. Robin ScottNice one, Ken, very witty, my friend!
  3. chuckbeattyx75to03SeaOrgDear Ken, Yes, the “What should I know about you?” is a variation of the withhold or missed withhold question, a clear “sec check” like quesiton implying that something was “missed” in the sec checking or tailor-made Case Supervisor instructions that might have been your “next session” first instruction in your next session from them.I know in the Book of Case remedies and in the related sec checking materials (I was briefly the Sec Checking School co-theory course supervisor in LA in my 1975-2003 Sea Org career, I prided myself on being a course sup, no longer of course), but today I highly appreciate ALL details you write, I for one, read every word of them(My first wife was Ann Halblom old Flag Banking Officer of the late 1975-1978 era, then she was promoted to CS-3, and so forth, and I when I went to meet her when you were still LRH Pers Comm, I absolutely understood your old role as the boss of the old LRH Pers Office and thus you were superior to the CS-Aides in terms of relayer to and from Hubbard, all communication of that late 1970s era ashore in Clearwater, so I highly highly appreciate all details you lay out of all your years, any year, as I was a Flag Course Sup in the Exec College of the Flag Bureaux under Al Baker and read intensely all the 1975-1976 traffic that was relevant to the lives of all the Clearwater Land Base staff who were in staff training in the course rooms in their staff study and the outer org trainees of that snippet of time, 1976-1983).I highly appreciate all details, all moments, you lived.Later, in LA, end of the 1980s, I was the Sec Checker School Theory Course Sup, and poured over the materials, even though the Course Sups are supposed not trained in them.Trained sec checkers know that the ARC Break Auditors are allowed to utter things, well crafted, to stir up their former members’ overts, as the main type of communication allowed. And there is the “Black Dianetics” angle, in that one just for PR reasons stirs up the presumed overts of “enemies” as a PR tactic when the speaker/group hasn’t dug up the actual overts of the outside enemy already.Just nonsense, and thankyou Ken, for YOUR details of your life, as anyone in all the history coming years in the future, will appreciate, if they get to this high level of understanding of the people around Hubbard, to gosh darned appreciate all that you write about your history around Hubbard.Thankyou forever Ken.Chuck Beatty
    one aging old fool dupe to the Hubbard adminsitrative system that kept that Scientology movement going 1975-2003 Sea Org, etc. (I’m a hard core atheist, the thetan/soul to me today is the problem, it’s vanished as a reality in my mind, and thus all of Scientology’s soul-therapy/exorcism is but mind swirling tactics, deceptive and only sometimes fruitful for a person.)Anything your write, is important historically, Ken, to those of use who know, even us hardcore non-believers!!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Chuck. 🙂
      Different courses for different horses. 🙂
    2. Robin ScottChuck
      Your respect for Ken is admirable and appropriate. I’ve had the pleasure of spending some time with him, and I consider him to be a terminal of magnitude – probably we should call him a big being!
      I find his viewpoints on the whole story unique and invaluable, so that I gradually learn to understand better what the hell happened.
      Best to you, my friend
      Robin
      1. chuckbeattyx75to03Thankyou Robin. I’d read anything you write also, but for sure, Ken is just a huge huge historical intimate of LRH, thus anything Ken writes is always important historically. Probably the hugest alive, Ken is, in terms of the bureaucracy history of Scientology’s most tumultuous years of the late 1970s.I’m so sad other major figures don’t write a bit about their lives in their Hubbard upclose years.The only accurate history is from ex members, and the people around Hubbard, their timeslots, that history, I wish could somehow be gotten.I’ve also dreamed of getting some sort of university funding to interview, and get grants to get the major figures interviewed and funded, and a setup to record all their histories, etc.It’s a DIY history of Scientology at present, at least people can easily write books.
  4. chuckbeattyx75to03SeaOrgKen,
    As the second or first D of P of the NOTs unit, I believe my ex wife, Ann Halblom Beatty, joined that unit later, when you became yourself a NOTs auditor of that unit a short time after, correct?Remember Ann Halblom Beatty (she’d been CS-3 and you’d have also known her as hanging around the tail end of the Apollo years, like 1975, she came from Boston and became in the end of 1975 the Flag FBO, and then by 1978ish she moved up to CS-3 and SOR, Sea Org Reserves held from above, etc, busted herself to the RPF, and into the NOTs unit as D of P herself for a year or so while you were there as NOTs auditor—she respectfully remembered you, she’s still in, I left it all in 2003)?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chuck. Those last years in the SO (I left/was kicked out in 1982) I don’t dwell on much. I’m sorry but my memory
      is vague. I have some foggy pictures of Ann as D of P. No memories of her as CS-3 — perhaps she became that after I
      was shipped into the RPF.
  5. chuckbeattyx75-03SeaOrgWhat I’m curious about, for long into the future researchers into the Hubbard administrative bureaucracy history, is your hindsight views of your years intimately around the changes Hubbard made.1) I’ve read some persons opine that in general Hubbard chose major changes based on his subordinates’ reports and suggestions, do you feel that the major administrative changes were just like that, and can you name names of persons you felt made suggestions during the CS-Aides years when you were Pers Comm, and which persons made productive bureaucratic suggestions that did become movement policy?That’s a big one, and might take months to answer. Please use the OEC Volumes or Admin Dictionary’s index of policies and Flag Orders and other Sea Org issue types in the rear of the Admin Dictionary to jog your memory about major productive ideas that others in those years of the second half of the 1970s, when there was that era of a fuller bureaucracy of numerious “CS-Aides” and Flag Bu personnel solving things on their own more than now’s bureaucracy.2) Were any of the CS-Aides or FB execs of particularly noteworthy idea providers in that era that resulted in any of those changes that occurred in the 1975-1982 era?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chuck, and thanks for your enthusiastic interest. Thanks so much for the assignment and guidance:“That’s a big one, and might take months to answer. Please use the OEC Volumes or Admin Dictionary’s index of policies and Flag Orders and other Sea Org issue types in the rear of the Admin Dictionary to jog your memory about major productive ideas that others in those years of the second half of the 1970s, when there was that era of a fuller bureaucracy of numerious “CS-Aides” and Flag Bu personnel solving things on their own more than now’s bureaucracy.”I’ll get on to it right away, once you let me know who will be setting up the office to deal with all the admin required. 🙂
      1. Robin ScottLOL!!
      2. chuckbeattyx75to03mainly an admin nerdKen, You were in my mind a giant of the admin history of the movement, and you are alive, and thus, any more detailed hindsights you utter or write, will automatically be important historically.
        I’ve dreamed of outfitting a camper trailer, and drive around and quit interview major figures, and carry along the full sets of volumes, etc, to let important figures in Scn history, read and pour over past writings, and there is just endless stories behind all of the issues LRH wrote, and really, I think unfortunately literally about it all, every word, issue, and the behind the scenes despatches LRH had going on ordering things, particularly in those very tumultuous times when there were large administrative changes going on in the latter half of the 1970s up through the times most of the Apollo vets finally all left the movement. (IN my dream pullalong trailer of LRH refs, I’d also have all of the LRH private despatch orders/traffic, but that’s not publicly available, but you I believe saw almost all of the admin traffic and were relayer to pass it along back and forth to LRH, so your thoughts on all those hundreds, maybe thousands of despatches, locked in your brain cells would be some of the most interesting details, ….)
        Oh well, it’s all possibly just massively inconsequential, sorry.
        Anything you write, I enjoy reading, thanks eternally.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Chuck. If your interest is in what was going on in the late 1970’s, I’m not the person you’re looking for. In 1975, LRH left Florida. I understand that he spent some time in Washington, DC, before settling in California. I remained in Florida (at first in King Arthur’s Court, Dunedin, and then at the Fort Harrison in Clearwater). Whatever importance I had on the post of LRH Pers Comm diminished. I was the last person on the line in Clearwater that handled traffic to LRH (other than GO traffic which never went to him through me, or almost never). Wherever he was in California, he had someone else handling the traffic that went to him and that traffic could come from any organization that he was in touch with.
          And, in that period after he left, I became less and less active in the organization as time went on, disliking more and more what I was witnessing, and not able to figure out a way to leave that would not unduly destabilize others who might not be happy to stay. I didn’t care about who might want to leave or not but I didn’t want my leaving to tip anyone into leaving. If anyone wanted to leave he or she would be better off acting on own determinism without any example from me.
        2. urqbones@gmx.comChuck, thanks for sharing your dream. I think it’s a great idea and I wish it could happen.
          As I just mentioned, I was not really part of the management scene after 1975 — I didn’t want to be.
  6. DaveInteresting mindset of your “challenger”.Sane response.Rock on!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Dave.Rocking on, rockily. 🙂
    2. Robin ScottGreat comment, Dave!
  7. Scott GordonSuperb and enlightening response.Sets a great example, too.We deal with this a lot.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Scott, and a deep bow. 🙂
  8. OnuIt seems to me that in order to participate in the Church of Scientology as it stands today, as public, staff, exec or sea org, a person is required to accept a position of overwhelm and subjugation to higher authority in order to pursue their ideals.When a person compromises their own understanding and knowingness in order to subjugate themselves to higher authority, albeit in pursuit of a worthy goal, that person places themselves in a position of overwhelm which they then knowingly dramatise in relation to others.The full KUCDEIOF Scale applies with enforcement and inhibition as only two factors within the overall sequence.
    ———————————–
    Technical Dictionary
    KUCDEIOF,  know, unknow, curious, desire, enforce, inhibit, none of it, false.  (SH Spec 296, s308C20)
    L. Ron Hubbard
    ———————————–The person always knows in the first place.The difficulty is when we compromise our own knowingness and understanding we end up in a mess and powerless to do anything about it…..…. trapped in circumstances of our own making, by our own choices and decisions.….. until we face the truth of  our own compromises, assume the courage of our own convictions and assume the dignity to act accordingly.

Comments are closed.

Categories
UrqBones

The Expert Witness: My Life at the Top of Scientology by Jesse Prince [2018]

[This book is available through Amazon.] https://amzn.to/36WNiKB

In this compelling read, Jesse tells of his experiences in the Scientology universe, from the circumstances of his introduction to the subject, then by way of his rapid climb to the top of the organization’s corporate maze (in the early 80’s), to his unhappy exit (in the late nineties) – followed by aspects of his life thereafter, focusing on the nastiness of the fights he got into with that maze and its leader and his then henchmen.

I’ve read few of the books produced by former members, because I’m not terribly interested in what people have to say about an organization which was already a wreck before I left it in 1982. The writing was on the wall forty years ago as clear as day. Who wants to keep staring at a wall, over and over? One could say that many have walked alongside this particular wall, taking their time to read it, some of them then taking time to tell us what they have been through. “See! See what the writing on the wall, which we did not heed, has wrought!” Nothing wrong with that. If it interests people, it interests them.

None of it, that I know of, has so far made much difference to anything. We have revelations about misbehaviours within the C of S [Church of Scientology] towards its staff and its members, we have revelations about the misbehaviours and insanities of L. Ron Hubbard, and we have almost endless commentary about the endless gossip concerning all these misbehaviours and what they mean.

Jesse’s book, which I have read once and quickly, swims in the same waters but is a different kettle of fish. Jesse, whom I knew slightly in Clearwater, was an independent, never a zealot, never a robot. His heavy-lidded eyes were always his own; although relaxed, he was watchful; although friendly, he was tough; although conscientious, he was not a simple true-believer. He had a ready wit and a ready laugh. His tongue could be sharp without being unkind.

I remember one time of his attending to me when he was a Cramming Officer. I, an auditor, was with him to explore some auditing sin I had committed in a recent session. By that time, LRH had ordered that when an auditor was sent to Cramming because of an alleged error in a session, the Cramming Officer had to “fly the rudiments” on the auditor as the first action in the Cramming procedure. “Rudiments” in this context are questions asked about basic upsets or concerns a person might have in the moment; to fly them means to clear up any such issues so they’re no longer distracting the possessor from the main action (correction of auditing errors) about to happen. Each question in the set of rudiments that is taken up is explored until the possessor’s needle floats on the question on the meter; hence the term “fly” – but don’t ask me why it’s “fly” and not some other word.

“Rudiments” include questions about matters which the person whose rudiments [ruds] are being “flown” would rather not bring into the light of day, such as misdeeds or secrets. With this kind of ruds question, if focusing solely on misdeeds or secrets, we used to say we “pull” them rather than fly them, whereas for the whole set of ruds we fly them. It comes to the same thing; again, the usage is obscure and don’t ask me.

So, Jesse is getting ready to fly my ruds so he and I can get into and complete my Cramming thing; this one’s not going to be a long affair. Once a Cramming Order is issued, the auditor has to go to Cramming to get it looked into, with corrective actions undergone as found necessary by the Cramming Officer. The auditor does not return to auditing until cleared by the Cramming Officer after the corrective action. In the office with us is a young Latina woman who is also an auditor and also has a Cramming Order to carry out. She, aggressively anxious to get it all over with so she can get back “in the chair” (that is, in the auditor’s chair delivering auditing to the organization’s customers) is insisting that her ruds be flown. All she is doing in fact is interfering with Jesse’s performance of his job with me so he can get to her.

He tells her politely a couple of times that Yes, he will fly her ruds just as soon as he’s finished with me. She continues her nagging. With a slight edge to his voice, but in total control of his enunciation, and a mischievous glint in his eye, he tells her “All right, my dear! I will pull your rudiments.” She then fell silent and left the room. [Probably not too much of a joke for some, but it tickled me, simple as I am. If any explanation needed: Jesse was telling the young lady that in his eyes, the ruds he’d have to handle with her were going to be – because of her obnoxious attitude – of the misdeed/secret category. Not exactly kind, but she was asking for it.]

Jesse stood out not just because of his dark-brown skin. As in any close-knit community where there is jockeying for promotion, favour, and so on, internal politics can break out in ugly rashes. Many people learned to keep their mouths shut and to cover their rear ends carefully. Anyone with eyes to see saw it. Jesse was one who watched what he said, but you could see he had no fear of expressing himself regardless of the politics. Moreover, he looked as though he could speak his mind eloquently enough to hold his ground and gain respect.

After Jesse left Clearwater, I became aware that he’d quickly gained promotion in the hierarchy over at wherever he had gone. This meant little to me since I was already on my road out of the organization. I wasn’t surprised that he’d been picked out in the newly-dominant management culture, with its emphasis on what would come to be called the kick-ass approach. If that approach appealed to Jesse, he’d fit right in. I left a few months later, having never had ambition of the kick-ass type. In the years that followed, I’d think about Jesse now and then, wondering how he was getting on in that environment, particularly how he might be managing his relationships with his seniors and associates. If he was staying with the program, he would be dancing skilfully, I felt. But I wondered how far he would go with it.  

Through the years, I heard, of course, of his public opposition to his former colleagues and of his connection with Bob Minton. I think we exchanged a brief greeting on some digital platform, but our paths haven’t otherwise met or crossed. [I have never considered brute force to be effective with people like Miscavige, and I have never had any resources with which to deal with him.] When I heard that Jesse had written his book, I looked for it, got it, and read it through in one sitting.

Two immediate comments: Firstly, the book is by a committed representative of the anti-Scientology, anti-C of S, anti-Miscavige, anti-Hubbard industry. By this, I mean the community of people who know with full certainty that because something about Scientology is bad, all of Scientology is bad; because many things about the C of S are bad, everything to do with the C of S is bad; because a lot of what Miscavige is accused of is really bad, he is all bad; and because Hubbard became in some respects insane and evil, the totality of his being and living was and always has been nothing but insane and evil. This is a harsh, filtered, one-eyed view and not one I agree with; I can accept that there was insanity and egregious misbehaviour. Can I ignore what I see was, on the contrary, positive? No way. More on that later.

Secondly, the book is by someone who was part of the topmost management of the C of S corporate conglomerate and, as I’ve pointed out, his own person with his own eyes. He has first-hand experience that he can describe, and he can do it with independent intelligence and insight. Jesse talks of relationships and events at a level unique in what I’ll refer to as the ‘anti industry’. And although you would have to think he regards Miscavige as at best an enemy, and LRH at best a fraudster, his narrative is not loaded with bitterness or hatred, nor with disguised propaganda (that I could see).

With regard to propaganda, Jesse does direct suspicion towards Miscavige in respect of possible forgery of Hubbard’s signature and of possible involvement in the violent death of someone close to him (to Miscavige) whose existence threatened Miscavige’s position at the top of the organization. Jesse also adds fuel to the accusatory fire beloved in the anti industry about possible obfuscation by Miscavige of truth concerning the circumstances of LRH’s passing and of his will.

Concerning propaganda against LRH, Jesse points towards evidence that LRH was an alcoholic but is clearly careful of drawing any certain conclusion on that subject. On the other hand, Jesse allows one of the reviews of his book (included in the Foreword) to state unambiguously that LRH was an alcoholic in terms that are bombastic but not backed up with fact.

Jesse’s observations of LRH’s behaviour and state of mind are of great interest. Just about all that he reports of these I can believe. Without trying to sound all-knowing, he tells me that which I (and others) saw coming when I decided I couldn’t follow LRH on the path he began to take in the mid-70’s. Thus, Jesse’s words ring as very likely true. This being said, it is extremely sad to hear just how far and in what way LRH’s mental and spiritual condition degraded, and to know that he was not well cared for in his last days – notwithstanding the fact that LRH had made for himself the bed he was lying on, and had held close to him the people who accepted the responsibility of caring for him.

[There is some comfort in having an idea of how LRH’s sanity shook as he drew close to the end of his life; the knowledge helps me feel less stupid about how my sanity slipped away as my days within the church drew to their end, and about how long it took me to get myself back on an even keel after returning to the real world. In fact, that process still continues. And I’m grateful that it does.]  

Jesse describes Miscavige’s final humiliation of Mary Sue Hubbard, a ritual sacrifice in which Jesse participated as a witness and Miscavige supporter. To Jesse’s credit he expresses regret about that horrible event and his part in it. Consequently, I for one will not hold his complicity against him, should my doing so or not ever be important. The rest of the mob that Miscavige dragged with him for that ritual can join him in hell forever as far as I’m concerned. Mary Sue was not perfect, but she had been loyal; in no way did she deserve that treatment. In this Miscavige performance in Mary Sue’s own home he bullied her into signing away her rights as widow despite the fact that much of the wealth he was diverting from her hands existed because of her life’s work for the organization – quite apart from anything she was due from LRH’s will or entitled to in the absence of a will, as his widow.

Interesting to note that a factor in Jesse’s initial acceptance of and entry into Scientology had to do with out-of-body experiences [OOB]; he tells us that he mentioned in his first visit to the organization that he had had many OOB experiences and was interested in knowing more about the subject; they assured him he’d come to the right place. It’s interesting because part of Jon Atack’s initial experience [described in his book A Piece of Blue Sky] had to do with the promise of “going exterior”, otherwise known as OOB. Atack’s book (which Jesse recommends) is part of the same anti industry.

An important aspect of the history of the degradation of Scientology is the role played by the part of the organization devoted to getting people to purchase services and to continue to buy them. In 1968, not long after the Sea Organization [“the SO”] began its interference with the international Scientology network of organizations (which the SO had avowedly left to the Scientology World-Wide headquarters at Saint Hill [known as “WW”]), reports began coming into WW, where I was an executive [and not part of the SO], of marked increases in the amounts of money being taken in by far-flung organizations. The SO people involved were insisting on large increases in income from week to week at each org, and in most instances the increases occurred. As a WW executive, I was greatly concerned that we did not know what it was that these organizations were now selling – and therefore promising to deliver. It’s a disgrace on my part that I didn’t pursue this concern; why I didn’t is another story.

I’m digressing from discussion of Jesse’s book here only to give the book some context I think has relevant importance: both Jon Atack and Jesse were attracted into the grip of the Scientology organization by promises of spiritual candy. Whatever else they learned on the path by which they came to find that the candy had a bitter taste, they share the view that they had been misled fraudulently. In view of the promises they were sold on, they are not mistaken, in my opinion. However, in their disillusion they are busy dealing with a set of problems that would never have existed had the staff who sold them the candy been properly and honestly trained and supervised as regards what they were leading people to expect by way of results. The promise of exteriorization was explicitly forbidden in policy LRH wrote himself. In pushing the organizations to ignore that policy, the C of S upper management (in reality, LRH and the SO) created a hornet’s nest of problems for itself. Making the receipt of money more important than the spiritual health of the paying customer is bad enough; taking that money and putting the customer in harm’s way creates the kind of energy that results in the anti industry.

While off on this tack, I should add that just after the death of L. Ron Hubbard there was a time when the Lords Muck-a-Muck of corporate Scientology were agog to have access to the “OT” levels that LRH had left behind. These Lords, according to Jesse (who was one of them), thought that these esoteric, advanced materials could make them masters of the manipulation of matter, energy, space, and time. Evidently, their eyes were greedy for that great prize. In due course, they found that the materials would do no such thing. But the commentator can notice that from the inception of the “OT” levels, the levels have carried with them the implied promise of abilities far beyond the human. Those who went into the OT levels with open eyes could find value in them without expecting anything more than what they could get. Unfortunately, the implied promises spoke loudly to those seeking the fools’ gold of extraordinary powers in order to increase not their abilities to live good lives in good community with family, neighbours, and fellows, but their abilities to bully the totality of family, neighbours, fellows, Planet Earth, and The Universe – and, presumably, all other bullying OT’s too. A moment’s reflection would have shown them that if a number of individuals become free to autonomously change the arrangement of matter, energy, space, and time in which the cosmos holds together, then chaos would quickly result, ending all games, good or unworthy.

In these two ways at least, in promising the candy of OOB and the fools’ gold of cosmic mastery to all who could be tempted to pay for it, the C of S set itself up for the attacks of the bitterly disillusioned against its arrogance and stupidity in making insane promises. Alas, the C of S set up the technology to be tarred with the same brushes. The technology is not perfect but it is too good for what the C of S made of itself. Whatever about that technology is pure remains pure.

Much of what Jesse says we must take at face value. It is worth noting, though, that the main persona in one of Jesse’s stories of his time within the organization does dispute some of Jesse’s stated facts. This is Robin Scott, the British man who, having left the Sea Org, impersonated a Sea Org officer and got his hands on the most advanced and valuable technical materials the organization possessed. Jesse recounts how he got the better of Robin; Robin has a different story. Part of that story, according to Jesse, is the belief that David Mayo wanted and got copies of that precious material. I can dispute this up to a point, in some support of Robin’s position. I was with David Mayo at the time in question (but left shortly thereafter) and can attest that David was not only horrified at the theft but vehemently against anyone connected with him having any copies of that stolen material. David could possibly have changed his mind later, but I doubt it because, in that period, he was defending himself against brutal attacks from Miscavige and Jesse.

Jesse also has remarks about the materials David Mayo wrote up for his own use at his own centre for the level the stolen materials covered. The documents making up the C of S package were originally signed by LRH, whereas it was clear to anyone familiar with the respective styles that some of the issues in that package were transcripts of LRH recordings (of briefings he had given David himself) on the subject, and the rest were mostly written by David either on behalf of LRH or with his approval. I believe that David, after he’d set up his own independent centre, was rewriting in his own words for his own independent use what he had written for LRH to sign for C of S use. Jesse claims that what David wrote is nonsensical and unworthy. All the auditors at David’s centre read his version and found it workable.

Jesse reports this thing and that from intelligence reports he was receiving from C of S spies infiltrated into David Mayo’s group. I’ll believe all of these things once they are fact-checked. I suspect that Jesse likely accepted reports from spies who were saying that which they thought it was good to say and for their masters to hear. It’s a bit late to fact-check these things; nonetheless, I believe that in what Jesse saw with his own eyes, heard with his own ears, and figured out with his own judgment, he is a reliable witness. Do we know that he tells all that he might tell, and all that is relevant? We can never know that about any story.

Jesse can be rightly proud of the prominent position he earned – high in this wealthy organization clutched by dedicated and ruthless dominators. Here, he demonstrated not only his ability to get things done, itself a distinction, but also his presence of mind in manoeuvring the bogs of bullshit necessary to keep the dominators cool and collected – and away from his throat. To what extent do we admire him for these accomplishments, as we’re invited to by their recitation? One’s admiration would have to be tempered by one’s evaluation of his masters.

Admiration is also tempered by mindfulness of the horrible conditions in which ‘ordinary’ members of the SO and of the C of S had to live, and the disgraceful way in which SO children were housed, not educated, and otherwise treated. Jesse’s successes insulated him from those realities and allowed him to enjoy such things as his expensive motorbike, a toy also favoured by Miscavige, and, one could think, purchased and ridden to show him (Jesse) a member of the elite.

Jesse, although, as I say, his own person, evidently hardened himself to some human feelings as he took on difficult projects for his master, Miscavige. For example, he describes how he was given the repulsive task of obtaining from Diana Hubbard something all others had failed to get – her signature on documents resigning her rights over her daughter, Roanne. The documents were required because LRH had decided he wanted Roanne to live close to him, while Diana had moved away. Until Jesse went to see her for the signatures, she had adamantly refused to hand over her daughter.

Jesse did succeed, although we can’t be quite sure how it came about; his story is that he asked Diana for her signatures and she gave them without demur – although not without tears. Jesse does tell us that he felt Diana’s pain as she signed the documents, and he gives us to understand that he did not enjoy what he was doing. Hard to fathom, then, is the coolness with which Jesse relates that shortly after he returned to headquarters and had delivered the signed documents, LRH paid him a reward or bonus of $500 or $700. Jesse is entitled to his own view of his actions. I myself find it hard to understand how he can be so callous about taking the money for separating the mother and her child. He may have his reasons for remembering the money with equanimity, but one can consider it unworthy to do such a deed and then take money for it.

Another personal observation on one minor aspect of Jesse’s story: He refers to a man with whom he worked, a lawyer, a man who deposed me twice. His name was Joe Yanny. Jesse obviously liked and enjoyed this man, calling him a “good person” with a striking sense of humour. As I say, I met Joe Yanny twice, and of course in a quite different context from Jesse’s association with him. Jesse and Yanny were involved in the C of S suit against David Mayo. As a former member of David’s independent group, I was involved, had testimony, and was summoned twice by Yanny for deposition in Miami, where I lived. So I had several hours of questioning from him and had that opportunity to observe him and his behaviour.

Joe Yanny struck me as being a young man on the make (as in ‘ferocious self-promotion’) and highly pleased with himself at his success so far. He did not strike me as fearsome in his treatment of me, although, not unexpectedly, he did look down his nose at me a lot, and quite smoothly, too. In return, I looked down mine at him. I didn’t offer him any pleasantries and would have been offended had he tried to offer me any. His skin shone as though covering layers of butter (although he was quite trim), his dark eyes comfortable and happy in their security. He seemed delighted with his own perfection. The relations between Jesse and this man may have been thoroughly open, honest, and straightforward; my opinion is that it’s likely that Joe covered Jesse with lots of butter.

When Jesse tells us that Joe Yanny was “a good person”, he does so in the context of a story he’s telling about working with Yanny on a case and spending off-duty time with the man. I would like to have known if Jesse considered Yanny a good man for what Yanny did for the C of S in its lawsuits against its perceived enemies, or for – what?

I’m making the point that, as always, another’s story can have holes picked in it, just as my story can have. Self-congratulation is all very well but is an ingredient that requires the greatest degree of judgment in the simmering of one’s soup. What Jesse doesn’t include in his story is that even though Yanny was involved in the success of the C of S suit against David Mayo, the latter eventually won his counter-suit against the C of S – although by that time, Yanny must have been long separated from the C of S pots of gold. In fact, Yanny, despite having received (by report, not verified by me) auditing sessions from the C of S, ended up opposing the C of S and involved in lawsuits against them. And he is on record as saying some extremely harsh things about the C of S and its methods of conducting lawsuits [as can be found on a web search].

Jesse makes it clear that it was not he that ordered and managed the conduct of lawsuits that outraged Yanny (and others); however, one has to wonder how it is that Jesse, in describing them, does not forthrightly condemn the lawsuits for the mischief that they were, or have any considerations now about his earlier support for and use of that conduct.

So, as with every telling of every tale, we need to be alert to the possibility that this or that is missing or that the telling might be biased one way or another. This is by no means a criticism directly aimed at Jesse but a reservation necessary in every reading of any author. As I’ve said, in what Jesse says of what he saw and heard and evaluated by himself, I think we can trust his word; at the same time, though, we have to recognise: firstly that his story seems to involve a serious element of self-congratulation (and lack a serious element of self-reflection); secondly that he does himself no favours as an author in not having someone go over his text. It is a bit staggering that presumably not one of the people who read his text before publication pointed out that the way to spell “days” is not “daze” [as happens twice] or let stand other simple textual errors – such as we all can make and shouldn’t be too proud to have another correct for us. Possibly, somebody did point this out to Jesse and he chose to gloss over them. One could admire that chutzpah while rejecting it as contrary to basic and expected author friendliness towards the reader. The book shows (in my opinion) the need for mature editing in both style and substance.

The anti industry is doing its job well. It focuses attention on the misbehaviours of Miscavige towards staff and members and towards the products of Scientology technology seemingly degraded at his hands. The industry repeatedly calls into question LRH’s integrity and motives, not to mention his sanity. It lumps all this negativity together, be it real or imagined – and builds its own big wall. On that wall it writes large: “Scientology is all bad!” “Hubbard is all bad!” When the world speaks of “Scientology” these days, what it means is the collected misbehaviours of the C of S and its leader – along with the horror and outrage we surely must feel for such evil. Any truth in the technology LRH put together must die.

I have only one disagreement with this message on the anti wall. I do agree that all the bad behaviour is all bad. I agree that the insanity is insane. What I never accept is the message: It was always and ever this way from the very beginning.

Bah. What utter, childish nonsense.

The message is just not true. But the people who have been involved in the organization since the early 80’s – that is, those who were already members and who remained members and those who joined up after that time – and have become disenchanted with it and upset with it assume that all the bad that they know of the organization and of Hubbard is all there is to know about them. They do not recognize the possibility that at some earlier time things were different and better, and that things changed through time, becoming worse and worse – but started from a very much better place than they ever knew.

I can’t and don’t blame people for assuming what they assume; assuming is, it seems, an essential human activity. We are riddled with biases of one kind or another, all of us. It can be difficult to grasp that we don’t know what we don’t know. We shy away from examining our assumptions and the biases we base them on. For example, that LRH changed for the worse over his later years is nothing new or strange for old people. Who is the bigger fool: the one who makes something neither strange nor new a big deal or the one who agrees that it is?

Those who, like me, were around LRH as he changed beyond control failed to help him rethink what he was doing. Thus, we, and I, did our part in helping bring about the conditions which energise this dratted anti industry. The energy creates a thick black curtain over all that took place prior to the culture that has dominated the C of S since the early 80’s (having existed within it, in one manifestation or another, for many years prior). Jesse plays his part in solidifying the curtain. The purity of Scientology as a subject is buried in piles of ordurous mischief.

Jesse tells us that he suffered harshly at the hands of his former masters after he turned against them. He became deathly ill after they made his life a hell for him. We are supposed to assume, I guess – if we are loyal members of the industry – that his illness was a direct result of the harm that Miscavige and his agents did him. We who do not employ ourselves in the industry can keep an open mind on that point, but I’m happy that Jesse had the strength and courage to overcome his extremely serious illness and to produce his book. I’m glad he did that, and I for one thank him for it.

Well worth reading, even if it’s about events that shouldn’t have happened and which can only sadden us. Read with open eyes. Read everything with open eyes.

© Kenneth G. Urquhart 2018CATEGORIESREFLECTIONS ON SCIENTOLOGY AND L. RON HUBBARDTAGS“THE EXPERT WITNESS”CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYDAVID MAYODAVID MISCAVIGEJESSE PRINCEKENNETH URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHMARY SUE HUBBARDROBIN SCOTTSCIENTOLOGYSEA ORG

61 Replies to “The Expert Witness: My Life at the Top of Scientology by Jesse Prince [2018]”

  1. Scott GordonThanks Ken, for a very helpful review and supplement to the reading of Jesse’s book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Scott. The churning-churning-churning continues….
  2. VINAY K AGARWALAI have come to see LRH for what he was. The sum total of it is that I admire him for his genius. He did decline in his later life, but for me he is defined by his earlier work.I am not a fan of his OT Levels, which are a product of his later years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Vinay, for reading and for your comment. We are in agreement; I am neutral about the OT Levels. I got a lot out of them myself and accept that for others they have no value.
      1. VINAY K AGARWALAThanks Ken. I find meditation to be superior to OT Levels.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comSuper, Vinay. May meditation bring you all that you cherish most.
          For myself, I find meditation all the more effective for me because of the OT Levels! 🙂
  3. OnuWhat really happened to LRH was he resolved the PTS – Potential Trouble Source case by evaluating disconnection, a breach in the Auditors Code. It is a simple fact of life that if self-determinism, real or imaginary is restored to the PTS person, they reclaim their personal space ftom the source of suppression – real or imaginary. In the case of an imaginary source of suppression the person destroys their life and family, sacrificing tbat which is most dear to their hearts to the alter of Scientology. In the case of a real source of suppression, the actual source or a minion turns up to find out what has occured and in the case of the actual source, what has happened to their prey and most importantly to discover the mechanism and/or source of power employed to wrest their prey from before their very eyes. At this juncture when confronted by the source of suppression the person responsible for the sea change has only one recourse, the Code of Honour. If they have compromised the self-determinism of the PTS by evaluating disconnection, a breach in the Auditors Code, advocating a breach in the Code of Honour, they don’t have a leg to stand on in relation to the actual source of suppression who now has the justifier and motivator to destroy them and acquire their power. This is exactly what happened to LRH. The actual sources of suppression (SPs) turned up on his doorstep in search of his power and he had no defense.LRH was defeated by the Circuit/3rdParty/PTS/RealSP Case.
    He never got to confront and handle the RealSP Case.The promise of exteriorisation and power…….Of course anyone who was actually capable of exteriorisation and remote viewing would have seen exactly what was going on anyway and not gone near the place with a barge pole.As for power…. ‘total power occurs when” . .. a person…. “can selectively confront or not confront anything”.LRH did run rings around the stadium and he jumped the ramparts and handed us the flame.The stuff works.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu.In my opinion, LRH as a being and as a producer are both so vast in depth and breadth (of both useful and useless) that categorical judgements seeking to pin down this or that outpoint or pluspoint or this or that Why are not fruitful — although they may (or may not) release some BPC. 🙂The challenge, to my mind, is not in analysis but in the scope of confront of the man and his work that allows for selective confront or not-confront of the whole or of any part of it. I believe that if and when one can confront/not-confront the totality, and can sweep the totality for this or that to focus on (that is, to select what to confront and what to not-confront for the time being) one would understand enough that only the fundamental truth would remain: all untruth/unworthiness would melt away.I do agree that the SP/PTS thing is an unsatisfactory construct. And was and is the source of extremely unwelcome trouble and mischief. Perhaps the greatest error in LRH’s work. But we cannot have perfection in anyone or from anyone. What someone produces that reduces the power of the physical universe must always be balanced by something that maintains it. Now and again the universe slips up and allows someone to reduce its power just a little more than it gets him/her to maintain it.I say we should be thankful for the individual that gets away with that little trick. And yes, let that individual pay for what he/she does that is Q&A as we all have to pay so we all learn better.
      1. OnuYes, Ken. We can never truly know another in all their complexity, depth, simplicity and the vastness of their understanding and knowingness, although we may have glimpses.Thankyou for your kind, balanced and measured response.I do believe that through mutual and collective understanding we can support one another through our respective journeys, even beyond the brink of death, through the afterlife and beyond.As you most eloquently elucidated, selective confront, intelligently applied, results in the restoration of theta and this is one of the great maxims LRH applied and instilled in the fabric of his work. …“What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it”I am sure LRH was and still is incredibly aware and astute, particularly concerning the circumstances of his life and the consequences of his choices and decisions, perhaps even more so now he is free of mortal coils and may view the events of his life objectively.In my understanding what we do here to mark and honour the passage of the departed does make a big difference to them and supports them in ending cycle and re-orienting, knowing that they are cared for, understood and loved for whom they simply are.Regarding the Real SP Case, its the TRs, Codes and the application of selective confront to focus on the person, the person who is originating, that seems to make the difference.The rehabilitation of mutual knowingness naturally restores KRC, understanding and ARC resultant in mutual duplication and self-determined action.Control, when exercised to a completed cycle of action per Start-Change-Stop results in Understanding and the restoration of Life.LRH alluded to this when he referred to the rehabilitation of purpose.Sometimes we choose to ‘carry the can’ on our broad shoulders and put our ‘foot in the door to hold it open’ when we don’t actually need to and all we do need to do is to find the higher truth that satisfies all viewpoints presented.Although the physical universe could be said to be founded on the principles of polarity and equilibrium, each person is sole origin and source of their own participation and to the degree that the physical universe has a life and persistence of its own, it is possible to act and live in alignment with the higher truths existence reflects, albeit at this stage perhaps in brief and fleeting moments which when we recignise tbeir essence, grow and expand.I believe that although we do tend to pick up with each other when we meet again from precisely where we left off, the development of mutual understanding, if only at a purely theta level initially, achieved through inner work, paves the way.In my own perspective in this respect we have a duty towards the dead and departed to honour their passage in that it is we who remain and carry the memories forward here in the physical which in this this 1st Dynamic Universe means that what we do here and now, in this time, place and location in the overall scheme of things, impacts throughout existence and the phenomenal, spiritual and divine, if only in some small and simple way.Blessed Be Ken and thankyou for holding this beautiful space.
  4. Peter MoonThank you, Ken. Interesting perspective, as always. Nice hearing your input. I hope you will continue with your narrative.
    1. urqbones@gmx.com🙂
  5. Robin ScottExcellent, as always, Ken – I haven’t quite finished his book myself, and will respond in detail when I have. Warmest regards, Robin
    1. urqbones@gmx.com🙂
  6. Robin ScottKen, I have tried twice to post a lengthy reply, my friend, but it doesn’t seem to have arrived here.
    It’s on my FB page, if you want to have a look. Best, Robin
    1. urqbones@gmx.comSorry about that, Robin. I wonder if I’d know how to fix that….
      You’re very welcome to post here a link to your FB post, you know.
  7. DanHi, Ken.
    An excellent review. At one point a few years ago Jesse and I were set up to have me edit his book. Alas, that fell apart as Jesse involved himself in the 2016 election and we never got back together on it. I think the book suffers because of that.
    One minor nit to pick with your review, Diana’s daughter is named Roanne, not Roxanne. She escaped a month after Ron Miscavige and his wife escaped from Gold. Today, Roanne is successfully enjoying life working in Hollywood, as I’ve heard.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Dan, and thanks for the nit-pick and the update. Of course I knew Roanne’s name. Just had a senior moment but in fact life is one long senior moment these days with occasional moments of clarity. Happy to know that Roanne is free from those old baleful influences and is enjoying herself.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comDan, didn’t mean to ignore what you said about the editing. Glad to hear you were on the line and sorry you and Jesse weren’t able to carry it through. It would have made a huge difference, imho.
  8. Robin Scotthttps://www.facebook.com/robin.scott.7796/posts/2309811132385962?notif_id=1539002012650133&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic
  9. Jesse PrinceDear Ken;Thank you for your review of my book. I think it was a fair review and I’m glad you found the story compelling. On the point of the stolen NOT’s material, I just want to add this bit. The Mayo case was brought in Federal court so that Scientology could file a RICO case. In order to succeed in a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) it is necessary to prove a nexus exist between the defendants in the case that involve criminal activity. In this case the nexus connecting the criminal activity that happened in Denmark Copenhagen to the AAC Santa Barbara had to be established for the court and that happened in two ways. The first way was the judge in her chambers examined a true copy of the NOT’s material and a copy of the NOT’s packs offered at the AAC. The judge found the material to be nearly identical when doing a side by side comparison. In some instances the titles were only slightly changed from the original true copies. The judge determined a nexus had been established after studying both copies of the material. The other factor that established the nexus was the document I was able to have Robin Scott sign in his home. That document also established a nexus of criminal activity. For the life of me I can’t even remember what the document even said. That day Scientology won in court and L Ron was happy and that is the true history of that incident. I’m not proud of any of it but I offer it as the history it is so that history doesn’t repeat itself and we learn. Don’t know what you mean by butter and Joe Yanny, I’ll assume that’s an inside joke. Be well Ken and thanks for taking the time to read my book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comDear Jesse,Thanks for looking over what I had to say about your book. And for going over the NOTs pack thing. I can’t say I know all of the facts of the matter beyond what you have told. You’re hewing to the legal channel, and that’s fair enough; few in the independent field, if any, will accept that the legal interpretations of that time addressed the whole truth of the situation — in other words, on our side we would say that the C of S carried that day by weight of legal (and financial) pressure rather than moral right. However, it’s history, it’s water under the bridge, and I’m happy to leave it at that unless there’s real need to burrow into it.Thank you for offering that history, and all the history that you gave in the book. Thanks also for graciously accepting what I had to say about it. I am quite open to disagreements you might care to discuss privately or publicly.With regard to the butter, I had in mind the expression “to butter up””, and it must be British. Dictionary definition:
      “butter someone up and butter up to someone: to flatter someone; to treat someone especially nicely in hopes of receiving special favors.”Yanny came across to me as someone who was on the look-out for people who would further his career and who would butter them up. He might have been a good friend to you, in fact. If so, I’d take it all back and apologise.All best wishes to you, Jesse, in your recovery, and for all that your heart desires.
      Ken
  10. marildiKen, thanks for this uniquely insightful review. On the overall subject of Scientology, the tech, LRH, and (as you call it) the “anti industry,” no one has sized it up better. What a breath of fresh air!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comYou read the post and see so much??
      Deep Bow to you, face inscrutable….
  11. Jesse PrinceKen I wanted to thank you for noticing something different about my writing in that it is not written as someone who is bitter or overly opinionated. I tried very hard to stick with the narrative that happened at that time. You are correct, the history and water under the bridge is nothing to drown over today! Thank you for clearing up that butter up term and it perfectly describes Joe. He was all of that and more. We ended up giving him over $100,000.00 as a retainer then promptly invited him for a trip across Europe! He was a character and I think had you two met under different circumstances you would have gotten along okay. I’m not angry at L Ron or anyone else these days, I’m just too old for that now. I’m not bitter about my life in Scn, compared to may other people, I had a great time with many strange and unusual experiences. You correctly noticed I am a disciplined person and I have always methodically studied subject I’ve undertaken, Scientology being one of them. I have more to say so be looking out for another book in the not too distant future old comrade.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comWill be looking forward to the next book, Jesse. 🙂 You’ll always produce a good read (editors can help).
      Got it on Yanny. You might be right about he and I getting on all right — that would be, I think, if we didn’t see too much of each other. Long before I met Joe, I’d spent so much of my life close to Scn and close to LRH. I was picky to begin with, and the way LRH handled me in the earlier years (really kindly) made me tend to distance myself from non-Scns. We lived in a bubble even then. It was often a happier bubble.
      Yes, happy to recognize that you have come through your experiences in mature fashion, without rancour or regret. I could say too that I suffered a lot but in fact neither would I change one damn thing about my experience — other than of course I wish Scn had turned out differently for us all and for Earth.
      Yes, you’re a self-contained warrior in your own right and you’ll fight your own fights your own way. We could do with more of you.
      We’ll be watching out to see what banner you’ll be flying next. 🙂
  12. marildiHere’s my face now: 🙂
  13. Rob WilliamsonHaven’t “seen” you for a while, Urq.Love “hearing” what you have to say.Methinks Jesse being asked, or made to do what he did over the rainbow was entirely out of character for him and if given a choice, he wouldn’t have gone that route. He says this in a way and “why not” as well (he would have been sent to purgatory and eternal freedom ripped from his hands instead).Since you brought up the subject, I wanted to say I have an open mind to anything “good” about what Hubbard did, not open much though. In fact I sway to the “bad” when thinking about it. But one thing I discovered is ignoring Hubbardisms and L Ron entirely, good and bad, renders a free and happy life for me. Life is better without Hubbard. I never would have believed that but then I was a true believer and am not now.Wish you the very best, Ken, as always.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Rob, and thanks for yours.I get what you say. Am not getting how you square “ignoring Hubbardisms and L. Ron entirely, good and bad, renders a free and happy life” for you with what you’re free and happy to say about him in public about his alleged alcoholism, an assertion for which you have sound evidence?Have owed you apologies, Rob, for decades over the comm ev (or was it two of them) that I was put on over you. I absolutely hated and detested all of that and hated myself for not having a way out of it, for you and for me. Sorry about all that. So glad we were both out of it.May your blessings of freedom and happiness long continue!Yours,
      Ken
  14. OnuYes, Ken. We can never truly know another in all their complexity, depth, simplicity and the vastness of their understanding and knowingness, although we may have glimpses.Thankyou for your kind, balanced and measured response.I do believe that through mutual and collective understanding we can support one another through our respective journeys, even beyond the brink of death, through the afterlife and beyond.As you most eloquently elucidated, selective confront, intelligently applied, results in the restoration of theta and this is one of the great maxims LRH applied and instilled in the fabric of his work. …“What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it”I am sure LRH was and still is incredibly aware and astute, particularly concerning the circumstances of his life and the consequences of his choices and decisions, perhaps even more so now he is free of mortal coils and may view the events of his life objectively.In my understanding what we do here to mark and honour the passage of the departed does make a big difference to them and supports them in ending cycle and re-orienting, knowing that they are cared for, understood and loved for whom they simply are.Regarding the Real SP Case, its the TRs, Codes and the application of selective confront to focus on the person, the person who is originating, that seems to make the difference.The rehabilitation of mutual knowingness naturally restores KRC, understanding and ARC resultant in mutual duplication and self-determined action.Control, when exercised to a completed cycle of action per Start-Change-Stop results in Understanding and the restoration of Life.LRH alluded to this when he referred to the rehabilitation of purpose.Sometimes we choose to ‘carry the can’ on our broad shoulders and put our ‘foot in the door to hold it open’ when we don’t actually need to and all we do need to do is to find the higher truth that satisfies all viewpoints presented.Although the physical universe could be said to be founded on the principles of polarity and equilibrium, each person is sole origin and source of their own participation and to the degree that the physical universe has a life and persistence of its own, it is possible to act and live in alignment with the higher truths existence reflects, albeit at this stage perhaps in brief and fleeting moments which when we recignise tbeir essence, grow and expand.I believe that although we do tend to pick up with each other when we meet again from precisely where we left off, the development of mutual understanding, if only at a purely theta level initially, achieved through inner work, paves the way.In my own perspective in this respect we have a duty towards the dead and departed to honour their passage in that it is we who remain and carry the memories forward here in the physical which in this this 1st Dynamic Universe means that what we do here and now, in this time, place and location in the overall scheme of things, impacts throughout existence and the phenomenal, spiritual and divine, if only in some small and simple way.Blessed Be Ken and thankyou for holding this beautiful space.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu. “A feast of reason and a flow of soul”, indeed.By and large, I support all you say and applaud the aesthetic with which you express it.I differ in that I don’t have much empathy for the physical universe (but I have strong empathy for Nature). To my mind (as if that were important), its design has flaws so deeply systemic, existence within it tends towards unresolvable problem, and far too easily. One day we will all agree to end it and to start over again to make a universe that works for all. For myself, I have absolutely ended any desire to contribute to any motion that tries to convert the physical universe into something that will work. Fool’s errand, in my opinion.Differ also in empathy for others, including the departed. No hard feelings to anyone. no unwillingness to give a helping or supportive hand but an expectation that each individual will take his or her own steps on his/her own path to his/her own resolution/heaven/desired culmination. To get there, we have to go through lying on the bed each of us has made for self. I can’t lie on another’s bed for him/her. If I can’t persuade another to make a better bed for self, I can’t — maybe that’s part of my own bed-making; if so, I’ll lie accordingly.As for LRH, I’ll tell a little story. On the Monday after the weekend in which his passing was made known, I was in Miami, where I lived then. I was walking outside and wondering where LRH might be now. I became aware at once of what seemed to me to be LRH way out in space, and I reached out with no great intention, just mild interest. Perhaps I could do something to support him, as I had before with other recently departed people. He, or whatever it was out there, turned a beam on me and it was not friendly. In fact, I recognized a pressure on my body that had plagued me on the ship. It occurred to me that I could perhaps clean up some stuff and even get in some ethics, for the sake of old times. Then I decided against it; it seemed more honest that he should learn his hard lessons all by himself, or with such support as he could get and tolerate. The connection ended. Only once thereafter was there what I felt was contact, and it happened years later in a solo session of mine; he, it seems, was in case trouble. I handled it as auditor and I ‘heard’ the thought: “Oh, this is what you do in that situation”, and whoever it was at the other end closed the line. (No “Thank you”!) No other exchange.He will get where he wants to go. 🙂Thanks again, Onu. May your bed be a happy one.
      Ken
      1. OnuThanks Ken. Yes perhaps we do differ and perhaps this is to be expected when we consider the gradient from agreements through opinions, considerations and postulates to Axiom 1.In my own philosophy each person is unique and as such we each have our own unique wisdom and experience which occaisionally we have the honour and privilege to witness and share with one another.In this sense existence may be regarded as a communication exercise of sorts perhaps with an EP of perfect duplication, total understanding and the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence… between people… between us… I have known this on occasion so for me its real.To me LRH is recognisable as a distinct knowingness. I have always found him reachable as such. Perhaps this may be true for others in that each of us has a distinct, albeit personal sense of whom he actually is, in the same sense that we can distinguish any one person from another.It seems to me LRH doesn’t extend his awareness into the 2WC range unless he is actually interested, as one might expect. To me he appears in pretty good shape.At the time of his death and many times since, I have contemplated his circumstances as I am sure many of us have, in an effort to understand them.As we know, when we restore understanding, we restore life and knowingness in action. This would imply that any degree of understanding we restore to an area has a beneficial result.Sometimes simply being present with another and applying the TRs and Codes is enough for us both to arrive at our own understandings and knowingness, silently.…and yet not a single word or communication may pass between us……. until the moment of origination.
    2. VINAY K AGARWALAIn my opinion everything in this universe is connected. There is no 100% discrete particle, or 100% individuality.So collective understanding is the norm, but it does contain inconsistencies, disharmonies and discontinuities of viewpoints. It is the resolution of these that shall lead to better understanding all around. An understanding free of inconsistencies, disharmonies and discontinuities is the true theta.Perception is what it is but it can be distorted by a person’s embedded filters (fixed ideas, biases, prejudices, etc.). So a person may have a distorted personal “truth” according to his filters, and there is nothing great about it.The statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” thus reduces to a placebo only.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comIs everything always connected to everything else? Maybe you’re saying that there is always some connection, rather than nothing-but-connection.
        At any rate, I can’t argue with all else that you say, except for the placebo bit. Why categorise it as a ‘placebo’? You can’t start helping a person by making him or her wrong for where he/she is at, from which place he/she would have to start on a journey of recovery. Surely what would help start recovery is granting a little more beingness. An unaware person might be happy with a placebo but if he/she is looking to start recovery, offering only a placebo would be a betrayal. If a truth is not true for me because of a fault in my perception, why not put me on a gradient that helps me recover my true perception?
        1. VINAY K AGARWALAThe statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” provides justification that makes a person feel better about himself. It validates a person’s observations that may have been invalidated. If his observations were unaberrated to start with then it is a good thing. But if they were aberrated then the validation of them is not such a good thing.I used the word ‘placebo’ because this statement makes one feel better simply by providing a justification. It does not really provide any improvement.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comAll right. But how do you help the person take the first step to improvement? You have to at least be in arcu with him/her. Dismissing the person with a ‘placebo’ sticks the person with nowhere to go.
          2. VINAY K AGARWALAThere are wonderful books out there, and also programs that one may enroll in. O am currently reading THE UNTETHERED SOUL by Michael A. Singer, and writing exercises based on that material. This is one of many starting points available.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comYes! Lots of excellent resources. At the moment I’m happily exploring Open Focus. openfocus.com
        2. VINAY K AGARWALAurqbones, “If a truth is not true for me because of a fault in my perception, why not put me on a gradient that helps me recover my true perception?”The key law of life is the act of maintaining objective awareness by assuming the universal viewpoint. Activities, such as, meditation and TR0 are excellent starting points if they teach one how to be objective.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comThis is all fine for the people who are fortunate enough to be able to take the first step on to meditation or TR0.
            If the person is not so fortunate, you just give him/her a placebo?
          2. Vinay AgarwalaWould you?I shall recommend mindfulness meditation.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comOf course not. Permit me to point out that your original introduction of the term ‘placebo’ was your origination into the discussion and one I objected to as it implied that both Onu and I were interested in placebos. So I pushed back at you.
          4. VINAY K AGARWALAYou may interpret what I said earlier whatever way you like.But I still consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” to be just a feel good offering by LRH. It has no positive value. Instead data on mental filters has value, which was touched upon by LRH in OBNOSIS and Data Series.
          5. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, did you ever put someone in session?
          6. VINAY K AGARWALAMy understanding is that a person puts himself in session. He does so because he is looking for better certainty.The desire to get better comes from the person. If that desire is not there, the auditor can do nothing about it.
          7. urqbones@gmx.comThank you for that, Vinay. Can you tell me now what is your interpretation of “PC + Auditor is greater than PC’s case”?
          8. VINAY K AGARWALAThis is just Q & A. You are not discussing or making a point.
          9. urqbones@gmx.comSez U!
            It seems to me, Vinay, that we have different understandings and viewpoints.
            I propose that we leave it at that.
          10. marildiIn fairness to LRH, the quote about “what is true for you” should be viewed in context:
            ——————————————–
            Personal Integrity
            L. Ron HubbardWHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
            And when you lose that you have lost everything.
            What is personal integrity?
            Personal integrity is knowing what you know—
            What you know is what you know—
            And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
            And that is integrity
            And there is no other integrity.
            Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things,
            These esoteric terms.
            But I think they’d all be covered very well
            If what we really observed was what we observed,
            That we took care to observe what we were observing,
            That we always observed to observe.
            And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,
            A critical attitude, or an open mind.
            But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity
            And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self
            And courage that we can observe what we observe
            And say what we have observed.
            Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
            Unless you have observed it
            And it is true according to your observation.
            That is all.
            ————————————
          11. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Marildi. 🙂
  15. Theresa LasterWow. What an incredible review. Ken, your writing style is quite unique. Thank you for taking the time to review Jesse’s book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Theresa, for the kind words. And thank you for taking the time to read the piece.Deep bow to you.
  16. Karen#1Greetings Ken,
    I enjoyed reading this very much.
    You will remember be as a regular auditor of yours on the Apollo back in the day. (Karen de la Carriere) I also recall our very private review of current LRH and current Sea Org in 1982 at the Fort Harrison when we hung out.
    You were always in your own league Ken and you have indeed a remarkable history.
    +++++++++
    I wanted to add a couple of things of historical interest.
    Jesse Prince made his peace with David Mayo before David passed. I hooked them up together.
    I made my peace with David Mayo by falling on my sword with apologies for being the obnoxious “RTC” missionaire on Mission to destroy the AAC. David more than accepted my apology.+++++++++And because the NOTS materials were discussed and their history, I wanted to add ~~~
    For years and years David Mayo was made the WHY of every failed NOTS case. They used disaparagements such as Mayonaisse, Mayo NOTS. etc. Then it progressed to the point where every single failed case was pointed as David Mayo as the who, even long after left, like 20 years later !
    The point is that when Mayo was Senior CS refunds were almost *UNHEARD* of and Miscavology is replete with failed cases and refunds. People go back to repair Ls as much as 10-12 times !
    Anyway a lot of rah rah was made across the boards of how RTC was reviewing and correcting and knocking the mayonnaise out of the NOTS material.
    It was promised for a long time.
    Then the day arrived.
    The new NOTS packs were handed out.
    NOTE: There is no longer ANY signature under a NOTS issue in the new packs. Hubbard’s name is gone.
    So with all the trumpets blowing and the pomp and circumstance of the new glorified era of TRUE NOTS, the packs were distributed to a stunned crew of NOTS auditors. People looked around uncomfortably.
    Was this a joke ?
    EVERY issue was EXACTLY THE SAME WORD FOR WORD AS Mayo NOTS. The binder was different. Signatures were gone, color and font were different but the text was the same.True Story.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Karen, Welcome, and thank you for all you say. Yes, I remember having sessions from you on the ship, and our gossips at Flag. 🙂 [I remember how tickled you were when all we Flag auditors had to turn in videos. Of course there was a lot of chatter among the auditors on the subject. You enjoyed how the Spanish auditors talked about “bideos” and the Germans about “wideos”.] Thanks for the sessions and the laughs. But very sad to think of how your family life was destroyed, terribly.
      I’m happy to hear that you got David and Jesse together to make their peace, and that you made yours with David, too. [Alas, I didn’t but that’s another story, and not a very clear one.] Thanks for that from me, too.
      Thanks also for the True NOTs story! — Lady Fate busy at her work….And she has lots more to do over there.
  17. VirginiaThat was a very interesting review Ken, I enjoyed it.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Virginia. 🙂
  18. Roger BoswarvaKen, This copied below from “The Outer Banks” . . . my question is at the end
    Roger
    ********
    Paul Kawaller As a proud member of the anti industry who entered the world of scientology in 1970 during the crush sell period, I respectfully disagree with Ken.During that time the Ls were being heavily promoted as the gateway to OT abilities by SO missions.Snipped . . . . . . by RogerI worked for Ken when I first came to the Apollo. I could not have asked for a better senior.I am part of the Anti industry because of the personal cost to me and to my friends. The rot in Scientology was from the very beginning.
    2
    Manage
    Like
    · Reply · 2d
    Roger Boswarva
    Roger Boswarva Yes, Urq is one of the truly caring and gentle gentlemen of the universe. He would have been one of the very best seniors to have had because he cares about true help and kindness.He audited one of my iterations of NOTs at FSO in 1980 or ’81.From what I remember on the rumor line out here, it was he who dreamed up the idea of having a REHABILITATION Project Force . . . and as envisioned by him it would have been a project for the Rehab and betterment of the troops . . . but, typical of what the cult had become, it ended up being an Humiliation and Punishment Program.Ken, I’d like to hear from you on the truth or not of the rumor of how the RPF came to be.
    1. Robin ScottI had fantastic wins on the RPF, and reckon that the whole bloody planet could do with it, given the mess it’s currently in!I think you should take full credit for coming up with such a brilliant solution, Ken!
      1. urqbones@gmx.comI do, I do!!
    2. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Roger, and many thanks for yours and for your very kind words. You were always a good friend to me. 🙂
      Firstly, thank you also for the extract from Paul’s comment. I recall him well. I can understand his feelings and his viewpoint. [Many share them. I’d like to say simply that Life is unfair and cruel, and unfair and cruel to everyone equally. There was (and is) terrible cruelty in the Scn world. But Life does not demand that we walk ourselves blindly or otherwise into cruelty, nor put up with it, nor to hang on to its consequent tortures. If we do not learn, we do not live.]
      With regard to the RPF, I’ll tell the story — yet again — and put it on this blog so it will have a secure home and be findable. Thanks for the alert to this possible need.
  19. Dan LockeI’ll only say that I’ve rarely enjoyed a book review so much. Perhaps never.I’ll have to admit that I have read far more book reviews than I have books. Same with reviews of all the arts – more of them than the events themselves!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Dan.
      Deep bow. 🙂

Comments are closed.

Categories
UrqBones

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:https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/6-the-doctrine-of-no-soul.pdf
      1. chuckbeattyWow. very deep stuff.https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/6-the-doctrine-of-no-soul.pdf
  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.http://urqbones.com/2017/01/05/here-we-go-looking-at-failure-and-success-1/#comment-89http://urqbones.com/2017/01/05/here-we-go-looking-at-failure-and-success-1/#comment-90I 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.https://vinaire.me/Thanks, 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:

    <b<Psychoanalysis
    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.https://www.facebook.com/groups/vinaire/
          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.
            Chuck
      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:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBe7eOhngCcLady Washington site
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXrmSALH3QPetrolia California site
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeTU0WHtKvkNew Mexico site
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxovieJi_PUCreston Ranch,
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es9XHMl-HX8
      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.