Memories, 28: No Work for Gentlemen Here

[Recounting, out of chronological sequence, events leading up to the last time I spoke with L. Ron Hubbard and how that episode paralleled an earlier one with my father.]


We were sailing pretty much due West across the Atlantic Ocean, heading for Charleston, South Carolina. That day, we had good weather: sunshine, a stiff but pleasant breeze, relatively gentle seas that rocked us about in friendly fashion. It was October of 1974.

I don’t recall how we became aware that an emergency had arisen. I do recall that Ron and Mary Sue with the then Captain of the ship, the Commodore’s Aides and I assembled on the Prom Deck landing for an impromptu meeting. Ron and Mary Sue stood close together just by the door to his office, Ron closest to it, Mary Sue to his left. The Captain, not tall, but large and imposing, stood close to Mary Sue, just to her left. I was in the doorway to my office facing them from their right. The aides were on the landing surrounding the stair well that led down to the A Deck landing.

As always in such situations, although they were not common, Mary Sue stood by her husband in a deferential frame of mind. She could be strong on her own feet but when, as now, an important decision had to be taken in a hurry and was to be taken by LRH after a consultation, she was quietly close to him, watchful both for where he might want to go (so she could support him) and also for who might be leading the discussion to a place she thought was not in his best interests.

Word had come through from Jane Kember, the D/Guardian WW, who had somehow found a way to radio-telephone the bridge of the Apollo to get through an extremely urgent message warning Mary Sue and Ron that the American authorities had got wind of our planned arrival in Charleston and had a party of officials waiting for us. No question that our plans needed urgent revision. The question we had to contemplate in rather shocked silence was: where do we go?

[I have seen a report that we were five miles out of Charleston when the call came through. My memory is always suspect; even so, I recall nothing of the panic that would have been inevitable had we been in American waters and so close to port. If we had been, the problems facing us would have been wholly different — the chance for escape all but non-existent. But part of our situation in the moment of Jane’s message to us was that we still had the freedom of the open seas and relative certainty that the US had no way of knowing exactly where we were or where we might go. This capacity for unobserved freedom of movement always was a fundamental principle in the Sea Organization’s reason for being. We might note that it’s a fundamental requirement in guerilla warfare also.]

There being no suggestions coming forward, I volunteered that we might tell our agent in Charleston that we’d changed our minds and were making for the Caribbean instead – while actually turning north for Halifax, Nova Scotia. I said it just to get a ball rolling. As soon as I said it, I realized the mistake – it should have been “say we go to Halifax but instead go to the Caribbean”. The mere mention of Halifax brought up pictures of stormy weather, enormous tides, and severe winters. Neither of the Hubbards would have wanted any of that, particularly the winters. Besides, the American government were too close with the Canadians for our comfort. At any rate, I’d said it, and I let the error go. The immediate response that hit wouldn’t have left much chance of correcting it had I wanted to bother to.

No sooner were the words out of my mouth than the Captain gave vent to a loud, brazen, nasal, verbally violent “NAAAAAAAAAH!!!” Meaning of course, that we could expect nothing but nonsense out of that Urquhart, whose place in life was to be put down by real men. And a real man was doing the Hubbards and the crew real service by putting him down right now and taking serious charge of business.

I was taken aback by the verbal violence, as anyone might be, but far more so by the extreme ugliness of the noise itself. One part of my mind was struggling to deal with the fact that this macho male super-self-confident human being had made himself sound just like a randy donkey. But what really shook me was that the fellow had forgotten himself – in his ardour to put me down – in that he had yelled his donkey-screamery right into Mary Sue’s ear, she only inches from his big mouth, and she so devoted to her husband’s wellbeing. At this—what I felt keenly as a real insult to Mary Sue’s dignity, purpose, and intelligence—I stepped back in utter astonishment.

My ears can be outlandishly sensitive to certain kinds of noise. The grating noise the fellow made struck my ears hard and I can suspect that my immediate reaction on behalf of Mary Sue’s sensitivities, she so close to that animal bellow, had more to do with my own. Be that as it may, I stepped back. My assailant continued speaking.

While he spoke, LRH turned his head slightly more in my direction. His eyes were half-closed, head back a bit, looking down his nose, and it was almost as though his nose were sniffing out some faint scent that had wafted in unexpectedly and of no obvious relevance but perhaps of valuable significance, he trying to identify what he’d picked up  and its source. He would come to his conclusion and file it away somewhere in his mind for a useful time.

I knew that my stepping back had alerted him to something. I knew that he had no awareness of my precise sensitivity or of the deep offense I’d taken on behalf of his wife. I knew, therefore, that he was taking stock of my stepping back in the face of the Captain’s onslaught and giving the step back a significance discreditable to me – that I had immediately backed off and shut up in the face of that opposition. I did not care if LRH thought that.

*     *     *     *     *

I’d given up taking much notice of what LRH thought of me after his return to the ship from his hiding-place in New York from 1972 to 1973. Something happened soon after he left for New York in 1973, which I won’t go into now, that reduced his confidence in me. When he came back, he didn’t talk to me about it, he simply re-organized his immediate support by building up his messengers into the Commodore’s Messenger Organization [CMO]. He also promoted Bill Robertson to 2nd Deputy Commodore. Very soon, there were two messengers on duty at a time — and not long after that, four of them. I was out of favour but left in place, and left alone to figure out what I was supposed to be doing now.

I didn’t take this personally; he wanted whatever he wanted done done in a hurry and done his way, and very much more so now he was back on the ship with plans he had formulated while away: we were heading for insistent and overt  dictatorship. As his Personal Communicator, it was theoretically my role to oversee the performance of the recipients of his orders and policies so I could assure him that what he wanted done had been done and how he wanted it done. At the same time, I was responsible for the timely delivery to his desk of (a) the daily traffic [the telexes, despatches, reports, etc., etc., that had accumulated in my in-basket or on my desk during the day (but not needing his immediate attention) and during his and my sleep time, presenting it to him in a way that would ease the work of dealing with it all – it was generally a lot, and also, significantly, (b) urgent traffic he needed to see during the rest of our working day.

To handle the daily traffic, I had to rush to my desk as soon as a Messenger on Duty had woken me up to tell me the Commodore was starting his day. I might have less than an hour to go through a small mountain of paper. If the item I picked up seemed straightforward and clear, not violating existing policy or orders, and making sense, requiring only his initial to approve, it passed. If it didn’t pass, I had three options: to put it aside for my later action; to return it with a brief note requiring corrections, or pointing out a valid reason why it did not need to go to LRH; or to leave my office, to address the issue with the originator. The last action would be to clarify whether the item could be changed for the better quickly or should be reworked for later submission.

I rarely had the time for the last option. I might have time for it after I had put the whole pile of papers into their respective folders for his in-box. There might be time for only a bit of that, depending on how LRH involved me in his responses to what was in his in-basket – he might call me into his office to consult with me on a response and give me a detailed set of instructions; he might call in an Aide or two or three,  to give a briefing, and I would be present for consultation and to take the notes for follow-up.

[My usual practice was to pile the prepared folders on the in-basket on his desk then go to my cabin to wash, shave, shower, and dress; depending on how long LRH’s daily solo session took, I might be back at my desk before he came up to his office or he might already be eating his breakfast with Mary Sue.]

Once the business resulting from the contents of his in-basket was concluded, I had a certain discretion over what I did. My first wish would be to firstly make sure that orders newly issued were begun in good order and second to follow up on orders he had issued the day before or earlier, to make sure that all outstanding matters were proceeding to satisfactory completion. There was one thing that got in my way: he hated it when urgent communications to him sat on my desk or in my in-basket while I was on my rounds, away from my office, chasing up on his orders.

In addition, he often quizzed me on happenings around the boat as regards both marine matters and international management and perhaps shore relations as well. I had to keep in touch with a fair number of people rather nippily. When I went about the ship on these various activities, I put on a grimly determined and focused face so nobody would want to button-hole me as I strode here and there; I just did not have the time to chat. [One time an insistent fellow, newly returned to the ship, did manage to stop me, and, having done it once proved he could do it again and again. But this is a story for another day.]

I tried to explain to LRH that we needed to re-organize my job description since not even I could manage to be somewhere on the ship and in my office at one and the same time, but he waved it off as an unimportant complaint on my part that I should know how to handle without bothering him. I didn’t feel able to discuss with him the fact that he issued many orders and plans to address flaps and opportunities as they hit his desk – so many in fact, that it was impossible to keep up with them all. In addition, the flow of orders sometimes contradicted themselves; worse, they called for resources, usually personnel, that did not exist; in order to  man up one new project, older projects were raided and therefore fell behind or became inoperative. Nightmare.

My best response to the situation I found myself in was to give the random urgent communications higher priority. So I was less and less about the ship chivvying people here and there to do what he had told them to. When he built up the CMO, I could see that he was by-passing me on the matter of getting compliance on what he had ordered or had laid down as policy. He used the messengers also to increase his observation of what was going on and to follow up on indications of possible unsatisfactory performance around the ship. He was hyper-sensitive to such indications (not necessarily a bad thing: he was responsible for a large ship full of people; under not infrequent circumstances it’s fairly easy for ships to sink).

It was up to me to fight back against the by-pass or not. I chose not to. He had made up his mind to by-pass me. What would it have taken to make him change his view? Nobody could possibly know how his capacity for caprice would affect him. Further, I felt firstly that to re-establish myself in his favour I would have to confess my absolute wrongness and go through a convoluted process to get him to favour me again, and secondly, that this process would certainly be humiliating. The humiliation I definitely would not risk. Moreover, a principal of mine was to keep out of office politics; with the build-up of the CMO [which LRH was training up into doing his bullying for him] and with the broadly-perceived diminution of my status with LRH, I had become open to more office politics than before; if I had dedicated myself to restoring myself in LRH’s favour, office politics would have made the work harder if not impossible. Worse than that: had I wanted to curry LRH’s favour, I would have had to curry favour with the messengers also. How was anyone to manage the caprices of the boss along with those of sixteen teenage girls each one with access to his ear and each one anxious for his favour and some of them willing to hit another to get it?

I let LRH take the lead. This was partly my nature, or perhaps more accurately, my nurture: I was the third of three brothers, constantly following and deferring to them as I grew up, and, a relatively orphaned baby due to my mother’s illnesses during which I was separated from the family while being fostered with a stranger. I can’t say I was right or wrong in letting LRH take charge of our relationship. I let him. Since he was in charge, and was not overtly managing me into resumption of our earlier and better relations, I moved into following my own instincts in the new circumstances; he followed his instincts in demoting my status in his eyes but without talking about it. I emulated his example: I demoted him in my estimation; had he raised the question with me I would have told him honestly how I felt so we could sort it out, but since he didn’t ever raise the question, neither did I. I did not hide that I had things I could be saying. On a small number of occasions I made it clear I was not going to cooperate with him: he did not push back.

*     *     *     *     *

We on the Prom Deck landing did in fact decide to make for the Caribbean instead of docking at Charleston. After sailing about the West Indies a bit, we settled in Curacao. Ron and Mary Sue decided they would move us all ashore in the States, and we eventually did. The Hubbards and selected personal staff went to a section of a new and empty apartment complex in Dunedin, Florida. We were not far from Clearwater, where the organizations that had been on the ship were settled in and built up. From Dunedin, Ron carried out his executive and management functions. As his Personal Communicator, I was there with him [but very much out of favour and not involved by LRH in very much of his daily business; he was mostly engaged with MSH and the local Guardian’s Office dealing aggressively with ugly fires in the community, fires he had done much to light and to fan. He dealt with local management issues through his Commodore’s Messengers].

In due course, he had to leave Dunedin quickly to go into hiding from the local Press, who had got word that he was in the neighbourhood. On the point of leaving, he called me into his office. As usual, when he moved away but leaving me behind, he told me to “keep an eye on things.” He was not overtly antagonistic, but he was by no means friendly. He had been clearly distant from me for months. And all that time, I was not understanding how he could be unhappy with me without putting me off the post. Goodness knows I had given him reason enough. I had been waiting for him to tell me to be gone, or to blow up at me angrily, or do whatever he usually did to make trouble for people who’d fallen out of favour (often, on the ship, it was being sent to clean bilges). He did none of these things.

Anyway, here he was, in Dunedin, having to give me some general instructions just as he was leaving, already obviously dissatisfied with me [I could not blame him] and telling me to “keep an eye on things” as though nothing was amiss between us. I nodded to indicate that I understood and had no questions. In truth, I would have liked to ask him: “What are you doing, telling me to keep an eye on things when you have no confidence in me?” However, having no questions for him and not brave enough to confront him, I gave him space and time to continue, open to whatever he might do.

He paused, looked at me balefully, his face solemn, judgmental. A blow was coming.

“You are too much of a gentleman.”

He said no more. I nodded slightly, keeping my eyes on his, waiting for the rest of the scolding. I expected it to take quite a while and perhaps build up into a raging crescendo of complaints. Whatever – at least the air would clear and I’d know where I stood and where I’d be going next. I was not afraid of his wrath. Not that it would ever be enjoyable.

One thing I wanted to avoid was to be dismissed and made a target for Guardian’s Office dirty tricks; it would be hard enough to get work at my age (nearing 40) outside the Scn organization even without the GO spreading tittle-tattle about me and otherwise making life hell. I’d had a glimpse of what they had been doing to Paulette Cooper. [At that particular moment, I was not mindful of how much I knew about LRH and his activities and how dangerous what I knew could be to him if I’d been turned against him – something I was aware of later but had no interest in pursuing. Had I made moves against LRH after leaving the C of S, the Guardian’s Office would have done everything they could to punish me and to discredit me in the eyes of the world in multiple ways so that whatever I said would be discredited because it was me saying it.]

But he spoke no more than that. He ended the meeting silently and I left the room having hardly said one word. What was I to make of “You are too much of a gentleman”?? It was so unexpectedly off-the-wall and weak from such a one as L. Ron Hubbard — he who had so many cards and I so few, and he all of the serious cards, he who had kept his cards so close to his chest and had not challenged me to show mine?

Two thoughts had come to mind when he said it: One was that he was referring to a reply I had put together for him a few days earlier in response to a routine report sent to him by senior Sea Org international management about the latest weekly global organizational statistics (or metrics as they’re often now known as). I knew the kinds of noises he made about these things and I had accordingly composed something for his signature. He changed it to something a lot fiercer. So, it crossed my mind as he spoke to me, that he meant I was too soft and not enough of a bully. I didn’t pursue that as a thought because the second thought came rushing in as I sat, waiting for the rest of an onslaught that wasn’t happening. My instant response to this first thought of mine: “I’ve never been your bully and I’ll never be”.

The second thought was, “With all the things that he can throw at me, this is what he chooses? He could wipe the floor with me with several examples of where I have crossed him both overtly and covertly, but he’s not thinking of them as he makes absolutely clear what he’s been hinting at for months, that I no longer have his confidence? How make sense of this? For all his macho anger, energy, competitiveness, he’s letting me off so lightly? Astonishing!”

There was a third thought underlying all this: I don’t mind a bit if he calls me a “gentleman”. There are worse names. I didn’t know what LRH’s concept of “a gentleman” might be, and I wasn’t terribly interested in whether anyone would consider me a gentleman. As a child, I’d known a man everybody recognized as a gentleman — and in those days, the term had definite social and cultural connotations. That man was my maternal grandfather, a central figure in my upbringing in childhood. I came to love him. It was never an ambition of mine to be exactly like him or to be recognized, as he was, as a “gentleman”. However, it was no shame to me if I carried some of his dignity and integrity to self.

At any rate, later reflection on the incident led me to believe that the probability is that LRH formed this conclusion when I stepped back in the face of that donkey bellow “NAAAH“. In a way, I could see that he was right. Even if he hadn’t known about my anxiety for Mary Sue’s ears, nor had noticed that the man had shouted in her ear, my stepping back in the face of “manly” antagonism instead of immediately attacking back, could have been for him a sign of weakness, the weakness of a man too “gentle-man-ly” to stand up for himself. The sensitivity I showed could not have been “manly”.

If this is what he saw, it would have been a hasty conclusion on LRH’s part, one he might have looked into further before accepting. I was definitely not a bully, and nothing of a warrior, and entirely absent when it came to office in-fighting. But I had shown him defiance. I’d faced him down silently on a couple of issues, eyeball-to-eyeball. I’d overtly sabotaged two pet projects of his. True it was, though, that I found donkeys distressing to work with when they worked and capered out of their usual harness. Hypersensitivity can be a bit of a curse.

At any rate, this was the damp squib with which LRH had at last made clear that he and I were finished as an operating partnership. How or why I’d escaped the whipping with which he usually dismissed a long-time associate, I did not know and still do not. This exchange between us was the last. He indicated that he had finished speaking and I left the room. I did not see him or speak with him again but he did not take action to remove me until 1978, three years later.

Somewhere during the mid-Sixties, I perceived what seemed to be a pattern with LRH: He would either suddenly blow off someone who had been a close associate of long standing, or such a person would blow off, usually suddenly. [Examples I personally witnessed: Jack Horner, Reg Sharpe, Marilyn Routsong.] It seemed that while he could be quick to make and attack enemies, he could not or would not keep a friend. When, in late 1969, he promoted me to be his Personal Communicator, in very friendly fashion: “You have good sense”, I felt that I had graduated into being a close associate (despite my lack of confidence in my judgment). I knew even then that my time for being blown off would come– and would come with little or no warning. This thought was with me night and day while close to him: the axe was likely to fall at any second. I didn’t know how painful he was going to make it, but, knowing him, I expected that he would take care to be extremely wounding. [I soon gave up worrying about it.] By 1974, after I’d defied him a couple of times, I began to think that for some reason he wasn’t going to treat me that way even though I was out of favour and not making any moves to get back into his good graces. I didn’t understand why this should be. I still don’t but won’t pursue the issue.

*     *     *     *     *

Hubbard’s accusation that I was too much of a gentleman has a strange resonance in my life. My father, in high dudgeon with me as a boy of about 17, once said, in characteristically ferocious bad temper: “I will not have my son be more of a gentleman than I am!” I faced him silently then, waiting, as I did later with Hubbard, for his next move. I was poised to absolutely quarrel with my father even to the point of fighting him physically, so deep and strong were the hitherto sleeping family feelings he had clumsily brought into play. In that moment of my waiting, he turned away to his right; I turned away to my right and left the house (I was leaving for a short stay in London, staying with friends and going to concerts). What he had done, clumsily, was to show his resentment at family conflicts – his in-laws looking down on him socially – but in doing so he insulted someone he should have left out of this equation – his deceased wife, my mother.

What was his slight on this woman? She was in fact the daughter of a man who was a gentleman in the old, Victorian sense of the word, applied by them to a man born in a certain stratum of society, educated to a certain standard, and accustomed to the language and manners of other gentlefolk (to their satisfaction as to his belonging with them socially).

There was an additional accomplishment that made my maternal grandfather a “gentleman” – he was of independent means. His means were not abundant and I suspect they were hardly adequate, but nonetheless he had lived a life of no occupation for decades. He was well qualified, with a degree from a German university in pharmacology, and pharmacy was his family’s profession. In those days, pharmacy was one of the professions allowed to gentlemen who wanted or who had to work for a living. But he chose to live on the money coming to him from the family business, using it to finance a life of apparent idleness.

His home was an upper-class abode. He and his second wife (my mother’s mother had died young) retired to a three-bedroom apartment in a small village used by wealthy Clyde merchants for their summer homes. One of the more substantial villas there had been built for not-quite-so-wealthy Clyde merchants; it was what the Americans call a two-family home: one apartment downstairs and another upstairs. My grandparents lived on the upper floor. It had its three bedrooms, two sizable rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The kitchen had two nooks off it in which at least one servant would have slept in the days when people had servants. My bedroom, the small one at the front of the house, had a view most people could only dream of.

The home, at the ‘posh’ end of the village, was full of beautiful old furniture and decorations of all kinds. There wasn’t a cupboard or a box or a drawer without fascinating smells of old things, old wood, old glue, old felt, old spices, old books, old and fascinating who-knows-what. My grandfather once pointed to a mantel clock, telling me it was from Tudor times. He said a grand portrait was of my great-great-grandmother. There was a spectacularly show-off piece in the form of a table lamp made in silver, a model of the Nelson Column in London with its four lions. A large and dignified golden-oak dining table with Queen Anne chairs and two large matching sideboards dominated the dining-cum-sitting room. On formal occasions, the lady of the house made the table sparkle with silver and glass and her best china.

When my mother, who was ill, found that raising three boys in the midst of the air-raids that began seriously in 1941 was becoming too much for her, she sent her two older boys to her father and stepmother’s house. She herself remained in South Wales, where my father had moved the family in pursuit of work; but later, ill and obliged to get herself into a sanatorium, she took me to the grandparents too.

I hadn’t seen a great deal of my mother in my previous years, she being prone to sickness and spells in hospital or sanatorium. Life was unsettling for me, dropped off with strange women to be cared for while mother was away, and dropped back again with her whenever she came home. It happened three times for fairly extended periods. So, my life was a bit short on stability. [I have read that ‘studies show’ that when a very young child is separated from its family, even briefly, the child can go into deep mourning.]

Mother died shortly after leaving us. It was six weeks before my fourth birthday. My grandmother, the tyrant of the house, was remorselessly cruel with all three of us boys over announcing our mother’s death. Nonetheless, as my fourth year proceeded, she and my quiet grandfather provided me with the thing I needed most: stability. Grannie, as I knew her, though hard, harsh, stern, and cold, never denied me her lap if I wanted it. I grew to love her, and I soon grew out of needing her lap. Not once did she manifest any evident affection or regard for me. However, she did not stint in doing her duty as surrogate mother in providing for the domestic needs of my brothers and me when they stayed with us. [The eldest, 9 ½ years old than I, and the middle brother, a little more than 7 years older, were mostly away at boarding school.] She was an excellent cook of the old Scottish kind; I didn’t care too much for Scotch broth but her steamed puddings were to die for. As it was wartime, she rarely had much more than bare rations to put on the table, but hunger was never a problem for us.

The domestic stability that my grandparents provided me was in itself an enormous blessing. But the beautiful corner of the world in which they happened to be living was the greater blessing– and I look on it as the best gift my mother could have left me. We were in a small village spread out along the sea but sheltered from open waters by the large island opposite us. My young buddies and I were never a few moments away from the shore, the sea, the hills, with their rocks, ferns, woods, and burns. Gentle hills surrounded us and held us in their kindly embrace. Each hill had its own personality and I came to love each one. In fact, I fell in love with Nature in all the aspects she revealed of herself to me in that quiet little backwater; I have heard others refer to it as “the most beautiful place in the world.” Be that as it may, my grandparents’ upper-class home with its gentlemanly aesthetic, my grandfather’s quiet dignity, my grandmother’s constant, undemanding care, and the glorious Nature of the scene were the formative elements in my years from almost 4 to 7 or 8, when I had to return to my father’s house.

The resulting loss of the domestic aesthetic was not too hard to bear; it was something to know that my father wanted me back with him. However, the loss of the village and its Nature was one I mourned for years, as I’d moved to a pleasant but spectacularly ordinary suburban town. Immediately about the house, Nature consisted of small, neat front gardens and some street trees. Instead of my hills I saw straight rows of respectable semi-detached housing. My heart remained always in my seaside village in the hills, and always will.

Now, although Grannie did nothing whatever to hide her contempt for my father and her impatience with his Glasgow lower-middle-class habits, speech, and dress when he visited – usually at least once a year [his work exempted him from call-up into the armed forces] – she did me no harm as regard my mixed feelings towards him. I could understand that Grannie didn’t like his behaviours and I could see he did nothing to soften the effects they had on her. At bottom, though, I knew Grannie and her ways, and I took no notice of her spite and antagonisms towards him. I respected that never she did say one word to me about him that might have turned me against him. Grannie might well have thought that we were two of a kind, but if so she was principled enough not to make my life with her a hell such as she attempted to make for him in his visits.

When I returned to my father’s house, which had not known a woman’s warmth in some years, of course I noticed the differences in furnishings and everything else but they didn’t bother me a bit. [One thing that did disturb me greatly about the house in Wales (in which I’d been born) was the electric lighting. In the village, there was no electricity and we used oil lamps. Their warm and gentle light was lovely. The electric light was harsh to and on my eyes. However, there was nothing I could do so I didn’t fret about it.]

My relationship with my father descended into conflict rather quickly, although in the first few years after my return we got on fairly well much of the time. My father, Ernest, employed a woman live-in housekeeper to take care of all domestic needs. She had two children of her own who lived with us. This was fine with me. Ernest had lost his own mother early on (when he was 8) in tragically violent circumstances which must have scarred him psychically and terribly so. He’d then had an unhappy relationship with his stepmother. He decided not to risk a repeat of that misery for his own children: hence housekeeper.

Although Ernest was an aggressive Glasgow socialist (supporter of the Labour Party) he had also been an active Theosophist and was still a member of the Theosophical Society. So he had a softer, spiritual side to him even though the male, socialist, dominating sides of his personality came to the fore in his handling of me and perhaps because of me. At any rate, he chose to take on the challenge of being both father and mother to me. One of his great strengths was his ability to organize. He proceeded, as both my father and as my mother, to organize me. Alas, as an able organizer, he never bothered to question his judgements. Alas again, in mothering me, a boy of 7 or 8, he began by mothering the boy that had left him at the age of 3. This ridiculous unreality on the part of my male parent seriously disturbed me; I was finding myself with the strangest of unnecessary problems hard to escape from. This recipe for domestic trouble was compounded when Ernest kept getting very upset because I was not showing gratitude for his exertions and self-sacrifices on my behalf.

In this, Ernest had his own set of mental imbalances and consequent emotional needs. I was bitterly sorry to be causing him upset and bitterly sorry we couldn’t sort it out. In the years that followed, the conflict broke me in spirit, utterly. Ernest, it seems, was beyond breaking.

In 1950, my twelfth year, Ernest had a serious accident on the road home from work. He was in hospital with severe concussion. Thereafter, his temper, always volatile, became ever more nasty and in fact vicious. Nowadays, we’d say that he was abusive. And that the concussion affected the workings of his brain, making the outbreaks of aggression ungovernable whether he wanted it or not.

Our relationship deteriorated into almost constant quarrelling, but what I never held against him in my mind or my heart or my words or action, was his social background. He could of course embarrass me terribly in company (what parent doesn’t embarrass a teenage child?) or in public. But I had no difficulty in accepting him in who he was as a member of the community, one intimate to me. It was his bad behaviour towards me that aroused in me deep resentment. He was a bully and a tyrant, but never in front of others; when any visitor had left the house and we were alone, he had no difficulty in letting his temper run free. Seeing this, what was I to make of Theosophy?

Ernest made reference to my grandfather, his father-in-law, seldom, but it was never without a nasty sneer. He said that his bride’s father had come to the wedding only to make sure that the minister wasn’t a friend of my father’s with his collar on back to front [in those days men wore shirts with separate collars; if put on backwards, the collar could make the wearer look like a minister of religion]. Or Ernest would cast the old man as a profligate, idle money-waster. I couldn’t deny any of this as I didn’t know one way or the other but I never forgot the gentle dignity of that old man and how much it had meant to me as Ernest’s child whom Ernest had had to send away.

So there was an undercurrent of family conflict going on all the time. I missed the aesthetics of the grandparents’ house. The snobbishness of the people who lived in the “better” parts of the anglified Welsh town we lived in could be painful (although I would have died rather than show it). I don’t believe I was a snob, ever, to my father. But he was a reverse snob towards the parents of his wife, and one who could be angrily so. What really “messed with my head” was the terrible contrast between the two principal men in my life so far. My grandfather lived ‘dignity’. In doing so, he never failed to assume that I also had dignity, and he never violated it. My father seemed to have no grasp of the concept of dignity, and he trampled on mine from morning till night (well, it sure felt like it: his presence and his attitudes filled the house).

The undercurrent of conflict had never fully surfaced until that day when he assserted that he would not have his son be more of a gentleman than he. When it eventually did surface, I was suddenly ready to fight him tooth and nail.

What prompted this particular outburst on his behalf was my borrowing some of his clothes without permission for a trip to London. I had no decent clothes at the time. By now, Ernest had given up housekeepers and he sometimes forgot about my clothes. This was not deliberate neglect; he just wasn’t too interested in the subject. I was desperate to get away from him for a while and to get to some concerts and opera. I couldn’t go in those awful clothes. What to do? At the very last moment,  I borrowed some of his better things. I said nothing. When ready to leave the house, I put on my raincoat before saying goodbye to him; we stood facing each other in the hallway. He immediately noticed his own trousers on my lower legs. He froze; he spat out his nastiness.

He saw clearly that I was sensitive about my dress (in common with every teenage boy on the planet). He assumed it was because I wanted to look like a “gentleman” in contrast to what I should look like as his son. In truth, I did not care if I was taken for a gentleman or for a beggar, but I didn’t want to be taken for a beggar-child despised.

Ernest did not contemplate “gentlemanliness” without dragging in Socialist resentments about social inequality and its resulting cruelties (I did not like them either). Nor could he contemplate it without going into his dark places about his in-laws. I was on the point of receiving his accumulated bitternesses about both.

I will not have my son be more of a gentleman than I am!

I heard this growl in some bewilderment; the idea and the passion with which he expressed it yanked me suddenly into a new universe, as it were, strange but demandingly real. And it was an adult universe. I stood in that universe, suddenly a little more adult, suddenly on the edge of a nasty adult fight, looking at him, watching for his next move.

In that brief moment, I adopted a firm and clear position within myself: “You married your wife. You had your children by her. I am as much her son as I am yours. I take pride in being her son and I will not have her put down on account of her parents or of anything else. I, and you, owe her parents enormous gratitude for what they did for us, your sons. If some of their ‘gentleness’ rubbed off on me because I lived with them – you with the serious problem on your hands of three boys with no mother, and in war-time — you’ll just have to live with it because I won’t be denying any piece of that inheritance which is quite naturally mine. If you are not happy and proud that she was your wife while she lived and gave you your three boys, then I, the youngest, am going to get extremely angry with you right now and we will just have to fight it out. We will fight it outNOW.” I was quite relaxed, but quite ready.

It was a surprise to me that I actually had such a clear and firm position about something. Usually, I bumbled along, dodging the difficult bits where I could, enduring them when I couldn’t.

It’s quite probable that as soon as Ernest had delivered his assertion he realized that he had jumped on to shaky ground; if so, he might well have picked up on my readiness to challenge him on deep hurts and energies he did not want explored or even exposed. In his defence, one has to acknowledge that Life had been extremely cruel to him and put him in a position he had no idea of how to deal with. He could not deal with the consequences of his inability or refusal to admit that he was out of his depth. Perhaps having me for a son was the straw that broke the camel’s back. At any rate, he dropped the subject and left me to my own devices. I left the house for London. Not for the first time I had the feeling that my male parent was, in some ways, a fool.

The consequences of Ernest’s inability to accept his failure to be both father and mother were sad ones for both of us; I turned against him because of his behaviour, shutting down my love and support; we both had very painful unfinished business we could never discuss together; I went out from home into the world a broken young male adult impossibly badly brought up. [I had most of the symptoms of what they now call “complex PTSD” except that I was not suicidal: at about 15 years of age I seriously considered the idea of suicide as a way out and discarded it at once.]

Strange then, twenty years or so later, to have “gentlemanliness” thrown in my face again and from such a different direction, in such a different context, and with such different meaning. Although I have been beating about the gentlemanly bushes as it were in this long digression, I have not bothered myself one bit about being a gentleman or not, for many decades. In fact, I recognised that gentleman-liness was no longer to be part of my life as soon as I re-entered my father’s house in Wales.

LRH objected to something in me, and he had every right to object to some of my behaviours towards him and quite right to object to some of my attitudes or habits or whatevers. No human being is easy to live with, and I freely admit that I am less easy than most, though I admit it without pride or satisfaction. Reflecting on my younger years, I see (as all humans can when they reflect on the past) that I was frequently guilty of ignorance, foolishness, selfishness, and other stupidities. I must have been a great trial at times to L. Ron Hubbard [among many others] and acknowledge that it was perhaps out of some great deep generosity of his that he did not hit me as hard as he would normally have done with someone who crossed him. Why I would be the object of such generosity I do not know.

Whatever LRH objected to in me, he didn’t want his feelings or their origins explored or perhaps exposed that afternoon in Dunedin, Florida. In contrast with the earlier similar encounter with my father, I had no urge whatever to attack L. Ron Hubbard. I was already grievously disappointed in what he had become and where he was taking the organisation I had wanted so much to be part of and contribute to. I was deeply saddened at my old friend’s wandering off into the impurities of anger, hatred, resentment. He had become mentally unbalanced, just as my father was—just as I had been and still was (and still am). Both he and Ernest had turned away from what I could have given them had we all been able to communicate our differences and adjust better to each other. As I left home, I turned away from what Ernest had become with no regret but with a feeling of having utterly failed him in his great needs [yes, I know he was the adult, but I did want so very much to help him]. I turned away from what LRH had become with infinite regret for what might have been for him, for the group, for mankind, and, a bit, for me.

The Buddha is said to have said:

Never neglect your work/For another’s/However great his need./Your work is to discover your work/And then with all your heart/ To give yourself to it. [from The Dhammapada as rendered by Thomas Byrom, Shambal Press.]

When I first went to Saint Hill Manor to meet L. Ron Hubbard there, I knew when I shook his hand that here was work for me to do. I gave myself to it with all my heart. In due course I saw that what I thought was my work had not changed but was no longer needed and wanted by the man I most wanted to do my work for. I had gone into my experience with my father, an innocent boy of 7 or 8, ready, as any boy would be, to adore him. Over the years what happened absolutely broke my heart. But that experience enabled me to stand close to L. Ron Hubbard with no danger of heartbreak. I did come to love the best of him, but always with a clear eye as to the liabilities of association with him – and indeed, with anyone. But I could not find within me the power to do the work of holding LRH’s feet to the fire of his own Scientology Ethics.

I’ve spoken of three men who have been the dominating influences in my life. My grandfather gifted me awareness of quiet, kindly dignity; I carried that awareness into my happy relationship with the infinitely loving Nature outside my house. Ernest, my father, was the arm by which the karmic hammer smashed me to bits. Hubbard, as a man and as a source of a technology of mercy, helped me put myself back together again; ironically, he helped me get to the point where I could find and stand on my own feet – but by the time I was becoming independent, he  wanted only  robotic followership. Thanks to him, I, like many others, was able to see and refuse the trap he had created.

Perhaps, though, the most penetrating influence on my life has been my mother – by her absence from it. A sentimental inclination of mine is to take the time I spent with Nature in that Scottish village (as I mentioned before) as a parting gift from my mother to me and my brothers. However, my mother’s absence led me to lead myself into my troubles with my father, just as it led him to lead himself into his troubles with me. It surely contributed to the difficulties LRH had with me and to his disconnection from me.

Nevertheless, my mother’s departure from life threw me into the welcoming arms of Nature who taught perhaps more – and, who knows, perhaps more lovingly — than my mother could have, had she lived and even had she guided both me and my father through my difficult teen years (as mothers tend to do or did). My mother also gave me into the rather impersonal arms of her father, he who taught me something of a gentlemanliness transcending all ideologies of class that I never forgot. Therefore, much of any credit that there might be in my living I assign to my mother; that there is a great deal of credit to be found in my living is by no means a certainty. But responsibility for my many deficiencies would not be hers. Nor my father’s. Nor L. Ron Hubbard’s.

But a more comprehensive truth is that the burdens I brought with me into this lifetime were greater than anyone could expect a “normal” parent to deal with, let alone a mother who was tubercular and dying, or a father himself already cruelly over-burdened. The kharmic blows my father gave me were the last of a series that had begun over a hundred earth years before. I believe that in the “normal” course of events it would have taken me several lifetimes to recover from these batterings if left to my own resources. What Ron gave me out of his own gentleness as a friend and out of the best of his public personas in contributing to my this-lifetime ongoing salvation from insanity exceeds by far anything I’ve received from another within this universe in a similar time frame.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

*       *       *       *       *


4 Replies to “Memories, 28: No Work for Gentlemen Here”

  1. Robin ScottOutstanding, Ken – and I feel privileged to have shared some of this with you, my friend.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Robin. 🙂
  2. Dan KoonKen, I echo Robin’s sentiments. This is a spectacular piece of writing. Thanks for opening your heart and soul.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Dan, for the ack.
      Deep bows to Robin and you.

Comments are closed.


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,, 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
      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.


Old Questions…New Answers?




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

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

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

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

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

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

What he wrote to me is, in part:

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

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

The questions I see to answer here are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


10 Replies to “Old Questions…New Answers?”

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

Comments are closed.


Blast from the Past (1991) 23 Jan 2017

My old friend Antony Phillips, known as Ant, has been in touch again recently. He was part of the London organization when I was a regular public person there in the late fifties.

Ant runs, among other things, a book circle on-line to which he sends each week an excerpt out of a basic Scientology book. We are now reading “A Summary of Scientology” by Jack Horner. Comments from readers are taken by Ant and conveyed to the circle each week. In answer to a comment from me, Ant was kind enough to mention this blog of mine to the readers. And he went on to say:

Ken has a lot of experience working closely with Ron and he has had forty years outside of the church to digest and meditate on it. It warms the cockles of my heart to see that he is willing to write up, rather carefully, the results. Once some years ago I asked Ken to write an article on his experience with Ron. This was for a birthday issue of IVyMagazine – Ron’s birthday, although Ron was dead at the time. Ken chose to write about his first experience with Ron where he acted as Ron’s valet and amongst other things helped Ron get up. That in itself is very revealing, and you can read it at the following link: . You scroll down to page 13.

I’m including Ant’s kind words because they’re kind (not to mention true and necessary) and because they introduce and link to the article he mentions, written in 1991. In fact, the link is to the entirety of that issue of the magazine (which is, sadly, no longer in print), and, as he says, you scroll down to read my bit. As Ant has reminded me of this piece and has provided the link, I’m making it available as of possible interest to readers here, with Ant’s permission. The other contributions are informative.

More information about Ant’s escapades is at:  , well worth the exploration, particularly his recountings of history and his reflections thereon.

For the reader circle, please contact

*       *       *      CATEGORIESUNCATEGORIZED

5 Replies to “Blast from the Past (1991) 23 Jan 2017”

  1. Dan KoonNice. I will definitely check it out.Reply
  2. Rodger WrightHi Ken,I’m pleased to see you are well and prospering. Your calm and insightful comments on the earlier days of the movement are very valuable in putting things in perspective.Cheers,
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Rodger, and thanks for yours. [Apologies; I’ve known three Roger/Rodger Wrights and am not able to tell which you are.]Reply
      1. .It’s unlikely you knew 3 Rodger Wrights, but you would have known 3 Rodger/Rogers, being Roger Bidell, Roger ?? (S.O.) and myself.You were LRH Comm SH, then LRH Comm WW. I took over from you at WW Tall. American guy who I am told was renowned for looking after his staff. Gloria Ramos, Eliane Giradot and Eva Isaacson worked under me. Wifie at the time Rochelle (is/was Rochelle Eriksen)Have some great stories to tell somewhere, sometime.Cheers – RodgerReply
        1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Rodger, and of course I remember you, and Rochelle. The three names you mention are all familiar; I think that Eva came to the ship but I can’t remember which Scandinavian beauty was she. I should have remembered your very distinguishing ‘d’. Sorry about that. Were you LRH Comm WW when I was HCOESWW, or was that Casey? Hope all well for you. Please tell your stories!Reply

Comments Closed


How I relate “Scientology” and “Religion”

Scientology and Religion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed.


Here We Go: Looking at Failure and Success. #1

L.Ron Hubbard produced Dianetics and Scientology and the Church of Scientology. As with every single human being, he had success and failure. These articles will consider him both as a success and as a failure. Firstly:

What did L. Ron Hubbard principally fail at?

The history of Scientology includes at least one activity of outstanding success: much of the technology, including the discipline of its application, along with some of the organizing necessary to maintain and deliver it. Accompanying this powerful achievement is a monumental failure: the collapse of the Scientology organization’s unity in the early 1980’s and its continued descent into autocracy, elitism, and isolation. Hubbard was responsible for all of this; he had some people helping him in his errors and some who saw error but were not capable of managing it. He had plenty of people happy to support him in applying the technology correctly; in my opinion, had he steadfastly respected the dedication, trust, and love they gave him, there would have been no gross failure. Hubbard, in fact, could have had much of the world at his feet. For some reason, he preferred having much of the world at his throat.

Hubbard began by creating Dianetics and then Scientology with the intention of helping people live better and happier lives in accordance with who and what they really are; he brought that work to a peak of effectiveness; this achieved, he went on to violate the ethical and other tenets of his own philosophy. In the end, he turned his life’s work over to the organization he’d built up, the collected corporate bodies known generally as The Church of Scientology. Like its parent, that organization seems to have learnt little or nothing from his errors.  Human opinion, where it concerns itself with the man, looks down on everything to do with him, feasting on the worst of his behaviours and of what it hears about the organization he left behind. But is this by any means all there is to L. Ron Hubbard? Does the totality of what he left behind consist only of a bad name and a mistrusted organization? Not at all. He gave the world a gift splendid enough to change life on earth forever. Sadly, he could not set up his offering to prosper and flourish as it thoroughly deserved.

Within this story of momentous achievement and rather sordid failure to follow it through is Hubbard’s missed opportunity of universal significance – missed unless some blessed spark will ignite a review and honest re-evaluation, carrying the best of the man’s work back into its rightful sphere as a source of helpful tools humankind can use. What could humanity use these tools to do? To help people resolve urgent planetary problems and then help them become happier with themselves and in their living of life with each other. “Scientology,” he once said, truthfully, and forgot, fatefully, “is the game in which everybody wins.”

Alas, not only did Hubbard not follow through on what he had done, he disrespected his own philosophy as he aged. His descent into relative irrelevance has tempted many into treating his best work with the same disdain with which they view, or think they view, his unworthy actions. But we humans often assert strongly that what we choose to see of a prominent person’s activity is unacceptable – as if he might be the only human being ever to misbehave; we’re then quick to conclude that everything about the man, his life, and his work is disgusting. Is this always rational? Michelangelo, they say, didn’t take off his boots for months at a time. Notice how immense crowds of people rush away from the Sistine Chapel, from Saint Peter’s, Rome, and from all his other works, disgusted by the footy stink that still pervades them.

Hubbard’s misbehaving went a lot further than the not-washing of feet. He hurt a lot of people by promising to help them resolve their problems but instead giving them other and often greater problems including the pain of humiliation and betrayal. He began the practice of “disconnection” that led to the splitting up of families. He tacitly encouraged or at least allowed the salespeople to promise results they could not deliver, and to pull from customers money they could not afford or might not have. He habitually bullied his staff and his organizations; he imposed what could be described as slave labour on loyal followers. He was addicted as a boss to periods of (as it were) spraying staff with gasoline and then throwing lit matches about; he thus could prove himself the only one able to put out the blaze – which he would blame on the staff. We dismiss Michelangelo’s feet when we open ourselves to the marvels he left us; a sense of proportion makes them trivial.  Hubbard left us some marvelous work but enforced on us his weakness, his self-torture. This we can’t and don’t overlook although we might in time come to learn from his mistakes. He was generous with his mistakes.


49 Replies to “Here We Go: Looking at Failure and Success. #1”

  1. AgnesIt’s my understanding that the Church was taken over and infiltrated by SPs, probably connected to other SPs running this planet. It makes perfect sense to me that they would target those closest to LRH and label them SPs. A thug has not place in an organization devoted to freeing spiritual beings and making them look and see that we have been enslaved. I doubt that the LRH described was actually LRH. He behaves like an SP. He must have been an actor put there to confuse people and destroy the organization. LRH was above the frailties of a body.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comMy goodness, Agnes, that’s a dramatic statement of opinion. I see you know all about LRH and have come to a really balanced conclusion based on direct experience!
      1. Marcel WengerKen,
        Thanks for starting that blog!
        I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said so far.
        I have however a hard time thinking with what you (and a lot of other insiders for that matter) say about LRH’s “character”.
        Now like Agnes above I don’t know all about him either and certainly can’t form an opinion based on direct experience!
        But it just doesn’t make sense to me that the guy who developed this tech. would at the same time or a little later be such a jerk.
        It is, in my opinion, a glaring out-point! And it would certainly help to unearth the sherman tank, as a lot of people seem to come to the conclusion, that if he was so uncool and ended so sadly, the tech can’t be what they thought it was.
        In my search along those lines I recently came across some out-points that might point in the right direction. Like for instance: how come Ingo Swann was still in Scientology and interviewed by Advance Magazine in 1978, when by that time he had already been working for the CIA at the Rockefeller funded Stanford Research Institute for over 6 years.
        Do you have an explanation for this?
        1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Marcel, and thank you for all you say. About the glaring outpoint you bring up: It’s hard to find a way of saying what I see as a complex set of truths (hard enough to summarize) that doesn’t sound like a cop-out. Let’s first get out of the way the distraction that the conspiracy theorists will always claim that any explanation other than conspiracy is a cop-out. I don’t go for Conspiracy because I don’t have the particular genius that sees chains of conspiracy in every drop of dew on every petal of every rose. [I could say, wickedly and unkindly, that I am not keyed-in to that particular set of implants, and I won’t say that. I didn’t say that.]
          To have a chance to see LRH’s totality (not an easy task) one has to see the totality of the context in which he lived and worked, doing the particular kind of work that he did. Step back from life on Earth for a bit. You can see how conditions are on Earth today. You can have an idea of what conditions were like on Earth when LRH completed his war service (regardless of true or false about his service history). He was not in good condition physically or mentally. He stepped on to the path of bringing about some recovery. He awoke or activated in himself the urge that led him into Dianetics and Scientology. Look at the Axioms of Scientology. What is the message? We get what we want to hear, I suppose. I hear: “You are responsible for your condition, and you can better it by taking responsibility for it, moving on from there. Trust yourself. Grow up.” Get your own idea of what the Axioms of Scn tell us. They go pretty much to the heart of any problem. Remind yourself of the conditions of life when LRH started communicating broadly. Relatively few people heard him and duplicated something. These were the people who thought that growing up (or whatever they heard in LRH’s originations) was good. But 98% or so, heard or understood nothing; a small portion of them heard something of the call towards sanity and responsibility, understood it, and went crazy. They are still crazy, and they have stirred up a lot of negativity against Hubbard and Scn (with help from H and Scn). I’m not going to call these latter crazy people Suppressives because the term has always been questionable and is now nonsensical. My question in answer to your question is: How can you be so surprised that Hubbard went PTS? We must do him justice in acknowledging that he took on an absurdly impossible task and that although in carrying it through he got terribly injured (and we give a nod towards his Flow Zero responsibilities) he carried it through as far as he did. In my opinion, he achieved a mega-miracle. Well, he also created a horrible mess. That’s PTS for you. We can wish him well in his recovery, and be ready to welcome him back when he’s ready to return and put things right. I’m hoping he will, for his sake. But as a person much wiser through learning from his mistakes. And rehabbed as the huge and wonderful character he was/is. He had True and Necessary nailed. They got at him by separating him from his own natural Kindness. Without that kindness, he would never have begun the good work he did. This is my view.
          I have no comment about Ingo Swann, no. No data on it.
          1. Robin ScottExcellent, Ken, thank you, my friend – a fascinating insight!
          2. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Robin. One could take it further: What could anyone expect when effective Solution is suddenly shoved into the teeth of the Physical Universe’s unwavering dedication to Problem? What are the PU’s slaves going to do??
          3. Vinay AgarwalaIn my humble opinion, the mind has a limitation and that applies to Hubbard’s mind too.Mind has a limit to which it can stand to chaos. Too much chaos will overwhelm any mind. LRH was trying his absolute best to come up with solutions to an overwhelmed mind. He died a hero.I also do not buy the idea of suppressive person that has been overused by the current Church of Scientology. For LRH, SP was a case with too much chaos for which he did not have a solution as yet.For the current Church of Scientology, the number of SPs is growing because it is losing LRH tech rapidly that could have handled many of these cases they are misnaming “SP”.
          4. urqbones@gmx.comAgreeing with all you say here, Vinay. Thanks for your contributions and clarifications.
            Yes, we have learned that we could have done much more to support LRH in his struggles; we should have found a way to get around his insistence on writing the script for his movie, “I am The Only One Who Can”.
            I believe that LRH was right in separating out from those who absolutely refused to cease habits that were destructive to those around them. If you’re breeding first-class greyhounds you don’t fill your kennels with bad-tempered geese. But in dealing harshly with what he called “SP’s” he let down his natural kindness and generosity. By so doing, he let the “SP’s” and their bad habits define and own a part of his beingness. And a part of his group and his technology. We just couldn’t SEE it. Ah, well.
          5. Robin ScottHi KenIt has frequently occurred to me that LRH alone was not solely responsible for what happened with Scientology. All of those who got involved also effected the outcome, of course. We share in that responsibility. And all of those people brought their own particular brand of aberration with them! And religious groups have a habit of ending in madness.What I have always admired about you, my friend, is that you were one of the very first to walk away and try to do something about the situation. That demonstrates integrity and courage.Warmest regards, Robin
          6. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Robin. I do agree that we could have and should have taken responsibility for allowing LRH to get away with his misbehaviours. And yes, the field is well booby-trapped. Must disagree with you — respectfully — about “trying to do something about the situation.” I did walk away, as did so many of us. I kept my own counsel. I joined David Mayo’s group in 1983 but other than those things I was not active in doing something about the c of s situation. I had no faintest idea of what to do, vaguely supposing that the c of s would soon explode or implode through sitting across a theta line. Boy, was that ever a wrong estimation. What I’m hoping to do now is to encourage the re-examination of the core technology. Fingers crossed. Thanks as always for your support, Robin.
          7. Robin ScottHi KenGiven who you were at that time , even joining David’s group was a significant gesture and contribution, my friend. I remember seeing you on Shiona Fox-Ness’s video in 1984, and it made a big impression.It is precisely my intention, hopefully before too long, to describe clearly the positive aspects of the core technology. They will be re-examined in time, even if it takes hundreds of years.The irony is that for me the whole package worked incredibly well, including the RPF, but sadly it was spoiled by idiots.All the best, Robin
          8. urqbones@gmx.comI get you, Robin, and thank you. Let’s mention at this point that while I joined an independent centre that another (David Mayo) set up, you went ahead and set up your own!
            Looking forward to your speaking out.
            Alas, the idiots took their cue from a man who had his own Idiot Mode — which we around him Q&A’d with idiotically.
        2. ValkovI think of Hubbard’s dianetics/scientology span as having 2 parts. I’ll use an analogy. First, he looked to find or create a valuable product he could promote and sell. This turned out to be the philosophies and technics of dianetics/scientology.Once he codified the basic philosophy, he worked on developing the technics of it all. This was the ongoing development of the practical “Bridge”.But once he had the basics of this, he turned his attention to the creation of a long-lasting temporal organization for the delivery and preservation of the vgaluable “product(s)” he had developed. This was a whole different kettle of fish. There were many directions he could have gone with this, but he intimated that the org pattern he wanted to use was that of an organization that had lasted for millions of years. He evidently tweaked this in creating his org board, or so he said.Well, things happened and he reacted and made decisions etc. Other people were involved, and we see the result today in the actual form and conduct of the CoS. It could have happened differently, and in fact it did happen differently also. He allowed Bill Robertson go off and try a somewhat different model. Mayo tried a different model. So did “Sarge” Gerbode, and many smaller offshoots. Did Ron forsee and in fact create the dispersal intentionally? In any case, the dispersal of dianetics/scientology ideas and principles into the societies of th eworld is irreversible, although may be not in the way Hubbard hoped for.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comComment from me: I question how you KNOW that this came first: ” First, he looked to find or create a valuable product he could promote and sell.” You are saying that there was nothing within him other than the desire to run a business of some kind?
          2. ValkovNo, I’m not saying that at all. However I do think that he wanted to turn his interests and purposes into something that would also provide him with a means to make a living for himself and his associates. I think that he choose as a “valuable final product” somehthing that could benefit a whole lot of people, maybe even the Dynamics as a whole, speaks volumes about what he had in him for goals and purposes, or incliniations. He could have, after all, chosen to get into the liquor business, or even into manufacturing and selling weapons selling wepons, guns and bombs for example, as a way of making money. Instead, he choose to develop and market ways of improving life that could be generally applied.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Valkov. I agree that what he produced arose out of his interests and purposes. And of course, he had to make his activity viable. You might be interested to know that he said to me privately one day, in his office on the ship, “People think that I started this work only out of a this-lifetime purpose. I have been working on it for many lifetimes.” Now that is what he said to me, and would have been what he considered to be true, I believe.
          4. ValkovThanks Ken. I can relate. It’s good to hear from someone who actually knew him.And about your second reply, I got that feeling, that he wasn’t much into money until later, from the lectures I listend to. I think he was into having fun developing what he thought was going to be beneficial. Having fun because he felt he could see the light at the end of the tunnel.
          5. urqbones@gmx.comVery good, Valkov. We’re on the same page. I can add to what we’ve already said: When I first went to SH in 1963, he was working on what became the Clearing Course. He told me that he had stepped back from his management role in order to undertake and complete this task. When it was done, in late 1964, he went back into the management lines and found that the SH corporations had fallen into debt. He got the SH organization producing and delivering, with high income regularly, debts cleared. So we could see that while he had developed excellent business sense and skills, and could do the work of getting income, he made it for the organization, not for himself. He was outflowing to the world, principally, with attention only as necessary on inflow, and he understood how necessary the inflow of money is.
          6. urqbones@gmx.comSecond reply from me: I was close enough to LRH for long enough to see for myself that he had very little interest in money for himself — for his first dynamic — until 1973 and later. He did make sure that large amounts of money accumulated but they accumulated in the corporate reserves, not in his pockets. In 1973 he began changing money flows so that substantial amounts were paid to him.
      2. Vinay AgarwalaLOL!
  2. Robin Scott“some blessed spark will ignite a review and honest re-evaluation, carrying the best of the man’s work back into its rightful sphere as a source of helpful tools humankind can use. ”My remaining life’s ambition precisely, Ken! Good to see you validating the pluspoints – exactly what I intend to do in my own book in due course.Best, Robin
    1. urqbones@gmx.comGood luck with your book, Robin! Glad to know you will put your reflections on record too.
    2. Marcel WengerMy remaining life’s ambition precisely, too, Scott!
      Marcel Wenger
    3. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03Robin,
      You are so brainy, I would read anything you’ve written in your decades of thinking and writing on Scientology, just because you are really a smart cookie.(I’ve thought my best future atheist, ex Scientologist [I enjoyed my decades of being sort of an in-house nerd to every line LRH wrote] contribution was to compile the writings of the smartest ex members, and you for sure are one of them.)I’d read your book or essays in a heartbeat.
      1. Robin ScottThanks, Chuck – that’s generous praise from a man like yourself, who has contributed so much over the years to right the wrongs. I respect and admire your courageous actions for a long time now, and remember you well from the FH ballroom in 1976, my friend!Interestingly, I come from a long line of Ministers of Religion, going back three hundred years; plus I had a degree from Oxford in Religious Philosophy, so I was well qualified intellectually to make value judgements about Scientology.All the very best, Robin
  3. Vinay AgarwalaI think much of the world was at Hubbard’s throat because he valued his own survival above everybody else’s. This resulted in his betrayal of many people who trusted him. He used “survival” as the basic principle of existence and focused on it. But the world is really “evolving” and not just “surviving”. Thus “survival” failed him philosophically too.Hubbard failed to evolve.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comWell, Vinay, I’d say he focused on the ‘survival’ of a valence. I’d say that we responded to his best flows and he produced them when IN valence. His shift of valence gave us some by-passed charge. I’m not sure that anyone on this Earth can say that an individual didn’t evolve as he ‘should’ have in a lifetime. Just maybe LRH did a heroic job of evolving as far as he did in the environment he found himself in. Not saying that this is the case. How would you judge that it isn’t? I don’t think you can. So how can you judge him at all in terms of evolving?
      1. Vinay AgarwalaI 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.
  4. Stewart WilcoxI remember my first opinion when I wandered into Scientology in the late 60’s, it was that these Scientologists are giant beings, full of spiritual knowlege and power and wanting to help raise their fellow man (me in this instance,) up.
    I haven’t changed my mind about those first Scientologists who helped me out of the hole; they were giants and they did rescue me.
    What happened later after Ron crashed on his motor bike and became the awful thing he is remembered as, does not change what he gave us, and the Freezone will continue his legacy I’m sure. Thanks Ken for witnessing….
    1. urqbones@gmx.comStewart, I had the same kind of jolt in my first experience of Scientology. It was fourteen hours of group auditing over two days. It was like entering a lift and then going off like a rocket. What impressed me most was the auditor presence and session control, and then the effects of the sessions themselves. As I suffered from paralyzing stage fright, I really wanted that presence and ability to control self and hold others’ attention. That was in the old London Org on Fitzroy Street. Yes, the people in the org in those days were immensely enthusiastic and always friendly, full of energy and hope. In those days, the ARCU with and from Ron was palpable, and yes, over the years it lessened greatly. Sad. But there we are…
  5. Andrew SmithKen, do you have an opinion on the alleged OT8 text where Ron says he’s against Jesus? It seems to be consistent with his (also alleged ) admiration of Aleister Crowley. I speculate that he and AC were playing a game of “us against the universe” or “us against big Theta” and the poison that did them both in was the preference for power over love (eg the gasoline story ).As for myself I’m in my 2nd year of solo NOTS with help from Les and is going well. Love to you!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Andrew, and thanks for yours. 🙂 I don’t pay attention to any of the supposed OT8 materials made available on the internet. LRH never expressed to me any admiration for A.Crowley. Can’t comment on what games AC was playing; LRH’s games weren’t always open but I would agree that after producing his best work he moved over into preferring what he thought was ‘power’ to love, definitely. I have this question in mind to address in some detail later. Delighted to hear you’re happy with your SNOTs and working with Les. 🙂
  6. OnuLife is a game where everyone wins.
    We know this is true so we keep ttrying.“Some blessed spark will ignite a review and honest re-evaluation, carrying the man’s work back into its rightful sphere as a source of helpful tools humanity can use.”The major technical issue as far a I can see, is the non-resolution of VIAS to other determinisms, both outside and within existence.The non-resolution of vias to reference points per:ORIENTATION POINT, 1. that point in relation to which others have location. It is also that point from which the space containing the locations is being created. (COHA, p. 54) 2. a point of reference from which the position of other objects is judged. People are often found still using orientation points from childhood which may be thousands of miles from their present time location. The goal of Scientology is that the thetan be his own principal orientation point, and that he have the ability to use or discard any other point of reference. (COHA Gloss)The non-resolution of vias is the primary problem with the most fundamental process in Scientology which addresses the resolution of FORCE directly at all levels:Date/Locate.Vias on measuring systems should be accepted, as they are, but then taken up and resolved in the session immediately following, as a first priority.It is often found that vias on measuring systems are resolved as vias to winning valences, identities, know-points and knowingnesses at referential locations within space and/or people as pure theta.The consequences of the non-resolution of vias on measuring systems are self evident in the practical problems faced by LRH and Scientology.The secondary problem in Date/Locate is in the Date section which measure from PT to the other location. This is inverted. The persons attention at the moment of ‘blow’ is on the other location.The correct method is to measure from the other location to the PT Location at the tip of the finger by Direction, Distance from…. to PT Location and measure/countdown in complete units to Blow. The force blows at or near the vicinity of the PT Body. All of the persons attention is in PT at the moment of Blow.The consequences of the LRH version are apparent in the obsession with resolution of the whole track, Enities and BTs, all of which are out of PT and resolve as considerations of existence and theta postulates in PT.The tertiary problem with Date/Locate is that whereas both Location and Reach & Withdraw are primary actions of Life, Spotting only addresses Locate and does not resolve the persons ability to Reach & Withdraw.In the context of Date/Locate the function of Reach & Withdraw is resolved by the action of Measurement and Countdown to Blow. Thus it becomes self-evident that the following are essential:a) The resolution of vias on measuring systemsb) Establishing and maintaining a PT reference point at the moment of blowSpotting handles Location only.
    Determinisms impinge upon the ability to Reach & Withdraw.It actually requires a higher degree of confront to firstly spot location to blow and then differentiate distance from…. to PT and resolve the ability to Reach & Withdraw.None of the above can be acheived without the prior resolution of vias as they present themselves.Full application of these principles in a rising scale process which accommodates evolving skills and perceptions results in the rehabilitation of space oer the 8-8008 concept applied to the actual Physical Universe and Spheres of Interest instead of Mental Space.There are other technical areas which could be further inspected and clarified.
    The route in is the resolution of Date / Locate into a simplified and effective precise procedure based upon principles instead of PC and Auditor Realities as per the current version.Date/Locate is the most fundamental process in Scientology for the resolution of force.I am setting up an LRH Working Group based upon the foundation of LRH principles.The first focus is Out-Tech Repair & Correction followed by Service and is based upon Pure LRH.The above principles have proved of particular use in resolving out-tech in both the COS and Independent Field within my limited experience, resultant in the gradient rehabilitation of both ARC and KRC, including the resolution of vias to other determinisms.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu. You are most welcome to ‘set out your stall’ (so to speak) here. You will be welcome in the future to make a paper or a detailed piece available to us by linking to it from this blog and by referring us to it. While I’m more than happy that knowledgeable, intelligent, and discerning people examine the body of tech that LRH left us, the specifics of the examination and the resulting material are beyond the scope of this particular blog. And also beyond the scope of my poor wits. 🙂
  7. FranHi Ken,
    Thanks for expressing your views regarding your perceptions, experiences and relationship with LRH. Viewpoints of the event from someone directly on the scene adds some clarity to a very confused event riddle with subjective projection/delusion,robotic brainwashed idealism and down right misinformation.
    Still “on occasion ” sorting out my own pictures of the event.
    Haven’t vaguely approached the enormous task of sorting out the “Tech”. Some probably workable, some very workable , and some probably a fair amount of “Bunk”.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Fran. I agree: there is a huge job of sorting-out to do. One of LRH’s legacies is the need to do this work. To be fair, he was aware that it had to be done although he didn’t do it or get it done. We will have to hope that there will be enough people with the abilities, skills, wisdom, and integrity to do the work and to do it well — and in good time. How they will do that without the kind of training we’ve had up to now (in the best kind of academies and course-rooms) I just don’t know.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaI 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!
        1. urqbones@gmx.comWell, Vinay, I don’t see homo sapiens having much reality on what the TRs really are without a lot of help from people who have received good training on them — as one example. Am not particularly concerned, myself, about new and better tech. Am concerned about the simple tech that people can use in their everyday lives to help make things better in everyday life. I don’t regard you as critical. I note that you are, so far, emphasizing the negative. I doubt we will find anyone with time enough to pull YOUR withholds. I am not volunteering. 🙂
  8. Vinay AgarwalaKen, you have that British (or, Scottish) sense of humor that simply keeps the tea spilling in my hand.Keep it up! 🙂
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Vinay. Glad to hear you’re scalding your hand. You keep that up, now. 🙂
  9. hadleyDear ken
    I enjoyed reading your blog some nice views written there .
    I have myself had a great experience in the earlier days of LR H and wouldn’t ever forget it . I am grateful to have had been there and working there and along side yourself Ken.
    I certainly agree LRH is not responsible for the state of the church it is today . His developments as written under him when alive was had produced great results . The working relationship and operations at St Hill was very nice , with good communication agmonst those that were with him at St Hill and with staff and generally it was all very positive people liked working there , The whole objective was training , auditing and promoting with the objective to enhance and make the able more able and improve one self .
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Hadley, and thank you for visiting and for your kind words. I am so glad you have your happy memories. 🙂 I’m sorry to say that I don’t agree with your view that LRH is not responsible for the state of the c of s today. I observed him change as he aged (directly, between the years 1969 — 1975, and remotely thereafter) from the LRH we had known at SH. He grew more and more autocratic. He put in place and kept in place the people who took over command of the organization even before he died. He did not leave in place a structure that could have upheld the basic technology, ethics, and admin so many of us signed up for, in vain.
  10. OnuThanks for your acknowledgement, Ken. I shall take up your suggestion on any further similar comments. 😊On the subject of TRs amongst the general population I would say that having met and interacted with many types of people from differing walks of life, my opinion differs.Many people naturally have excellent TRs and communication skills plus a great deal of common sense. These are a combination of prescence and experience. Such persons may not be particularly interested in following a specific philosophy or dogma but nevertheless have a profound impact upon the people around them simply because of whom they are and the way they conduct themselves.I don’t hold with the LRH views on the condition of humanity and consider them somewhat primitive, archaic and born of his particular culture and background. I think most persons, namely the bulk of humanity, excepting those who accept LRH as a higher authority, would be inclined to agree with me. LRH forgot too easily that we are all human beings walking on the same ground facing the same problems, each in our own way.Each person is unique.
    We can all learn from each other.
    Frankly I am often amazed by the depth of understanding and the sheer ability and willingness to confront, participate and experience demonstrated by simple everyday people in everyday life.
    The basic truths of life are here to be found by everyone.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks for this, Onu, and for accepting the term.
      I don’t disagree with you on your point. There are many able people doing wonderful things entirely separate of Scn theory and practice. This doesn’t invalidate Scn. What I’m having difficulty with is that all these decent, hardworking, responsible, and able people are so willing to have their lives structured and spoiled by fellow human beings who are not so ethical as they, not so decent, hardworking for the few, not responsible for the many, and able in causing mischief. What’s going on with these decent people that they put up with the mischief and the nonsense??
  11. OnuThe SP preys upon the gullibility of the PTS without whose sanction they could not exist here.Resolving this does take accepting people as they actually are.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu. I hear all that you say. Would that all could hear it. How many have the ears to hear it with?Let me echo you with these lines from the Isha Upanishad, one of my most favourite passages:They who see all creatures in themselves, and themselves in all creatures, know no fear.
      They who see all creatures in themselves, and themselves in all creatures, know no grief.
      How can the multiplicity of life delude the one that sees Life’s unity?
      Full text here:
  12. OnuWithout Love, which is reflected within the confines of existence as Affinity and translated into ARC, Affinity, Reality and Communication – derived from and resultant in Understanding, we could not exist here.Yet we have freedom of choice.The person who has chosen love of light, good, life and constructive intent as their way of being cannot comprehend the person who has chosen love of dark, evil, death and destructive intent as their way of being.The only saving grace is that the power of destruction, death, evil and darkness in a negative sense, derives from Love. Once this has been recognised by the PTS they are free and naturally distance themselves from the source of the SP Phenomena.
    No evaluation of disconnection is necessary.In turn, the SP when they present themselves to find out what is going on with their prey and why the PTS is no longer under their control, with correct application of the TRs and Codes plus the distinction per the Code of Honour that Understanding does not necessarily imply agreement -be true to oneself -the SP is sessionable.The purpose, morals, ethics and sense of integrity of the SP is the antithesis of the PTS. Yet it also derives from Love.
    The pure unmotivated act that results in the assumption of beingness. For the SP this is simply love of darkness, evil, death and destructive intent. A choice.When the SP recognises that all their power derives from Love they are inexorably tranformed from within and over a period of time become invaluable contributing members of their families and communities with the full assumption of responsibility for redress of harm done, by choice.The PTS assumes the SP has the same purpose, morals, ethics and sense of integrity as their own whereas in truth it is the complete antithesis. Believing this to be true, that the SP is basically good, the PTS compromises, accepts the inversions, reversals and sacrifices and adopts the substituted stable data of the SP as their own, which the PTS then justifies by right/wrong assignments and assumptions and as a result generates a cyclic pattern of negation and unresolved problems to solve. Trapped by their own choices.Life in the physical universe is hard.
    Everything is made manifest.
  13. Scott GordonVery much enjoying these notes sharing your viewpoint and bits of history.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Scott. And thank you for visiting. Hope we’ll see you again.

Comments are closed.


Some more illustrious career information

There was no keel-hauling on the ship; she was docked in Corfu. I didn’t meet with LRH for a week or two. There was no indication that I was in his bad books, as the telex made me imagine. When I did bump into him, he welcomed me warmly. At once the old friendship glow came to life. Up till then I hadn’t settled with myself if I would stay or go back to Britain. Reservations about remaining on board receded and soon my continued presence signaled that I was all right with being one of the crew.

He shortly made me “LRH Communicator Apollo” [his representative in the sub-group of people responsible for operating the ship Apollo as a ship and running Scientology services for the crew] but in late 1969 he created the position of “LRH Personal Communicator” and put me on it. As such, I was a principal executive aide; after 1973, I began to feel unable to follow LRH on the path he was taking. Even so, I remained on the post until 1978,  when I had the pleasure of going to the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”) at the new Scn HQ in Clearwater, Florida. In those days the RPF did a lot of good. I know that for a fact because I designed and set it up on the ship in order for it to do good. And it did me good when I went through it. Later, others changed it and thus achieved for it a gloriously bad reputation. From the RPF I went into the department at Clearwater that delivered the most advanced levels of Scientology to the public.

In that same period, I made it known that I was reviewing what I would do with the rest of my life. The authorities already knew me as one not too keen on remaining with the group that had changed so much from what I had originally given my loyalty to. Subsequently, in 1982, my seniors and betters kicked me out on to the street in Clearwater nastily [a goon spat in my face] and noisily. I’d thought to slip out of the door quietly so as not to disturb the equanimity of anyone okay with staying and for whom I’d been a comrade. I felt that people should make up their own minds and not be swayed by my action. Proud recipient of two Suppressive Person Declares, both rubbish. No ambition to return; they got tired of asking me to go “back on the team.”

I was in pieces after this ending to what had been my life. A number of friends helped me get back on my feet and to them I’m forever grateful. In 1983, I went to David Mayo’s new independent centre in Santa Barbara, California; there I worked for several months before setting out on my own practice as a travelling auditor. This I did for many years, along with some projects here and there, mostly within the US. The idea that I would return to Scotland, where I’d lived for some happy years in childhood, was always at the back of my mind for “when I get old.”. A few years ago I found myself living again in Scotland, and having to acknowledge, with some surprise, that I had indeed become “old”. It’s good to take a break from having to keep telling people how to spell and pronounce my name. Thank you, Scotland. Also very happy to be close again to my big brother, Alastair. He always knows how to keep me in line.

I have retired from auditing but enjoy doing Book One, a very basic level. Now I have this blog to develop.

[Thanks to a friend, I corrected the date I went to David Mayo’s centre in Santa Barbara. It was in 1983, not 1984 as I first stated.]


17 Replies to “Some more illustrious career information”

  1. JudiHi Ken,
    So glad to see you and to read about your experiences with LRH.. not to mention the revealed fact of your designing the RPF. I can’t say that I will ever consider that a healthy endeavor. Personal introspection, good communication, community service perhaps if there have indeed been actual wrongs committed.. but never the RPF. But then, I was just an observer of those assigned.. and it wasn’t a pleasant experience watching you all. I hurt for each and every one of you..not from a “staff” pov.. but as a fellow human being.I also left in 1982..escaped actually and had my own series of ups and downs… we have spoken briefly via email since. And I never did send you that biz card holder.. in purples and greens. :0(I have moved to Florida, about 2 hours south of CW…and I love it here…love the sand and the palms and the clean air. Don’t think I could do England again with the cold and the rain and there’s nobody left there for me now anyway.I look forward to reading more of your blog as it unfolds.Lottsa Love,
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Judi, for joining us. Great to know you are happy in Cockroach County. :))
      Well, you have your bias about the RPF too. Not to worry. We won’t send you there. Yet.
  2. Vinay AgarwalaKen, I was on the very first RPF on the ship when the whole Programs Bureau was unloaded into it. I think that experience lasted a few weeks only. It was a shocking experience but not brutal.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comGood, Vinay. It was not meant to be brutal. Sorry about the shock, though. It was designed for a certain result and to not waste time getting it. That was within the context of the Sea Org, not of ‘normal’ life.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaKen, I am curious to know about the key input from LRH that gave a purpose for RPF and defined its boundaries. Thanks.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, this is a story I’ve yet to tell on this blog. But I can tell you that the only key input he had in the drawing up of the original RPF Flag Order was the simple order to me “to handle ‘case on post’ amongst the crew. He mentioned no boundaries. After the original issue, he made some additions, such as the RPF’s RPF. And I’m glad I can say I didn’t do that. Whole story later.
          1. Vinay AgarwalaThanks for the data. 🙂
    2. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03Vinay,
      How important it’d be for you to detail your experiences of the first RPF, for posterity, Vinay, if you can stand to write a chapter or paper in detail, the more details the better.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comYeah, Vinay. Let it all hang out. 🙂 Would you present the RPF experience as a cruel violation of human rights?
  3. OnuThe glow of freindship amongst kindred spirits transcends the limitations of time and space and establishes whom we really are together.Thankyou Ken.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comYessir. “Water always finds its own level.” In other words, it takes a rogue to recognize another. 🙂
  4. SpikeHello Ken – I appreciate the tone of this blog. I have a feeling there is much more to come. I have also been ‘out’ since 1982. It is no coincidence that many others chose to leave in that year. My attention has come back to this subject since the Aftermath series on TV, and rediscovering where people are and what’s been going on is truly an eye-opener.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Spike, welcome, and thanks for the visit and the encouragement. 🙂I must get on with the next couple of posts.
  5. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03“…. I’d thought to slip out of the door quietly so as not to disturb the equanimity of anyone okay with staying and for whom I’d been a comrade. ….”That is such a perfect statement of a common feeling that ex staff are forced to make. Sublimating their feelings, so as not to “disturb the equanimity of anyone okay with staying….”Your way with words, and voicing the sentiments that participants on the highest staff rungs feel each generation who rise up and then wish to get out, is perfect.I thought doing the RPF was the honorable way to let the group see me as a “failure” and allow me to slip back to regular life.This must be also the feelings of ex nuns and ex monks who leave their lifetime “vows” of allegiance to their “church” group.It must just be a human psychological logical reaction.I so enjoy your writings.
  6. Linda McGinleyDan Koon steered me to your blog, Urq. Very nice. I am interested to hear what you have to say!
  7. Rheva Bittelman AcevedoDearest Ken:You’re missed.Big hug,
    1. urqbones@gmx.comDearest Rheva,Thank you!
      Alas, with your arms, a hug doesn’t go too far these days. :((
      Nonetheless, I could do with a Shrimp hug.
      Thanks for visiting!
      Hope to see you again.Love to you,

Comments are closed.


Looking at Failure and Success. #2

Why is Hubbard’s best work at all valuable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed.


Introduction, brief..

Introduction, brief…

Hello, and Thank You for visiting.

My name: Kenneth G. Urquhart.

Brief bio: Born in South Wales, UK, in 1938, to a family as Scottish as could be.

A Theosophy friend of my father’s introduced me to Scientology at the London organization in 1957. I went to Saint Hill Manor in 1963 to work as L. Ron Hubbard’s “butler”. In early 1965 I became LRH Communicator [his agent or representative] in the Saint Hill Organization; had various executive positions in that organization or in the World Wide Organization that administered the international Scientology network. In 1968, LRH called me to the ship.

“SEND URQ TO FLAG QUIETLY”, read the telexed order. “Flag” was the big boat LRH was sailing about in, no-one knew where. I didn’t have plans to go to the ship, but off I went. Two things drove me: firstly, the implication of “quietly” fascinated me – was he going to keel-haul and dispose of me, out to sea, with no evidence to show that I’d ever been aboard? I just had to know what he intended. Secondly, curiosity awakened: it would be good to know what he was about generally and what he would do next with his life. He’d said to me one day, in his bedroom in the Manor, with a wry smile, “Life around me may be difficult, but it is never dull.” How true.

Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard have been by far the most dominant parts of my life. Between them, they have brought me my highest and some of the lowest points. Now, over 40 years after I parted company with the Church of Scientology in 1982, I think it’s time I came to terms with what it all means to me. For although I am an insignificant footnote in this history of  LRH and Scientology, I was a witness to certain things, things I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, noted to myself with whatever discernment I had. It is as well to leave a sincerely reflected-on testimony as honest as I can make it. [And so, I believe, should all whose eyes saw what they saw and whose ears heard what they heard, noting what they noted. Please.]

Some more information on my Scientology history after going to the ship is in the next post. It may not be easy reading for anyone not familiar with Scientology and its general history. It will not suffer by being ignored.CATEGORIESREFLECTIONS ON SCIENTOLOGY AND L. RON HUBBARDTAGSAPOLLOKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTL.RON HUBBARDLRHLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORSCIENTOLOGYSEA ORG

54 Replies to “Introduction, brief…”

  1. Ann B WatsonSo wonderful to find this Ken.Thank you from my heart for what you leave as your early days with Ron & his ways.I joined Sea Org at Asho F in 1974 after reading DMSMH & lasted four years.The first two as a Forever SOer and the last two as an SOer who was put through the wringer by the GO and saw the black hat exchanged for the white.I blew in 78 otherwise I would not be here today.Honest testimonies are as lightning bolts hurled right back at the cult.I loved Ron once and would have given my life for the SO until I saw the wrecks from disconnections,fair gaming,GO Intel fun & games KSW and all the rest leading on into I look forward to your next post.You are another warrior.❤️
    1. Ann B WatsonHi Ken, Thank you for your email.I am not the wizard with computers like most,but I do see my original message above I can copy it here because that I About my speed with my IPad.My email. So wonderful to find this Ken,your piece on FB.Thank you from my heart for what you wrote about your early days with Ron & his ways.I joined SO @ Asho Fdn after only reading DMSMH & lasted four years.The first two as a Forever SOer & the last two as an SOer who was put through the wringer by the GOand saw the white hat exchanged for black.I blew in 78 otherwise I would not be alive today.Honest testimonies are as lightning bolts hurled right back at the cult.I loved Ron & would have given my life for the SO until I saw the wrecks from disconnections,fair gaming,GO Intel fun&games and KSW etc.Yiu are another warrior and I look forward to your posts.Between you and me,I am slowly getting to the point where I forgive Ron.I have to get there 100% so that the old hurts dissolve like morning mist.Thank you & 💛
      1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Ann, and thanks for putting your post up again. So you had your adventures too! If your path is to find the way to forgive Ron, may you get there soon. 🙂
    2. Ann B WatsonHi Ken,Today is Sun 1/22/17.I have been trying to send you my original comment,but bad gremlins cause it to go missing each time.Let me try again.I believe I wrote that it was such a strong and true post you shared about your time with Ron.I joined SO at Asho Fdn 1974 & blew late 78.I had only read DMSMH when I joined and was instantly a Forever SOer.The first two years were as Theta as it got in some ways for me.Then the white hat turned black and I was subjected to a rougue I believe GO Intelligence group that made my life hell for about a year and a half.If I had not left I would not be around today.So I was before dm although I have learned so much about that shark and I certainly have fought demons,like cancers from my SO Time.I wanted to say I admire you and although I hate Disconnection,Fair Gaming,Sec checkings KSW all the punishment trappings of the cult,at 65 I have realized I have to forgive Ron 100% if I am to keep climbing upward on my path.Believe me I am not there yet but working on it.He and the Tech may have hurt me very badly but he also went through body & mind hell his last years. ❤️
      1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Ann, and thanks for the further information. Yes, the movement went into a bad place. And, Yes, it was avoidable. I plan to post shortly about what I think LRH should have done, in my know-better hindsight. I am sorry indeed that you and so many others had such a bad time after your early enthusiastic embrace of the group and its proclaimed aims. At the same time, I believe that every bit of experience helps bring us closer to our truth, and that the more painful the experience, the more valuable the truth it teaches us. Let me say that you are adopting one of the best ways of learning from someone who you feel has harmed you — looking at the situation through his eyes. This, I think, is truly the gate to peace of mind and heart.
  2. Olivia KorringaHi Ken! So great to hear from you again, and to have the opportunity to read your beautiful writing.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Olivia! And thanks for visiting. Sorry for delay in responding to your kind message. Am having to hat myself on WordPress and Blogging.
  3. Roger wellerKen I just left you a note on dans post.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Roger! Sorry for delay. Still hatting myself on WordPress. 🙁
  4. Robin ScottHi KenSo glad you have decided to do this. Your story is one of the most authentic and important to be told. I look forward to reading every chapter with the greatest enthusiasm, my friend.With love and best wishes, Robin
  5. Kent BengtssonThank you for this Ken,
    I just read through what you have written so far. All very good.There is however one thing I was hoping to see more of from someone who knew LRH well – some stories involving the two or you or about how he interacted with people at different times.You say that he changed as time progressed. I would be interested to see what specific things he said or did that in your opinion led to the changes in the organization and the creating or enemies. I believe he could at times be quite paranoid and manipulative and that he had problems with his own health and case. I would be interesting to hear more of specific instances about this.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Kent. There’s a lot to tell! Can’t tell it all at once!
  6. Peter MoonGlad to see this, Ken! Congratulations on completing this.
  7. Vinay AgarwalaWhat year did you part company with the Church of Scientology?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comIn 1982, in early November, Vinay.
  8. Elaine HenwoodDear Ken, I look forward to your reflections. Love to you, Elaine.
  9. Alex CastilloGreat to hear from you Ken. I will follow your blog
  10. Stewart WilcoxI’ve waited a considerable time to read your story Ken. I think you are uniquely placed to describe and comment on LRH. I believe you to be an unbiased witness. Thank you for publishing this blog.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Stewart. It’s been a long and bumpy road…but am glad to have got this far.
    2. marildiMy sentiments exactly.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you. 🙂
        After the broth will come the pudding and its proving. 🙂
  11. Rebecca JessupThank you so much for doing this. There is so much sound and fury about what has happened since the 1980s, I’m glad to find a calm and measured voice, a witness reflecting with deep knowledge and compassion on those years. A thousand thanks!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you so much, Rebecca, for your kind ack, and for getting what I’m trying to do.
      Will you be our official Latin translator?
  12. Fred RandallVery happy to see you are doing this Ken.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comTa, Freddie, old friend 🙂
  13. OnuGreetings Ken,
    Your measured tone and grace is like a breath of fresh air accompanied by a delicate and uplifting fragrance of truth.Thankyou.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comDeep bow, Onu. Thank you.
  14. Richard KaminskiA great blog, Ken, thank you for taking the time and trouble to put it together. Your thoughts are hugely appreciated.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Richard. Thank you for sharing the path. We have a way to go…..
  15. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03Ken,What does it mean, Scottish born in South Wales?Wales birth by a Scottish person, that’s almost being a Scottish immigrant family in Wales, or in South Wales?Was that distinction of being Scottish in Wales noticeable to you growing up, like any discrimination or outsider negative connotation to your Scottish birth?The UK is so vast and so much history, so much to learn the fine distinctions the UK populations grow up so much more literate in the language.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comScottish by blood; parents (and brothers) moved to Wales before I was born (father went there to get work).
      I was proud of being Scottish; lived with maternal grandparents in Scotland during the War (WW2) after mother died. Went back to Wales with a Scottish accent at age 8 or 9, and lost the accent as quickly as I could because the boys teased it out of me. I didn’t like being back in Wales but in those days, children were sent here and there like so many packages in the mail.
  16. chuckbeattyxSeaOrg75-03This is priceless stuff here, for posterity.100 years from now, those interested in the upclose people around LRH’s life, for whatever their researcher/historian/practitioner motives will absolutely appreciate Ken’s writings.I’m glued to them, reading and re-reading them.I’m a harsh critic, but Jen’s and Janis Grady’s writings are just the best.Ken is just a joy to read, posterity will thank him for his well spokenness.The more details the better.Chuck Beatty
    ex OEC/FEBC Course Sup and Word Clearer 1977-1983, I endlessly from that time til now, puzzled over the missing backstory of the top firsthand participants around LRH, especially in Ken’s whirlwind LRH Pers Comm years of the top management changes.
  17. Stewart WilcoxI’m sure your testament Ken will step couragiously through the polemic minefield laid by the pro and anti LRH warring factions. I am so grateful you are bold enough to ignore both and speak your mind.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Stewart.
      I’ll be stepping on some mines ere long, I don’t doubt. But so what? It’s just noise.
      1. Vinay AgarwalaKen, I am glad that your viewpoint is objective with respect to LRH. Here is what I believe:General principle of objectivity: The essential criterion of objectivity is continuity, harmony and consistency among all observations..
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Vinay, for the viewpoint and for the implied compliment.
          My own perverse view is that in being objective one is exterior to the subject while willing to remain connected to it within the bounds of what is true, necessary, and kind; one can be a little bit exterior to it or greatly so.
          1. Vinay AgarwalaTruth can be a fixed idea. 🙂
          2. urqbones@gmx.comYes, to a fixed person comfortable with fixed viewpoints, right? And if, so, then we could say that that person’s “truth” arises out of non-confront. But since this is so obvious, I’m feeling I must be missing your point. Elucidate if you need/wish. 🙂
          3. Vinay AgarwalaAn example is LRH’s statement,THE DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE IS: SURVIVE!Most people regard this as “truth”. Is that really so? How does this “survive!” compare to “evolve”?
          4. urqbones@gmx.comUnderstood in the LRH statement you quote: “The Dynamic Principle of Existence WITHIN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS: Survive.”
            Yes, most people might regard this as a guiding principle, or the guiding principle of their lives but observe also that each has his own interpretation of the term ‘survive’, observe that conceptions of ‘survival’ closely relate to tone level, and observe that a fundamental error (invited by the physical universe itself as was deliberately designed) is to assume firstly that physical universe survival is both important and necessary, and secondly that the physical universe is the only environment in which ‘survival’ is possible. Any who believe this will believe anything. And, boy, do they believe. Dedicatedly.
          5. Vinay AgarwalaHaha! This is an excellent example of “truth can be fixed idea”. As you said, “It comes down to inetrpretation”. A person never thinks that his beliefs are not true. To a flat-earther, the flat earth is the truth.In the above explanation of yours, it seems inconsistent to assume that there is a physical universe seperate and independent of the spiritual universe. In my opinion, physical and spiritual are the aspects of the same universe.This is why I consider the general principle of objectivityto be,The essential criterion of objectivity is continuity, harmony and consistency among all observations.I apologize for intruding with this philosophy here.
          6. urqbones@gmx.comAre you telling us, Vinay, that the idea “truth can be a fixed idea” is a fixed idea of yours? If so, thank you for having it and for promoting it. 🙂
            We acknowledge your thoughtful apology, thank you, without any feeling of offence having been caused.
            Let’s remember that a person has viewpoints and thoughts, willy-nilly; every person is also free to be mindful that he/she doesn’t know everything and might at any moment happily discover something so truthful that all prior viewpoints and thoughts become instantly invalid. A person never mindful of such possibilities is a poor person indeed. For myself, I would like to add this or similar mindfulness to your essential criterion of objectivity — how can anyone other than Supreme Whatever know that “all observations” means “all observations of relevant phenomena I might not be aware of yet”?
            Yes, I can agree that physical and spiritual are aspects of the same something-or-other, in that it is the spiritual that creates the physical. That they are aspects doesn’t make them identical, though. It seems we have to agree to disagree. I am unable not to separate them and to regard the spiritual as senior. Out of the kind of person I am I differ from you; out of the kind of person you are, you differ from me. Vive la difference, toujours!
          7. Vinay AgarwalaViewpoint and ideas evolve as more observations are made and continuity, harmony and consistenty is continually reestablished.That is how science works. That is what I have understood from my studies of Eastern philosophy (India), Nuclear physics (MIT) and Scientology (USA).All my best to you, my friend, Ken.
          8. urqbones@gmx.comUnderstood, Vinay. Thank you. 🙂
  18. Peter MoonAs I read the appreciative comments of your account of LRH, I think that you words will garnish more attention and respect as time rolls on. With figures who achieve great notoriety, there is a tendency for the public to de-humanize them by building a stereotype that then gets reinforced. The prejudice of racism uses this exact strategy to reinforce their errant beliefs. In the case of LRH, this applied to the positive as well as the negative. Scientologists who were on board with LRH too often would put him on a pedestal. When they find him not worthy of the pedestal they put them on, they polarize and go the opposite way. Good or bad, the name of LRH gets a more potent “needle reaction” than people like Stalin or Hitler. The only reason I can assume is that people are comfortable with the idea of Stalin or Hitler, feeling rather free and disconnected from their evils. The hyper reaction to LRH suggests they still have not figured him out.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Peter, and thanks. I agree that it will take time for the comm lag to flatten. However, I’d add that all the respected spiritual leaders who have spoken to us have urged us, in essence, to grow up, to mature, to become adult in accepting our responsibilities to ourselves, to others, and to the environment (including, in many cases, a conception of Supreme Reality). And, in general, mankind continues to be deaf to what they taught. There seems to be no likelihood of that comm lag reducing any time soon, if ever. But soon, mankind will be over the cliff into the deep abyss of the chaos of unhappy nothing. Awareness and attention will fixate on immediate, basic survival, minute-by-minute. We will have to lie on the horrible bed we have made for ourselves.
      “Ten thousand men can take a horse to water but not one of them can make the horse drink.” [Traditional]
      “Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation; Woe unto you who are full now, for ye shall hunger; Woes unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the FALSE prophets.” [New Testament; I added the emphasis]
      1. Robin ScottYes, Ken, your rather sober assessment today resonates with me:“But soon, mankind will be over the cliff into the deep abyss of the chaos of unhappy nothing. Awareness and attention will fixate on immediate, basic survival, minute-by-minute. We will have to lie on the horrible bed we have made for ourselves.”Beautifully put, my friend!
        1. urqbones@gmx.comWell, thanks, Robin. It’s also sadly put….
        2. Vinay AgarwalaMore important than survival is evolution.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comWell, Vinay, it strikes me that this is close to the chicken-and-egg dilemma. One can’t evolve if one can’t survive but one can’t survive if he can’t evolve.
            I sidestep any dilemma by considering that nothing whatever within the physical universe has the slightest importance.
            What alone is important is one’s relationship with the senior reality within which this physical universe exists.
  19. Roger Barnes D.C.Hi Ken,Am enjoying this blog. I remember meeting John Henry. I think it was also the first time I met you. SH Manor kitchen circa 1967. I was SH night watchman (paid for my Dianetics Course that way but left me a little short of sleep – I slept 9 am to 4 pm 5 days a week). John laughed a lot and had this dark tan complexion. No surprise to me that he batted for the other side. I remember the bell cabinet in the kitchen like the one in Downton Abbey – was it Princess Bubbles up there on that board, an earlier link from the maharajah’s occupancy? Good times.I wanted to just chat a bit about what you have recently written about your views of the world and your expectations of what’s to come. Do you remember that Q & A you and I had back in 1975 when you first joined me in the RPF at the Fort Harrison? Do you think that area might be resonating again?I wish you joy,
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Roger, and thanks for joining us. Super to have you. 🙂
      Sorry to say my memory is selective. Some things seem to be as clear as anything, other things have gone. I recall nothing about noticing names on the bell board.
      More sorry to say I can’t bring up anything of our conversation in the RPF. On my time-line, I went there in 1978.
      Will be happy to say if I think that might be resonating again if you’ll kindly clarify for me what it is that might be resonating. Thanks, and apologies.
      All the best, Roger.
      1. Roger Barnes D.C.Hi Ken
        I’ll attempt to contact you via email.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comGreat. Old gmail address still works.