Scientology: Losing The Religion

Previously published at: http:/jove.prohosting.com/~xenuart/losingthereligion.htm and retrieved from the wayback machine to preserve for future generations. Minor spelling & formatting corrections applied, and hyperlinks repaired & added.

Part One

Over the years, I have met a number of people, people who have looked into the seemingly implausible things being taught by the Church of Scientology, the huge sums of money they charge, people who cannot possibly comprehend how intelligent people can get caught up into it. To best understand this, one must understand that there are different types of people on this earth. If you are such a person wondering these things, then to understand this you will have to, for a moment, jump into the skin of someone who is different than you, cut from a different cloth than you, and, such a cloth, perhaps, as that I was cut from during those years that I was swept up by the church.

Once upon a time, during the year 1966, I was a young boy of fifteen, my mother was away on business, and so I was staying with two of her friends, friends who happened to be Scientologists.

"What is OT?” I asked Wanda, curious about the cryptic acronym I was seeing everywhere in church literature laying around the house. She had already given me the basics of Scientology and Dianetics, but the banal descriptions they offered me didn't catch my attention much, that is, until she answered this question. "An OT is someone who, if they wanted a hamburger, could make one appear out of thin air, like magic", Wanda replied, sincerely. My eyes opened wide with amazement.

For a typical young man whose universe was laden with visions of superheroes, that was an irresistible concept, and I was hooked. After this, I lost interest in my high school academics, and proceeded to get poor grades. Of course, why should I bother with such a trivial pursuit as education, I reasoned, when all of this will become useless and moot once I acquire my OT powers as promised by Scientology? In the summer of 1968, I dropped out of high school and moved to L.A to join Scientology staff at the church located on 9th street. I found myself working most of the time with little time off, and the pay was not enough to live on.

I did this for a while and later I joined the Sea Org at Celebrity Centre. We worked and worked and worked. I remember sometimes, during the few moments I took off, just in order to bath and do laundry, looking out of the bathroom window, at all of the trees in the yard, hearing the birds singing, the tranquility of it, such a feeling that was very desirable yet so distant from the business of daily Sea Org life. I felt guilty because I knew, as Scientology had taught me, that we were at war, and the war was serious, i.e., if we didn't work as hard as we could, even though life wasn't comfortable, nor was the pay much, there might someday be no hope for mankind, and even such a luxury as enjoying a few moments of serenity was too much, and that I had better get back to work, lest I commit an overt, and have to explain myself to the Ethics Department.

The mental conditioning was total, and if you had approached me at the time and informed me of the silliness of my efforts and beliefs, I would have just thought that you didn't understand the depth of Scientology, the powerful truths it afforded, and that Hubbard was, indeed, the true savior for mankind.

How is it that a perfectly intelligent and sensible human being would get swept up and completely taken over by such an organization?

If you, the reader of this essay, have never been overwhelmed and taken by a cult, good for you, and if you really want to understand how this phenomenon is possible, you must understand that there are people who live life with a huge void in their being, one that yearns to be filled.

Not everyone, myself included, believes that the cosmology and belief structure given in the Bible makes sense.

If not the Bible, then what? What is the meaning to life? Why are we here? What is the nature of spirit? Does it exist? We are we going? Is there a God? Is there destiny? Christianity may neatly fill this void for some, but there are number of people who are dissatisfied with it, and such people are ripe for cults.

No one with any common sense would believe that it is possible to create something out of thin air. But there are those, myself included, who grew up in a fantasy world, a world of comic books, superheroes, a world of daydreams, the world of a young boy who was fascinated by supernatural things, occult things, and even though I was a fairly bright boy, when I was told that this was possible, that omnipotent powers were attainable, my desire to believe it was so strong that this overpowered whatever common sense that I had. Common sense didn't really have a chance, and I imagine a similar phenomena must exist in the minds of many who buy into the belief system afforded by the Scientology cult.

But it wasn't merely the alleged attainability of omnipotent powers; the Scientology books exuded an aura of science and authenticity. Perhaps they wouldn't have fooled someone really studied in science, but they fooled the mind of one fifteen year old. The books then (not anymore, of course) had a more clinical look to them. Today, the jacket covers for the books smack of manipulative imagery, the volcano, etc., but back then they looked like real college textbooks.

Scientology is about indoctrination and control. You are fed a gradual serving of logic, stuff that actually seems to make sense, plausible, and it is presented in such a way that you interact with it, the courses, learning the auditing, auditing others. It is a dynamic which grabs you and seems to lift you and you get caught up in a whirlwind of energy and that energy feels good. It is a phenomenon which I label as the 'group grope' syndrome, which is a bit of a put down, I admit. But I have learned that there is a similar phenomenon which occurs with many cults; a large group of people united for a cause, the collective energy of which becomes a drug, and if you are a simple person with a burning void, and the ideology fits neatly into your style of beingness, you can easily become hooked. At this point you are not reachable by those who may be looking from the outside who are trying to awaken you to the truth of your condition. It is hopeless, you are lost. But you think it is they who are lost, those that haven't learned of the spiritual "technology" offered by the church.

Hubbard was a very clever man. Scientology has many built in control points. These are bits of doctrine which come into play to reign in those who might be thinking critically about the church. Mechanisms such as the doctrine of Conditions Formulas, which, on the surface, seem logical. But the clincher is the condition of "doubt" which, if you are so unfortunate to have been assigned this, you will be punished, or have to endure a rather humiliating experience. The idea is that if you reach a state of mind, a doubtful state of mind, this state of mind, in Scientology, is a negative thing such that an official document is issued publicly in the Scientology community declaring you to be in a "Condition Of Doubt", and that in order to work your way out of this condition you will be assigned to the "RPF" (Rehabilitation Project Force, a Scientology-style amends-project, where you where dirty clothes, eat leftovers, and are generally humiliated), was one of the watershed events, since it happened to me, that cause me to break ranks with the church.

A whole book can be written about the atrocities imposed on individuals who endure the RPF. Do an internet search on Rehabilitation Project Force, and you will find a wellspring of documents on the subject.

I left Scientology after achieving a grade four release. I never went on to clear and OT, nor did I have any clue about the sci-fi aspects of the upper levels. I only found out about such things two years ago after I finally bought my first computer. None of the serious issues raised on the contemporary scene and on the internet are addressed here (part one of this essay) because when I left Scientology, I did not know about them. I left the church after I made a thorough reassessment of my spirituality.

And so I was thinking about those things which made me decide to leave way back in 1975 and decided to make a list of them. So for those teetering on leaving, perhaps those who may be contemplating it, but can't find the concepts to fully support that decision, although what I am presenting here may or may not help, there may be some out there who are similarly constructed and so to them I present the mental processes I went through which gave me the conviction to leave, as it allowed me to realize that I as doing, for myself at least, the right thing.

If you ask a Scientologist why anyone would leave Scientology, he will report the Hubbard doctrine which states that the only reasons someone leaves Scientology is because of misunderstood words or concepts in the study of Scientology, or crimes committed against Scientology. Piffle. Here are my reasons, and please note that some of my reasonings incorporate my own spirituality, with which you the reader of this essay may or may not be in accordance, but that is okay, this is just a report on my particular mental processes.

Why I left the church in 1975

1. I realized the preposterousness of the idea that, out of billions of years of evolution, physical and spiritual, our ultimate spiritual fruition depends on the work of one man. 2. I realized that many major upward shifts in human consciousness can be or probably are preceded by doubt about the status quo, and a good example of this was the Renaissance, and therefore the policy regarding the "condition of doubt" in Scientology is merely a device to keep Scientologists from leaving, but the ultimate effect is to deny an individual nature’s own tool for consciousness raising.

3. I realized the preposterousness of the idea that our ultimate spiritual fruition must be purchased.

4. I realized the preposterousness of the 'life is a dwindling spiral' doctrine.

5. I realized that books by Hubbard like DMSMH are written nowhere near the objective standard required of scientific texts, and are therefore not science.

6. I realized that the Scientology doctrine of the emotional "Tone Scale" is flawed, and emotion is not on a vertical plane. There are only pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions, and highly intelligent beings can exhibit any emotion, just as extremely stupid beings, and so although there may seem to be a correlation between the consciousness plane and tone, there is no real correlation between emotional tone and a vertical scale of consciousness. Now a Scientologist may point out that the doctrine of the Tone Scale mentions nothing about being correlated to awareness level, but the very fact that it is placed in a vertical scale suggests this. Even if we exclude the Scientological correlation inferred by me, emotion does not exist on a vertical plane, it exists only a subjective horizontal plane and on one end you have pleasant emotion, and on the other you have unpleasant. and there are some items on the Tone scale which are not 'tones' or emotional states, among which is death, which is merely a biological event, and another is action, which is a measure of energy, belonging to a different scale, another is 'needing bodies', and this one is peculiar, but it is not a 'tone' but could be an pathological obsession. This realization of the flaws in the Tone Scale doctrine made me want to explore other Scientology falsehoods, since this was a clear-cut erroneous doctrine, there must be others.

7. I realized that the truth of spiritual growth is nothing like the Scientology model, where one achieves (allegedly) clearly defined levels which are displayed in a ladder-like fashion. In my universe, the better model is nature, which is that of seeds sprouting, branching out, achieving fruition, but gradually, in stages perhaps, but in fits and starts, etc, and that spirit is not something apart from nature, and so must be in accordance with this. I like the nature model because we are, indeed, like seeds in a cosmological garden, and when the time comes, our spiritual fruition is inevitable, and that, like nature's organic seeds, we, as spirit is our natural heritage, and that Scientology's cosmology is the antithesis of this.

8. I realized that the doctrine that states that life is basically a game is false. That life is a game is only as such in the mind, it is a state of mind, i.e., a mental projection placed on reality, but not reality itself.

9. I realized that The Factors (a pseudo-axiomatic book by Hubbard, which describe the origins of the universe, all of which are "humbly tendered as a gift to mankind"), which to my very young state of mind, (I was only fifteen when I got in) seemed very profound and impressive. But as I got older, they became tired sounding, and I realized that the truth was that Hubbard was merely playing on emotions since they had a 'Genesis' style, and so as to give Scientology more of a religious slant.

10. I realized that the doctrine which states that 'the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect' is false. Philosophizing about life's highest purpose is one thing, but claiming it as a self-evident truth throws into question the intellect of the doctrine's source. Moreover, in my view, life is so infinitely vast, and our minds or so infinitely small compared to it, it would be supreme arrogance to assume what the highest purpose of the universe is, if, indeed, there is a 'highest purpose', which I sincerely doubt.

11. I realized that it is better to go through life influenced by many different sources, not one source, and to do so is dangerous in spiritual terms.

12. I realized that Scientologists, as a whole, tend to think and act alike, and that this was not a good thing.

13. I realized that no significant body of knowledge has ever been accomplished by one man.

14. I realized that the doctrine which states: "The supreme test of a 'thetan' i.e., spiritual being, is to make things go right" is false. In my universe, that factor which slows down our achieving the ultimate truth, and probably the most difficult thing to do in this world, is to let go, because the ultimate fruition of the soul cannot happen until the thetan can let go of everything. The nirvana described by Zen is the antithesis of OT, and, the Zen view is closer to the truth, as I see it.

With OT, you have a disembodied being who can impose with impunity his will upon the universe.

That concept appeals only to one's sense of greed, and it does not appeal to the selfless self, it does not appeal to any concept of beauty and wholesomeness. The Zen nirvana is far more harmonious with nature, and can be achieved without introspection and paying anyone money, and, I believe is permanent, though Scientology will claim that it isn't. And so, in my (perhaps weird, I know, I'm dealing with my own beliefs here) world, the supreme test of a 'thetan' is to let go. I make this assertion simply because it is clingingness which slows spiritual growth, and "making things go right" reinforces clingingness.

15. I realized that if there was, indeed, anything like the reactive mind, nature allowed it, and there must be a good reason for it, and it cannot be the reason that we are not achieving spiritual fruition, for the idea itself that there is something within us that is preventing us from raising our consciousness is false.

16. I realized that the anti-eval policy as preached by the church was not conducive to spiritual, mental, and emotional health, simply because it denies the individual nature's own tool for 'mirroring'. For example, if one acts like a jerk, and many of the person's friends indicate this to the person acting like a jerk, that person, when he or she learns that people are merely "reflecting" his foolish behaviour, he or she can learn and improve from this reflection. However, in Scientology, this would be considered as "evaluating" for that person, and they would limit that person to discover himself through "auditing". But the flaw in this is likelihood that the preclear will not list this in session as an item that needs to be addressed. And so the individual is forced to live in a Scientological greenhouse, where entheta is to be avoided at all costs. But this is not natural, this is an artificial environment.

Take the model of the greenhouse plant. A plant grown in the greenhouse will not survive in the wild as well as the plant which is hardened in the wild, and so the same is true for people, and because of this, Scientologists are harmed as individuals because of Scientology's own greenhouse effect as promulgated with the anti-eval (anti-evaluation) policy.

17. After having served in the Sea Org, I realized that the Scientology stated goal of "clearing the planet" (getting everyone in the world into Scientology) was not a spiritually beneficial goal in light of the fact that it is a flawed doctrine, i.e., flawed because it is an impossible goal, and to garner others into an impossible goal creates an environment of oppression.

18. I realized that forcing people to disconnect from family members was an antisocial policy.

19. I realized that auditing was dangerous in that preclears are in the hands of highly indoctrinated and unqualified persons, and should not be trusted with one's personal thoughts.

20. I realized that to abandon Scientology is not, in itself, an insane act, nor is it necessarily because of misunderstood words, nor criminal acts, though it could, but the act of abandonment could easily be brought about by disillusionment. And so the Scientology line in this regard is false.

21. I realized that the doctrine which states that Scientology always works when the 'tech' is applied to a certain standard is false. I realized that the assumption of "keeping tech in" to exclude the possibility of tech contribution by anyone other than Hubbard himself, is a view which, especially to the scientific community, is the zenith of arrogance.

22. I decided I would create for myself my own personal policy which was to never surrender my own spiritual growth to anyone.

23. I realized that the essence of Scientology, i.e., the 'auditing' has much in common with hypnosis, so much so that I realized it was, contrary to its assertions, hypnosis, and the basis of the Dianetics and Scientology technique was introspection, and at the hands of unqualified persons, introspection could be dangerous.

24. I realized that in the nine years I considered myself to be a Scientologist, Hubbard had not made one major public appearance. Whatever the reason was, there was no excuse. Recently, I discovered that during those years Hubbard never made a public appearance he was being sought under indictment by the FBI.

And so there are probably more things I could place on this list, these are the major factors which were brewing in my consciousness at the time, and they are still true, to me anyway, today.

If you are a Scientologist and you are thinking about leaving, know that there is a life outside of Scientology, and that you can do it. Leaving Scientology after achieving the conviction that it was the right thing to do, was like lifting a great burden from my soul. I talked to the ethics officer about this, and he told me that all I really wanted to do was to be "comfortable", and then referred me to get word-cleared. That was the best he could offer me. That answer made me realize that this individual was not capable of giving an answer originating from his own consciousness, there was no answer welling up in his being to give to me, only a mental search in his memory banks for the relevant Hubbard policy which addresses my concern, and this served further to seal my conviction that I was making a breakthrough, that leaving was essential to my spiritual and emotional (and financial) health, simply because I did not want myself to become like the machine who called himself an 'ethics officer'.

If you are leaving Scientology, stay away, I repeat, avoid Scientology Ethics Department. They do not have your best interest in mind, only the furthering of the Scientology agenda, which is to continue to make you a slave to their ideology, all under the banner of imparting you with "total freedom".

"Total Freedom" is the major point of control.

I realized that the best Scientology can do is turn individuals into machines. They may become energetic machines, but machines nevertheless.

A machine has no life, it is a dead thing.

Scientology is a machine.

This is why I am not a Scientologist, nor can I ever become one again.

Part Two

The following is a letter, of sorts, though a very long one, to my sister. It will reiterate some points addressed in part one. But part one is an actually an appendage, written a few months later than part two, which used to be the sole body of this essay.

What started out as a simple response to her claim that Scientologists are asked not to read contradictory material which might shake their belief in the Scientology doctrine, particularly when such Scientologists are receiving services from the church, and was a response to my earlier letter to her in which I believed that Scientology practices censorship, was extended to a full treatise of the state of my mind with respect to Scientology, laced with my own spiritual beliefs. For some, the prospect of leaving the church returns one to the aching void which was prevalent before joining the church, and which, to a large extent, the church seemed to satisfy. But along comes disillusionment caused by oppressive acts exacted upon its members which never seem just. In part one I wrote about those things brewing in my consciousness which drove me to leave the church. The following will address issues and facts which I have learned of from reading documents on the internet.

How could it be, one might wonder, that such "truth" as that purveyed in the "tech" emanates from an organization whose working environment is utter misery? (I know, I was in the Sea Org myself) I am making the assertion that every aspect of Scientology, in terms of bona fide spiritual growth, is fundamentally flawed. And because of flawed fundamentals, there will spring irrationality, unjust and condemnable acts. I refer you to an ancient proverb:

A poisoned tree yields poisoned fruit.

It doesn't matter how apparently sweet the 'fruit' is.

I would like to note that to any internet surfer who happens to gaze upon this site, they might see that my own spiritual musings as being as far fetched as that of the Scientology doctrine, or perhaps not that bad, but a tad in that direction, and so I say unto all spiritual believers of one form or another everywhere, I hereby cut you some slack (as long as your actions do not support oppression, and as long as you do not charge a fortune for the privilege of learning about your articles of faith).

I did not include the whole of her message since only the sentence included was being answered. However, as the thoughts on the subject flowed from my pen (alright, keyboard, but doesn't "pen" sound more poetic?), more thoughts kept coming. It wasn't long that I displayed most of my grievances regarding Scientology, since I had been a Scientologist, once upon a time, and had since left, and that, even though I know it was practically impossible, to convey to her I had not left for the general reasons that "tech" asserts, i.e., that I had overts (crimes), witholds (crimes not admitted to), misunderstood words or concepts (regarding Scientology doctrine), but that the essence of my leaving had everything to do with my own spiritual awakening which delivered me to a level of consciousness in which it became apparent to me that although Scientology was, perhaps, good therapy in some ways, offering some keen observations and hard-to-dispute truths here and there (up to a point), it could not deliver on the promise of achieving "total cause over matter, energy, space and time", for such was not a realistic nor desirable spiritual possibility.

Moreover, I created for myself my own personal policy which was to never surrender my own spiritual growth to any doctrine afforded by an author of science fiction who longed for higher status and acceptance in the world beyond that of a pulp writer. And thus the letter became longer and longer, and since she was the perfect idea of a Scientologist, true to the doctrine, happy, successful, productive, and fully accepting of the concept that Scientology is the best hope for man, and that my views on the general subject of things spiritual were diametrically the opposite, more in line with eastern philosophy (home brew, actually, never did join another group after Scientology), I had always wanted to express my concerns and beliefs to her. But the danger I knew was that I was aware of the Scientology doctrine regarding ex-members, that they are essentially "insane", "anti-social, i.e., "suppressive" (an evil person, by Scientology's definition), they are not to be trusted, and though I don't think she believed that of me, necessarily, I am certain she at least accepted the part of Scientology doctrine which asserts that I left having either gone past concepts not fully understood, or perhaps I was the connected to some other "SP", or I had "witholds and/or "overts" against Scientology, or so the doctrine goes. The knowledge that she was in full acceptance of the doctrine was further supported by the fact that she never, not in the twenty-five years I had since left, ever asked me why I had left. It is obvious she already knew, because the "tech" told her so. Why ask, of course that would be the same thing as admitting doubt about the doctrine. I had to frame the letter as carefully as I could, without compromising my own integrity, something on which I value the most. And so I thought that if I offer it as a game, since Scientologists love the concept that life is a game, that is part of the doctrine. And so, to any readers of this treatise, if you encounter some strange terms, they are probably Scientological terms or expressions, no doubt, and I try to define them, but not always, and when I don't, I probably didn't feel it was important, but note that "ARS" stands for alt.religion.scientology, and it is a usenet forum for views pro and con, though mostly con.

I never sent the letter, however, since I had the gut feeling that she was too far entrenched in Scientology to even consider my view, and the probable outcome would be that she would see me as an enemy, which is a situation I don't want to happen. But, since there may be some spiritual information which may help someone who is teetering on leaving the church, but having difficulty because of the concept: "If not Scientology, then what", this treatise is offered for such an individual.

In this essay you will have my views on Scientology, as well as my own spiritual outlook, in general, and anyone is welcome to challenge, disprove, (in the spirit of gentlemanly gamesmanship) any thing which I offer here. You see, I am a seeker, and all that matters is spiritual growth, and truth, wherever it may lie. If you have any spiritual musings which you would like to share, feel free to email me at [email protected], or post to the ARS forum. I post to the forum as Phineas Fogg.

Dear Lilah,

I offer this treatise so as to play the game of devil's advocate, as well as to offer you some of my own spiritual epiphanies, (if for no other reason, perhaps, than to give you a possible understanding as to where such morsels of thought could be born). The old devil's advocate game is a well-established effective way to test the veracity of that which is being questioned. Of course, I realize whole-heartedly you believe you don't need to test the "veracity" of your religion. Thus, for no other reason, perhaps, especially in light of the fact that it is important to me, to do so as a favor to me. I would indeed be most grateful.

I am assuming that role (devil's advocate), for reasons given more or less in detail in the coming paragraphs. I ask that you promise not to forget I am of this posture, and so I am hopeful you won't get mired in the fireballs I may hurl in your direction, fireballs which were created solely in the light of gentlemanly gamesmanship.

You have stated your capabilities as an OT, i.e., "Operating Thetan", and given that you have achieved that exalted Scientological status, it should endow you with the ability to easily handle a mere mortal like myself. You may, given your absolute devotion to your religion, choose not to respond, especially in light of the fact that a satisfactory response, as far as I'm concerned and one I would ask of you, will require an effort beyond the predictable towing of the Scientology line, a detailed effort, I would hope, one that demonstrates self-initiated thought outside of the "box" of the Scientology universe, and with the same force I purvey unto you, (but I am mindful of your sensitivities, and will tacitly accede that any response on your part is not necessarily an admission by you that such a "box" indeed exists, despite my claim).

Moreover, it is strongly recommended to review the entire treatise in full before responding in part, as it may be that a clarification may exist further on in the document for an earlier point not satisfactorily illustrated.

In a previous message of yours, you referred to our mother as a "seeker", and to disregard anything not written by Hubbard because it is not from "source". Note that I, too, am a "seeker", and I proclaim that in my universe, I am "source", and I believe sincerely that until one arrives at a state of consciousness wherein one recognizes oneself as "source", spiritual progress, though possible, probable, even inevitable, the ultimate spiritual fruition of the soul, that holy grail of spiritual experience, is impossible.

I have, for some thirty-five years, been on a spiritual quest, as you have, and though we have had similar beginnings, we ultimately chose different paths. My own search has led me to my own brand of spiritual panorama and insight to, as Hubbard would say, "The Terra Incognita".

I am acutely aware of the many years and depth of your involvement with the Scientology Church, and I understand fully, at the outset, that it is impossible for me, or anyone, to sway you to another way of thinking. All the better, for that isn't my intention, either, and I wouldn't want to enter into a "games condition" with anyone less than that, lest the game be imbalanced.

If you don't mind accepting the "playing field" with these terms in mind, which, I feel, are fair, when such time arises that you have the time, I am hopeful of your full and dedicated reply.

----- Original Message ----- From: Lilah To: Phineas Sent:Monday, June 3, 2000 Subject:Re: Does Scientology practice censorship?

Scn doesn't practice censorship, but Scn students and those who are auditing and being audited are asked not to go to those anticult sites.

They would be asked or would they be forbidden?

It is good to know that my assumption of Scientology censorship is fundamentally incorrect, if your statement is true, which I am not doubting. However, I recall, somewhere, perhaps I am wrong, and, indeed, I hope that I am wrong--I recall reading a Scientology policy letter forbidding people, even it were at some level, not to read certain publicly available material, and there was also policy which limits an individual's right of freedom of association with human beings or groups. But perhaps that was my imagination.

However, again, I reiterate to paraphrase the above and to add, I don't know whether or not Scientology does this, and I hope that is doesn't, but although I don't mind Scientology urging its members to read or not to read whatever, or urging its members to or not to associate with whomever, but to forbid by written decree, at any level, or to forbid freedom of association which is not of itself treasonous to democracy nor an illegal act, is censorship, and/or antidemocratic, respectively, nevertheless. Even if such decrees are not directed to Scientology's public, I am fairly certain there are directives commanding censorship and limitations of free association to its staff.

Upon receipt of your response, and if your letter leaves room for further inquiry or comment, be patient with me, because it is my desire, always, to reach a meeting of the mind. In the past, on matters of web design, copywriting, etc, we have had adamant disagreements, but, for the most part, we have, even though the discourse of such was arduous, eventually arrived at a meeting of the mind, more or less. It would be a rapturous feeling, I would imagine, that two people who, coming from completely different philosophical corners of the earth, both agreeing beforehand to maintain the highest degree of integrity during the process, setting up the playing field with a structure which encourages inductive reasoning, willingness to not cling to a given view if there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and agreeing to the concept that all that matters is the truth, wherever it may lie, that two people who could, indeed, actually reach a meeting of the mind, despite the seemingly insurmountable odds against. That possibility, however remote, would be an exciting and worthwhile effort, by virtue of the concept that only out of the turbulent interplay of polar opposites, can arise that which is the stronger element, the crucible- tempered steel of truth.

And so it is thus that my goal is truth, and if I don't have it, I expect, hope, and pray any challenger will shatter me, so that I may be opened to it, and it will flood into me, washing away the shards of untruth. However, be forewarned, I am a good challenge in written word, and I am intolerant of mediocrity. And note that even the most prodigious efforts offered to mankind, by virtue of such, are not necessarily proof of their immunity to mediocrity, but such proof itself must be based on other criteria, which may or not be obvious to, nor agreeable by, its own membership, but which must be applied to it by a thorough, objective peer review, for that is the true scientific method.

The assumption of "keeping tech in" to exclude the possibility of tech contribution by anyone other than Hubbard himself, is a view which, especially to the scientific community, is the zenith of arrogance. No significant body of science known to man is the product of one man alone, to my knowledge. I therefore assert that the true agenda for "keeping tech in" is merely a subterfuge to thwart forever, the possibility of peer review, and it will easily fly with the naive or uninformed since it makes for a good sound bite. I can never accept the premise that only Hubbard is capable of being "source", and that "wogs" are not to be trusted and are inferior, especially in light of the fact that these very "wogs" have cured polio, wrote the Declaration of Independence, put men on the moon, composed music and wrote literature which have enraptured the hearts of man, transplanted living organs from the dying to the living, etc, such that they are not entirely deserving of such condescension, and are, indeed, capable of, valid peer review, and "tech" contribution.

Above I asked that you "shatter" me, and thus you might wonder, "Why would any reasonable person want to be shattered?". Because that in the pursuit of spiritual attainment, nirvana, Samadhi, or whatever term you prefer, one must strive for the unreasonable. This is a distinction, in my view, between Hubbard's "be unreasonable" in that he, as I recall or understand, advocates to be unreasonable in all manners of achievement, to which I respond that to be unreasonable across the board, without qualification, can create an environment of oppression.

However, regarding the achievement of enlightenment (allowing for my chosen terminology, for a moment) this is not a reasonable proposition. During any given millennia, few persons ever attain to it, it is a very rare thing, indeed, but more thoughts on this later.

During the many thousands, if not millions of lives through which we have lived, we have undoubtedly run the gamut of spiritual paths and inquiry, and through such, accepted multitudinous belief systems, thought patterns, mental structures, complete with the usual array of associated and worshipped icons, etc, all with absolute conviction that each one of these during a given life, was the last, the foremost, the only path to the truth; we undoubtedly clinged to those beliefs to the very end. I summarize this phenomenon as "the icon syndrome", and to which, I believe sincerely, that if one is so awakened, so lucky as to realize that the quickest path to enlightenment is that it must be necessary to shatter those icons, knowing that it will be painful, very painful indeed, as painful as birth, for that is precisely what is at hand, a rebirth of consciousness, because those icons are holding us back, and that the best person on earth to befriend is the iconoclast, the gadfly, and if one is so fortunate to encounter such an individual, to follow that individual and listen, for he or she his the best hope for bona fide spiritual growth. But the world at large will not readily accept such a person, his rantings, his curmudgeonliness, his seeming efforts to shake the smug spiritual ground upon which we tread, making those who encounter him on life's path, extremely uncomfortable, etc. The world will, if history is foretelling, destroy such an individual, the quintessential example of whom was the great and noble Socrates. And though you may attribute some of those qualities to Hubbard, possibly (if not, I stand corrected), I cannot do so.

Because of this, in my universe, spiritual smugness is perilous to growth and attainment.

There are serious issues raised on the internet, driven by first hand testimonies of persons who were at the pinnacle, or near the pinnacle, of power in Scientology, testimonies which raise serious allegations regarding Scientology's (never abandoned) practice of "fair game", and alleged heinous treatment of members and ex-members, who have fallen out of favor with the church. I have in my possession a RealVideo of an ex-GO operative whose two-hour testimony of the GO's tactics is nothing short of shocking, and indeed, to be condemned, particularly because it exposes illegal acts on the part of the church. As I listen to it carefully, observing of the body language, the demeanor of the individual, I am inclined to agree he exudes an aura of authenticity, either that or the Academy Awards should create a new category for extemporaneous acting, and award one Michael McClaughry its first Oscar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eTLdUuxE54

Also of great concern to me, and I believe to anyone seriously considering membership in Scientology is the sworn court testimony viewable at: http://www.whyaretheydead.info/krasel/aff_at.html

This is the affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon who was called upon as a witness. I cannot comprehend any justification which will rationalize the atrocities described in this document. These are but two examples of an ever-swelling number which are available on the internet, which also raise serious concerns. I am also mindful of the claim that if it is true that policies of persecution are being performed, that it "isn't Scientology", but that is irrelevant, since there is a reservoir of evidence that it is going on, has always been going on, and continues to go on, and is rooted in policy.

One such horror story is that of Paulette Cooper, who was never a Scientologist, and what the Church did to her after her book was published proves that this church is nothing short a threat to democracy, and the world at large, and anyone who cherishes freedom of expression, must be made to light. For the complete particulars: http://www.paulettecooper.com/scandal.htm

Any Scientologist who is not aware of it, is unwittingly, every time he or she adds another dollar to the Scientology coffers, contributing towards to these condemnable acts, and must share in the guilt.

I also know that it is Scientology policy to attribute such, as that offered by Tabayoyon or Cooper, as the work of an "SP" (suppressive persons) since only an "SP" would want to block the good tidings of Scientology. The preponderance of this line only makes it seem like Scientologists are paranoid, that they see "SPs" everywhere, and evidence of this is in the OSA's latest SP organizations list which lists well over 600 businesses, groups and organizations as "suppressive".

It is a common tactic of the demagogue that the way to direct blame for what is wrong with results, internal conflicts, tenets, or organizational problems, the country, etc, is to fabricate an enemy, one that is practically everywhere, and is conspiring against, and it is them against whom the group (organization, etc.) must exist in a state of war, and therefore to galvanize in its membership the feeling of a united purpose against a great evil, and that anything done to squash and obliterate the "enemy" is justified. This is the psycho politics of paranoia, and in the process, staff are so inculcated with the propaganda, indoctrinated into accepting that it is necessary to sacrifice all semblance of normal life, to work long hours with little or no pay, since in the fight against the "enemy" i.e., any person who rejects the good tidings of Scientology, any person who would even so much as to suggest Scientology is not the best hope for man, it is for the greater good. I am sad to report that the deceived souls who have been so hypnotized into this regime of fantasy are victims of oppression.

The aforementioned are condemnable acts by Scientologists acting on Scientology policy. Here is one act as testified by Hana Eltringham, who was a Sea Org Exec on the Flagship Apollo, which is the direct responsibility of Hubbard himself, and this act, by any reasonable person's standard, is worthy of the highest degree of condemnation since was perpetrated on a 41/2 year old child.

HANA ELTRINGHAM: "He [Hubbard] put this 4½ year old little boy - Derek Greene - into the chain locker for two days and two nights. It's a closed metal container, it's wet, it's full of water and seaweed, it smells bad. But Derek was sitting up, on the chain, in this place, on his own, in the dark, for two days and two nights. He was not allowed to go to the potty. I mean he had to go in the chain locker on his own, soil himself. He was given food. And I never went near it, the chain locker while he was in there, but people heard him crying. That is sheer, total brutality. That is child abuse." [video 33:25]

Moreover, any man who could have authored the following document cannot not possibly have the best interests of children in mind. Behold the abominable practice of the "sec check" applied to children per this excerpt from HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1961, for the security checking, by e-meter, of children, authored by Hubbard:

Children's Security Check Ages 6-12

1. WHAT HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL? 2. HAVE YOU EVER DECIDED YOU DIDN'T LIKE SOME MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY? 3. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN SOMETHING BELONGING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NEVER GIVEN IT BACK? 4. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO BE SICK (ILL)? 5. HAVE YOU EVER MADE YOURSELF SICK (ILL) OR HURT YOURSELF TO MAKE SOMEBODY SORRY? 6. HAVE YOU EVER WANTED SOMETHING VERY MUCH BUT NEVER TOLD ANYBODY ABOUT IT? 7. HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN YOURSELF DIRTY ON PURPOSE? 8. HAVE YOU EVER REFUSED TO EAT JUST TO WORRY SOMEONE?

These are only eight of a lengthy ninety-nine in the HCOB. I, for one, cannot comprehend the justification for such a Gestapo-like interrogatory directed at such young children.

Also of concern to me is current Sea Org policy regarding the unborn. Granted, it is a woman's right to choose an abortion, but when such is commanded by executive directive, and because of the level of indoctrination imposed on members, she effectively loses that right, otherwise to face severe punishment, and so is co-erced. Cast your eyes upon this heart wrenching testimony:

Mary Tabayoyon Affidavit on culthelp.info There is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that Hubbard was a grandiose paranoid "ratfink". Read a few of these 638 documents obtained from the FBI files on Hubbard via the freedom of information act. He sent hoards of false reports on his family, his critics, and anyone for whom he had the slightest disregard, to the FBI informing them of their "communist" and un- American activities. This is the true Hubbard, not the beloved "philanthropist and philosopher" that he would have you believe. Go to: http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI

But it doesn't stop here. Also rooted in policy is the repugnant practice of Scientology to cull the PC folders of its ex-members in the search of any items to be used against the ex-member. No Catholic parishioner would ever do that, regardless of the hideousness of the confession. Thus, whatever you say to an auditor, can and will be used against you should you ever leave the Church.

With testimony after testimony, piling up on the internet, the prospect that each and everyone of these dissenters is evil, with malice towards man in their hearts, that they have nothing better to do than to bare the fire of the litigious nature of Scientology, with the prospect of financial ruin on the immediate horizon to be exacted on them by Scientology, that to risk perjury with the abundance of detail of damning evidence, so carefully presented, that one slip of a significant detail could easily throw their testimony to perjury, that to toss away all they know, the life of being a Scientologist, the friendships they have formed over time, to claim unequivocally that each and everyone of these individuals is among that ubiquitous clan to which Scientology refers as "suppressive persons", is one claim I am compelled to reject.

What is going on in Scientology, and its tactics applied to its detractors, and its stated aspirations of world domination are of great concern to me, for it seems to reveal Scientology's objective to destroy democracy. That is my belief. This belief is not rooted in fantasy. Given that there was, as I distinctly recall, a widely circulated document in the seventies which outlined a plan for a one-world government, to be headquartered in Africa, and that Hubbard states that the best political system would be a "benign" dictatorship, and per:

Guardian Order 060971: (seized in FBI authorized search of Scientology headquarters): As well as HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY, 1969 Issue IV TARGETS, DEFENSE:

The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

(T1) Depopularizing the enemy to the point of obliteration.

(T2) Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.

(T3) Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.

(T4) Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance..." , Given the vastness of alarming intelligence operations, black PR, false reporting, ad nauseum, in support of the above, as reported on: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/berlin.html,

And the GO directives, policies, training drills, communications, etc., seized by the FBI during this raid, which detail the incredible depth of actions tantamount to totalitarianism, one hundred pages of documents as revealed here: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/app3.txt

I believe that the yearnings to establish a Scientology-controlled world order is still firmly entrenched in the minds of its leaders.

To achieve this world order Scientology imposes on its staff a siege mentality; they are at war, and things like sending people to the RPF for years, 16-hour workdays with little pay are justified in their version of self-righteousness. The glowing gains and wins its followers have is very nice, and I don't say no to that particularly--all for it, actually, but all of this can easily obscure what is truly going on. All of the little trees in Scientology remain impervious to the forest of what is happening, that they are at "war", any means to obliterate dissention, is justified, acceptable and can be exacted with impunity.

That is fascism.

Given the overwhelming evidence, and Mike's (the ex Go operative) testimony, and given the mentality of the drafters of such an orders and policies, given the mentality of a Church which launches such condemnable activities as that performed by the GO, OSA, et al, then it would follow that if America, let alone the world, were ruled by Scientology, all of common law which has evolved from seventeenth century England to the present, would be abolished. Your constitution would be completely rewritten, and the new one, although it may be flowery and eloquent, will not have the same force. No constitution in a fascist society has any relevancy in the rights of its so-called citizens. It is always a sham, for show purposes only.

It takes centuries for a constitution to gain the momentum and solidness that the American constitution has gained, and it has been held in place by the aggregate integrity of the populace. It is very doubtful that the new constitution offered by Scientology, if they ever were to achieve their goal, would ever amount to more than a pale shadow of the current constitution. Your hard- earned civil rights and rights to due process would be reduced to silly "comm evs".(Committees Of Evidence--justice, Scientology-style.)

This, of course, it is conjecture on my part, but I feel sincerely it is a realistic expectation based on the general tendencies of historical fascism.

Additionally, I realize you have devoted most of your life to being a Scientologist, and have subsequently accepted its tenets as the best hope for mankind, and have placed your absolute faith that it will deliver you "across the bridge". But I ask you to be extremely honest with yourself. I will accept that you have experienced beneficial realizations which enable you to live your life more fully. Note that that claim can be and is made by any number of spiritual paths at considerably less expense. But I want to ask you of your relation to that ultimate Scientology promise, that it will deliver you "across the bridge" an allusion, based on Scientology's own description of OT, to a state where you will have "total cause over life, matter, energy, space, and time", ask yourself have you achieved it? Has any Scientologist achieved this? If I receive a response which indicates that, although one has not achieved, one is moving in that direction, I must forthrightly assert that to perceive one is moving in that direction, in effect, is no better than to say the answer is flatly no, because any one can say one is moving in that direction and remain in denial of the truth, or to assuage the pain of knowing that one has been duped, that the hard reality is that such is not possible, and the distinction from "moving in that direction" to having actually achieved that result, which is nothing more than childish science fiction, is a quantum leap of light years.

In Scientology, the purported accent is on new abilities gained. Even if this were true, it is not ability which causes one to achieve enlightenment faster, it is the quality of being. The accent should be on quality of "beingness", not "doingness". It does not matter what or how much you do in the world, it is how you are inwardly. Scientology's emotional tone scale places action as a prerequisite to its highest state "serenity of beingness". This is a false doctrine. No amount of action, as any Type A personality will testify, will assure or lead to such a quality of beingness.

I also realize and know that Scientologists, for the most part, are sincere in there objective, prodigious, and work tirelessly toward their goal. On the whole, they appear to be active and cheerful (excluding sea org personnel, imo). And so I predict that a Scientology advocate, in response to these serious allegations, will ride on the laurels of LRH demagoguery, and point out that Scientology has worked, despite all efforts of "suppressives" to stop, tirelessly for the good of man, and has, on hand, hundreds of thousands of testimonials which portray the ultimate good of what Scientology is doing, and so forth, to which I can only reply, that I wish whole-heartedly I could rely on such testimony, however, because these accolades emanate from the mouths and pens of indoctrinated souls, such testimony is inconsequential. Devotees of most religions, with the same degree of certainty, will give identical testimony, and in greater numbers.

I am not condemning one's right to have a religion, to have beliefs, to claim wonderful results from such beliefs, regardless of my own belief that such is the result of indoctrination, I am condemning the fascist tendencies of the Church of Scientology which ultimately stem from Hubbard's own paranoia, the "at war" siege mentality which imposes an environment of oppression on its staff, which causes the OSA to engage in illegal acts, "black ops", in order to squash dissent, because "Scientology is the only hope for mankind". In this regard, Scientology has arrived at the nadir of all religions. When I think about the level of fanaticism that is pervasive in Scientology, the brutality of its forward effort, the zombie-ish uniformity of testimonials on "auditing gains", "wins" etc., I am reminded of the aliens on the X-Files. It is a bit like an Orwellian nightmare.

It is my discovery and knowledge that, in ultimate spiritual terms, one must first attain fruition oneself, and concentrate selfishly in that pursuit, utterly, for without that attainment, knowledge of what, in truth, is the best hope mankind, is impossible, and in such fertile soil as that offered by groups galvanized for such a purpose, whose members are bound only by fanaticism of belief, history has demonstrated time, and time again, many a seed of fascism has taken root. Whatever good Scientology is doing is entirely overshadowed by it current state, and I believe that if Scientology does not reform itself and stop doing these things, it will and is causing an ever-swelling number of people to rise up against it. It is happening and they are beginning to organize and be funded. One such organization is the LMT, The Lisa McPherson Trust. My desire is not to stop Scientology, no more than it is to stop Christianity or any religion, my desire or my warning is that is must be reformed.

If one wants to point to the atrocities of certain Christian pastors fondling little boys, fine, but realize that it is not Christian policy to do such, or if one wants to engage in hate propaganda regarding the mental health world in general, go ahead and do so. I do recognize there are problems of various magnitudes in other organizations, and I grant you other groups out there have serious issues of concern to many, but I cannot address them all, and since I was a Scientologist for nine years, it is natural for me to direct my attention to it.

I have mentioned the term "demagoguery". Most dictators have one thing in common: they are superb orators, they are what as known as 'demagogues'. This is a word, if you are not clear on its meaning, I advise you to look up. Such demagoguery is the mediocrity of tyrants and megalomaniacs. Another tactic in the handbook for demagogues is to obliterate dissent by whatever means necessary, and to engage in a black PR campaign against such dissention, making false accusations, character assassinations, etc. There is a preponderance of evidence, incontrovertible evidence that Scientology is, and has always been active in this regard, and such acts were commanded by Hubbard himself.

The idea that because a person is critical of Scientology, that that person is a "suppressive", automatically, without question, simply because that is Hubbard's proclamation in policy, is not a merit worthy argument, since it cannot possibly be true in every case, if it is, indeed, true in any case.

This is a false doctrine.

Moreover, it is a "suppressive" doctrine because of the mathematical certainty that innocent persons will be persecuted. All inflexible doctrines, not subject to mediation or scrutiny, are "suppressive".

Here I will note that the correct word is not "suppressive", a coined Scientology term as they use it, but "oppressive" or "repressive", the terms which the world at large use in speech and the written word for these concepts. But for the simplicity of debate, I will continue with the familiar Scientology's "suppressive" to connote the intentional harm of individuals and populations.

It is true that a person or group (declared "suppressive") may request the Scientological legal equivalent of an appeal known as the "Committee Of Evidence". However, the individuals who hold such tribunals, I doubt sincerely, lack any of the sense of jurisprudence, any significant disciplined legal training, rules of evidence and so forth, by virtue of laymanship, as that which has evolved over centuries and taught in schools of law, and therefore the appellants and defendants in such tribunals are subject to the whims and fancies of unenlightened persons. "Kangaroo", is a word that comes to mind. Unless a Scientologist can get past that doctrine, i.e., that all critics are "suppressive", a democratic, engaging, constructive exchange, one that approaches the truth with a scientist's heart and mind, is impossible. Because Scientologists are bound by such a doctrine, it is rare that I am able to engage in such a positive, democratic exchange (it has yet to happen), though I hunger for such, thus I am left only to wander the halls of the ARS, and elsewhere.

I also have read treatises not favorable to Osho, whose poetic spiritual musings I admire the most. Do I swallow the contradictory information whole? Not in the slightest, but I would like a constructive exchange with those people as well. But Scientology took up nine years of my life, so it is natural that I am investigating it with more weight.

I realize that there are thousands of happy Scientologists. I also know that there are many times as many happy Christians and Buddhists than Scientologists. Therefore, that statistical criterion is unusable. But, also, because of that, I do not seek to disrupt the happiness that people attain to and achieve, though I believe it arises out of a belief system which requires indoctrination for its force. Happiness, whether it is a false one or not, in this day and age of misery, is not something I care to prevent. But there are serious issues surrounding Scientology, issues that I want to get to the bottom of in my own spiritual quest.

From the standpoint of real spiritual growth, indoctrination is a state of consciousness which is dangerous, because it occludes the objectivity of the seeker. It forces the seeker to think only inside the "box" of the religion, the mental architecture it affords, and the individual's ability to think objectively, the ability to express oneself in terms of self-initiated thought are severely diminished.

For example, a "Creationist" presumes the truth and only allows data in which supports the presumption, ignoring anything that doesn't.

A scientist, however, does not, and follows the truth wherever it leads. Indoctrination of a belief system is anathema to the scientific method. Christianity admits theirs is to believe, and it is therefore the proper the domain of faith, but Scientology claims that theirs is science, and therefore, the scientific method and scientific reasoning must be applied.

Scientology doctrine teaches that 'doubt' is a very low condition, a very low state of awareness.

It is impossible to progress spiritually, however, until one first reaches that state. No significant lift of human consciousness in history did not, at first, experience a doubtful state of mind. Witness the Renaissance, wherein whole societies, experiencing, en masse, doubt about the status quo of Christianity, origins of the universe, church influenced music and art, etc., began to move first from doubt to explore the virtue of humanistic thought, other philosophies, art, etc.

Doubt must precede, and is a prerequisite to, spiritual growth.

I therefore assert it to be another clever device which Hubbard installed to further remove the possibility of Scientology members from attempting to escape, i.e., the proclamation that to be in "doubt" is to move towards evil, and it is something to be punished. I believe history will reveal Hubbard to be among most cleverest of men to have ever lived.

Thus lesser souls, are easily towed back, for they are led to "cognite”, they were in "doubt" and "scripture" indicates this is a very bad thing, very naughty, indeed, and, to reinforce this concept, what is there left in the world which could possible replace it? Many who may want to leave Scientology are having trouble since they have nothing to replace it with. If not Scientology, then what? There is a void that aches to be filled.

To those Scientologists tiring of the oppressive conditions to which they have been subjected, I can only say, based on my own spiritual awakenings, the following:

There is a way to look at life outside of Scientology, a way which is fundamentally different, one that is not at war with the world, one that is, indeed, harmonious with nature, one that will allow you to think self-initiated thought without fear of retribution, one that sees life as an upward spiral, one that won't declare you a "suppressive" if you so much as utter a disparaging word, one that doesn't care what your productivity level is, one that won't tax or litigate your livelihood into oblivion if you so choose to think and act outside of the "box".

Some thoughts emanating from my own brand of spiritual awakenings:

Enlightenment is your ultimate destiny, and, indeed it is your natural heritage, and some day, this lifetime or the next, it will descend on you permanently, on that you can have faith. That it will happen it is the natural heritage for all living beings. It has nothing to do with the silly little games we play in our little lives. It really has nothing to do with religion or any -ologies or isms, or -etics.

There is an ancient proverb: In the forest, the flower blossoms by itself. No e-meters are needed, no Hubbards are needed, it is the flower's natural heritage. We started as seeds, we sprout and grow like seeds, and eventually, when the time is ripe, we will achieve spiritual fruition, and it will be permanent. Note that nature provides seeds with all that is necessary, within the seed, to achieve fruition by itself. Of course, fertile soil and nutrition is required, and the poor quality of such can limit, or poison growth, and therein lays the core of my philosophy. What, indeed, constitutes the best soil for spiritual growth? Only you, as "source" can derive the proper path. As soon as you surrender your will to another, attribute the status of "source" to another, you are treading on dangerous ground, spiritually.

Life is an upward spiral, not a downward one as Hubbard suggests.

The very fact that you are a human is proof of this.

Have you ever stood before the Grand Canyon and wondered how many billions of years must have passed in order for such vastness to evolve?

Human consciousness, in pure quantitative terms, is similar.

Compare the amount of consciousness in an ant: To an ant, a human is the Grand Canyon. To an amoeba, the ant is the Grand Canyon.

Nature does not allow Grand Canyons to appear in a single seventy-year period.

No, the very fact that you are at the human consciousness level means that it has taken billions of years for you reach that point, all of which has occurred without auditing or an e-meter. To state that once having arisen to our present state, the human level of consciousness, that we won't go beyond this without the Hubbard doctrine, is ludicrous.

Human consciousness can only have happened if life is, indeed, a gradual, but upward spiral. Therefore, your eventual enlightenment is inevitable, given the momentum which has propelled you to your present state that momentum held into continuum over billions of years. It means that Enlightenment, that fruition of spirit, that total freedom from the cycle of births and rebirths, that process which you have been repeating over time until such time the ultimate descends,. that Enlightenment, Nirvana, Samadhi, eternal bliss, or whatever term endears you the most, it will happen to you in spite of yourself. That is the beauty of nature. That this will happen is a concept which you may safely hold to your heart as an article of faith.

All living things contain spirit, or "theta" as the Scientologists would say (and I don't mind the term). In one sense, Hubbard is right in that you are comprised of billions of living souls. But they are cellular, you don't need to audit them out, and they most definitely do not come from outer space, or the Xenu Galactic Federation.

Hubbard states that the supreme test of a thetan is to make things go right.

That is also false.

You can build and cling to all of the castles in the sand that you want, but the tides of time will always smash them. The true spiritual goal is not "to make things go right" (in an effort to build sand castles, etc) but to let go, to quit clinging, feeding the ego. The clinging is what is preventing you from your enlightenment. The supreme test of a thetan is to let go. Because the final act a thetan must commit before enlightenment is possible is to let go completely and utterly, without hesitation, and if you fail on this count you will only come back to try again. I do suspect, however, that the average individual may have a hard time grasping this.

Looking at this from a different angle:

In Zen, (Buddhism, and meditation of all its various flavors) the goal is to unmock (using a Scientology term) the mind.

The mind is an essentially a cocoon for the soul (thetan, if you prefer).

It is only necessary up to a point in a soul's spiritual progress, and when the soul is ready to metamorph and sprout "wings", the cocoon of the mind must be shattered utterly. At the time that the soul, "thetan" if you prefer, senses the need to sprout "wings", that is the time the thetan begins to search for spiritual benediction, and will feel a need to meditate, not because of some dogma which advises it, but as the result of a natural stage in the thetan's spiritual development. If you don't feel a natural, compelling urge to meditate, you have not reached that point in your growth. This is not a condemnation of you, or anyone, and wherever one is, someone is always ahead, or behind, and that is the state of nature. But it is possible, by virtue of reading treatises as this, to be prodded into sensing the need to meditate. But it is inevitable, given infinity, that enlightenment will reach us all. It cannot be any other way.

Hubbard suggests that the proper goal is to clear the mind.

That would be dangerous, since the proper goal is to drop the mind in its entirety. Thus, a clear mind would be much harder to drop since it becomes crystallized and more elusive.

You cannot audit your way to enlightenment, by virtue of the fact that the only tool available in auditing are use of words, commands, etc. Achieving enlightenment can be likened to, in spiritual terms, to the scaling of Mt. Everest. In such a realm as this, words are impotent, and can only move you across a valley and barely to the foothill of such a lofty peak. The final path to it can only be traveled by oneself, at which point, the individual will have to abandon all precepts, assumptions, icons, books, -ologies, isms, etc.; abandon them wholly and utterly.

You may be able to achieve realizations about life which will help you cope with life via auditing, but that is all, and for many, that is plenty, even overwhelming since if one has not had a perceivable spiritual gain in a long while, one can be easily seduced by the doctrine of Scientology, and give in to the prodigious efforts of Hubbard, to the exclusion of all else. Fine for Scientologists and anyone so inclined, but for me it is not enough.

However, auditing can be hypnotic, in spite of Hubbard's contention against hypnosis. When you go deep into your mind, removed from present time, and surrender to the auditor's command and will in a state of reverie, that is (a form of) hypnosis, point blank. To surrender one's will to another in a trance, semi-consciousness state, or in a mere reverie, is hypnosis. Note I am not stating that hypnosis, performed by a skilled practitioner, cannot produce positive results. I relegate such to an art, not to a science, however.

There is considerable evidence that Hubbard was a master hypnotist, and hypnotized people in parlor environments, mostly for entertainment purposes, at sci-fi meetings in the forties, etc. His association with Jack Parsons, the famous rocket scientist who was a follower of Aleister Crowley, the noted practitioner of Black Magic and Satanism in the Forties and to whom Hubbard proclaimed "Aleister Crowley, my good friend" (I've got the RealAudio), and the testimonies of persons near him during those years, is evidence of Hubbard's work in parlor hypnotism, and Black Magic.

Contrary to the white-wash promo put out by Scientology that Hubbard was sent in to disrupt the Parsons group, which is a lie, and there is proof, which is further supported by Hubbard’s admission that the work of Crowley on medieval Black Magic is fascinating, Hubbard studied Crowley with intense respect and fascination, and referred to it in his 'Affirmations' diary (more on this later). The concept of a disembodied spirit which can affect cause over the material world is a basic tenet of Black Magic and is, as can rightfully be asserted, that this was the basis for Hubbard's postulation of OT (Operating Thetan). Hubbard was not original on many facets of Scientology, nor did he even invent the word. The book "Scientology: Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge" was first published in 1934 by the Publishing House "Ernst Reinhardt" in Munich, Germany: the author was Dr. A Nordenholz (English and German: ISBN 3-9804724-0-X, DM 24.80) .

I have in my possession a document which was unearthed from Scientology archives by Gerry Armstrong, who at the time, was commissioned to assemble the archives for a certain well known biographer, but who, after realizing the documents in the archive proved conclusively that Hubbard lied extensively about his past, left the church, and later, as the victim of black PR campaign and a huge lawsuit, won the suit and was paid $800,000 by the church.

The above referred to document was a written down treatise of self-commands, in Hubbard's pen, affirmations (ARSers call them "admissions") which were extremely revealing of Hubbard’s true intentions, his beliefs, his admissions of his Naval Career, his feelings about his then wife Sara Northrup (Jack Parsons ex-girlfriend), whom Hubbard lied to the camera during an TV broadcast (the realvideo of which is in my possession) that he was never married to her, "affirmations" which will reveal that Hubbard is not the benevolent philanthropist dedicated to selflessly saving the world, as Scientology would have you believe, affirmations so detailed, and so much in the typical Hubbard style, I don't see how anyone could doubt that they came from anywhere else (but, admittedly, they are revealing, but not all that damning, but revealing, yes, some contemptible qualities, yes, but good qualities, yes, but in any event, it is an extremely insightful fascinating read into the psyche of LRH, a document which I doubt could be faked by anyone, given the depth and complexity revealed in its inimitatible style, entirely congruous of the man), affirmations, "admissions", which are viewable in .pdf in the link below. (They begin on page 7, if you read the preface, just some paragraphs on the first page is all that is necessary, the rest is a ranting of Gerry Armstrong and is bit angry in tone that I don't feel is useful, imo, it is up to you. I therefore recommend skipping to page 7, where the Affirmations begin. Also, to note that in this document, is proof that Hubbard used these commands to hypnotize himself. I have nothing against self-hypnosis, I must add). He begins the treatise:

I must be told that.....

Then lists a number of fascinating items, revealing of what was of concern to a man, in the year of 1947, and at Item (w), he reveals:

...(w) That this hypnosis will not fade, but will increase in power as time advances.

The "Affirmations" or "admissions" (as the anti-cultists have relabeled), can be viewed here. This document, which I entreat you to read, is not complete, as the full treatise was never made available to publish, nor was it ever intended to be published or read by anyone other than Hubbard, it was a private treatise which Hubbard used for the self-hypnosis of self-affirmations. It does reveal, however, misogynistic and misanthropic tendencies, and delusions of grandeur. I have nothing against such an effort for self-affirmation by anyone. I offer this document as insight, which is hitherto unknown to many Scientologists, into the depths of Hubbard's soul, which is extremely important if you are to understand the complex motives which drive this most fascinating of characters of the twentieth century. http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Admissions.pdf

Scientology claims that auditing always works. There are many testimonies of individuals on whom such auditing did not work. Scientology always claims that such is the misapplication of "tech", or the PC (the person being audited, a "preclear") is a "suppressive", or a "potential trouble source". It is convenient for Scientologists to claim this to bolster their contention, but the truth is that works sometimes, and sometimes it does not. Surely, during the arduous trial an error process of recounting traumatic events, good will come about, but sometimes landmines will produce disaster. Blame the auditor, blame the pc, but never, never blame the tech. Hubbard's sacred "scriptures" are infallible. That is the Scientology line.

We can argue that point forever, but I don't support it simply because it does not ring true to my ears. Nor does it ring true to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Nothing on this earth is perfect, by Hubbard's own axiom, "absolutes are unobtainable" (not an original axiom, btw, comes from mathematics), and therefore "tech" cannot not be perfect. But to the degree to which the "tech" is not perfect, therein lies the debate. The "tech" which is claimed to be "exact science" has never been subjected to scientific community peer review. Thus in pure scientific terms, that only which has passed muster in the scrutinous environment of peer view, can lay claim to be valid "science". Note that peer review is not a bunch of scientists reading documents and rendering opinions. Peer review means unprejudiced and impartial attempts to recreate and/or sufficiently duplicate scientific results claimed to have been attained elsewhere, by invoking double blind studies and other sound methodology.

And therefore such claims that Dianetics and Scientology are "an exact science" have no more credibility than a common sales pitch.

The much-ballyhooed "OT" (Operating Thetan), i.e., to operate so as to affect "total cause over matter, energy, space and time", as such, is fiction, and only an egotist would want such a thing, or a practitioner of black magic. "Exteriorization" can occur to you, and the concept is in accordance with general eastern precepts, but be advised that you can achieve enlightenment only by being in the body, not out of it, that is my belief, anyway. That was the original definition which was offered to me as bait for my enlistment in Scientology. I was only fifteen, a little boy whose then consciousness was consumed with superheroes, and science fiction, I was a sitting duck for something like Scientology. It may be now that Scientology has sufficiently toned down their definition of "OT end phenomenon" in the realization that the original contention is impossible. But they originally claimed that one attained "total freedom" at the state of clear, which, of course, was later revised.

I prefer the "enlightenment as our destiny" model of eastern philosophy. It is in more of an accord with nature. The work of Lao-tzu, the author of the Tao, which is among the most moving spiritual writings I have ever read, as well as the many transcriptions of the talks given by Osho, whose lectures resonate deeply within my soul, and various other treatises which have guided me in my own spiritual quest, and to which, I owe the depths of gratitude, gave me the foundation upon which I achieved growth. There are many flowery spiritual books that do little for me, such as those by Mahareeshi, or Yogananda, etc. But the two adepts above offer true catharsis, catharsis which is woefully lacking in the vast majority of spiritual texts, in my opinion. They (the aforementioned texts) are not mired in spiritual hocus pocus, etc. I am much more demanding than that.

Additionally, I accept the enlightenment model for its congruity with the concept that we are on an upward spiral, and it is therefore a mathematical certainly we will move higher, for it cannot be any other way. Now then, is it possible to speed up the process? Yes, it is indeed, and that is the teaching of meditation.

In meditation, the thetan gains strength as the mind unmocks. Spiritually knotted areas of your being unravel and fall away like dead leaves from a tree. Permanently. And the beauty of it is, it is your natural heritage, it is free. Scientology will report that meditation will not produce permanent gains. It is convenient for Scientology to claim that, but it is false.

The whole of life is organic, and the realm of spirit is its highest extension, and it will therefore follow its natural processes. When an organism reaches fruition, it does so in the fits and starts and the erratic splurging forth manner of all organic material. Why should the ascent to the ultimate fruition of soul be any different? It is also organic, a part of nature, and will follow its precepts. In accordance with this, I believe, as I have experienced, initially, that Enlightenment will come at first, in fragile bits and pieces, in the fashion of an ebb tide tickling ones spiritual toes, "glimpses", then it will eventually rush in, like the tide. In this model, spirituality moves away from dogma and falls into place with nature, which makes, for me, the most sense.

Moreover, that a Scientologist must pay upwards of $60,000 to reach OT3, only to find out his "thetan" is a composite of millions of disembodied "thetans" exported to earth some 75,000,000 years ago by "Xenu, The Galactic Overlord", and that the only way from that point on to achieve higher ability and higher states of awareness is to remove, one by one, these "body thetans", all at a considerable additional cost (of course!), is fraud, and indeed, fraud on a massive scale.

The whole Xenu and body thetans hypothesis is so absurd that I sometimes wonder, given the fact that Hubbard, in spite of his humongous flaws, wasn't stupid, why Hubbard could possibly believe in such things, that these "upper levels" will have the slightest benefit to anyone. I have a theory about that. Okay, I know it is a bit far-fetched, and, perhaps, tongue-in-cheekish, but if you understand Hubbard, where he came from (read the "Bare-Faced Messiah") it isn't that improbable, especially in light of the contents of his private "Affirmations" which reveal the true colors of Hubbard.

The theory goes like this. Hubbard is a man who lusted for money and power. This was his true agenda. He was a parlor hypnotist. During his many lectures of fanciful deeds, none of which were true, or they were exaggerated to the point of untruth, he can only have observed that, by the force of his charisma, that many people believed him. He must have come to the realization, that people are, for the most part, gullible and stupid. He must have became a misanthrope, and no one was worthy of his friendship, thus he had no desire for such to allowed no one to get close to him. There is substantial testimony to support that assertion. Anyway, he creates a best- seller, written off the top of his head. Very clever work, offers some plausible theories and seems to be supported by research (though I don't believe there was any real research). He gets a best-seller for Dianetics, now he is on his way with Dianetics and later Scientology. Becomes famous, gets all of his dreams realized. But remember, he is not a philanthropist, he is actually very greedy, and does not, in fact, give a damn about your spiritual growth (proof: read the upper levels), so when he dies, why should he allow his kingdom of wealth and power pass to the hands of others? Why? Why of course he should not. The solution? Install in Scientology the mechanism of its self-destruction: Voila! The OT levels, Xenu, et al. When, and it would be only a matter of time (which is now, of course) that the public at large will find out about this preposterous stuff, the public will ultimately be handed the means to destroy Scientology. Scientology will become exposed for the fraud it is, and will ultimately crash. Now Hubbard won't have to worry about allowing others the fruit of his hard labour. Now is this a far-fetched thesis? Perhaps, but I find it an amusing possibility.

Another anecdote, I watched with amusement the 1992 realvideo of David Miscavige (the COB of Scientology) interview with Ted Koppel. The interview was preceded by a pre-taped introduction which was not favorable to Scientology, and which contained interviews with fairly disgruntled former members. Mr. Miscavige's rebuttal was that (this is a paraphrase) "for every disgruntled Scientologist you can produce, I can produce 100,000 that will give Scientology glowing accolades". The only thing which occurred in my mind when Miscavige offered this as a rebuttal was this: "Gee, every time I listen to an ex-Scientologist-turned-critic, and compare his testimony with that of a Scientologist, it almost always seems that the ex-Scientologist seems the more objective and intelligent of the two". Therefore I would reply to Miscavige that what he is, in essence, telling me, is that for every intelligent person Koppel can produce, Miscavige can produce 100,000 less intelligent people. Besides, numbers prove nothing. For every Scientologist on the earth, there are 100,000 Christians. Thus, by his logic, I should become a Christian!

Regarding the enlightenment model, I know this to be true (for me, at least) because my own spiritual epiphanies are these glimpses, I have seen through the keyhole of the glimpses something that is indescribable, that if you knew what it was, you would know that when it is experienced, life as you know it, becomes moot, and although it becomes moot, something glorious remains. Words cannot go there, and any description is to move in the opposite direction, as it is not located in space or time. Yet it does exist, just not in a way with which you are immediately familiar. I also know that it is the beginning of the final stage of a natural process that has been going on for billions of years, and it is to be expected, and such will happen to everyone, eventually. On that I have faith. But again, I admitted beforehand that my own spiritual musings might be just as bizarre as Scientology's. However, I won't charge you a fortune for it.

A note on faith:

Faith is necessary to cope with life. It is a much broader and poetic thing than belief. It is the deepest knowledge--knowingness of the highest kind that someday that ultimate spiritual benediction will come. Belief is not the same thing as faith, it is but a lower harmonic. Beliefs form the mental structures we project on the universe, the "icons" to which we cling, which we must abandon completely in order to reach enlightenment, but faith stays with us forever, giving us the strength to maintain our sanity along the arduous path.

Enough for now, Lilah, and remember, keeping the posture of a 'games condition' is a prerequisite. I am after the truth, so hurl unto me, as I have hurled unto to you, those fireballs, and not to worry, my own brand of spiritual pursuit has given me full command over my mental state, no word can permeate the calm which I can summons forth on demand, whenever I choose.

It is also important for you to read the documents for the links provide, and to read the "Bare- Faced Messiah". I realize you consider such as the work of "SP", but that is the dogma of Scientology who has so programmed you to think that way. You are an OT, you can handle the stuff, right? But if you assume that the contents of my references as "the same old lies by the enemy" you are wrong, so read the books, and documents, they will give you light on my assertions, and are not 'entheta' since they are written with far more objectivity and documentation than anything I have ever read by L. Ron Hubbard, and I have read virtually every book Hubbard has written on the subject. You know damn well I am not stupid. I don't suffer mediocrity well. All I ask is that you trust the sincerity of my request.

I therefore, in this treatise, afford you the role of devil's advocate, for it is not my intention to attack you. My goal is to invoke what I believe to be a valid process to synthesize truth. I give you the opportunity to refute everything which I have written in this document, so that you may convince me that I am wrong, for if I am, I sincerely want to be lead in the right direction.

If Scientology deems such an effort as "suppressive", then God help us all.

Sincerely,

Phineas Fogg Copyright © 2000

Glossary

OVERT: an antisocial act or any act which Scientology defines as a misdemeanor or crime.

AUDITING: The process by which a person confesses his personal thoughts and events, actions, etc, about his life to an "auditor" with the hopes of bettering that person, but the idea of "confessional" should not be confused with that which is afforded by Christian pastors. The purpose of auditing is not so much to confess (though they do use the "e-meter" as a security- checking device) as it is to locate incidents of distress which may be causing problems in the person's life.

THETAN: one's soul or spiritual essence which is immortal. "Theta" would be this in the collective.

OT: Acronym for "Operating Thetan". A person, in the body or out, who can impose his supreme will with impunity on matter, energy, space, and time, in perpetuity. This is a theoretical state. Not one person can come forward and claim this ability to that standard set forth in their own definition.

ENTHETA: Negativity, bad vibes, bad news, etc. PRECLEAR: The person being 'audited' who is not yet "Clear", which is a Scientology state of awareness achieved after auditing in which one no longer has the "reactive mind", which is that mind which is causing all of an individuals mental problems and hang-ups, or so the theory goes.

IN SESSION. A term applied to the 'auditing' session, which occurs when the parishioner is viewing an 'e-meter', asking the preclear questions, and the 'preclear' is being 'audited' in a private session.