The current scene of Scientology: What works and what doesn’t

Looking back at my two years of research into the current scene of Scientology (2007-2009), I’d like to summarize what was useful and what wasn’t. Everything is clearer in hindsight πŸ™‚

Firstly, there are two scenes – the internal scene, the daily situation of the scientologists in the church – and the external scene, the public view of Scientology.

The life of a dedicated scientologist is well documented around the net. It summarizes to increasing pressure as one goes up the Bridge (spiritual levels in Scientology) – pressure to donate ever more time and money. Non-compliance is met with various forms of sanctions and punishments, with the ultimate threat for disobedience being declared a suppressive person. Scientologists learn to adopt a certain attitude of dedication.

The PR machinery of the church is massaging it’s parishioners, rolling out the spectacular international events 6 times per year. Mesmerizing, if long drawn, speeches by the Pope of Scientology, David Miscavige flanked by state-of-the art 3D animations summarizing the latest in real estate acquisitions. Steadily increasing statistics are shown signaling an unprecedented growth of the religion, all while the factual scene shows signs of deflation.

Many scientologists know something is wrong. They suspect or know the statistics are fake. They silently object to the sometimes insane pressure. They pity the slave labor staff and they realize that the goal of a salvaged planet is not within reach for at least another millennium. But they hang in there. Mostly because they don’t want to jeopardize their own spiritual progress. Others because they push on in a very honest effort to help their fellow man despite being bullied by misguided staff wanting to squeeze even more hours and dollars out of their most dedicated.

Dedicated scientologist don’t see much of the external scene. They are trained to not look at any opposing or critical views. They bluntly dismiss such as “entheta” (opposite of good).

The external scene is run by the media. The reason is not that the media is inherently evil like many scientologists are trained to believe. It is because the media is populated with pumped-up, frantic truth seekers looking to push another sensational story out before a deadline. It’s business and an the Church of Scientology is skillfully paining a bullseye on it’s chest. Church spokesman Tommy Davis is lying with just enough straight face to fool the cool-aid drinking scientologists. But not the rest of the world.

The public at large despises Scientology. And the current church management has done much to achieve that. Because the Church tries it’s best to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology, the public image of Scientology as a subject is at par with the dreadful image of the church. Lack of differentiation means very few will ever get to experience the very helpful parts of the Scientology philosophy.

Despite the church touting it’s contributions to society through it’s PR-powered social betterment programs, it’s influence is negligible. Scientology is a fringe subject.

People’s attitude toward Scientology ranges from the die-hard fanatic scientologists to the seemingly dedicated staff to struggling Scientology public to the indifferent general public (by far the largest group), those with a vague negative impression, the critics, Anonymous and the fanatical critics.

Most, except for the fanatical scientologists, would agree that any and all abuses should be stopped – such as forced disconnection breaking up families, coerced abortions, extortion and slave labor. Some wants the demise of Scientology all together. A few wants to act as thought police, to burn the books and outlaw it’s practice. As insane as the latter sounds, they do in fact exist. And some want to practice Scientology in peace outside the iron grip of the church – these are known as FreeZoners or Independents.

Most would agree that free speech is important and welcome an open debate on Scientology, and that transparency is valuable. Discussions abound on how to wake up the kool-aid drinkers inside the church in order to stop the human rights abuses.

Having been a dedicated church scientologist (albeit somewhat of a rebel), I can at least offer a view on what worked in making me finally walk out the door. It could serve as an indication of what works in helping scientologists on the inside see the actual scene.

In this motley landscape, I will rate the efficiency of several elements that helped me (or not) make my decision – on a scale from -5 to +5. A score of -5 indicates it was contra-productive to my decision. A score of zero means it didn’t have any effect, while a +5 indicate it was very helpful. Here goes:

+6 Meeting David Miscavige
+5 Realizing that the ant hill innovation model should encompass Scientology
+5 Reading
+5 St. Petersburg Times’ “Truth Rundown
+4 Increasing pressure in the CoS to “toe the party line”
+4 Terril Park’s postings; “Wins from Scientology outside CoS”
+4 Getting to know about alternatives in the FreeZone
+4 Jeff Hawkin’s story
+4 Seeing fewer executives at international events
+4 Seeing that the statistics presented in the CoS is a lie
+4 Seeing forced disconnections in the CoS
+4 Reading about David Miscavige beating his staff
+4 Postings by Marc Headley (BFG)
+3 Seeing Tommy Davis refute forced disconnection
+3 Marty Rathbun’s blog
+3 Declarations of independence on the net
+3 Hearing about coerced abortions in the CoS
+3 The increased pressure for more time in the CoS
+3 The increased pressure for more money in the CoS
+3 Postings by ex-scientologists offering real information about the old days
+2 Reading that Dan Koon was out
+2 Reading that Marty Rathbun was out
+2 Reading that Mike Rinder was out
+2 Ex-Scientologist Message Board (ESMB)
+1 The original Anonymous announcement
+1 The first three Anonymous world-wide protests /Feb-April 2008)
0 The Golden Age of Tech (new releases in the practice of Scientology)
0 The Golden Age of Knowledge (new releases of Scientology material)
0 Anonymous after April 2008
0 Operation Clambake
-2 Operation Clambake Message Board (OCMB)
-3 WWP – the Anonymous forum
-4 Postings by die-hard critics like Zinjifar and Alanzo
-5 Uncertainty about doing Scientology outside of the church
-5 Wondering if the abuses can be handled most effectively from the inside
-5 Seeing that I help people with my seminars and personal coaching and wondering if I could do the same outside the church

One of many conclusions can be drawn; To make a scientologist in the CoS see the factual scene, one has to reach their reality level. Critics and Anonymous are seriously misguided in this area. They often make more damage than good with their cultish black-and-white judgmental attitude.

Please ask any questions about this by adding comments to this blog post. I have certainly forgotten important and less important elements, and I may extend the list as I get reminded of them.

158 thoughts on “The current scene of Scientology: What works and what doesn’t

  1. Hey Geir. I’m just putting together a posting on criticism using some of the primary scn axioms. Basically what should work is true facts or at least funded opinions because they should bring about as-is-ness. If criticism is reactive, which means higher amount of lies (not-is-ness) or misinterpretation (alter-is-ness), it just won’t destroy the target.

      1. All in all I think Alanzo took that very well. πŸ™‚

        I think he has a piercing mind, and his blog is very insightful. But his comments on the various boards may go “out gradient” for those still in.

          1. I feel that is unfair, incorrect and cruel to attack Alanzo that way Geir.

            To me, it feels like an insulting ad hom toward a person who really is trying to help people out of an abusive system.

            Do you SEE how much abuse he takes on that forum day in and day out?

            Why does he do it? Hmm? Maybe, just maybe it’s because he really cares.

          2. I think perhaps you are too rigid in your demand for logic. Great writers often create their own realities and use intelligence to question existing ones.

            Why I remember this Sci Fi writer once who…….

            1. There is a time for art and creativity. There is a time for logic. Diatribe and bs in debates, not so much.

          3. Geir’s got the best of it here.

            Al’s a nice armadillo and all, but argumentum pro rationem is not his forte. Empassioned rhetoric bordering on sincerely felt diatribe, yes. Reason, not so much. Although, he HAS improved greatly over the years and he does raise many very VALID ISSUES in his rants.

          4. BTW Geir, what is the significance of the angry apple that appears alongside of my comments? Is this your subtly norwegian way of discrediting in advance my postings about your blog as the ravings of some “mad fruit” who is “half-juiced”, gone to seed, and deserving of being pulped?

            Am I to be regarded as indicative of the “malum malum” of the freezone? 😦

            I see you let kevin have one of those poisonous spiders for which “downunda” is notorious. And that you reserved “Cecil the Sea Sick Sea Serpent” for your own use.

            1. The autogenerated monsters are not angry, they are feigning it. Treat them as you body guards.

    1. A fanatical critic will hit a Scientologist on the head, while the die-hard critic is getting hit on the head by Scientologists and still holds up his sign.

      Just kidding πŸ˜€

    2. Yes, Alanzo has made some good points in some of his posts. But to my taste, most of his posts are extremely condescending, and that along with blatant generalizations delivered in a bombastic and degrading tone had the effect of making me seriously consider that the C of S extreme use of disconnection and SP declares might be warranted after all. Weirdly, I found myself defending the C of S simply because I couldn’t stand the extremist spin he prefers in many of his posts! And I was already out!

      So it had a reverse effect on me, just as it did on Geir!

      To Alanzo: you make some excellent points, but using extreme generalities such as “scientology is a toxic wastepool” is simply not effective and more likely to cause a would-be ex Scn to be convinced that the C of S is right in its various crusades.

      The ex Scn forum and WWP forums pretty much had the same effect on me. A reverse effect. And what research I was able to do on various online “exposes” on LRH came down to a very few individuals who were busy building up court cases.

      What was very effective was seeing people that I know, trust and admire exposing the truth as they saw it in an even-handed manner, and in ways that I could personally confirm or verify.

      1. Yes, personal verifications trumps just about anything. I should add my personal meeting and verification with 4 ex-Int Base staff as a +5 on my list. But first I will gather a few more responses and then make a bulk edit/addition.

      2. I would like to mention though that especially WWP is not meant as a “tool” or even a starting point for soon to be ex-churchies. It’s just a place where a bunch of Anons communicate and the way they do that can be very alienating to Joe Public anyway.

        WWP derived from a place called, that alone should be telling. And Anon signs usually point out as a way to inform oneself because we are quite aware that our own wastepool of fail doesn’t look too good to a churchie (or any person with taste and decency πŸ˜€ ).

        1. And neither is meeting DM meant as a starting point for people to reconsider their engagement… πŸ˜‰

      3. Hi Maria –

        I said that Scientology was a “toxic pool of spiritual deception”, not a “toxic wastepool”.

        I stand by my statement.

        Does that make me a “die-hard” critic or a “fanatical” one? :>


  2. Hi Geir,
    I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the early publications of policy and the “tech” of Scientology had notations on them with initials that, if read correctly, showed others the actual source of the policy or bulletin. The majority were, of course, signed by Hubbard but written by others. For example, commonly the bulletins showed LRH:DM:msh or similar, showing that David Mayo actually wrote the bulletin, which went to Mary Sue.
    There is an old thread on ESMB from a witness who saw truckloads of original documents and such taken from Bridge Publications and destroyed at the time that Mary Sue and the infamous other Scn 8 (or was it 9?) were arrested for infiltrating the federal government in order to destroy docs on Scn.
    The destroyed documents included a massive amount of original mgmt materials by L Ron, including specific orders and such. Most was not even vaguely related to “Snow White” (as the infiltration was called by the old Guardian’s Office), but various documents that proved L Ron was still receiving monies and giving orders.
    If anyone has original bulletins with the initials, etc. then it may be easier to sort out this mess, but meanwhile, it is best to understand that to a great degree, Scns were used as “guinea pigs” for unverified research and much of it was harmful, as well as used as pawns and slaves to make money for those at the top.

  3. Thank you, Geir. I can most always take something useful from your writings. A learning, a shared point of view, a new perspective, or sometimes just enjoyment.

  4. Excellent entry, G. Although I think it is equally important to wake up the “kool-aid drinkers” OUTSIDE the church as well as those on the inside to whom you refer.

    Too many seem to think that a surgical replacement of the current top leadership is sufficient to bring about an “acceptable” level of reform of the Co$. Unfortunately most of the “rot” within the church and SO is completely institutional. It has been present from the onset of scientology and the creation of the SO, respectively.

    The subject of scientology is a valid one but a willingness to examine ALL aspects of the church’s abusive history & the reasons therefore is necessary to effect meaningful reform. And yes, that does include chucking traditional attitudes about LRH and his role as “Founder & Source”.

    John 8:32

  5. “Critics and Anonymous are seriously misguided in this area. They often make more damage than good with their cultish black-and-white judgmental attitude.:
    EXACTLY RIGHT GEIR. However, please note the media is in fact controlled and by about 5 corporations in America. The mass media is used to socially engineer the masses using psych techniques – to keep the masses dumbed down. Exactly the same way the school are set up. (I know, I trained on it)

    1. You know, I suspect that Scientology were made up from the beginning to become the tool for mind control. And I think that expression is just the tip of the iceberg.

        1. Yes, I’ve had gains. From reading and from processing as well. That does not mean that you can’t have much losses or that it was not set up in the first place as a tool for mind control (research). Good cop, bad cop. In order to get many people into the experiment you have to offer something valuable first. This is just an idea. Thinking loudly. I am not fixated on this. But LRH was a government man from the times when similar experiments were set up and as far as I know he was also institutionalized. So first of all he was not even fit to his own made qualifications to become a Sea Org member.
          If you look at Scientology from the viewpoint of a totalitarian state than it is perfectly fine to make an experiment like this and later turn it into a workable system of mind control. Maybe LRH was not aware of this a bit. Just a thought.
          If you look at the movie Inception, I find many similarities how the ideas of Scientology are implanted into the minds of people and regardless of the scriptures they are just programmed. A (many) thought were implanted into their minds and they became unable to think for themselves, no matter that in the beginning that was the original concept. So what is it if not mind control?
          Did Hubbard came out with this all alone or there were some masterminds behind him?

          1. Please provide evidence that he was institutionalized.

            I find your speculation not credible in the face of the large amounts of gains I have had all the way up the bridge. There were never a “switch” after any “bait”. I am talking about the red-on-white here, and not the organization or the green-on-white.

          2. Mind control? Mind is a program itself, and a program is controlled by the way it is structured. Anything structured, is therefore, controlled. There is your structured physical universe.

            The more structured you get the more you are controlled. The less structured you are, the less controlled you are. Nobody is controlling anybody, because any identity itself is a thought package.

          3. Geir, maybe I am wrong and he was not institutionalized. Providing evidence for anything is quite tricky, isn’t it? I mean providing really valid evidence. Unless the evidence is not so common that you and me or a large number of people can have acces to that for example a book. Existence of that book could be easily verified. If I refer to a statement in a news article made by a journalist or even by a medical doctor that is not an evidence for example. The evidence is about only that it was written but not about the truth of the statement.
            LRH is not only the red on white but the green and blue or whatever it is, like blue on white or Flag Orders or anything he issued or uttered. Good cop is red on white. Bad cop is green on white. If that (GoW) invalidates tech (RoW) than it is suppressive and the whole system turns into a suppressive system. You brightly made your way out of the cage. But I know other OT VIIIs personally who are slaves right now.
            LRH was a high ranking officer in the navy and he worked for intelligence agency at least it was stated (I’ve found it on the net) that he was an agent and infiltrated successfully into Aleister Crowley’s “religious order” OTO.
            There is a statement on Lermanet: “Mrs. Sara Northrup Hubbard, 25, said “competent medical advisers” had examined her 40-year-old husband and concluded he was “hopelessly insane” and should be placed in a private sanitarium for “psychiatric observation.” She said doctors told her her husband was suffering from a mental ailment “known as paranoid schizophrenia.”
            This does not mean the examination happened or if happened this conclusion was drawed or if he was institutionalized which is not even stated here.
            And we know from Book One that he examinde psychiatric patients. So he was familiar with psychiatry otherwise I can’ imagine he could get near the division or try to cure patients.
            But if all above is not a proof, please consider this: as an intelligent agent it is almost sure that he went through some kind of psychological or psychiatrical training. Some sort of. Look, this is 99 percent sure. If not, please give an evidence…

            1. Psychological training; He mentions his study of Freud via Thomson (spelling?).
              Institutionalized: No evidence can be found as I can see. Conclusion: He was not.
              As for personal characteristics: Many former spouses have been psychiatrically characterized by (professional) friends of the disgruntled. Dramatic hearsay is dramatic. One can probably find professionals characterizing most any US president with some kind of disorder in order to discredit them in office.

          4. vinaire, you want to say that the inputs have no effect on the working of a program? Go on!
            Philosophy is fine if it works in the real world. But do not tell me that nothing has any effect of whatsoever on anything. Philosophically that can be a kind of a model, but I can say as well that this is not true on the plane where we live our lives right now.
            If I do not state what I’ve stated above you do not write here stating that any identity is a thought package. So probably that statement of mine had at least… some effect on you.

          5. Geir, OK. He was not institutionalized. I’ve made a mistake.
            However it is general practice that members of the intelligence community get psychological evaluation and examination to be selected in the first place, later training and conditioning.
            Realizing these facts also made my decision to end my involvement in Scientology.
            You were fortunate to make it up to OT VIII. Others were not so fortunate. Many got mentally or physically ill on OT levels or even below.
            The Bridge does not mean spiritual freedom for everyone but we have a Church here and despite the superior technology (of handling Suppression) it is the very tool of suppression of spiritual freedom right now. No higher OT levels, donations took the place of processing, people are in debts or overspended on Scientology, allegations of human rights abuses. Right now these are the stable heritage of the Tech.
            Do you think it will ever be organized and sorted out after the Church has gone? I am not so optimistic. One thing is sure, I will never get back into session, cause I see the faults even in the application of auditing and second I’ve also learned there is no certainty who you can trust with your case.
            And besides all of this I can tell that you got to OT VIII and you’ve had enormous wins, so maybe Miscavage is not the problem. You were not stopped by him to get to the present top of the Bridge and come into great shape.

            1. There were attempts to stop me on my journey up the Bridge. I am a persistent bastard. I am very glad I persisted.

          6. Geir, it is good that you’ve persisted. It is good that you have wins and that you arrived to where you are right now. I know that you are a great being. And it is wonderful that you’ve achieved to get here.
            But how many were not getting anywhere? How many went crazy? In the vicinity of Hubbard like Captain Bill Robertson and some others I do not name here?
            My case: I was stopped before Clear but right now I do not mind at all. That opened my eyes and I see loads of inconsistency in the “scripts”.
            I wonder how is it possible to go OT at all.
            Scientology is a model for Clearing and there are other models maybe more developed. I’ve experienced more clarity when it comes to “Clearing” with some other models.
            The fact that LRH wanted to close the door on other (workable) models makes me suspicious. He also gave false definitions or warnings of Yoga and nirvana and said that no other “technology of the mind” or way out of the trap exists. But did he get out of the trap? Are there higher OT levels than OT VIII? Do you as an OT VIII really know what the mind is?
            Yes, Scientology in many aspects wonderful. But after Scientology I would not trust any “new” ways without lineage or tradition. Someone comes and says he is the prophet but he has not any reference at all πŸ™‚ When I look at Eastern traditions I see more realization even in those schools I would not follow. I’ve found my way and I’ve had more wins than I’ve ever had in Scientology.
            What I feel sorry for that the subject was hijacked. That there is actually a monopoly were set up on the subject of Scientology and an authority which is suppressive and dangerous.
            And there is the paradox that it was set up like this in the first place by non other than L. Ron Hubbard.

  6. A very good sum up. For me the list makes it a bit complicated πŸ™‚
    For example:
    Hearing about coerced abortions in the CoS
    Giving only +3 for that??? πŸ™‚ I think coerced abortions are outrageous!

    I think there are some other really certain points:
    1.) Vanishing reference in the Church for Saint Hill size orgs and LRH almost never mentions “ideal orgs”. I know one instance where he refers to functioning, not to a building structure.
    2.) The original reference to Superpower which should be out already since decades and not in a special building with the latest NASA technology which was surely not available at the time of the writing of the original reference!
    3.) Publishing the Basics with a brand new Dianetics book suggesting that LRH was heavily promoting that squirrel edition and that he was overlooking the fact that his book was a squirrel edition and despite this it / it was said it worked.

    1. Good points – I will add a few items in a day or two.

      Regarding hearing about coerced abortions, it ranks lower than my personal experiences or verified accounts (I did not have verification of these before I walked out the door).

      1. I thought about verification as a reason for lower ranking.

        Verification is lacking many times. If personal verification is not possible, I usually count the creditability of the source and information from other sources. But it can be quite a task especially if there are not enough sources to compare.

        1. Yes. And so the list is what personally influenced me – not what should have influenced me or what might have given certain other conditions. It’s a pure hindsight view.

  7. + 4 I was sent a copy of a program issued to “OT Ambassadors” which contained direct orders to any OT wishing to continue auditing on OT sections. These were requirements to continue auditing. In particular a) Mandatory posting as an OT Ambassador b) orders to send 2 public to Flag for auditing every six month and c) required participation in buildings fundraising and booksales campaigns. These were in addition to six months security checks. The program included a statement to the effect that everyone was on the org board (and therefore under direct orders from the Church) including mandatory events, briefings and interviews. This program was signed WDC – no name affixed.

    +3 Continuous phone calls from staff members from multiple organizations demanding book purchases, events attendance, donations, and other mandatory attendances, escalating over a six month period to 15 to 40 phone calls a day and culminating in a visit to my home late at night from CLO WUS executives to “handle me.” Note: that was the first and last visit and after that I changed my phone number.

    +9 Personally observing several utterly crazy “ethics handlings” on other people, including one where the staff made charges to an individual’s credit card without her knowledge and/or permission to “help” her make “amends” and seeing her fear of the staff (Sea Org) manifested as fear of consequences if she took them to task for doing it.

  8. Let’s say you were a teacher at a school where it was your job to tell 2nd and 3rd graders that Santa Claus did not exist.

    Every year, dozens of schoolchildren were going to get their hopes and dreams shattered by the factual information it was your job to convey. And they all had different responses to you, based mostly on their own internal trauma of having the sparkly tinfoil taken down out of their lives.

    Would you have the patience to, year after year, say “Yes, Santa was a great man. And it is clear that Blixin was probably a traitor to the whole cause of Christmas, but today I’d like to discuss physical logistics of delivering 3 billion packages overnight via a flying sleigh. On chart No. 1 we see the dimensions of the average chimney…”

    “Yes, Jimmy. What is it?”

    “Your chart is off! You say that chimneys are only 15 inches in circumference! My cousin Billy had a HUGE chimney!! You and your generalizations!!! Your black and white thinking!! There are huge smokestacks on some corporations where 3 fatass Santas can fit into!!!”

    “Thank you , Jimmy. But I was talking about the average chimney found in most domestic structures…”

    “Yes, Patty.”


    This happened year after year.

    At some point, wouldn’t you just drop the bullshit and say whatever you had to say to get your job done, and let them deal with it any way they want?

    You would hope by 4rth grade, the majority of the kids would have dealt with their personal disappointments and moved on. But there would always be a few 6th grade dead-enders, who would come back every year to tell you how much of a liar you were, how stupid and ineffective your powerpoints are, and how you did it wrong.

    That’s okay. By 7th grade, girls will start to sprout boobs and they will have a whole ‘nother layer of lies and disappointments to contend with.

  9. I can’t say the number these just added up:

    But No. 1: Scientology’s Human Rights Campaign pretending to be a Pro Human Rights Organization while in fact being the opposite. And in the meantime Scientologists paranoidly thinking that they are Pro Human Rights. All would be needed to read and WORDCLEAR (although I do not know what misunderstood word could be in the document) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Witnessing the ethics officer of the org with zero life-experiences (except living as a staff member) and collapsed 2D although FULLY HATED trying to handle the public including parents on 2D matters.

    BASICS coming out. Subliminal message: LRH was stupid by not recognizing that Book One was a squirrel, overt product edition and heavily promoting that as basic dissemination tool.

    Heavy inconsistences in Scientology which lead me to the conclusion that the good side of this “Applied Religious Philosophy” must be some PR matter regardless it’s usefullness or truth in it.

    Heavy inconsistences in the application of Scientology or whatsoever in the Church like the time gap with Superpower. The abolition of the idea of Saint Hil size orgs. The non-traceable Ideal Org program. The Bridge to nowhere.

    Focusing on heavy selling (in bad sequence – as the Basics should have been the most important material in sequence – rather useless materials like the Congresses) and found regging instead of the delivery of the tech. Packages in space consuming form instead of being fully digital or downloadable.

    People highly trained and processed showing really bad human qualities.
    Besides even those with basically good qualities not recognizing and not leaving the Church and becoming the subject of brain-washing.

    Non servicing paid intensives attempting handling cases with “Ethics”.

    Church does not tolerate thinking/using your mind only unquiering obedience.

    Poorly paid and inhumanly handled staff (and not even one full day holiday in two weks for SO members). Consequence: generally poor souls going to join staff. And so the basic reason of the blind leading the blind.

    Human sacrifice just to show that tech is Uber Alles.

    Robots, robots, robots.

    And there are many more.

  10. There is one group that is missing from your list viewing Scientology:

    “Liberal minded people that think any religion can be helpful when viewed as mythology.”

  11. Thanks for posting it . “Most, except for the fanatical scientologists, would agree that any and all abuses should be stopped – such as forced disconnection breaking up families, coerced abortions, extortion and slave labor.” That’s true. I was re-reading the code of scientologist the other day and realized that all scns see outpointsbut some of them don’t do anything about it because a) they are chickens b) they have their own agenda c) some of them just pretendthey are on DM’s side and they do it for the greatest good

    1. In my opinion the sad thing is that none of the abuses can be explained by red on white but all of the abuses can be explained by green on white.

  12. Well, I felt compelled to comment, but what is there to say from me? All I wanted to say has already been said by others πŸ˜‰

    1. This is what I want to know as well. It is an important question and answer. Maybe we will never know. This is why I am moving on, for good. I want to create away from Scientology as the poison taste in my mouth, no matter who helpful it has been, leaves me stuck to negativity I no longer want in my life.

    2. I believe that all the power comes from the desire of people to improve. That desire is simply being exploited by the system set up under the aegis of the Church of Scientology. There is plenty of desire to improve out there, and as long as the Church appears to be convincing, it draws its power from that desire.

      There is no powerful “entity” behind the Church. There are only weak exploiters who are exploiting the hope that Scientology seems to offer. There have been other religions before Scientology who have exploited the desire to improve out there. Maybe Scientology simply offers a more attractive model.


  13. Hello Geir,
    First time here, thanks for putting this blog out there!
    On your list above, personal opinion, but I think you give Mike & Marty too little credit. When I saw Marty (Mark Rathbun, former I.G. Ethics!!!) …being a huge fan of ethics tech, that really indicated to me. When the “big cheese” in charge of ethics leaves? You’d think more people would be scratching their heads!

    I was already out, so that may have been a factor for me and why it inicated for me. Those still in will just think, declared? Huh! and then just drop it.

    I don’t know everything, by a long shot. And honestly, I can argue your side very well on why their ranking would be less than other items on the list. I think the key, really, is to get as much TRUTH out as possible, on many different levels. Like the org board, some people are more interested in Div 6 than 4. Or geared more for Div 1 than 7. We need to communicate an R Factor to all divisions, departments, gradients, levels of knowingness, etc. and then the truth will seep in and get to those still on-lines.

    Anyhow, really not knocking you. Just sharing what I saw and felt and related to. Keep up the good work! I look forward to coming back here and reading more.

    All the best,

    1. Well, it’s not about giving credit or rank here, it’s purely what influenced me in my decision to leave. Others will have different elements and different points to each. What was yours?

  14. One more thing, Geir. Please explain to me, because maybe I’ve got it wrong, but 8 dynamics is basically a model. (In some way it is a strange model I name some examples below, but looks very logical especially if you used to it. Putting anything above the 8 dynamics as Ron said Ethics as 10th D for example is weird, partially because you can’t know anything above the 8th dynamic with this human consciousness. On the other side ethics is a totally different item. If you can put ethics as the 10th dynamic I am sure you can invent other dynamics like Aerodynamics for example I am sure is before the 7th…) But how can be someone “Clear” on the “first dynamic” if this dynamic thing is only a model? Dianetics and Scientology are theories concerning life. Life is not a theory. The mind is not a theory. Going up the OT levels one will become Clear on the second dynamic, than on the third, etc…? Does not sound real. OT VIII is the first OT level, so an OT8 should be Clear on all eight dynamics. So an OT8 should be a kind of God. Maybe a baby god, but at least if he can’t act yet like a God, he certainly should see through his eyes or senses as a God. ::::: How it is in practice? :::::
    Clear is Clear in my viewpoint in all dynamics he is concerned if we speak of models. If I would be Clear let’s say on the 5th Dynamic it would mean for me to be all the animals or no problem in next life in case rebirth as an animal. But I certainly can’t have a rebirth on the 4th dynamic, so what usefullnes there is for me or the 4th dynamic if I am Clear on the 4th dynamic? And what about other 4th dynamics outside the solar system? What if we have an interchange of communication and physical contacts with them? What dynamic would that be? Where would they fit into the 8 dynamic system? And look at the 7th dynamic. It is defined as spirits but also as art or creativity (earlier) but art or creativity has nothing to do with spirits (we know from the new version of Scientology that creativity is the 2nd dynamic… I can solve a problem for example on the 5th dynamic but basically it i a second dynamic thing it is tought recently, doesn’t?). Than 4th dynamic is rather a kind of a 3rd dynamic. So we have only 7 dynamics. Children is said to be to be part of the second dynamic. but it is again rather a group, but OK, let’s say it is a special group and call it second but than 2nd dynamic should be the whole family not just my child but all the interconnected family including grandpa and aunt Eva or Uncle Johnny, you see.

    I want to say with this that the 8 dynamics are only a theoritical model, so you can be Clear on these dynamics only theoretically not practically in my opinion. But I know it is not a nothing to get to OT8, and I know some very good people being OT8 but not all of those OTs are really good… so I am very curious now what is this state about πŸ™‚

    When I look at the traditional religions based on gnostic experiences like Zen Vajrayana Buddhism or even some Catholic figures (those with experiences) we can see that a kind of “realization” exists regardless of the “belief system” or practices. There are famous priests who died with complete awareness knowing exactly the moment of their ending of this life or people who realised the “rainbow body” who made their body vanish at the moment of death. Are there such high levels of control and realisation on OT8? Because a promise is made for that… And because I would say, that is knowledge, that is freedom over “MEST”. But those people have totally different view of life. They are usually humble and kind for the extreme. Not playing tone-scale and getting-ethics-in-games… which usually lead only to antagonism anyway. And they are certainly not enforcing abortions.

    Finally I offer to all of you a very enlightening essay:
    Is Buddhism a Religion?

    1. A big post – and my answer will probably not be at par.

      1. Yes, the dynamics are a model
      2. I find it difficult to see anything beyond the 8th as the would per my understanding be unknowable as pure potential.
      3. Maybe the mind is a model, too
      4. Maybe Clear is a model
      5. On OT 8, one is not Clear on all dynamics. I have heard this before and I do not know where it comes from.

      1. It is just from memory that LRH said in order to become OT one must be clear on all dynamics (maybe he said “full OT”?). And he also stated that OT VIII is the first real OT level. I would suppose that the first OT level would need to fit into that definition. You become Clear on 1 to 8 as an OT, so now you can begin to exercise in order to correctly and really effectively contribute to those dynamics. Like begin to create a planet or clean the environment/pollution on this one to make it livable for the future or to create a universe for souls for higher teachings or to bring them introduce them there if there are one or more already in existence, whatever.

        1. What I am sure of is that I know no OT VIII who would satisfy a definition of “clear on all 8 dynamics”. Actually I know of no OT VIII who would satisfy the original Book 1 Clear definition.

          1. Very interesting,

            I had the same thoughts some days ago and wrote about it, but I pushed the wrong button and my post was gone.
            In 1951-52 Lrh was experimenting with the GE and cells (original definition of engram= a postulated biochemical change (presumably in neural tissue) that represents a memory).
            He found out that the best thing is to only audit the theta being and rid him of his engrams.
            It was only in 1965 that he was sure to be able to produce a real Clear with the clearing course.
            But then came the so called OT-Levels, OT2 and 3 and were still a handling of engrams.
            In 1978 he found out there are still lots of engrams to handle on new OT4,5 and 7.
            So an OT 7 is a being that isn’t anymore under influence of any engrams in his body, track or mind. Per my understanding it would be the Clear postulated in book 1.
            As LRH says only then the real OT-Levels start. So, if my assumptions are correct it would be more honest to say as it is:
            Dianetics evolved in 30 years and it was found out that it takes much longer to get rid of all the engrams and call the whole path up to OT7 “Dianetics Auditing” excluding the grades that are preparatory auditing (Scientology) to be able to run engrams without big problems.
            And sometimes on that path OT phenoma can occur in abundance, but the OT-Levels start only after OT7.
            If one looks at it above way then lots of discussions about Ot-Levels, neurotic, funny or outethics OTs would be gone, as everybody would understand that a person that still has engrams is sometimes aberrated and only when fully done with Dianetics it should all be gone !!!!!!!!!!
            This would make the bridge very simple and very easy to understand for any person.

            And, if you want to be clear on all dynamics you have probably to run out all engrams in this universe ! πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚


            PS: Had a win on formulating that thought in short writing.

          2. My guru told that samsara is infinite. It makes sense, after all this is a dream. So while you are in this dream, there is no end to the dream. Unless you recognize that you are in a dream. But if we deal with engrams, how can we get to the end of the infinite engrams? Unless there is no recognition in between, there is no way out of the dream.
            Although I would say auditing greatly helps to get out of the trap, I am not certain that Scientology in itself is enough to accomplish that.
            Superpower is not out yet. What if it is not out because it turned out to be unworkable in the first place? What if there are no other steps on the Bridge after OT VIII or are similarly unworkable?
            (Maybe Superpower and other OT steps are working great and there are other reasons they are not out, it is just a theoretical question.)
            Geir, do you have stable data about these?

            1. To my knowledge, there is no releasable OT IX or X, let alone XI+ I don’t think they will be released as LRH intended ever – but that does not mean there will not be something marketed as OT IX, X, etc.

              As for SuperPower (SP for short?), there are parts of that that could be released, maybe the whole thing. But as usual, I believe the hype and over-marketing will set people up for a loss. The problem in the release of the SP is recruitment and training of staff – especially the way the CoS is running itself into the ditch these days.

          3. But do you actually think/believe/know that LRH researched the Bridge up to OT XV or if there are actual workable levels by LRH of at least IX and X? Or that SP was actually “researched” and put together as a workable rundown?
            I personally belive that in case LRH did in case researched the Bridge together with the SP and these are so important, workable, etc… than he should come back and handle the situation himself.

            1. I am pretty sure what OT IX and X should be. It’s pretty obvious after doing OT VIII.

              As for SP, there is at least one reader of this blog that has intimate details of this. From this I would conclude that SP is real. But previously indicated – it would be over-hyped to the extreme.

          4. After all there is probably not so much hocus pocus needs to reach “total freedom” spiritually (OTXV) but Scientology is a path which calls for much auditing and much study. I do not think that is so necessary. It is much too complicated that way IMO.
            As far as I know not much after LRH announced OT VIII he left his body. Do you think he made seven more OT levels in that short period of time?
            Maybe these are really short rundowns…
            But what I know about the circumstances how he left his body and what is the present state of the Church I do not expect much of these levels. Please, tell me if I am wrong.

            1. Just like there was an original OT 1 that changed during his later years, there was the OT 8 that also changed. My take is that OT 9 & 10 was in most parts researched earlier. Only those levels exist only as work sheets and according to Marty, Ray Mithoff doesn’t know how to compile them for delivery. It seems undeliverable. On the other hand, I believe the KHTK would deliver all the way…

          5. Thanks. I will check the KHTK more deeply.
            But for someone who is not even a Clear… πŸ™‚

            1. …then KHTK should take you where you want. However, the speed is not tested, and so it may take you less time to get hold of a standard auditor and simply do the Bridge as far as you can, and then use KHTK to go further. I would recommend this approach.

          6. I can’t get hold of a standard auditor unfortunatelly.

            1.) The Church would declare me after the first session per my comments here and elsewhere πŸ™‚
            (and yet, I am not out to communicate to the press which may will inevitably follow)
            or I would be subjected to such ethics handling that I would not do. (Anyway, ethics is a really week point in Scientology.)
            2.) No independent, reliable auditor in reach.
            But I have other methods right now, which I trust.

            This suppressive Church and all those who back it create bad karma for themselves.

            Anyway, the method I follow now is better at least in that aspect that you can practice it 24 hours a day πŸ™‚ besides you are not restricted to try other methods. Adding to this that I’ve had biggest “wins” that I’ve had earlier in Scientology ever it is not that bad πŸ™‚

          7. Sorry. Correctly:
            “besides you are not restricted not to try other methods”

      2. “if you want to be clear on all dynamics you have probably to run out all engrams in this universe”

        LO: Exactly. Good recognition. πŸ™‚ But at the end the Universe would vaporize… πŸ˜€

          1. I’ve had the same thought yesterday evening but I think this should be true (the version you’ve just mentioned) for a CleaREAL(TM) πŸ™‚
            Because he runned out all the engrams he have including engrams connected with all his body and possessions, all his previous wives, husbands, harem, whatever, all his previous groups, species, planets he lived on or exploded, deities, fairies, etc and god or gods. So… Universe vanished for him. His universe. He is a CleaREAL(TM).
            But if he runs out all the engrams in The Universe than he runs out all the engrams including uncle Sam’s engrams. Now, as he begun to run out other engrams, first the problems in The Universe begun to vanish than as he closes in on the 5th dynamic engrams of The (our) Universe, MEST becomes vaporise and trapped attention units and beings and every kind of earlier debris from that MEST begun to evolve which of course will need some more handling, but at the end all this will be vaporized. That being consciousness or whatever would be called “OT on the n-th” πŸ™‚ and the symbol for this would be a horizontal 8, with a letter O in the left field and with a letter T in the right one.
            There are some really fine jokes not easy to notice hidden in the above text. But otherwise my description is all right. We can use other symbols. The plan for saving The Universe is above.
            We should market a special food C(l)e(a)REAL(TM) for enhancing the abilities of the PreCleaREALs(TM), thus making financially established the enterprise/empire.
            Now, when a CR is “in position”, I mean he became the Core of All. The Source. Than he is the original mind so has access to everything and anything. But now with his abilities multiplied he would be Source on the nth. From that position he can begin to run out all the others’ engrams. That is The Plan.
            (Now jokes symbolize the possible mistakes in the plan.)

            1. I am starting to think that everything is on a gradient scale (clearing included) and that there is no half-way points that are absolutes. And it doesn’t really matter if unconscious creations are from engrams or once fully self-determined not-known conditions (as those are prerequisites for any game) – they are still unconscious. Anything persisting would have to be created unconsciously (or it would as-is) – therefore anything you can perceive (and thus you are effect of) is below your level of consciousness to some degree.

    2. Thanks for the excellent link to the article about Buddhism!

      I pulled the final paragraph from the article, as it so nicely sums up how I think about Scientology and the various works about religion and spirituality that I have studied throughout my life:

      “If you are interested in ‘meeting the Buddha’ and following his example, then you should realize that the path the Buddha taught is primarily a study of your own mind and a system for training your mind. This path is spiritual, not religious. Its goal is self-knowledge, not salvation; freedom, not heaven. And it is deeply personal. Without your curiosity and questions and your open mind, there is no spiritual path, no journey to be taken, even if you adopt all the forms of the tradition. ”

      Great summary! I so agree!

      1. Maria, in Tibet being OT is an age old tradition and one can verify this by looking at it (if he or she is permitted to do so or if he is not permitted at least brave enough to do so). And the highest wisdom from that region begun to spread out to the rest of the world only a couple of decades ago. I would give some more specifics but I do not want the communication to be “hijacked” by sources not intended to receive the information.
        Anyway, you must be really good that you’ve recognized the value of that writing I’ve linked above πŸ™‚

  15. What blew me away from the CoS, was the unveiling of the totalitarian nature of the organization that purported to be a route to spiritual freedom.

    Illegal physical restrain and encarceration of individuals, coereced financial enslavement, coerced abortions, rampant mental and emotional manipulation, all targeted to weild power for the organizations goals, contradict the concept of a demonstrated route to spiritual freedom. The will of the individual was being usurped and replaced by the will (alterego) of the founder.

    A true bridge, could not and would not yield such a disaster.

    By it’s fruits is shall be known.

  16. Hi, Geir.

    Thanks for your piece. Nice job.

    Why / how I left the cult:

    It was the PDC that did it. It was learning how important it is to disagree that did it.

    Sometime around 1988 in Los Angeles I hit my limit of how embarrassed I was willing to be by the vast majority of public Scientologists I knew. Not by Scientology itself, which I actually loved, but by churchy, status-whoring public Scientologists. I just couldn’t stand most of them anymore.

    It seemed the further up the Bridge I went, the fewer bright lights were left.

    Shortly after this I got tired of going to class every night after work. Always being on course or on a service or whatever someone else wanted me to do was obviously not the point to life. At least not the point to my life.

    I was bored by people who asked me over and over – even at social events – β€œWhen / where are you getting your next service?” I realized these were not my people.

    And then there were those two FSMs – make that two pushy bitches – who showed up at my house unannounced and uninvited at 10:00 pm one night.

    My best girlfriend and I agreed, β€œEvents are just regging sessions for suckers. Instead, we’re going clubbing where the boys and good music are!”

    And that was that. Neither of us ever got in ethics trouble, much less declared. We just stopped agreeing with the bullshit. When we wanted to β€˜do Scientology’ we’d go to breakfast and talk about the PDC, which we’d both completed.

    And, of course, we used all our skills / gains / knowledge to set and achieve our goals for work and play.

    Problem solved.

    Just Me

  17. A big factor for me was realizing one day that every certificate I had ever earned, every book I had ever read, and even the major states I had attested to during auditing had all been CANCELED. Over 25 years of serious study and diligent auditing / soul searching CANCELED and declared as INCORRECT and INVALID.

    And I was being ordered to start all over again.

    It occurred to me that this is what is required of a suppressive person who is working on steps A to E to regain entry.

    It also occurred to me that by implication, all auditing, training and books published by LRH himself were the reason why I was being required to start all over again.

    Weird. It was just too weird.

    And really, I was awfully tired of being made to study materials that I had already gained full conceptual understanding of.


    They forgot that no matter how many things were canceled, I wasn’t and what I had integrated and made my own couldn’t ever be canceled.

    1. Hard facts. I wonder why so many people just give in. The Basics are similar. Every LRH book earlier was a crap? Must be destroyed? And people just buy this nonsense…

  18. Almost all religions use a form of Dispensationalism to deal with things that are no longer useful while holding onto orthodoxy.

    Christians and Jews no longer stone gays, witches, nor adulterers anymore and many of them are strongly orthodox.

    To Christians the Biblical commands to kill gays, adulterers and witches are “SO, SO Old Testement. We have Jesus now and he abolished the law.”

    In Scientology, I see the following areas as ripe for a dispensational theological structure to allow for the best of your practices to flourish.

    Dispensation #1: Hubbards switch from the business model of Dianetics to the religious model of Scientology.
    Dispensation #2. The time when Hubbard went to Sea and when Ethics and OT levels appeared. These changed Scientology significantly.
    Dispensation #3. Hubbard’s Death and the rise of CoM.
    Dispensation #4. The rise of the Freezone and Ron’s Org.
    Dispensation #5. The rise of the Independents.

  19. Other factors for leaving:

    Scientologists mainly staff members or those having some other profit from being Scientologists like running a Scientologist company being immediately hostile for even the slightest remark regarding the system or not full agreement.

    Accumulation of lies observed.

    Witnessing ruined lives by the Church. While the Church accepting no responsibility at all. This one is really disgusting.

    By the way, did you ever think about it? The Success Story system applied in marketing would make any and all suppressive system look so good if applied. Example: “I’ve joined the Army. It is so fun!”

    I’ve also got tired from the success story system recognizing how fraudulently applied not just in Scientology but in some organizations operated by Scientologists and concentrating mainly on getting more profit.

    1. Yes, I see that obvious liability to the success story system. A simple rating system for services would perhaps be better – like that of eBay, Amazon et al.

  20. But than, if you give less than 100 % you are critical which means you have overts.

    1. just a note:
      Correctly my last comment
      “But than, if you give less than 100 % you are critical which means you have overts.
      goes directly after yours:
      isene says:
      2010-09-23 at 14:31
      Yes, I see that obvious liability to the success story system. A simple rating system for services would perhaps be better – like that of eBay, Amazon et al.

  21. Overdriver says: “vinaire, you want to say that the inputs have no effect on the working of a program? Go on!…”

    A program works on input to provide the output. That is what a program does. Of course, there is effect. An identity is a thought package, and that is why it is affected. You are a thought package, and so am I, and so was L. Ron Hubbard.

    And so is God. πŸ™‚


    1. I am not sure I would call it a “thought package”. But is a “karmic package” for sure πŸ™‚ But if “I am” the whole Universe, that is another matter πŸ™‚ On that level there is no thought. That is beyond anything you can imagine.

      1. You are the whole universe you see. Such subjective universes overlaid makes for the intersection of universes commonly referred to as The Universe… our consensus reality.

        1. It depends what you name complete cycle here. If you kill someone, that cycle is complete when the person is dead. But if this act is not good (probably that is the case in the majority of these kind of actions) it will become karmic despite the cycle is closed.

          1. That means you can’t have complete cycles in Samsara. Because when you start a cycle that gives birth to other new cycles. It is very easy to see unless someone is not conditioned with the idea of complete cycles.
            For example you buy a chewing gum. You eat all from the package. You throw it out to the waste bin. Now it’s finished. But it is not finished. It adds up to the contents of the bin which you will eventually need to empty. The package goes to a place where it is “destroyed”. But the fumes or the residuals however small… etc… And nothing is completed. You will buy chewing gum tomorrow as well. It starts from the beginning but there are the other lines running from the previous cycle.
            Finishing a cycle of action exists only in theory. It is more or less as well on a gradient but I estimate you never go above let’s say 50%… It depends only on your viewpoint what you call finished. But actually it is not finished as long as any trace remains. But unless it gets somehow out of the physical universe (back into the realm of “God” or whatever where all these things have no any meaning afterall) it is not finished.
            You can’t audit out any and all action in the physical universe (PU) or in Samsara (including spheres outside of the PU).
            The same way you can’t map the beginning of the PU. You just can’t find the basic-basic. Why? Because this is a dream. So you are looking for the first moment. Than you audit out. Than what happens next? πŸ™‚ You realize a bit later that there is another “first moment”. Why? Because you create this. As you create the impossible things in a dream and you do not notice that is a dream and everything what is impossible seems so logical there. You are dreaming. Like if you fall into a pit. You try to find the door where you came in but you can’t find as there was no door in the first place. But you will never look upwards because you are in a dream.
            That is the situation with cycles of actions and the basic-basic. No basic-basic, no finished cycles of action. You are in Samsara. Endless. You can find the way out only if you look up. But where is this “up”? You must find the correct answer to this question to really get out.

            1. It seems reasonable to postulate that if anything can be created, it can also be destroyed. And if anything can be changed (away from a strictly deterministic path), creation must take place.

          2. You see, LRH talked about false data. False. OK. From what point of view? The same way cycle of action, total as-isness, basic-basic, etc… are also false data. Although workable from a point of view (like anything can work in a dream) or up to a point. But from another point of view (if it does not get out of the trap) false as well. Welcome in Samsara. No beginning, no end πŸ™‚

        2. True, although Creation has the causes as well. But in this regards indeed we can mark a beginning and an end of a cycle (which is embedded into bigger endless cycles).

          1. It is (samsara is endless) not told by me but by a tulku (reincarneted lama) who I am sure has awareness on the nature of cycles. (The fact that he is able to control his birth and death means he is quite high on awareness and control.)
            How can you say that there is a beginning of the physical universe when it is just an illusion in the first place? It does not exist as such just a product of the mind.

  22. Paralel wrote: Witnessing ruined lives by the Church. While the Church accepting no responsibility at all. This one is really disgusting.

    Church is paying for its karmas. Just see the emergence of so many critical blogs and message boards. The Church will continue to pay for its karmas in many different ways for some time to come until it achieves its demise.


    1. So true. Unfortunatelly as you wrote in your next comment just below, this becomes universal karma. This is the definition of Samsara. I find Buddhist definitions very reliable (of course Buddhism as such does not exist as there are different schools).

      1. “This is the definition of Samsara.” It goes on and on and on and on…

  23. And the universe is paying for its karmas too, and so is the society of human beings. Just look at the conditions around you. Responsibility = survival. No responsibility = demise.



    1. And the universe calls for pandetermic responsibility. That lacks in numbers even more…

  24. Overdriver said, “So true. Unfortunatelly as you wrote in your next comment just below, this becomes universal karma.”

    The idea of going clear on other dynamics, to me, means causing these dynamics to take responsibility and clear incomplete cycles at their level (don’t think in terms of “I”, which is very limited identity). That is why gurus, teachers, auditors, spiritual practitioners are so important. It is such a joy for me when I am able to help another person clear up his or her confusions.


  25. Overdiver said: “It is (samsara is endless) not told by me but by a tulku (reincarneted lama) who I am sure has awareness on the nature of cycles. (The fact that he is able to control his birth and death means he is quite high on awareness and control.) …”

    In my opinion it is alright to acknowledge authority, but it is always better to think for oneself.


    1. IMO it is not about authority and it is not about not thinking for yourself. There are a couple of points I can’t verify in KHTK for example.
      Does that mean if I follow KHTK that I follow authority? No. That would mean I try to find out something by thinking with the data of which I suppose someone found out correctly before me. It is like following someone out from a dark cave who is ahead of me with a torch lighting the way. I do not have torch so I follow him who says, look I see the way it is safe. I can’t do otherwise but follow. Of course I follow that way or that person which seems the safest from the position and from the knowledge that I have.
      The point is that certain things give value for a statement.
      When I see Hubbard saying to “Country A” that “You will be the first Clear country”. Than saying to “Country B” that “You will be the first Clear country” than saying to “Country C” that “You will be the first Clear country” that communicates to me, something is not kosher here. It looks like lying. Maybe it is a good marketing… but does not seem honest which is important for me. So I say let’s see these guys over here who are “selling wisdom” not since 1950 but since thousands of years and are actually able to produce some really cool stuff and look really honest beings. What do they have? There are some really fine teachings and pathes. I do not “believe” westerners anymore.
      That does not mean I will not take a close look at KHTK. I did already but some points does not correspond to my logic. That’s one of the reason I’ve asked Geir personally to take a look at something. Logic is fine but we are in the business of gnosticism a bit if we want to get out of the trap.

  26. Overdriver said: “… How can you say that there is a beginning of the physical universe when it is just an illusion in the first place? It does not exist as such just a product of the mind.”

    Illusion exists. That is how one knows there is illusion. The product of the mind also exists, else how would one know it is there. Hmmm…

    By the way, Maya more accurately mean “impermanance” rather than “illusion.”


    1. So, if we know about something that it is a lie. Does this lie exists or does not exist? πŸ™‚
      And yes, the PU is both impermanent and an illusion. But what can someone do with this precious knowledge if he can’t kiss the sky or surf the clouds?

      1. Anything that is persisting has some lie underlying it. The thought that all lies are bad is just an opinion. This universe wouldn’t be there if there were no lies, and we know how much we love this universe (that blue sky and the soft surf!).

        The lies exists hidden from us because when we uncover them a lot of things seem to vanish.


        1. The thought that not all lies are bad is just an opinion as well, isn’t?
          But who is lying?

  27. A thetan is not immortal. The basic lie has been that a thetan is immortal. A thetan is a “thought package” that is dissolvable.

    So says *me*. I am a dissolvable thought package. πŸ™‚


  28. At least, Ron said something like this as you above: “Anything that is persisting has some lie underlying it.” So a thetan cannot be “immortal” as seemingly persisting.
    Regarding what I’ve asked above “Who is lying?” I’ve asked because Ron said he did not use the word spirit or soul, because that has different meanings, etc. But for god’s sake! Lie is a word with negative emotion attached. It is more accurate to say untruth or illusion. With saying “lie” attention is dispersed, a mystery is created, unless the who is specified. This is generality, some kind of third partying. (Anyway, LRH made third partying for the 2nd and the 3rd dynamic exhaustively in Book One…)
    When I am dreaming that is an illusion. When I wake up I can say it did not really happened. It was not true from the viewpoint of the awakened state. But I would not say my sleep was a lie. That would be weird… Maybe I can say I lied to myself but that would be some kind of a self-invalidation.
    And this is certainly something which does not work in Scientology. And made me turn away. It is very difficult to sort out what is true and what is a lie in the system itself.
    Another example: exchange. No-exchange is bad. I think we agree on this. That’s ok but here is the paradox. Scientology considers only measurable exchange. The problem is there are uncountable or hidden exchange lines in certain circumstances. So if we concentrate specifically to give exchange only on measurable lines we unwittingly leave out many unmeasurable lines. And that causes out-exchange for sure. So the present measurable exchange system of Scientology is actually unjust compared to other traditional systems of exchange which are not so precise but at least human.
    I just give one example, maybe not the best: I help out this guy so he owes me one. Or I help him and he will help out somebody. Not there and not than but later sometimes something. That is exchange for example. Not synthetic or mathematic exchange that is in Scientology but something with the fibre of life integrated within. It can be more complete.
    For example in Buddhism you give donation. It is not fixed. You give what you can or what you think is even or whatever. I think that is a more fair-minded, workable and more appropriate system.

    1. Giving lies a bad name is an excellent way of masking lies and protect that which one intends to persist πŸ™‚

      1. So, who is lying? Non-truth or illusion why are not proper words? Do you lie when you dream?

            1. How so?

              If that is bullshit, then there must exist an objective reality independent of any creation or thought.

  29. If you visualize something and you know that you are visualizing it then it would not persist unless you knowingly want it to persist. But if you visualize something and then convince yourself that the visualization exists independent of you, then that visualization will persist on an automatic, unknowing basis.

    That convincing yourself (that the visualization exists independent of you) would be a lie.


  30. Isene said, “Giving lies a bad name is an excellent way of masking lies and protect that which one intends to persist.”

    This is a great way of putting it… excellent observation.


  31. Call it a lie if you wish. However, “it is an excellent way” to give unnecessary emotional charge to the subject. Still I did not get answer why don’t you think illusion or un-truth is not a proper word.

    1. Illusion is a very good word. Visualization may even be better. It is a lie nevertheless πŸ™‚

      Anything you perceive will be a lie, an illusion, an untruth, a visualization, an existence.

    1. A lie is other than what it appears to be. A thought covers the Unknown. A secondary thought may cover a primary thought. A tertiary thought may cover the secondary thought, and so on…

      So, we have layers upon layers as the structure of lies. What we look at any moment is an appearance that is hiding something else. What lies at the bottom of it all is the Unknowable. The Unknowable is unknowable simply because it is not manifested. End of story.


      1. Basically, we are having fun with our imagination. That is a wonderful ability. That is the native ability.

        Without imagination there is nothing.


    2. This is your definition.
      But who are You? πŸ™‚
      As I’ve said earlier, “lie” is a word containing negativ emotional charge. That’s why I do not use this word. And that is my problem with Scientology. Thetan is a made up word because spirit or soul was not good enough. So lie is a similar one as spirit or soul. It contains a pointless emotional charge and a meaning which does not correspond. Otherwise OK.
      If we play football with certain rules that is a game and we may become into an illusory state and wonder to the world around us when we have to finish the game. But it is pointless to call it a lie. Maybe calling that a lie would be appropriate on a certain tone level. That’s all.

      1. Sure. But it is still a lie πŸ™‚

        As I said, giving lies a bad name is an interesting trick.

        Just think about a fiction writer; He makes a living out of lying. Certainly he does not write the truth.

        Lying is the basis for any wonderful game.

        1. I think you do not understand me or you want to give a good name to lying. Saying that it is gold why it is copper is a wonderful game because I earn lots of money selling copper rings on the price of gold πŸ˜€
          So lying is a good game indeed.
          All I want to say that we usually (you can look up the definition of lie in a dictionary) use lie with similar examples what I said. For fiction writing we use a different word: fiction because the intent is different.

        2. I would not use the word lier for a writer there are the proper words for that activity. Or I would not say going up the bridge, because you rather get across a bridge. If you have a bridge you have to go up, that is like Tower Bridge. You go up to nowhere. You never cross that bridge that way. You can wait till the bridge goes down and than you can get to the other side horizontally but not vertically. That would be a ladder. In Scientology where word clearing is so important there are a couple of highly misused words. Like valuable final PRODUCT πŸ™‚ You see just a game with words but in Scientology you really get a product. A being without life. A machine. The same way I rather do not go and do not use the Scientology style word: lie. Cause it IS a lie πŸ™‚
          And that does not mean there are no lies in art or in life.

          But after all we can perceive these as lies. But maybe we are lying when we call them so and if we would not say or judge these a lie, these would just disappear…
          We can look at a wall the hard way regarding those objects as being solid like in SOPs – the Scientology way – or we can look at those objects as fluid illusions of our dream. Try this as well.

      2. Well, you need to look at the negative emotional charge attached to the word “lie” in your universe, or in the universe of those you have been in contact with. Take a good look. Use KHTK.

        By the way, I am just a “thought package,” a package full of lies.


        1. Probably you know that thoughts exist only in the physical universe. Thoughts are very much interdependent with objects and time. The real “you” probably has just a little to do with thoughts.

  32. Just some thoughts here.

    Lies, illusion, untruth…

    IMO these are all simply lovely labels that reflect a state of existence and/or being. What’s amusing is that it appears that manifesting or creating new realities requires asserting / intending / tone 40ing something that doesn’t exist now but does exist now in terms of existing now when clearly it doesn’t exist now. Or does it?

    Not a lie, not an illusion, not an untruth. New reality? New? Old? Real? False? All descriptives of a shared state that ceased to exist as immediately as it came to exist. Perhaps it is simply the fixed state that is a “lie” or “illusion” or “untruth.” The reverse is so “fluid” as to be virtually undescribable in human language. What we “have” is apparently fixed and unchanging or changing slowly enough to acheive persistence. I disagree. And so I change reality.

  33. Overdriver says: Probably you know that thoughts exist only in the physical universe. Thoughts are very much interdependent with objects and time. The real β€œyou” probably has just a little to do with thoughts.

    In my opinion the physical universe itself is a condensed thought. That is why more fluid thought may appear interdependent with objects and time. This is covered in the following essay that I revised only today.



  34. Hubbard : “Now, he could simply say, “I have action.” A magician – the magic cults of the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth centuries in the Middle East were fascinating. The only modern work that has anything to do with them is a trifle wild in spots, but it’s fascinating work in itself, and that’s work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend. And he did himself a splendid piece of aesthetics built around those magic cults. It’s very interesting reading to get hold of a copy of a book, quite rare, but it can be obtained. the Master Therion, T-h-e-r-i-o-n, The Master Therion by Aleister Crowley. He signs himself “The Beast”; “The Mark of the Beast, 666.” Very, very something or other.”
    This contradicts everything good in Scientology.

    1. I had to remove the link due to reference to confidential material – but I can vouch for the authenticity of the text in your comment. I have heard that tape also before.

      However I am not quite sure it contradicts everything good in Scientology. He is simply commenting on the effectiveness of magic.

      1. The fact that Hubbard belonged to a group practicing black magic is quite a contradictory in my opinion. He has a policy letter regarding suppressive groups. Per that policy letter he should not have gotten processing in the first place. Not speaking about establishing Scientology. If his own policies does not apply to him. How could you apply those to anybody else?

        1. Again, in the worst case here – this is still an inconsistency in practice, not in the texts. And it matters not if the person practicing was LRH himself.

          1. Looking at the text especially what I linked and you removed as confidential material we can see that Scientology is actually Black Magic by denying the existence of Christ. I am not Catholic or Christian and I do not use the word in the religious (maybe fanatic) sense. Just in a realistic sense. I doubt very much Christ would not exist. We can even say Buddha or LRH did not exist. Saying Christ did not exist IMO is a sign of great wrongness. Besides it is not important if he existed or not as Jesus Christ Son of Marie, Personal ID 3526 Jerusalem street 6. or at whatever address. Besides you can see how it is inconsistent with earlier statements of Hubbard.
            We can see the texts or the map and go into the mud after our guide and when we sunk we can actually show the inconsistencies… that’s why it is important to know his intentions. Of course you can go into a certain direction. If you have enough capacity to actually observe the mud where the map says field, you are fortunate.

            1. I think you are creating unnecessary drama. Saying that “Scientology actually Black Magic by denying the existence of Christ”, is seriously off. Many people deny the existence of Christ – has nothing to do with Black Magic. Shape up your logic.

  35. “isene says: 2010-10-13 at 23:31 I think you are creating unnecessary drama. Saying that β€œScientology actually Black Magic by denying the existence of Christ”, is seriously off. Many people deny the existence of Christ – has nothing to do with Black Magic. Shape up your logic.”
    If Scientology is black magic, that certainly does not work for me.
    With the denying again it would be great to know the actual intentions and with Scientology jargon you can say very well the derogatory statement as before that it is just speculation. Great dead agenting, indeed. It works on a stimulus-response emotional level. But this fits perfectly into the Scientology Matrix to keep up the Scientology Dream.
    “What’s the most resilient parasite? An idea…” And there are many in Scientology.
    Logic. Putting logic above all else is actually wrong. Yes, logic is important. But logic is just a mechanic. It is not LIFE itself. Logic in itself is a dead stuff you can teach logic for a computer but it will never be enlightened. Logic as introduced into Scientology creates robots. That logic definitely does not work for me.
    As for the unnecessary drama, there was LRH, Scientology and the Church. This wholy trinity created and still creates countless dramas.

      1. Quote from above: “Yes, logic is important.”
        Answers your question? πŸ™‚

        1. If you agree that we should stick to logic rather than illogic – yes then we agree. And then let’s do just that.

          1. In certain cases logic can take different paths.
            Besides, you can’t solve all problems only with logic.
            It’s like the 9 dots.

            There are too much patterns and stereotypes in Scientology. Logic as well can be a trap sometimes. As I’ve just said, logic can have different paths in certain cases.

  36. Overdriver says: “In certain cases logic can take different paths.
    Besides, you can’t solve all problems only with logic…”

    Logic is not complete without LOOKING. Logic is not just thinking and speculating. LOOKING must verify THINKING for something to be logical. Please see

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s