noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\
plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Definition of HYPOCRISY
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide
First Known Use: 13th century

The above is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The below is from my heart.

From my experience with public scientologists and especially with fellow OTs of various OT Committees in a handful of Orgs, I have seen an almost exclusive focus on PR and the immediate statistics.

A public scientologist and especially an OT is demanded to get his or her “stats up”. OTs are run on statistics. Their production is measured. Their value is measured by how many books they sell to “raw public”, how many people they disseminate Scientology to, how much PR they generate for Scientology and above all how much money they can fund-raise for a new building. The focus is on these immediate statistics.

Whenever an OT disseminates Scientology to a prominent person, he is demanded to take pictures. Good pictures of high resolution as it will be used during the international events (see #22). The OT delivers picture in return for praise, approval and status boosts. If she is maximally lucky and popular, she will be put on the list of prospects for the Freedom Medal.

As a scientologist this is all natural, it’s all utmost productive and it is the only thing saving the world.

What hypocrisy.

Because it completely misses the point. Addressing the problems of the world does not revolve around generating PR for Scientology, it is not about handing out “The Way to Happiness” , it is not addressed by fighting psychiatry. And it is certainly not achieved by donating money to big, empty buildings. For crying out load.

Now, how about supplying fresh water to sick children in Africa. How about bringing about peace to war zones or stopping the spreading of AIDS. What about really tackling human rights abuses or just saving the planet? What about getting some basic Scientology actually delivered? What about helping your fellow neighbor only because it helps him and not because you can cash in on the action?

How about shooting hypocrisy like ducks in a pond?

85 thoughts on “Hypocrisy

  1. it is hypocrisy and a boring game.

    you can’t save the world auditing people and training auditors. really, are we gonna audit the bad guys and get them to give up their o/w’s and stop being suppressive? no, they’re illegal pc’s.

    so then how do you save the world from the bad guys, by being part of a group that actually does the work like the government. that’s my game anyway. to fight evil.

    how cool to wake up everyday with a real purpose, to know you are making the world a better place everyday for all of mankind. not just singing about it, or painting about it, but actually rolling up your sleeves and doing the work, out in the field. and having fun at the same time 🙂 now that’s a real game.

    this other thing, with the pr and the pictures and having a medal around your neck doesn’t mean anything in the real world. those same people with the medals around their neck haven’t really done anything other than give money, wow, anybody can do that. but they feel good a night when they go to bed, it justifies all the people they screwed over in present time. michael wisner, a perfect example. he’s got a medal but he’s a worthless piece of crap, his contribution to society besides screwing over all the people that worked for him, his daughter is miscavige’s ot pr piece, alex wisner.
    and what was her contributions to get to the upper ot levels? nothing, money. she’s just a kid who is easily spinned around. one insecure little girl.

  2. Many dedicated Scientologists generously donate their time and money to worthy causes, such as the relatively recent disastrous earthquake in Haiti. But, unlike many other parishioners from other denominations, Scientologists are not funded by the C of $ in any way for these humanitarian endeavors. However, to the uninformed public it APPEARS that the church is funding these efforts. Blogs like this do keep the general public informed about what’s really going on…

    The most horrible thing is the lack of real Scientology being delivered to the general public or worse, squirrel Scientology which completely wreck cases and ruin lives. Mine was one of those cases.

    It has taken me years to sort things out and I doubt I could have done it had I not been tech, ethics and admin trained. Many other people have not been so lucky, unfortunately.

    Thanks for being there and communicating, Geir.

    1. You are welcome.

      Now the question arises as to how many scientologists dedicat time and money to worthy causes only because they wanted to help and not for status or approval or because they “had to” in order to do their next level. How many out of 8 million or 50 thousand?

      1. Just a quick response for this. I understand what you mean. But in my opinion it does not matter if they do this for status if this is the only way to make them to help 1000 other people who are suffering. Of course it would be much superior if they would do this without their ego, without the hope of personal gain. This would indicate their spiritual superiority.

        1. Doing it only for the status usually implies that the help goes all the way to the photo shoot and not much further.

          1. Geir, when I read your post, my first thought was along a completely different line. I thought:
            “What a terrible thing to do to OTs!”

            I remembered Ruth Minshull, one of the early Clear and OT people from the 1960s-70s. Shewrote 3 books that Hubbard himself approved of, and were sold in org bookstores for some years, before they were suppressed.

            One is about raising children, and the point I remember best was that if a child likes to do something, for instance, play the piano, one sure way to make him lose interest in it and stop playing, is to make or force him to do it!

            It’s about allowing self-determinism. OTs would naturally be outgoing and would naturally connect people up with the CoS,- if the CoS was worth connecting with! Scientology is worth connecting up with – the Church is not.

            In any case, what is happening there with the OTs is, they are being heavily suppressed. They are not being allowed their self-determinism. They are also being prevented by those policies, from originating the other kinds of help you mentioned, the humanitarian projects.

            This is what I see. The Church is not letting the OTs be OTs. That is the real tragedy.

            Ruth Minshull’s books are available for free download inEnglish and German. They are very good. Here is a page with links to them:


  3. that’s a good question isene, i’m betting that number is very low. when i came back in 2008, daphna hernandez, ot 8, my then fsm/life coach etc. i told her i wanted to set up my admin scale so i could be a full time volunteer minister, to go all over the world and actually help people in bad areas, how fun, to save people’s lives, literally not just hand out way to happiness books. you know swing on a vine in the jungle while i’m rescuing someone that was gonna drown lol. anyway, she pointed out to me that there is one guy on her lines that goes around getting donos so he could be a full time volunteer minister, now i didn’t want to do that did i? oh no, i need to work and make money, so that i could afford to pay for my bridge. of course she had a vested interest cause she wanted her 10% as my fsm even though i was paying for my consultation with her as my life coach. she felt that it was down stat to ask for donos so he could go help people fulltime. how sooooo terrible. instead work fulltime, get up the conditions and give my money to her, that’s more valuable then to help people full time. that was her advice as my life coach. it was a bit of an out exchange on her part, but don’t worry, the gradient in her help got raised and she put her exchange in with me that i bought and paid for.

  4. Well observed and stated Geir. ♪♫♪♫

    My personal experience. The feigning to be what one is not, and the fake assumption of an appearance of virtue as a ‘religion’ is the exact same phenomena and observation that I made – culminating in withdrawing my allegiance to ‘the church’ shortly after I did OT IV. Why then?

    The crunch came when I met David Miscaviage in person, and for me set off red lights flashing and alarm bells ringing. I kept my own council on the blatant hypocrisy and the practicing of double standards that I observed. At the time, I was very ‘new’ to Scientology, (12 month in all) and definitely not accustomed to the prevailing ‘culture of hypocrisy’ or strange practicing of ‘double standards’ that I saw all around me with my ‘fresh pair of eyes.’ The ‘swooning, scraping, and bowing’ and offering of ‘gifts’ in supplication to David Miscaviage just did not jell with me at all, and many other ‘out-points’ of hypocrisy and practicing of double standards (to put it mildly) left me with a distinct disgust to what was going on. Being ‘pushed’ and ‘you must’ and it is ‘expected from you as an OT’ – I saw for what it was – as blatant ‘manipulation’ and I did not fall for it. It went against the grain of my personal integrity to become ‘part and parcel’ of a set-up that thrived on practicing double standards and hypocrisy.

    It is not that I did not know enough Scientology during my 12 month stint, so I was not blinded to, or oblivious to what was going on. Perhaps I escaped the years of ‘brainwashing’ that it requires to become accustomed to, or part and parcel of this kind of culture. I had also bought the entire library, had read all the basic books, delved into the red and green volumes, read the 2 dictionaries ‘just for fun’ and had also completed 17 courses during this 12 month period. So it was not that I did not duplicate LRH. I did not duplicate ‘the group think’ that was running the show – that’s for sure. I did not go into agreement with a ‘group think’ that practiced ‘PR’ instead of Scientology.

    Don’t get me wrong. Going ‘up the bridge’ was the best time of my life, an incredible journey, with life changing discoveries, and life changing gains – despite of the strange culture of double standards. My ‘church of’ Scientology participation very much ended after these initial 12 months as I simply could not introduce another soul to this set-up. I withdrew my participation, demanding that these outpoints be handled per KSW before I return. To date this has not happened. I am not ‘declared’ and have not resigned. I am demanding Justice to be served. Let’s see what happens over the next month or so.

    1. Cripes! You’ve been active, girl. That’s a hell of a lot of Scientology in 12 months.

      And yes, it takes years of corroding a person’s native ability to observe to arrive at the point where the blinkers are on and all kinds of outpoints are auto-justified.

      1. Strange thing is that I did not think that it was a ‘hell of a lot’ at the time. It can be done – if no ‘stops’ are in the way. This is what worked for me.

        I was on a full time schedule both auditing and training at the same time. I had one auditor for lower levels, (excellent auditor) and one for NED. OT levels, is basically ‘help yourself’ with one auditor for OT IV. I read all the basic books, and dictionaries, at home as well as other materials as I had bought the entire library.

        It also helped to have an near empty Ethics Folder, save for a few one page Kr’s that I wrote on the Org, for out-exchange regging, and deception, false promises. I was also there on my own self-determinism, and had no stops on my lines. I did not get involved in what I perceived to be “Scientology Politics.’ I did not know from day one that there was something operating in the background named the SO, and when this came to my attention, I perceived this organisation to live in a ‘strange culture’ with a ‘group-mentality’ and to me it seemed from day one of interaction to be the core of a ‘cult’. Upon attesting to clear, I was asked to join this group. I said ‘no thank you’ this will kill my soul.’ I was given the tech dictionary to clear up my MU’s. Read def. of ‘True group member’ vs. ‘group member’ and honestly answered – I can never be a ‘true group member’ but will remain a Scientology ‘group member’ – and I am still that today.

        This is what did not work for me: The nail in the coffin was after completing OT IV, arriving back at my home and being bombarded with 26 KR’s from an SO member who wanted to prove how much of an SP I was. That is when I realised that a certain element withing the ‘cult’ of the SO – had no reality that Scientology acutally works. I had just gone through the most rigorous sec checks done the OT levels – and still became the target of a vicious and ongoing attack and the ethics and justice lines are not working per LRH tech.

        Scientology is a workable technology, and it can be done to do the Bridge in a short time. For me the secret was not to get side-tracked and to see through the ‘smoke and mirrors.’

        1. wow jane, you were upstat and they hit you. you missed that person’s withold, that person has some overts on you and might very well be an sp. they love to drive upstat ot’s out the door. it’s their thing. it’s who they are.

          but well done on not giving into that person’s bullshit and the group think. he/she wanted to shut you up, make you wrong and then try to control you, to get his/her product.

          it’s extremely manipulative and not how real sea org members act. well done on confronting it and handling it 🙂

          1. How is it possible to continue be a staff in th Sea Org under an oppressive leader without committing overts at least once per week?

        2. Jane,

          I believe the Ethics and Justice systems in the CoS have been turned upside down on purpose. They are there solely as filters to detect and handle “deviants” -people who are able to obnose and think for themselves.

          A “deviant” in the CoS is anyone who does not agree to slavishly follow Command Intention without thinking.

          “Command Intention” is also CI – “counter-intention” – towards anyone who is Alive, Happy, Self-determined, Free.

  5. Excellent post, Geir.
    In answer to your question;
    Everything I did as a Continental OTC Chairman was from a genuine desire to help.
    I was only ever interested in Training and Processing starts.
    I was often chided for failing to provide adequate (by CofS standards) PR.
    The day that my Senior said to me, “You’re going to need better PR for the OTC if you want to stay Eligible for OT Levels” is the day I resigned as OTC Chairman.

      1. It’s been 2 years, 2 months and 23 days since I made it official but who’s counting? 🙂

  6. I agree with much of this, but war, poverty and rampant spread of disease are caused/made worse by aberrated people either by omission or commission. If scientology is the most effective way yet developed to handle aberration then spreading the tech and getting it accepted by governments, UN etc is the only way to make real headway with humanity’s problems All else is firefighting which other organisations are already doing with better resources. I’m not sure it makes sense for scientology to firefight if you believe it has answers prevent the fires in the first place.

    Of course, the top down cult that is the church has made a royal mess of dissemination and perhaps having the data freely available on the internet should now be the way forward, but its understandable to me that if you believe you have fundamental answers and that time is short you would concentrate on getting those answers accepted and put into practice as a priority.

    1. Now if Scientology is the most effective way to handle war, then there would by now be real reference cases for such results. The same with poverty and rampant spread of disease. I have a really hard time finding good reference cases for this. Do you have access to any?

      I would think the same approach LRH prescribed for dealing with a medical problem would apply as well to dealing with, let’s say poverty. Scientology is not the direct approach for this and should not be advertised or attempted to be used to the exclusion of other relevant approaches in such areas. Just as you would not do auditing instead of medical approaches to handle cancer.

      1. Geir, but do you agree that human aberration causes or exacerbates virtually all human problems?
        And do you think scientology is the best solution we have right now to human aberration?

        My only references here are my own observations 🙂

        1. #1 Yes
          #2 I don’t know. I have not checked all other solutions

          But Scientology is certainly not the most effective solutions in areas that it does not directly handle.

          1. I agree. Im not advocating scientology get involved directly in say famine relief – you advocated that. I only say it would be wrong to do that if you believe you have the ability to solve the actual source of aberration (rather than its symptoms) and that you have limited time and money to do so.
            I wholeheartedly agree with your other points though Geir, sorry to be picky.

            1. I’ll be picky right back 😉 I didn’t advocate that Scientology get involved in handling famine (a philosophy couldn’t), but I do advocate scientologists get active in directly handling immediate situations that do prevent Scientology being applied – like famine (can’t audit hungry people) – or a global scarcity of natural resources. I can’t see that auditing people would solve global warming any time before Santa is wearing Bermuda shorts.

        2. What is human aberration? Let’s be clear about it. Is human aberration what Scientology says it is? I would say that Scientology itself is aberrated in promoting “individuality” as the highest aim.

          “Individuality” is that characteristic which makes one identity different from another identity. “Individuality” has no meaning in the absence of an identity. Any beingness is an identity if it is being used to identify self. If you can show me otherwise, I’ll eat crow.

          Scientology, ultimately, pushes beingness, which is an identity of sorts. This fixation on beingness or identity is what gets OTs to clamor for STATUS. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Scientology pretends to help others, but it is, ultimately, oriented toward serving self.

          Scientology has some good points, no doubt, but its core of worshipping “individuality” is rotten.


          1. If a Being can become its dynamics then separateness will fade (and ARC rise).
            I think LOOKING prevents one from falling into the ego trap.

          2. Scientology itself creates a very peculiar kind of aberration in Scientologists. It can be spotted easily and that kind of person have certain characteristics.

          3. People who finished TR’s and Objectives right there show the characteristics of a synthetic personality.
            It would have the purpose to bring people into present time but it is obvious they just went out of thet right there.

          4. If Vinaire posts in the forest, and there is no-one there to read it, does Vinaire actually exist?

      2. I would qualify your last remark thus: I would do auditing first, and perhaps in addition to medical treatment for at least some cancers, because I believe some cancers originate from a spiritual condition assumed by the person and postulates made by the person. When these factors are handled, the cancer can go into remission, or can be easier to treat by medical means.

        Thus I would do the auditing address first, then proceed with medical treatment if necessary. I might add, I don’t believe the cancer would necessarily be directly addressed in the auditing but might be, somewhere along the line. It is the things prior to the actual development of the cancer that need to be handled. Medical treatment alone doesn’t have that good record of successful treatment, and sometimes that is because it is trying to work against or in spite of, the postulate of the individual.

  7. Regarding our imperfect world and the help we give it, I would like to share the following Tibetan Meditation Technique as a metaphor.

    In this practice, you imagine and mockup that the entire world is enlightened EXCEPT you.

    Everyone ELSE is either a Bodhisattva or Buddha (Or in Scientology terms OT). And the entirety of the universe’s beings are all working in tandem to awaken you “the last, stubborn holdout” into full freedom.

    And to do this enormous task, they are all taking on valences and mockups and the ACTUAL SUFFERING of the lives of ordinary people who beg you and urge you to teach and help THEM how to awaken.

    All of them are OTs in disguise, who are confronting the suffering of the universe for – YOU.

    Why? Because we learn best by teaching. And THEY know that. So they have to get YOU to teach and help THEM so YOU can wake up.

    They take on the mockups of people who attack you, kill you, steal from you, degrade you, help you, hate you, feed you, cut you off in traffic, help you dislodge food stuck in your throat, make sweet love to you, reject you.

    All also because they know that you CANNOT wake up in a perfect world. You MUST wake up in a real one with real suffering. A pure land MUST have ample suffering to force you to seek change.

    And when you see yourself in this way, you see that every being is Buddha or OT working to wake up you, “the last holdout.”

    And IF you knew this facade was actually true, how would you treat the dying person in haiti who is faking it, but ACTUALLY SUFFERING so that YOU can wake up? How would you treat ANY human if you knew this as fact?

    Simple. As the last hold out to total ARC, you would give your life to do anything to help and teach and empower them to be free so that YOU could wake up and finish the liberation of the universe. You would take their crap. You would use every bit of their energy to free …

    The last holdout.

    1. One other thing about “The Last Holdout.”

      The last holdout would by default be THE MOST VIRTUOUS PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE.


      And how would you feel if that person, amazingly enough, was …you?

      And THANK YOU by the way.

  8. aotc said: “If a Being can become its dynamics then separateness will fade (and ARC rise). I think LOOKING prevents one from falling into the ego trap.”

    You are right about LOOKING. Here is my simple logic.

    What is not manifested is unknowable. Unknowable gives rise to speculation. BELIEF is identification with speculation. BEINGNESS is a belief.

    This is pure Buddha.


      1. I do not think Hubbard was an authority in the boddhisatva subject… 🙂
        Anything man think can be regarded speculation. It is just intellectual and it build up rather from data but you can’t have always all the data.
        Regarding your axioms I think they are pretty good but too much Scientology style. Too much mathematics. Life is not mathematics.
        Hubbard was very clever in many ways. One of the greatest mistake was that he introduced the compulsiveness and agressivity into Scientology. Plus maybe you can be a great magician but you can’t get beyond the physical universe solely by intellectual way or by increasing OT powers. However high you can get, that is only physical level. Even postulates.

  9. Geir,
    I couldn’t agree with you more. When I first learned of OT committees, it was when I was first in Scientology in the ’70’s. I had very high expectations of such a group as I had my own ideas of what this should mean. I imagined real OT beings doing magical things around the planet, some of which is not directly possible I now realize. Still, my ideas were all about helping by way of postulating and taking action on such projects as you mention. I actually thought that we could defuse missles, etc from a distance. Each time I attempted to attend an OT Committe, no matter where it was, I was very disappointed. For a time, one Org had the purpose of getting people back on the bridge, which is (or should I say was) at least a worthwhile goal, as it was done with uptone communication rather than threat. It didn’t last long however. I actually presented my ideas to an OT C regarding helping kids in the community with homework (no other intention there), starting a teenage drug rehabb for kids on “recreational drugs” (not hard core addicts), helping the homeless, getting really big on Sunday Services with llive music,inspiring lectures, food, art, poetry etc., or just find out what the community really is concerned about and help them achieve it. None of this is earth shattering. In fact, it is what a church should be doing anyway. When I presesnted my ideas and tried to find at least an agreement on one of them, I got blank stares and the subject was dropped. Now OTC’s are just there to reg for buildings or other money for the orgs. SAD!

    On another note, I see that you are into Astronomy. I’m taking a class right now. It is very basic but I have a great teacher who has his doctorate in physics and has been on research teams. I really respect astonomers and their excitement for the future.
    I’ve been reading about the Alexanderia Library and how it was counterintended by the Christian Church and then later by the Muslims. I thought of Scientology and the thought stopping…very much like what Galileo experienced with the forced confession that Aristotle was correct, when ofcourse G had already proven he was incorrect. Well, I don’t need to expound on that further.

    Thank you for having this website as it is very uptone.

  10. AOTC,

    The New Civilization CD’s might be of interest to you…NO! I’m not selling them. However, in a nutshell, Ron talks about using Scientology directly, as in the case of a touch assists, without even saying it is Scientology– a “just do it” attitude. Also, he speaks of being a professional at whatever you do and contributing your expertise –a Scientologist is one “who betters conditions”. Therefore, if you are a doctor, then be a great doctor etc. I have to say that part of the reason I never started a Narconon, for example, is because they are not run by professionals. I am a purif i/c and c/s, but that is only a small part of a very big picture. The program is good, but it lacks the professionalism. Many groups, even Applied Scholastics, (who I feel come the closest to knowing what they are doing) is not run by experienced teachers. It makes a difference because, in my opinion, the attempts at professionalism by the SoCo or now ABLE groups are more of a “wanna be” experts. I’m am not belittling the useful tech, just the idea that one or two pieces of tech can not stand alone. The idea is to be a pro and then utilize whatever tech is appropriate.

  11. Just some thoughts on this, perhaps a slightly different perspective.

    Its the same old game. Over and over. Force versus reason. Self-determinism versus other-determinism. Enforced and inhibited. Above that we get reason, pan-determinism and the reasoned use of force.

    IMO enforced statistics, enforced purposes, enforced ARC (a hypocrisy in and of itself), enforced participation, enforced behavior, enforced [fill in the blank] are the signposts that the Chuch is mixing practices. These are old, old practices – as old as mankind. Punishment, threats, pain and degradation – these are the methods of the old, old practices. They produce hypocrisy, cruelty and irresponsibility. They drive tone level DOWN, not up. Bottom line: you can’t mix these old methods with auditing. If you do, it is no longer auditing. Unfortunately, these old methods are so rampant in the history of the human race, and so difficult to overcome with simple reason, that the environment and methods of auditing and the necessity of holding a position that permits auditing, self discovery and personal liberty often have to be protected by… you got it – force.

    Consider the U.S. for example. The borders are protected by men with guns, from men who would trample the constitution underfoot in a heartbeat.

    Mixed practices.

    But I have to wonder, until reason truly prevails, can you really send the soldiers home?

    1. Just look at where people’s attention is at. Their attention is on their beingness and its survival. That is the only reason they can be controlled through punishment, threats, pain and degradation. If a person is not concerned about his beingness and its survival, he cannot be controlled.

      Are you a being, or beingness is something you have assumed? Isn’t this fixation on beingness is the utmost hypocrisy?

      Fixation on beingness is the root of all aberrations. Buddha said it but not in so many words. Buddha was right.


      1. Vinaire, I would more agree with you if the wording was fixation on individuated beingness is the root of all aberration.

        For when I am truly me I encompass and I am encompassed and I am inseparable from all that is and was and will ever be. I can be “me,” this me you call me Maria and I can be “me” and you call me “nothing” and I can be “me” and you can see me as something or everything and everywhere and nowhere yet always now and always right here. And yet lost in time or not in time. I am all around you and I am not. And I am me and I am you and I am the deep rocks at the earth’s core and the far flung spaces between stars. And I am not. And here the words of the finite universe fail me again, and again and again. And I do not find it aberrated to be so. I find it liberating, joyous, sad, humbling, exalting, and often nothing at all that can be compared. It is something I celebrate and something I live. As do we all whether we know it or not.

        I believe that the real question is, what is the focus in present time? I believe that it is good to question this hypocrisy.

        There was an excellent movie about a prima pianist brought to play before a fine orchestra. He was impatient with the orchestra, he felt they were slow to get it together. The conductor reminded him that the orchestra was like a huge lumbering beast, slow to learn its parts and create a beautiful cohesive whole but awesome in power and breadth when fully cohesed.

        I will leave you with a famous quote from the Buddha:
        “Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.”

  12. As i see it and first noticed when i did the first FEBC in 1971:
    The flaw is in a shift of Priority from Delivering a Service to Statistics as a Product .

  13. Vinaire,
    I would say that “individuality as the highest aim”, is not the goal of Scientology. Depending on if you are reading the advertisements of the organization, or the basic philosophy of the subject, you will get different ideas about the ‘goal’. The organization was developed based on the stated goal, which was LRH’s postulate, of “clearing the planet” from day one. I don’t want to debate what the state of ‘clear’ is or anything like that, as it can’t be debated. Awareness is not something that can be explained easily in words, only through similes; clear is like…or OT is like…. It’s like trying to explain a sound, or a smell. There is the problem of ones own perception vs another person’s perception and then the problem stating such in words that will duplicate the state or experience.

    I have carefully read and understood, to my satisfaction and personal cognition, the axioms, factors, etc. I have no impulse to be right about them or my understanding of them. I also do not want to suggest that you have to embrace them. I was referring to them only to way to the idea that the philosophy of scientology is not all about individualism. I did not study the factors and the axioms and come up with that conclusion. If you have, then so be it.

    I am not inviting a comparative religious debate either simply because I took religious philosophy in school and was intensely interested in my own increased awareness and abilities as a spiritual being. I was knowingly exterior from my body much of the time, and I wanted to know more about operating in this state. I read books like Out of the Body Experiences by Monroe, and went to a weekend seminar/workshop given by him. Eastern philosophy really got my attention. When I was 15 I read The Upanishads. It spoke to me. I always remember the quote, “you are no more your body than you are your house or car” (obviously it was a transcription) but I knew that. Getting beyond that was and still is my quest.

    So, you can see that I am not into definitions and words to describe states of being. LRH uses different terms along the way to define the individual spiritual being, as distinguishable from the person’s body including the brain. This is important as many people really don’t get that there is a difference. He discovered that people were not simply “matter” or units of energy. He wanted to put a label on the existence of the “I” vs the body/brain combo. When the body dies, the person live on. What do you call that which lives on?
    I don’t agree to call the “I” the static necessarily, but LRH defines ‘static’ in the tech dictionary and then in the definition of ‘thetan’ it is #10. By these terms, it makes sense if you understand the physics of it, but it is also important to look at #9 with #10. These are definitions of the individual spirit…not the “end game” so to speak. It is simply a way to identify the ‘who’ or “I” of the person, but it is not about becoming or having. The static then is just a way of defining who we are–our basic nature, as opposed to what states we can be in. So the static just is. From there it can grow and be or not be as it has been said!

  14. Jewel,
    I am from India originially and came to USA as a 23 year old Nuclear Engineering student at MIT in 1969. It was in Cambridge that I discovered Hubbard. I applied Scientology from the implicit understanding of Eastern culture that I grew up in. But I found others around me applying Scientology from the implicit understanding of the Western culture that they grew up in. The cultural background of a person did seem to matter a lot.

    I had wonderful gains from Scientology. But now I see that those gains came from how I understood and applied Scientology. I always interpreted STATIC of Axiom 1 in the sense of BRAHMA (unknowable). It is in the seeking of the unknowable that all knowledge comes about. But those that I came across with a background from Western culture seemed to interpret STATIC as a BEINGNESS that creates space, time, energy and matter. They did not conceive of STATIC as “unknowable.” They always attached a beingness to the STATIC even when not stating it explicitly. I think that it is from a background where God is viewed as a Being. The Eastern background looks at the ultimate reality to be unknowable, and considers even gods to be created beings.

    Thus, I find the cultural background to be very much in play in the interpretaton and application of the ancient track of knowledge that is now being expressed through Scientology. I find that a belief in an immutable beingness that is neither created nor can be dissolved to be the final trap. I think that LRH fell into that trap as evident from what he wrote in the section “Identity versus Individuality” of Scn 8-8008.


  15. I do not think that Hubbard had a solution to “clearing the planet.” The primary evidence is that he failed to generate a grass roots movement even with the “Volunteer Minister” program, or the “The Way to Happiness” booklet. On the other hand he made the Bridge so expensive that it was out of reach of most people. It was interesting to watch Hubbard’s justifications for doing so in late seventies. It didn’t make sense to me. Even on Flagship Apollo, where I spent the mid seventies, Hubbard lived in the utmost luxury, whereas the condition of the crew was extremely poor. It was everyone for himself or herself kind of scenario. It was hypocrisy in play.


    1. What cut across programs like “Dianetics,” “Volunteer Minister,” “The way to Happiness,” etc? Why couldn’t Hubbard make these programs succeed as grass root movements? Are people to be blamed for this lack of success? Does reactive mind need to be blamed? Or, shall we look at Hubbard himself?

      Mahatma Gandhi could inspire and motivate a whole nation. Science as a subject can inspire so many brilliant scientists. Look at other great personalities like Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Audrey Hepburn, Yuri Gagarin, Princess Diana, Dalai Lama, etc. One great characteristic we find in all these great personalities is selflessness. They really cared for their passion for knowledge, social welfare, art, etc., instead of being obsessed with their own self.

      When I look at Scientology, the key characteristic that I see is fixed attention on self. Even with Hubbard I see a lot of attention on self in terms of its safety and aggrandizement. These characteristics are there even if hidden behind some brilliant organization of spiritual knowledge. Hubbard was definitely obsessed with his own self. And that is where his hypocrisy becomes obvious. He seemed to care more for himself than for others. It seems that all his brilliant research was devoted more toward sorting out him than it was for the welfare of others. He could have gotten a grass roots movement going to clear the planet if he really wanted to. He had gathered enough resources to do it. The current Church is following the example that he set, just in a more intense manner.

      This could be just my opinion. But with my exposure to Scientology from 1969 till now, the above is what makes sense to me.


  16. I believe that knowledge should be looked upon for what it is without the consideration of any beingness or “source.” The ancient Vedas were compliled as knowledge itself with no special attention given to the source. Names of Rishis were mentioned only in the passing. Knowledge was important and not the source.

    In my opinion, making oneself the “Source” of knowledge is the ultimate in the attachment to beingness. It comes across as ultimate in hypocrisy to me.


    1. You are right but it is not bad in itself to know the real source of a particular teaching. There are yogis and yoginis for example in Tibet and you know that this or that yogi had or had found a certain teaching.
      I’ve heard a certain teacher for example saying that this is the source of this or that teaching and this is important to know. But I’ve never heard him stating that he is the source of his teachings. Of course I know he is the source in some way of certain parts of the wisdom he shares. Further he also states that teaching does not work the way that one invents something. And here we speak of tradition going back in time thousands of years if we consider only this planet.

      There is this definition as well for hypocrisy:
      the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

    2. Actually Vinaire, each living Rishi represents himself as the “source” of his teachings, and his Teachings as the pinnacle of Teaching. So have Sufi masters throughout history.
      It is a time-honored tradition in the transmission of the Perennial Philosophy
      Each one says he is teaching “the Teaching”. “The Teaching, the whole Teaching, and nothing but the Teaching”, to paraphrase Sgt. Joe Friday of the LAPD, on the show “Dragnet”.

      They are like the retail clerks who say “I have that” or “I don’t have that” rather than “We have that”, or “The store has that”.

      You of course are free to do it however you like, but that doesn’t make Hubbard or his predecessors wrong for doing it the way they did it.

      In fact you resemble him and the rest of them in your insistence that your Teaching is “the Pinnacle’, just as they did.

      Must go with the Rishi territory for some reason.

      1. In Hinduism, it has always been encouraged to question even the scriptures. If there is a source it is never so sacred that it cannot be questioned. What is sacred is knowledge and the understanding of it. Buddha encouraged his followers to question his teachings if they did not understand something.


  17. I do not know if you still remember when it was announced that the Albanian government begun to apply LRH organizational technology. It was more than a decade ago just before the Bosnian Conflict.
    Since that time there were dozens of announcements about bringing the technology into prisons, schools, etc. in third world countries. I’ve never seen a follow up or true accomplishments. Are these unfinished cycles? The LRH technology in the Albanian Government for sure was a short life project.
    I was always wondering what is the purpose to reach out into territories which are just put of sight where there are just too much confusion, randomity and confusion. Why don’t we start with our immediate surroundings? When we are strong we can give real and true help for others.

  18. “OTs are run on statistics. Their production is measured.”
    Now this is an inconsistency as well. If you want to operate for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics, you can’t operate on a solely self-determined way. You should be pandetermined. But that way control has got a totally different meaning if it can get a meaning at all in this sense. Control is an egoistic approach. So there is a fault with the KRC triangle. Scientology has its false datums as well.
    Further if you operate on statistics that means you operate depending on the physical universe. That does not seem too OT for me. How can you measure things happening far away from you like freeing theta in the other part of the continent reducing by that the use of drugs in the youth? I’ve just said a fictional example for how real OT powers should be. Not just fancy (my universe – nonvisible to others) stuff. But if that would happen you just can’t measure that.
    So this is weird. You have this thing with OT powers like promoted in Advance magazine. Finding lost purses 🙂 thieves, etc… But in the actual physical universe no real reducement of crime, etc… Further no statistics for that. But this would be really useful. Some psychic help for the police… Or ringing the door-bell of the neighbour saying: “Hey! I’ve just found your purse. Remember, A thief got that from you last night on the train. Here it is. Do not say thanks. It is just natural. Just a pleasure. Have a nice day, buddy!” That would increase the welcome-factor for Scientology in society. Quite the contrary. “Big” OT’s do not even recognize or say sorry after their wrong-doings. Does not sound too spiritual, does it? They just find their purses or find out who calls them on the phone.

    1. One more thing regarding the stats. If you run on a pandetermined way. It will be that you increase other people’s stats while the time spent on that may effect yours adversely. So this ruins the whole theory.

  19. I also tell an OT story. From the other side of the Bridge, you know. Just imaginery. But I think quite a good one. So, imagine this:
    I was just wondering today what good can I do for people with my OT powers. I’ve just get bored with finding my lost key, and stolen purse but I stepped out of my body again and went just across the Ocean. Because of the time-delay there was a couple of hours earlier so it was late night. I found the military-dictator half asleep. He was just after a conference about where to attack civilians the other day to steel their values and cause the more harm for the peaceful villagers. But you know I though this is not so good, so I was waiting a bit till he fall asleep and than I’ve showed him in his dream what a beautiful place this world could be without wars and genocide. Guess what.. 🙂 You can find out what happened next day from next issue of Newsweek in a couple of days. Yes, he totally changed his mind and not just that 🙂 But you will see. I neither say the country. It will be written. So this was the story from “the other side of the Bridge”. And I would like to see your story as well. Let’s make this world a saner place. Do your best, buddy!

    1. There are obvious reasons why certain imaginary OT powers will not be seen; These are all summed up in Rules Breaking (like lifting a car with “pure intention”, time travel backwards and others).

      1. What do you mean on rule breaking?
        That is a good excuse 😀 LOL
        I do not brake the rules, so I do not get into a warlord’s dream because that would be breaking the rules…
        Now if I am an OT but regging for the Basics and calling the same people 20 time a day that is not breaking the rules? 🙂
        If view this from the greatest goog than I would definitely break some rules if there are good reasons for that.
        Or the rules are so strong that they can’t be breaked. But than it is another story… Almost everyone has imagination. Not just OTs. Just watch a hollywood movie. 🙂

          1. I simply do not beleive in this as a reason. You can help someone in a way he does not know that you bypassed the MEST universe. It does not matter for example if you are a policeman what way you use to get the bed guys. You can pass by someone accidentally on the street or you can have a knowledge where he is and go there and get the purse. You can even excuse yourself with intuition in a couple of occasions. Or just say that you did your research and this was the reasonable thing to judge. So in that way you do not break concensus reality. There are many ways Scientology breaks consensus reality (not just the Church) and does not care.
            So what if OTs would really work for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and not just for their own pockets or fame?

            1. That would of course be great.

              My points on rule breaking is that I too often hear cries that OTs should show their powers or GTFO. Problem is that most of the powers people wants to see cannot be shown. This is explained in my article On Will.

  20. Vinaire,
    I enjoyed your postings immensely. I just came to this blog and I thought perhaps you were new to the subject of Scientology. 🙂 What you say about the cultural difference makes a lot of sense. Its like the difference between the Individualism of the West and the group orientation of the Eastern culture. Chinese children are taught to allow others to do for them, even when they are capable of doing it for themselves. A mother will literally feed a 4 or 5 year old by putting food in the child’s mouth at the table. In America, its important to teach them or allow them to do it themselves. It is just their values on help and roles in the group vs our valuing individualism.
    The concept on one god, one source, doesn’t ring true to me. I always challenged the idea of a super being who created it all, so I never perscribed to anything. I just wanted to increase my awareness of spirituality and abilities to fully operate outside the confines of the body and to experience increased awareness, wherever that brings me. But, the Western part of me didn’t like the idea of trying to do this on my own or through meditation practice because I felt it would take so much time and it wasn’t clear how to acomplish higher awareness in the books I read. I thought Scientology was east meets west. Thus, the term God means nothing to me. I was not, thankfully, indoctrinated into a religion growing up…my parents believed in setting a good example to follow and were very active in the community and schools.We were allowed to examine religion for ourselves.
    How far did you go up the Bridge? I’ve met and talked to so many people that were on the Apollo. What did you do on the ship? Did you know Joka Reeder? You are the first one to say that LRH lived in luxury on the ship! I’d like to hear about that. It never appeared to me he lived a very materialistic life, but the stuff he did have , like cars or clothing looked expensive. Which is fine, I don’t care how he spent money. But I do care that the staff still get paid squat. And it became apparent to me that if the Church really wanted to tackle the concept of getting people to become aware then the way the organization as set up is not workable. The policies in div 6, my area of operation once upon a time, are all about sales to one degree or another. I disagree that Scientology has to be sold. I like groups just fine, but I am of the opinion that when groups get too big, they don’t work because too much controlling of bodies sets in and ARC is destroyed or limited to the group only, which is counter productive, if one is trying to disseminate something on a large scale. Ron has alot to say about groups, and I think Scientologist feel that the policies about how groups get crazy, don’t apply to them. Anyway, I do know that the auditing is fabulous and it is very possible for people to train and audit each other without alot of expense or fuss. I am certain that I could not become more awake and aware on my own, compared to doing the OT levels. I have more to do, and even when I do more, it is not some end all, but just more expansion of awareness. Who knows what lies ahead in this evolution. But, now I have a better understanding of what you were saying regarding the definition of static. So I would say that the static, as defined by Ron, is the being and everything that I have read is about the being and the potential of the being.

    1. Julia,
      There is nothing wrong with beingness or individuality, but there is everything wrong with being obsessed with it. Hubbard was so obsessed with it that he built a whole religion around it. He pretended his religion to be an extension of Buddhism, but then he turned around and invalidated the selfless state of Nirvana. This was hypocrisy. This hypocrisy now propagates itself throughout Scientology. I find most OTs to be very obsessed with self and status. I do not see Scientology or Scientologists engaged in any selfless service, though they expect it from government and others. This is hypocrisy again.

      Scientology is a Western religion in Eastern disguise. In Western Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), the ultimate reality is beingness in the form of God. To a Scientologist the ultimate is also beingness, even though it is in the form of individualism. Scientology has simply elevated each person to a God in the form of an imperishable thetan. I believe that fixation on beingness is a cultural thing. It was deeply embedded in Hubbard.

      Most westerners cannot grasp eastern philosophy no matter how academic they try to be. They look at Hinduism through the lens of beingness and declare it to be polytheistic. Actually Hinduism is atheistic like Buddhism because it does not believe the ultimate reality to be a being. Both religions are based on Vedas which look at the ultimate reality as unknowable and any beingness to be a manifestation. Please see The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

      So, Scientology is in the tradition of Western Semitic religions. It uses some of the eastern ideas, but it is not an extension of Buddhism. Scientology will never be able to take a hold in the east, as it is contrary in its fundamentals.

      On Apollo, LRH ate special gourmet food that was couriered for him from various countries in refrigerated boxes. His clothes were also specially tailored and very expensive that were couriered for him. Whole of SO was there to do his bidding. He had his own Household Unit, which took care of all his comforts and whims.

      I wore many hats in Sea Org, but just before I left in 1983 I was India/New Civilizations Programs Chief and had little support.

      Scientology has been mainly PR. Even the workability of Scientology did not come as much from any processes, but from LOOKING by the preclear. You may take all those complex processes away and simply apply the principle of LOOKING and you will get at least as fabulous results as in Scientology auditing. Please see the essays on LOOKING here. Vinaire’s Blog.

      I always took STATIC to represent the unknowable. I squirrelled at the most fundamental level of Scientology. However, I think I gained tremendously from that squirrelling. 🙂


      1. Vinaire, I like some of your thinking, but this from your Rg Veda page seems to contradict what you sayabout Hindu beliefs:

        “There was neither death nor immortality then.
        There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
        That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
        Other than that there was nothing beyond.

        Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
        with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
        The life force that was covered with emptiness,
        that One arose through the power of heat.

        Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
        that was the first seed of mind.”

        “That ONE”?

        I suppose you will tell me I am misunderstanding something?
        Well, explain it to me, please.

        1. That “ONE” could be anyONE and everyONE – emerging as individuals out of the potential in an effort to know the unknowable. Come to think about it, that would be the ultimate in application of the Know-Mystery scale.

        2. The “ONE” itself arose.
          From the background of UNKNOWABLE.
          It is a part of the manifestation.
          Read the whole hymn and understand what it says about gods.


  21. I’ve just found this sentence on Marty’s blog. Think about it (in terms of Hypocrisy):
    “We find it most disturbing that “Scientology has the ONLY workable admin tech on the planet” yet it isn’t working to expand Scientology at the org level.”

    1. May be it’s not being applied at the org level. I tend to think it is not being applied at any level in the Church of Scientology. Flag and the Sea Org have been busy losing tech, not finding “lost” tech. Instead, they have been inventing their own.

      It’s all “squirrel” in there now, and intentionally dangerous.

  22. There is the statement from LRH that “Scientology is the only workable technology for the mind”.
    There is a statement from LRH “flourish and prosper”.
    Despite this we know how critiques are handled in Scientology. Not with “flourish and prosper” but attack and find out their crimes…
    And we can see a huge conflict here. If the first statement would be true than there would not need to apply mean ways to silence critiques. Flourish and prosper would be far enough and fair, straightforward. If the critiques would be incorrect in their statements than they would ridiculed by their statements. No mean resorts would needed. Even the effort to silence critiques tells of LRH and of Scientology that it is (sorry) sick. At least some part of it.
    So I can conclude, Scientology is not a workable technology for the mind.

    1. That would be a hasty conclusion as this could be equally true: The policy to attack a critic shows lack of faith in the scientology technology. There may indeed be other possible conclusions.

      1. There are differences between critic and critic. If you see something not correct, you have the right to communicate.
        If you spread awful lies that’s another matter. This later is much rare I guess. But even than. If you are goodwill you do not want to destroy that person. And you do not write policies on that topic.

          1. The critic of 1960 is not the same kind of critter as the critic of 1990 or 2010.

            The critics of 1960 were mostly “external” critics who had never been Scientologists, and were critics for other reasons. There were some people who disagreed with Hubbard and went their own way, but they never assumed the mantle of “critic” to any great extent.

            Virtually all the critics today are ex-Scientologists.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s