An Open Letter to Scientology critics

The Church of Scientology has gone down the drain. It is perpetrating abuses daily and that makes many people angry.
It is easy to blame. Much harder to understand. Much harder to respect other’s beliefs and gains.
What if the gains some people reports from Scientology is real?
What if Scientology did do them a world of good?

Would you rather they didn’t have the gains?

54 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Scientology critics

  1. It doesn’t seem possible to take away spiritual gains that another claims. This is yet one more flaw with Scientology Ethics Codes: Cancellation of Gains.

    1. Where does LRH say gains can be “cancelled”? I have never seen nor heard such a reference. (That doesn’t mean one does not exist, but I’ll believe it only when I see/hear it.)

      1. Valkov, Cancellation of Certs and awards is a way of cancellation of training and meritorious gains obtained with verified competence. It is done nowadays as a tool for handling opossition in the push for the power in the CoS.

        1. You are talking about “They cancelled my Certs, now I am supposed to feel invalidated and pretend I am losing my gains as a result”.

          Why play that game? Does taking away your Cert somehow affect your actual ability to still do what you know how to do?

          1. Scientologists are afraid of criticizing Scientology because they associate it with losing their gains.

            The truth is that there is no association between gains and criticism of Scientology. If one is afraid of criticizing what is wrong in Scientology then one has not really gained anything except for some conditioning.

            .
            .

      2. I do use the word “gains” tongue-in-cheek; however, this is the way the game is played and by your own comment you would therefore have to see my certification rather than hear me tell you about my gain. Cancel my certification, cancel my gain. Check.

  2. Ah, but I am not pointing to taking gains HAD away from another – but rather to take away Scientology from people before they had the chance to have those gains. It’s hypothetical.

    But I changed the post just for clarity.

    1. In this hipotesis I agree on that the gains of scientology psicotherapy over the human mind are real and should be preserved and being made accesible to any interested persons. But the spiritual gains are so mudied with DISCONECTION POLICY coming from the dependent and independent scientology fields that it is better to alert any new scientology public about the real nature and risks of the scientology policy as you can loose good friends, bussines associates and family members at the orden of his scientology leader. ( I mean, no discussion of the subject is allowed because of the risk of ” becoming PTS ” ).

  3. The gains reported in Scientology are from LOOKING, but on an enforced basis. I call it “enforced basis” because one is searching for engrams by diving into the mind (Dianetics) instead of letting the mind un-stack itself in a natural manner.

    Normally, un-stacking of the mind does not occur on its own, because is not in a “looking mode” 24/7.

    So, I would say that the gains in Scientology are real, but, by no means, complete.

          1. One inconsistency in Scientology is that you have to suffer through the pain of an engram before you can relieve it. Per KHTK theory, this would happen only when one tries to relieve the engram out of its natural sequence. Scientology tries to hunt for the engram to erase it. Scientology does not allow the natural un-stacking of the mind.

            The fact is that an engram can never be relieved completely, when one tries to erase it out of sequence. Thus, in Scientology, an engram is seldom erased completely.

            It is only when the mind is allowed to un-stack naturally, can the engram be erased completely. In this case (1) The engram is offered naturally by the mind, (2) There is no pain re-stimulation, and (3) the engram erases completely.

            No wonder that the Scientology Bridge is interminable.

            1. Vinaire: ” One inconsistency in Scientology is that you have to suffer through the pain of an engram before you can relieve it. ”

              Huh?

              Vinaire: ” Scientology tries to hunt for the engram to erase it. Scientology does not allow the natural un-stacking of the mind. ”

              The auditor asks a question. If there is something there that the pc is ready to confront or it is available, the pc itsa’s. If not, the usual buttons are checked and if nothing, one moves on.

              Vinaire: ” The fact is that an engram can never be relieved completely, when one tries to erase it out of sequence. Thus, in Scientology, an engram is seldom erased completely.”

              Re-read Engram Running by Chains 1, 2 & 3. Demo how auditing works.

              Where does it say to run things out of sequence?

              Did you ever do a C/S No 1?

            2. I don’t think that there is some absolute state that can be called clear. There are some arbitrary made up definitions in Dianetics and Scientology. They are all relative states with arbitrary criteria.

              One may say that clearing would be removal of inconsistencies from the mind, analogous to the computer term. Per KHTK 6 on Vinaire’s Blog, Engrams are only one type of inconsistency, and removal of engrams does not necessarily remove other types of inconsistencies. Thus, Dianetics and Scientology theory is imprecise and incomplete.

              I would say that KHTK approach does a more thorough job of removing inconsistencies.

            3. Vinay, you say Dianetics and Scientology theory is imprecise and incomplete. I would like to know if in the KHTK process there are specific states to be achieved as a form of quality control.

            4. Scientology being imprecise and incomplete does not mean that one does not get any gain out of it. Scientology employs “looking” mixed with other mumbo-jumbo, and when somebody happens to use looking correctly in Scientology, there are definite gains.

              One can arbitrarily make some specific states to be achieved in KHTK. For example one may say that getting rid of each type of inconsistency per KHTK 6 would result in a specific state, but who is going to determine that and how? Removal of a big inconsistency may appear as if one has achieved a certain state, but that would be different for different person.

              I don’t know how you are associating quality control with certain states being specified. It is a gradient process. In those gradients one encounters small and big inconsistencies. So, as one moves up the gradient one may get small and big blow outs. The gains are subjective when perceived over a short period of time. It is only over a long period of time that one may be able to evaluate gains objectively.

              Compare it to gains on the stock market. Look at the Scientologists. How many have gotten objectively visible gains by evaluating them over a long period of time. How does that compare with gains that come from maturity over the years?

              .

            5. KHTK is the analytic form of the technique of Vipassana taught by Buddha. So, I may hazard a guess that the final state will be Nirvana. I have written about this state on Vinaire’s blog.

              How long will it take to achieve this state? I have no idea. But I can certainly say that i am doing better than the state of Clear which I achieved twice in Scientology. As I continue to resolve inconsistencies for myself, I continue to do better and better.

              I feel that it is possible to achieve Nirvana in one lifetime. With better discipline one may achieve it faster, may be in a period of 5 years (Budda’s record). Technique is only one factor influencing progress. The other factors are discipline and continual practice until LOOKING becomes a second nature.

              Good luck to you, my friend.

              ..

      1. It definitely is, Geir, stopping to beat one’s child from whatever reason is a gain for the child, and if it also comes from a greater understanding of why beating a child is a bad thing, then it also might be a gain for that person.

        Whatever definition of Complete, I cannot see anything than that these gains must considered Complete for both the person and the child …

    1. Asking for “the incident necessary to resolve the case” is, to me, obviously asking the person to “unstack his mind” in a natural fashion. Thus your interpretation seems to me to be “dub-in”. Perhaps you were subjected to “bad auditing”, which is really not “auditing” at all, per LRH?

      1. Have you listened to the recordings of Dianetic sessions of the 1950s by LRH? The inconsistency that I see in what you wrote is that you are taking just one command to define all of Dianetic practice. Please take a look at how Dianetics was actually practiced.

        .

        1. It is the basic, senior, command. The management of a session follows, and requires Two-way Communication be established and kept “in”.

      2. This assumes that there IS an “incident” which is necessary to resolve one’s case.

        This assumption has been proven false many times over in the case of alcoholics and other addicts, as well as with many other types of cases.

        Therefore, even the bast Dianetic or Scientology auditing will not work on many cases.

        You gotta count the misses, along with the hits, Valkov.

        1. Al, I think the idea there in asking for “the incident” is that it is the current or next incident necessary to resolve the case – not that there is one particular incident or a one-shot, silver bullet incident. (If that’s what you mean.)

        2. DOX PLOX, because I have heard there are specialized “drug rundowns” etc included in the tech compendium.

          The question itself asks for whatever mental content the person is capable of confronting at that exact time; in other words, it is asking the person’s mind to ‘unstack itself in a natural way’.

          That was my only point, not whether or not that procedure would cure alcoholism, addiction,or anything else.

    2. Vinay, there is a mix problem with the scientology subject. Scientology is a good psicotherapy ( releases the harmful energy stored in the human mind ) but a very bad religious practice. this bad mix are as water and oil and are badly blended against his very nature causing harm as a pair. So the gains in scientology of course are real by if you add religion to it, will never be complete.

      1. Rafael, what are you referring to as the “religion” – the philosophical principles? I assume you aren’t talking about the C of S alterations, but about what is in LRH writings.

        You commented one time about your disagreement with the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” and I meant to ask you more about that. Is that what you’re talking about? If so, please explain what you mean.

        1. marildi, I am talking about what is in lrh writings, in my opinion he is the cause of the current aberration in the CoS. About the optimal solution formula, I ask you to see at it without any previous group conditioning this solution is in fact an aberration and a problem designed to allow the rip-off of the parishioners.

          1. Thanks, Rafael. The way I see the optimum solution is that it is to be used essentially the same way as Geir’s tool for weighting choices. But that means, like with so many LRH principles and policies, it all comes down to intention. And the optimum solution I’m sure has been applied with the intention to rip-off – but I don’t agree that it was designed for that purpose.

            Which principle do you prefer instead?

            1. marildi, thanks for your attention, the principle I would like to see in use is the original four Human dynamics formula from book one. This aproach even used as you say just as a tool assisting the weighting of choices. This way of handling problems attending the human being ( the person ) in first place will take naturally their symbionts but not giving more importance to them above the person. Of course here we have again the recurrent problem of KSW # 1, nothing in the scientology scriptures can be changed ever by the official church or the splinter groups calling themselves independent scientologists.

            2. Rafael, do you mean using only the first four dynamics instead of all eight?

            3. Okay, what exactly is the problem with using all eight? They are given weight values, in any case, right?

            4. marildi, precisely, the problem is the aberrated weight values. In the real practice of this ” optimal solution formula ” your senior or ethics officer refuses to acept you solution if this is not what the managment wants.

            5. Rafael dear, I will say again that I totally agree with you about the current management and am not really much interested in discussing what they do. My interest is in what the writings themselves say. From that perspective, do you have a problem with applying the datum about the greatest good to all eight dynamics?

            6. marildi, yes, I see this formula as a thought stopping process which induces confusion on the person and leaving such person hungry for a solution coming from outside him to get out of that confusion.

            7. My dear man, you are making me pull every little piece out of you one at a time 😉 Please give me the whole answer to my question, the whole idea you have in mind that won’t leave me with yet another question. In other words, tell me how it is a thought-stopping process to apply all eight dynamics (and don’t forget to skip what the CofS is doing and talk only about the principle itself).

            8. marildi, the problem with applying the datum about the greatest good to the greatest number of the eight dynamics is that most of the scientologist don´t understand how to do this and ask someone else assistance to do it, this rarely is done as a solo action, and so the interest of the assistant is a bad influence. The last 4 dynamics only balance the personal decision towars non human areas of life making a tendency to harm the person, or his family and bussines which are the less number. In my view a correct and ethical decision is done because it protects the person, his family and close associates, any other consideration is just to open space to trick the poor fool.
              A whole answer to your question could be diffucult to achieve as may be you have previous and equally false earlier data. But it is not imposible, if you are interested I have my TR 4 fully in and you can ask all you want, I am really happy to help.

            9. Rafael, thank you for your answer and your expressed willingness! 🙂

              Okay I got what you said but I’m not convinced that the upper dynamics don’t need to be taken into consideration. Let’s take for example the 6th dynamic. I think it is of great importance to the first 4 dynamics that, for instance, there exists care and concern for the planet and the environment – because if not, the lower dynamics will suffer greatly. A similar thing could be said about the 5th dynamic, life forms. And on the 7th and 8th I think you would agree that spiritual aspects of life are important too.

              I get what you are saying about the optimum solution being misapplied, but I suggest we find an answer to solving that problem itself, rather than toss out a piece of truth and a relevant piece of tech.

            10. marildi, the upper dynamics need to be taken into consideration but not in a balance with the same weight because doing so the first 3 human and more important dynamics will always lose, it is mathematical. ( the person looses his family and bussines to assist the rest of the so called most numerous dinamics ). My option is to take as important the first 4 and the rest just as aditional but necessary data, as symbionts. And of course leave to the person handle his ethics by himself without someone else hard sell.

    3. Quote: ” The gains reported in Scientology are from LOOKING, but on an enforced basis. I call it “enforced basis” because one is searching for engrams by diving into the mind (Dianetics) instead of letting the mind un-stack itself in a natural manner. ”

      Auditing is not enforced. If what you experienced was enforced, it wasn’t auditing.

      One does not ‘dive’ into the mind. It occurs in Present Time. It is created by the pc

  4. Geir wrote:

    The Church of Scientology has gone down the drain. It is perpetrating abuses daily and that makes many people angry.
    It is easy to blame. Much harder to understand. Much harder to respect other’s beliefs and gains.
    What if the gains some people reports from Scientology is real?
    What if Scientology did do them a world of good?

    Would you rather they didn’t have the gains?

    It isn;t a matter of whether someone had gains. People get gains from Christianity and Theosophy and shopping at Target.

    What matters is the abuse and criminality that ideologies cause because they have to be made true even when they are not.

    A person could see all DMs behavior stemming from trying to make the ideology of Scientology true even when it is not.

    This is the root of the evil of Scientology, and it is the root of the evil of any ideological organization such a a communist one, a fascist one, a christian one, or even a Republican one” trying to make the ideology true even when it is not.

    Thus, if someone got “wins”, it does not matter. The abuses matter. The criminality matters.

    Why is a person who got wins ignoring the criminality and abuse and letting it go on?

    Because they are trying to make the ideology true, even when it is not.

    Those Scientologists who wish to keep getting wins are responsible to clean up the abuse in Scientology. And yet they are the ones who cover them up, perpetuate them and attack those who are trying to clean them up.

    Nobody’s wins justify any abuse or crimes.

    Scientologists need to start cleaning up Scientology.

    NOW.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s