Subject: Scientology vs. Anthroposophy

Scientology vs. Anthroposophy

(Lafayette Ron Hubbard vs. Rudolf Steiner)

 

Background:

In December 1997, my co-editors in the Norwegian anarchist magazine Gateavisa
asked me to research the scientology internet war concerning their copyrighted
holy scriptures that had been authored by Ron Hubbard and write an article
about it. When my article had been published, I sent a copy of the magazine to
ex-scientologist Steve Fishman in Florida, who had been one of the featured
players in the drama. During the course of our ensuing correspondence, I
mentioned that I had been an anthroposophist for three decades and that I had
never felt drawn to scientology, but always had a certain aversion against it.
On the other hand, I wondered if Hubbard had borrowed concepts from Rudolf
Steiner as well as from Helena Blavatsky and altered them to fit his own
system. This led to a request from Fishman to write an analytical comparison
between anthroposophy and scientology. This project was started by me but never
finished. The task is, after all, enormous.

Very recently I became aware of a fact that I find disturbing: Certain
anthroposophists pendle Ron Hubbard's tech along with Rudolf Steiner's class
lessons and "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds." They even claim that
representatives of the Anthroposophical Society should join forces with top
brass scientologists to learn from each other for mutual benefit. In my
personal opinion, this is very disturbing indeed. First, scientology represents
a threat of spiritual pollution in the anthroposophical community if
anthroposophists adopt and practice Hubbard's concepts and methods. Secondly,
the Church of Scientology will undoubtedly exploit this opportunity to "gather
intelligence" from the Anthroposophical Movement, especially its organized
institutions. This intelligence may be used to harm, blackmail, or crush such
organizations at any given moment. Anthroposophy is, after all, another
"implant," another "lie,' as long as it is not identical with scientology.

The time must be ripe to publish my unfinished project on this website. The
reader should keep in mind, however, that the following text was intended for
an audience more or less familiar with Ron Hubbard's scientology but total
strangers to Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy.

- Tarjei Straume, december 1998

 

Introduction

Due to the instinct for truth in human nature, absolute lies are not as
effective as some people think. With half-truths and quarter-truths, on the
other hand, you can make people believe almost anything. This is my point of
departure, and I will come back to it.

Mr. 'Source' borrowed his half- and quarter-truths from a variety of sources.
Like several other cult leaders, he obviously read Helena Blavatsky (1831-91),
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), or both of these.

Blavatsky founded the Theosophy Society in 1875. In 1902, Steiner was appointed
president for the German section of the Theosophical Society, but in 1913 he
broke off and established his own organization, the Anthroposophical Society.
The major reasons for this break were:

1) that the Theosophical leaders had no understanding or sympathy for Steiner's
Christian teachings, and:

2) that these Theosophical leaders brought a scandal upon their organization by
claiming that the Indian boy Krishnamurti was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ
and the saviour of the world. They founded a cult (in the twentieth century
meaning of this word) on this idea, called 'The Star of the East', which
Krishnamurti himself disbanded in 1930.

By this time, Theosophy had fallen into disrepute, but it continued to inspire
innumerable new religions and cults (same definition as above) in America. New
religious founders simply borrowed from Blavatsky's 'Secret Doctrine' and 'Isis
Unveiled', and called these their own 'revelations'. Ever since that time,
U.S.-sponsored New Age religions have become increasingly infected by ufology
and flying saucers, and Jesus Christ has been made into an astronaut who is
supposed to 'return' in a space ship.

Thanks to popular unfamiliarity with Rudolf Steiner, his works were even easier
to abuse than those of Helena Blavatsky. Not only is he much more
comprehensible and digestible to read, but his works are extremely voluminous,
covering the most diverse of topics. Anthroposophy is primarily based upon the
enormous body of occult knowledge he developed, consisting of 50 written books
and 6000 lectures, totaling 350 volumes in the original German.

Steiner was apparently an excellent source for 'Source' Hubbard. From this
treasure, which is almost unknown in America, there were plenty of morsels to
choose from in order to feed people all kinds of secret little half-truths and
quarter-truths to use as baits for his sinister scheme.

For this reason, it may be interesting to take a closer look at some of
Steiner's teachings in order to compare them to Hubbard's version of
Anthroposophical ideas. But when we are doing this, it is equally important to
analyze the differences, especially where they stand in diametric opposition.
And the principles of RS and LRH clash most violently in the ethics, or moral,
department. Beria, Crowley, and some other sources were perhaps relatively
close to Hubbard's code of ethics. Steiner, however, represents an entirely
different school of thought when it comes to morals.

Many skeptical readers, ultra-rationalists, atheists, agnostics, orthodox
devotees of traditional religions etc., may conclude that L. Ron Hubbard and
Rudolf Steiner were both spaced out in their heads and were equally off the
wall with their respective cosmologies. I accept and respect reactions of this
kind, and this sentiment is modified only by my responsibility to prevent
misconceptions about Dr. Steiner's moral character, ideals and motives.

Steiner's spiritual-scientific genius is of secondary importance. The most
impressive aspect of this man is his exalted moral standard and his unselfish,
self-sacrificing way of life, plus his ability to communicate this high code of
ethics through inference and personal example without ever coming across as
moralistic. And on this particular point there must be no room for
misunderstanding or untruth.

In order for the reader to appreciate an analysis of the differences and
similarities between Scientology and Anthroposophy, it becomes necessary to
treat the subject in such a way that the presentation also serves as an
introduction to the latter. It is assumed that the reader has become familiar
with Ron Hubbard, Dianetics, and Scientology, while knowing very little, or
perhaps nothing, about Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy.

Information about Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy is all over the web, with
links to libraries, book lists, colleges, etc. Thus it should be easy to
supplement this study with additional literature.