In message ID: <3D69204B.8BA0D785@sonic.net> Mark Thorson asks about what religion ex-Scientologists got into, if any, after leaving Scientology. That is a very good question, one that I addressed in my old web page, and the big point I raised was the idea that what snags many, or at least so I would think, to being pulled back into Scientology is that if they leave, then what? They have spent tons of time and money believing that Scientology will take them across the "bridge", and if that is shattered, what next? That void which was filled nicely by Scientology is now a big black hole, once again, staring one in the face. I think that if an individual fails to find something to replace it, and it doesn't have to be even a religion, but some way of looking at the universe or life in general, one which will fill that void, an individual can easily fall back into Scientology. Living with a void in one's being is not very comfortable, and it probably is the prime mover for many people's interest in religion and spirituality.

My sister is a Scientologist, and a very decent person. She wouldn't be caught dead posting on this forum, but I won't hold that against her. She knows I left Scientology in 1975 and has never used that against me, nor has ever, in any way, avoided communication from me.

The reason that I'm posting this letter is that it reveals much of the thought processes I used to enable me to fill the void which again faced me when I left. I left long before I became aware of church misdeeds, Xenu, etc., I was only a grade four release. I left for pure philosophical reasons, mostly. Oh, I did observe a lot of nonsense going on in the Sea Org, and that helped, but it was primarily philosophical differences that enabled me to leave. But, of course, since the letter was written recently, and the question she posed was asking for my opinion, I have included more current things going on about the church of which I'm critical, but still, there is much of the original thoughts, things going on in my head which allow me to "blow". Hopefully, my views may help someone, I don't know. But, it is worth a try.

Now, in no way am I offering my peculiar look at the world as an offering or an alternative for anyone, necessarily, but I just wanted to demonstrate to anyone out there in lurker land, that if you are contemplating leaving the church, it is possible to find a new way of looking at things for yourself, based on your experience and observation, which will put things into some kind of order for you.

This was how I did it. If you are interested, please read it, make any comments, criticisms you care. If you are thinking of leaving, I am here, others are here, to help you.

The letter (a series of emails) was the result of my sister asking me my opinion of Scientology. In the 27 years since I had left, she had never asked me such a question. I was suprised she asked, but glad.

The letter contains parts of things I had put on my old web site, which was originally a long letter to her that I had never sent, and so, this is a condensation of that original letter, plus some stuff culled from a few of my ars postings, that I had thought might be pertinent, plus some new things I have been thinking about, and so forth.

---------------------------------------------------------

By the way, her real name is not Lilah. I felt it best to conceal her identity.

First email:

Lilah:

Without getting into a discussion of Scn. per se, I would like to ask you about your viewpoint, if you don't mind. I am interested and your opinion matters to me. I know you said some things before but they were intermixed in the debate thing, so in a new unit of time ....

What do you think about Scn. and do you have any concerns about my involvement in it?.

Thanks Lilah

Phineas:

No, I have no particular concerns about your involvement with Scientology.

I cannot merely give you my "opinion" of Scn in a few words or less, nor am I interested in doing that. Scientology is vast and it would n ot be fair to me, nor you, to offer you a terse statement, since such a statement, by virtue of such terseness, could not possibly approximate, not with even a modicum of precision, the full state of my mind with respect to it.

I would be willing, however, to give you substantially more on the state of my mind with respect to Scn, inviting more of a sincere discourse with you on it, if you answer a question arising from this observation I have made about (some) Scientologists:

Embedded in the consciousness of a many Scientologists, I have noted, who are confronted with someone critical of scientology, is the suspicion that the person (critic) does not want people to get better.

Perhaps it was not overtly expressed, but it is a gut feeling, noting things like body language, subtlety of word choices in queries made, and so forth, and so I only make this statement because it is my heartfelt observation of some Scientologists I have encountered, the root of which I sincerely believe is Hubbard's doctrine of the "suppressive person", etc.

To continue with along this discourse, understand that my goal is the same as yours, and my wish is the same as yours regarding others, that everyone achieves spiritual fruition. So, if you harbor such sentiments similar to the above then any realistic discourse with you regarding my perspective, opinions, feelings, etc., on Scientology is inadvisable.

I will await your reply before answering your query, but note that if you are unwilling for a more involved discourse, with mutually agreed upon parameters, then it is pointless to pursue this, and if that be the case, no hard feelings.

Phineas

Second email:

Lilah I guess I am more interested in your opinion about Scn. on the whole, rather than specific philosophical differences.

Phineas:

On the whole, I find that Scientology has aspects which are disturbing to me.

Third email:

Lilah:

can you give me a 'for example' ...

Phineas Doubt is one of nature's mechanisms which serves as the gateway for exploration, and consequently, in ultimate terms, results in higher states of awareness. Any religion which stigmatizes the process of doubt, as, in my view, does Scientology, is not good for spiritual growth, regardless of any logic such a religion affords to the contrary. The truth is that doubt is a process, a natural process, but in Scientology, it is a 'condition' , one which is not rewarded, but penalized, i.e., it is low on its "scale", and therefore stigmatization, and the subsequent working against nature, is the de facto result.

Final email (to which my sister politely acknowledged that she "got that", and we didn't continue the discourse any further).

Lilah:

There was a policy way back when (in the 60's), which gave penalties, like chains or bands on the arms or staying up all night, for some of the conditions below Normal. That policy was cancelled over 25 years ago (I'm not sure of the exact date) as not only was it not workable, but I understand that it wasn't even authored by LRH ..... Perhaps the attempted application of this issue is what caused the stigmatization you observed, as I observed it then myself. Doing 'lowers' was akin to being a leper in the late 60's and early 70's.

It's no longer like that.

Phineas:

I doubt this, and I believe that it is worse, having seen some secreted videos of RPFed individuals dressed in complete rags, head to toe dirty clothes. Much more recent stuff than 25 years ago, when they did not have consumer grade video cameras, And then there are Affidavits of individuals describing something very bad, lasting for years. There is an RPF within the RPF, which is what I am talking about.

Lilah It was never LRH's intent that the application of any formula carried with it any kind of burden. This would lead to the non-application of the formulas which is exactly what he didn't want.

Phineas:

I don't trust Hubbard. He did not make one public appearance in L.A during the nine years I was a Scientologist.

Lilah:

I think I saw you in 1969, a day or two after you joined staff and you had been assigned doubt, complete with chain on the arm. In case you don't know it by now, that was a complete miscarriage of justice and a gross misapplication of the formulas. As I recall, you were only on staff about a week and I am surprised you lasted that long with the way it was back then.

Phineas:

On staff, perhaps, only a month, but I was later in the Sea Org for nearly a year, where I was RPFed for a longer period. "Doubt" was the reason.

Lilah:

I agree with what you said. One should be free to work through their doubts about something without any sort of pressure. Going the exploration process, doing ones due diligence, being curious, questioning what you read or have been told, etc, is just a natural process of collecting sufficient information to draw a conclusion. If, at the end of this, one still cannot make up his mind, he could use the doubt formula to help clarify the best course of action. That is what it is for.

The doubt formula should be used "When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project ..." (if I ever use quotes, it means it's LRHs own wording).

It's not a matter of 'descending down' the conditions, but just using the formulas to help handle whatever condition one finds themselves in. One common, everyday use, of the doubt formula is to help in deciding on a 2D or staying with a job, for example. It is used all the time this way. Naturally, it can be used to help someone make up their mind about Scientology if they have conflicting data they cannot resolve in the due diligence process.

On staff, the formulas are used exclusively to ensure continued expansion. There is a whole science to the subject of reading graphs but if after weeks of down statistics, one might be assigned doubt, if (and only if) the other conditions above it didn't reverse the trend beforehand - it will help him decide whether to be in the group of, say, lazy people who watch TV all day or in the group of industrious staff members (for example). A correct condition, correctly done, will reverse the stat, which is it's only purpose. Doing the formulas is looked upon as a good thing not a bad thing as it changes the condition for the better.

Frankly, if anyone has run a 'make wrong' trip (or any other kind oftrip) on someone for doing any of the formulas, then they have little understanding of the process or the purpose for them.

I hope this sheds a little more light on this subject, and if so I'd be interested in hearing another of your concerns. If not, you can let me know that too. It's not that I am going to try and disabuse you of your opinions but if I have data that I think that might be relevant in the process of drawing a conclusion or revising an old one, I'd like the opportunity to give it to you - then you can review it, incorporate or discard it, as you see fit.

Phineas:

(for remainder of the letter): You will find that I am always open to your views. If they help me clarify a point over which I may be confused, that is fine. But also keep in mind that my own mind has, over the last thirty years, pondered many thoughts, covered much ground, and read quite a few books and researched thousands of documents. I come to the table with much, and only touch upon essentials here.

Lilah, I have written a very long reply below, and so, when you find the time. Might want to read the whole thing first, before responding to parts, in case I address a point of contention with more elaboration, further on in the text, which is sometimes a bad habit of mine.

* * * * * *

I will begin by stating that my assertion regarding "doubt" was not so much addressed to the realm of the social or everyday living plane, but in terms of the spiritual plane, and what might constitute the best fertile soil upon which the seeds of enlightenment may reach fruition.

In Scientology, you have a scale of conditions. They are nice, neat, and you probably find a value in their application, but I am really not concerned with such things. The doubt of which I speak is a state of awareness. It is not something that is low on any scale, but it is actually a very high state of awareness, a gateway, so to speak, which, in my view, is above most people, i.e., something to strive for, not a problem to which a simplistic formula may be applied. You are speaking of oranges and I am speaking of apples.

I have heard Scientologists speak of "certainty" as a contrast to "doubt", i.e., certainty being desirable, and doubt being a problematic condition out of which one must extricate oneself.

Certainty, of course, feels a lot better than doubt. But without a perspective on what constitutes an optimum fertile soil for growth, one might easily mistake spiritual certainty as something beneficial.

Having experienced it, it is actually more like a drug. If one did not know better, one might mistake the good feeling that heroin provides as beneficial. But we know better, don't we? I contend that on matters spiritual people, on the whole, do not know better, for it is a vast "terra incognita". There is certainty as it applies to the social and civil plane, but I am not referring to this, am referring to the spiritual plane. In the spiritual plane, certainty is cheap, not that good of a thing. For example, the 9-11 fiasco was the result of one man's or group's "certainty" of a religious conviction which sees America as the enemy. Had their level of consciousness risen to a spiritual higher point of doubt, 9-11 may not have occurred. Die Hard Christians are as certain about your going to hell because you are not one of them, as you are certain about LRH and "tech", and so it goes for many religions on 'certainty'.

I do believe in something on the order of an ultimate truth, a plane of consciousness beyond our own in which some kind of total freedom exists. In my universe I see a prospect for an ultimate truth.

Everything below consists of relative truths. When viewed from the ultimate truth, they are not true, but when viewed from there relative position, they are. You have your truths, I have mine. But our truths are relative to our experience. When you drive on a highway, no matter where you are, there is always someone ahead of you, and someone behind. Until you reach "nirvana" (or whatever term endears you the most) you are at some point for which there are other points above and below. There are points above and below every state of consciousness below the ultimate, there are points below the collective consciousness bands of every religion, and they don't all exist on the same stratosphere. In my view, those that can understand this are at a higher point, spiritually, than those that don't. You may consider that Scientology is the end, that it will take you to "OT", but the very concept of OT, the definition of it, in my universe, is antithetical to the Eastern concept of Enlightenment.

Your explanation is perfectly in line with Scientology "Tech", and it is a model reply. I am reminded that when I encounter a conversation in a group of Scientologists, "tech" is always the point of reference for life's problems. I don't mind that people have a common bag of goodies and they are happy with it, but it is not for me. In fact, the uniformity of group thinking in such a thing as Scientology is a big turn off for me. I see the process of spiritual growth more organic, like that of a tree, with manifold complex and multidimensional processes in place to which the simplistic ladder-like steps of Scientology grades. etc., can not possibly apply. They reinforce Scientologists beliefs perhaps, because the Scns have bought into the philosophy. But to me, it is just a pitch, a sales pitch, nothing more. Some people need something like auditing, but a fellow like me cannot benefit from it. I just don't need it. I have my own spirituality, I can fly freely, read and speak of anything I like, make my own observations and create my own "tech". I have a mind which sees clearly (or at least I think so). I am not one who would call Dr.

Laura, or query Dr. Phil, nor L. Ron Hubbard. When I am around a bunch of Scientologists, the tone is too sugary for a guy like me, like plants living in a cushy safe environment of a greenhouse. This is way too suffocating for me. I would rather live in the wild, where the ornery folks live, where both the tigers and the gazelles reside, who speak their own mind, shoot from the hip, not so damned worried about what Hubbard thinks, or the ethics officer, convey original thinking.

Outside, the air is fresh. What do I get from Scientologists? The same old tapes, over and over and over and over again. I RUN away from this kind of thing. God get me away from these suffocating people, that is what races through my mind when I'm around them, and anyone similar.

Christians, too, it doesn't matter.

Scientologists seem to think that the only reason someone cannot benefit Scientology is that they are either committing crimes, connected to someone committing crimes or have misunderstoods (and whatever other points of "tech" apply). They just cannot accept the possibility that it isn't for everybody, and that on some people it just cannot work, and that is one of the big bones of contention I have against it. But the same goes for other religions, and so Scientology really is not that different than other religions. Oh, you might exclaim that they do not have a "technology" but the Christians will state that you don't have "Jesus", and so a Scientologist cannot fathom the similar plane on which both ideologies reside. To me, one is a Ford, the other a Chevy, and that is about it. Neither, in my universe, can deliver one to "Enlightenment" (for lack of a better term). Each exist on a given band of consciousness and can only deliver one to the highest point of each band.

In my view, above every consciousness band is a layer of consciousness. It is the "Doubt" layer. This is a gateway to the next stage. "Certainty" keeps one static, "doubt" lifts.

My opinion is that all religions are nothing more than a reflection of a one stage among many stages in the overall path of collective consciousness expansion, that all souls originated some untold billions, or who knows exactly, years ago as very small units of beingness, occupying perhaps only one-celled creatures, and as time and evolution occurred, so did souls, 'Thetans, if you prefer, right along with it and gradually, the older souls reached human form as we know today. We have, in this very long process, gone though many stages. Ultimately, all of us will reach spiritual fruition, and religion is just a stage, one among many, along the way.

But all stages will be passed, and ultimately, in the end, everything, including the mind in its entirety, will have to be dropped, like dead leaves falling from a tree. Another metaphoristic concept I like is that we are like bubbles of air floating upward in the sea of life, and like all bubbles, they will reach the sky, eventually. Oh, one might get stuck to a rock or a barnacle on a fish swimming the wrong way, but eventually will be dislodged, naturally, and reaffirm its rise to the sky.

So it doesn't bother me in the slightest that someone is in a particular religion. To me, it is just a stage that one must go through. I went through it, and now I am passed it. But if a given path has installed mechanisms to discourage one from getting though it, in essence, his moving upward, then I must criticize that religion. Many religions have such mechanisms. Then again, gaining the strength to bust through them may, the strength having been gained from such an act, may offset the delay in terms of value to growth, so perhaps it isn't all that bad, anyway.

Note that I have, for some thirty-five years, been on a spiritual quest, as you have, and though we have had similar beginnings, we ultimately chose different paths. My own search has lead me to my own brand of spiritual panorama and insight to, as Hubbard would say, "the Terra Incognita". I am acutely aware of the many years and depth of your involvement with the Scientology Church, and I understand fully, at the outset, that it is impossible for me, or anyone, to sway you to another way of thinking. In the past, on matters of web design, copywriting, etc, we have had adamant disagreements, but , for the most part, we have, even though the discourse of such was arduous, eventually arrived at a meeting of the mind, more or less. It would be a rapturous feeling, I would imagine, that two people who, coming from completely different philosophical corners of the earth, both agreeing beforehand to maintain the highest degree of integrity during the process, setting up the playing field with a structure which encourages inductive reasoning, willingness to not cling to a given view if there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and agreeing to the concept that all that matters is the truth, wherever it may lie, that two people who could, indeed, actually reach a meeting of the mind, despite the seemingly insurmountable odds against. That possibility, however remote, would be an exciting and worthwhile effort, by virtue of the concept that only out of the turbulent interplay of polar opposites, can arise that which is the stronger element, the crucible-tempered steel of truth.

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

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

Above I asked that you "shatter" me, (not "you" per se, but anyone who is so capable) and thus you might wonder, "why would any reasonable person want to be shattered?". Because that in the pursuit of spiritual attainment, nirvana, Samadhi, or whatever term you prefer, one must strive for the unreasonable. This is a distinction, in my view, between Hubbard's "be unreasonable" in that he, as I recall or understand, advocates to be unreasonable in all manners of achievement, to which I respond that to be unreasonable across the board, without qualification, can create an environment of oppression.

That is precisely the environment to which I was subjected when I was in the Sea Org.

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

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

Leaving Scientology after I had achieved the conviction that it was the right thing to do, it was like lifting a great burden from my soul. I talked to the ethics officer about this, and he referred me to get word-cleared. That was the best he could offer me. That answer made me realize that this individual was not capable of giving an answer originating from his own consciousness, there was no answer welling up in his being to give to me, only a mental search in his memory banks for the relevant Hubbard policy which allegedly addressed my concern, and this served further to seal my conviction that I was making a breakthrough, that leaving was essential to my spiritual and emotional (and financial) health, simply because I did not want myself to become like the machine who called himself an 'ethics officer'.

Why I left the church in 1975

1. I realized the preposterousness of the idea that, out of billions of years of evolution, physical and spiritual, our ultimate spiritual fruition depends on the work of one man.

2. I realized that many major upward shifts in human consciousness can be or probably are preceded by doubt about the status quo, and a good example of this was the Renaissance, and therefore the policy regarding the "condition of doubt" in Scientology is merely a device to keep Scientologists from leaving, but the ultimate effect is to deny an individual nature's own tool for consciousness raising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. I realized that the doctrine which states that 'the highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect' is false.

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

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

12. I realized that Scientologists, as a whole, tend to think and act alike, in accordance with "tech", and that this was not a good thing (a similarity to other religions, as well)

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

14. I realized that the doctrine which states: "The supreme test of a 'Thetan i.e., spiritual being, is to make things go right" is false.

In my universe, that factor which slows down our achieving the ultimate truth, and probably the most difficult thing to do in this world, is to let go, because the ultimate fruition of the soul cannot happen until the *Thetan can let go of everything. The nirvana described by Zen is the antithesis of *OT, and, the Zen view is closer to the truth, as I see it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. I realized that auditing was dangerous in that preclears are in the hands of highly indoctrinated and unqualified persons, and should not be trusted with one's personal thoughts. There is considerable testimony of ex-Scientologists regarding the repugnant practice of Scientology to cull the PC folders of its ex-members in the search of any items to be used against the ex-member. No Catholic parishioner would ever do that, regardless of the hideousness of the confession.

Thus whatever you say to an auditor, can be used against you should you ever leave the Church. If a Scientologist doubts this as true, he or she has not done research, and is therefore naive. Hubbard was witnessed doing this, and he did it routinely. He did some other sick stuff, to wit:

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

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

Moreover, any man who could have authored the following document cannot not possibly have the best interests of children in mind.

Behold the abominable practice of the "sec check" applied to children per this excerpt from HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1961, for the security checking, by e-meter, of children, authored by Hubbard:

Children's Security Check Ages 6-12

WHAT HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU NOT TO TELL?

HAVE YOU EVER DECIDED YOU DIDN'T LIKE SOME MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY?

HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN SOMETHING BELONGING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NEVER GIVEN IT BACK?

HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO BE SICK (ILL)?

HAVE YOU EVER MADE YOURSELF SICK (ILL) OR HURT YOURSELF TO MAKE SOMEBODY SORRY?

HAVE YOU EVER WANTED SOMETHING VERY MUCH BUT NEVER TOLD ANYBODY ABOUT IT?

HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN YOURSELF DIRTY ON PURPOSE?

HAVE YOU EVER REFUSED TO EAT JUST TO WORRY SOMEONE?

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

Also of concern to me is current Sea Org policy regarding the unborn.

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

http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_mt.html

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

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

22. I decided I would create for myself my own personal policy which was to never surrender my own spiritual growth to anyone, let alone a writer of science fiction.

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

24. I realized that in the nine years I considered myself to be a Scientologist, Hubbard had not made one major public appearance.

Whatever the reason was, there was no excuse. Recently, I discovered that during those years Hubbard never made a public appearance he was being sought under indictment by the FBI.

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

Lilah, I have read literally hundreds of documents on the internet, saw videos, etc, of a plethora of abuses that Scientology commits on individuals, acts which are despicable and unjust, that no religion should be party to, particularly in the area of the OSA. You may call these people SPs, deserving of such treatment, etc., with some kind of evil agenda, but I have met up with some of these people, and they are nice, sincere, remarkably intelligent, etc., anything but what Scientology would have you believe. I really don't think you are aware of Scientology's dark side, as are most Scientologists not aware, also, in my view. No LRH quotes are going to diminish such acts of injustice, not now, not ever. Yes, Scientology's intent might be good, but that isn't enough. Even Hubbard said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Your towing of the Scientological line is admirable, but it is naive, in my view. You really should read some things, but I know you wont, because I know the Scientology line on them, with which I disagree, and which I see as but another control point on Scientology's part which discourages adherents from fraying from the flock.

I have a document, notes by LRH himself, written when he was about 37, before he created Dianetics. It was a time when he was experimenting with self hypnosis. In fact, LRH became a master of hypnosis, which is why he knows a lot about it. The document was a personal one, by Hubbard to himself, and was never intended on being read by anyone, and this is rather obvious when you read it. But it is, in many ways, a startling document, though I will admit, utterly fascinating. Oh, I'm sure you, as well as other Scientologists will deny he wrote it.

But I believe Hubbard's style is inimitable, at least with a sustained complexity, and the circumstance in which it surfaced has a ring of truth. I can't prove he wrote it, but the depth of it reveals the psyche of a complex man, and with many many such details, leads me to believe it is authentic, not something that can easily be faked since it is in Hubbard's style, but still in a different way that could not have been predicted, very revealing, fascinating, but more importantly, it was written by someone to whom I would not entrust my own spiritual growth. I do believe Hubbard wrote it, I believe it with all my heart. (note: I'm referring here to the "Affirmations", or, as some would call them "admissions". But that is not right, since Hubbard did not intend, I believe, for anyone to read it).

After leaving Scientology, I discovered that there is a way to look at life outside of Scientology, a way which is fundamentally different, one that is not at war with the world, one that does not include, nor see a benefit from, controlling the world, one that is, indeed, harmonious with nature, one that will allow you to think self-initiated thought without fear of retribution, one that sees life as an upward spiral, one that won't declare you a "suppressive" if you so much as utter a disparaging word, one that doesn't care what your productivity level is, one that won't tax or litigate your livelihood into oblivion if you so choose to think and act outside of the box of Scientology.

Some thoughts emanating from my own brand of spiritual awakenings:

Enlightenment is our ultimate destiny, and, indeed it is our natural heritage, and some day, this lifetime or the next, it will descend on us permanently, on that I believe we can have faith. That it will happen it is the natural heritage for all living beings. It has nothing to do with the silly little games we play in our little lives.

It really has nothing to do with religion or any ologies or isms, or -etics.

There is an ancient proverb: In the forest, the flower blossoms by itself. Because of this I believe that no e-meters are needed, no Hubbards are needed, it is the flower's natural heritage. We started as seeds, we sprout and grow like seeds, and eventually, when the time is ripe, we will achieve spiritual fruition, and it will be permanent.

Note that nature provides seeds with all that is necessary, within the seed, to achieve fruition by itself. Of course, fertile soil and nutrition is required, and the poor quality of such can limit, or poison growth, and therein lies the core of my philosophy. What, indeed, constitutes the best soil for spiritual growth? Only you, as "source" can derive the proper path. As soon as you surrender your will to another, attribute the status of "source" to another, you are treading on dangerous ground, spiritually. That is my view.

My view is that life is an upward spiral, not a downward one as Hubbard suggests.

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

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

Human consciousness, in pure quantitative terms, is similar.

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

To an amoebae, the ant is the Grand Canyon.

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

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

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

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

I believe that to be false.

One can build and cling to all of the castles in the sand that one wants, but the tides of time will always smash them. The true spiritual goal is not "to make things go right" (in an effort to build sand castles, etc) but to let go, to quit clinging, feeding the ego.

The clinging is what is preventing us from our enlightenment. The supreme test of a Thetan is to let go. Because the final act a Thetan must commit before enlightenment is possible is to let go completely and utterly, without hesitation, and if we fail on this count we will only come back to try again.

Looking at this from a different angle:

In Zen, (Buddhism, and meditation of all it's various flavors) the goal is to unmock (using a Scientology term) the mind, not just the 'reactive mind', but the entire mind. Now, without getting into the nuance of eastern teaching, it doesn't really matter because I am borrow concepts from them, but when I say "Zen" this or that, I am really speaking of something that is homebrew, so to speak, not that of others. I am speaking on my own authority, not that I'm worthy of such authority, but it doesn't matter to me.

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

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

But it is inevitable, given infinity, that enlightenment will reach us all. That is my own faith.

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

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

One cannot audit his way to enlightenment by virtue of the fact that the only tool available in auditing are use of words, commands, etc.

Achieving enlightenment can be likened to, in spiritual terms, to the scaling of Mt. Everest. In such a realm as this, words are impotent, and can only move you across a valley and barely to the foothill of such a lofty peak. The final path to it can only be traveled by oneself, at which point, the individual will have to abandon all precepts, assumptions, icons, books, ologies, isms, etc.; abandon them wholly and utterly.

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

It would be one thing if Scientology marketed itself has a therapy, but it markets itself as having the (paraphrased) "bridge to achieving total freedom, to exist outside of the body and have total control over matter, energy, space, and time, both subjective and objective, in perpetuity", since this is the exact description of a God, and that the price for this is extremely huge, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, it is more than reasonable to query the validity of it all.

Personally, any individual on this path who does not subject it to the highest of scrutiny, is foolish, in my view. I subjected it to scrutiny, and witnessed many red flags, too many, and it therefore was impossible for me to remain a Scientologist. I note that I can speak about any aspect of Scientology, and a Scientologist cannot. Why cannot a Scientologist view information that is counter to his or her beliefs? Because of their indoctrination. I am anti-indoctrination, personified, and any kind indoc philosophy is not going to work on a guy like me.

Then there is the matter of just what is on the "upper levels", and their value. Okay, Lilah., you may find value there, but me it is all nonsense, pure and simple. I cannot fathom how anyone could accept it as something remotely in the ballpark of 'truth'. However, I might be able to comprehend (how one could believe it all) it if one considers the long, arduous, gradual process of indoctrination adherents have been subject to. I am glad I didn't allow myself to get to OT3, then read that (handwritten) document. I surely would have been pissed, in a very big way. I know Margery Wakefield was, and she wrote a whole book about it. It blew me away in that her experience (excluding the upper levels) in the Sea Org was very similar to my own, and she was at Celebrity Center around the time that I was.

Personally, I WELCOME any information which will lead me to a higher truth (if, indeed, it is a higher truth). Challenge me, shatter me, don't be nice, be tough, I say. Give me the hard hitting stuff, I thrive in that environment. But, frankly, (most) Scientologists continue to disappoint me. I do not assume that I have the highest truth, never. The spiritually wise take stock of their beliefs, from time to time, and more often is even better. I cannot say this of Scientologists, nor Christians, nor Eckists, and many of different religions. Doubt is the way through to higher states. That is my philosophy. And I have probably given you more of it here than you bargained for, nor wanted, particularly.

When the doubt layer is reached, one will understand, and one will understand that it is not some little condition for which a simplistic formula can resolve, it is much deeper, a soul searching kind of experience, revolutionary stuff, that kind of thing. It is called "catharsis". That is why I like meditation, I get cathartic experiences from it, beyond anything which I ever reached in Scientology, beyond anything which I have ever read in Scientology, beyond words, any words, and the only thing which even comes close, and even that is a distant lower harmonic, is the space between the words, the poetry of the words, not the substance of words, not the meaning of the words, but the dance of the words, the dance of everything, for life is an oscillating, undulating, vibratory thing, and that when one meditates, it is kind like the dancer disappears, and only the dance remains.

Phineas

Go Back