“Going Clear” is a goal that many Scientologists have. Not so anti-Scientologists like Lawrence Wright and the gang of haters he listens to. They prefer throwing mud and lies on honest and well-meaning people. How lame is that.
Enough said. Those interested, check this out: lawrencewrightgoingclear.com
Update (I opened the comments too):
This is rather amazing information about L. Ron Hubbard that I never knew (no, I won’t thank Mr. Lawrence Wrong for this, but wow…!):
>> Statement: [Pages 23-24]
Wright dredges up a false allegation from a book written over two decades ago that L. Ron Hubbard only went to China once: “Hubbard made two voyages to visit his parents in Guam. One trip included a detour to China… His trip to China, which was organized by the YMCA, lasted only ten days.”
>> True Information: Mr. Hubbard took two trips to Asia.
The first was in May 1927 as he covers in his journal, shown in The L. Ron Hubbard Series, Early Years of Adventure, Letters and Journals. His journal entries are confirmed with ship manifests of the Gold Star. During this voyage, a young L. Ron Hubbard visited ports in Guam, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Kobe (Japan) and Manila (Philippines). He returned to the United States in July 1927 aboard the USS Nitro as shown in the same L. Ron Hubbard Series volume. (It goes on over some pages, read it yourself: http://www.lawrencewrightgoingclear.com/wright/chapter-2/trip-to-china.html)
Or this one, a nice “fact-checking” failure: http://www.lawrencewrightgoingclear.com/wright/chapter-3/broken-arm.html
56 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Scientology Myths Forum 
Haters going to hate. Scientology works. Nuff said.
Stewart is so right. Read all of L. Ron Hubbard’s books and THEN, make a decision. It is the only fair way to do this, otherwise you are just another religious bigot. Whether Ron Hubbard lied about his war record or not is irrelevant. Even if he did lie about curing himself of blindness; I don’t see what that has to do with the price of slow boats to China. So what if he didn’t study with the mystics in Asia like he claimed? It is irrelevant. Scientology works and so does Dianetics.
This whole blog is a scam and fake. Posted by a bigot scientologist. If you want some factual data you will gave to review all sources of data, not just one blog.
Good. If you’re committed to reviewing _all_ sources of data, then that would include such things as (a) reading a wide variety of Dianetics and Scientology books by L. Ron Hubbard, to find out what he actually said, (b) visiting a Church of Scientology in person to find out what kind of a place it is (c) meeting with and talking to a variety of Scientologists to find out what kind of people they are, and perhaps (d) trying out some auditing or a short course, and seeing the E-meter working, to get an idea of what is actually done.
Research done in person trumps internet any day.
Actually, Stewart, that’s only partially true. For example, many scientologists claim that psychiatric medicine and even psychiatrists themselves are ‘bad,’ even though they’ve never (a) read the research, (b) visited a psychiatrist (c) met with experts in the field or (d) trying out some therapy to get an idea of what is actually done. Do you think that scientologists are wrong for that?
But sometimes you need to consider other sources. For example, if you do your steps (a-d), you might believe that hubbard was a war hero. That’s what you would be told. That’s what I’ve been told, using your steps. It’s only when you look at the actual records (which you will NOT get using your method) that you find that he lied.
As for psychiatry – you are yourself making quite a sweeping statement! How do you know what the stats are on Scientologists studying up on that? Many are actually quite well informed on the subject, including myself. You only need to talk to a few survivors of psychiatry to know what it’s about.
Surely you can’t possibly be defending psychiatry?! Even their own rank and file are admitting there’s no science and that their practice is damaging. If you think psychiatric drugs are safe, you have your head in the sand – there’s copious evidence available.
And there’s no potential damage of any kind to trying out some auditing – if you’re really that worried, you can try it out as the auditor!
Whereas there is irreversible damage with electro-shock or powerful drugs. Also, once you’re diagnosed by a psychiatrist, you go ahead and try to remove that diagnosis later and say, “I was only trying it out.”
You see, psychiatry is something that is _forced_ on people through the power of the state. If you don’t like it, they will come to your door with police, and force it on you.
I’d say psychiatrists are “bad” purely on that account alone.
As for Hubbard’s war career – it’s not entirely pertinent to the workability of Dianetics. Dianetics does work – that is very demonstrable to anyone calm and unprejudiced enough to actually observe. As for arguing over who lied when, or what document is fake and how you prove it – I’m not set up to trial that, but I am set up to trial Dianetics. Government records are not infallible, and have been known to lie before, especially on military matters. (Indeed, when the CIA is your enemy, what government documents _can_ you believe without question?)
Can’t agree. Scientologists are not bigots. You seem to be a bigot.
Use your head and you will see this for yourself if you really look.
Like all things, the truth is right in front of you if you look closely.
Try to see things sideways at least if can actually manage it. :=)
Could Lawrence Wright be any more wrong? Do some research!
Understandably, Scientology is a big subject but please!
Lawrence Wright seems to do his research by reading tabloids.
To silly is his book to even get into it at all. Sorry, Larry.
So true! Not just tabloids, but the only stuff he published was by the ex-Scientologists and ignored pages and pages of documentation that showed the data was false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZIxu6zSAzE
Lawrence Wright. Can’t say I have heard of him but doubt I would bother. Reasonable writers at least try to get their facts straight, I would think. He obviously didn’t do his homework. No wonder I haven’t heard of him.
Sensational new sells. How would he like it if the same thing happened to him? Utterly mind boggling how easy it is to write a book that causes such damage. Casual half baked research is what it is. If this what he is like, then, NO! Keep your book Mr. Wright. I do not need to know what you think all about it. Scientology has done quite well without your kind, Larry.
@pat I finnally clicked on ur name and its very good info indeed. U know what if O T 3 is what all the idiots and haters say it is I really don’t care I mean anything is possible and what’s important is helping as many people as one can yet getting the help one needs.
Pat is making a fair point and is actually being helpful.
There are categories of people who won’t improve under auditing. This is understandable when you consider that it is the preclear himself who actually has to do the hard work to achieve the results, and the skill of the auditor and his knowledge of the technology (in my opinion) amounts to how smoothly he can get the preclear to do the required mental / spiritual action.
As an example, I once supervised someone on the Purification Rundown who, unknown to us, was also receiving government health benefits for a lethargy condition (it had some proper name which I forget.) In other words, he was being paid for lacking in energy, which is a conflict of interest with the Purif. The moment he attests to the success of the Purif, he’s going to have to give up the government handouts, which he wasn’t willing to do. Eventually the Purif starting “grinding”, and we dug deeper and found this situation.
He wasn’t in the slightest bit hostile, but it was a source of trouble for us, hence Potential Trouble Source (PTS)
Similarly with attempting to establish objective proof in an academic setting. With auditing, the intentions of the auditor, preclear and surrounding people can make all the difference. It can result in a no-win situation; damned if you do, damned if you don’t type of thing.
For example, would you tell the volunteers that you were testing Scientology on them? If you do, it’s not a fair test; if you don’t then there could be a PR shit-storm later on down the line because of it.
Besides, there’s no such thing as “covert auditing”. A person has to know he is being audited for it to be effective, and so you have to tell them up front.
Also, what kind of person would volunteer for a psychology department experiment which involves getting drunk? Probably students who like being drunk. Would they also get checked out for all the other things that make auditing unworkable, such as other drug use, lack of sleep, or a lack of desire to actually improve?
Also, professional scientists, being human, are just as subject to personal prejudice and undue influence as other people; and there are some very dedicated powerful people indeed who want Scientology destroyed. How would one go about establishing trust?
Finally, believe it or not, Scientology was born out of anti-authoritarianism – LRH was a natural rebel. Publishing some kind of study which “proves” Scientology in a journal, which then asserts to the scientific community its workability would, paradoxically, result in more authoritarianism (or more hyper-criticism, either way you don’t win.)
As Pat points out, all the material is there, and you’re free to study and test it to your heart’s content, and I believe you should do so, to _your_ own satisfaction, criteria and observation.
Another example is the idea of “mental mass” having actual mass, as illustrated in the book “Understanding The E-Meter”. For a good many years I disagreed with this idea and thought it was absurd, although nobody at all “forced” me to believe it. (The process referenced by the book is to be found in Dianetics 55! by the way.)
Anyway, one day my girlfriend at the time came to me with an enormous upset, and I did something very odd – I weighed her. Then I sat down and audited out the upset using Dianetics & Self-Analysis. At the end of the session, with her now in frame of mind of finding the whole thing very funny, I weighed her again and she was something like 2kg lighter. No, she had not been to the toilet. I’d been with her the whole time. Possibly explainable as within the margin of error of the weigh scales (they were digital readout).
However, I stress that what I did was not therapeutic and did put the session at risk.
So really the question I think you should be asking yourself is: do you want what Scientology claims to offer, or not?
If you do, then you need to invest the time & energy to establish its workability (or lack of) for yourself.
If you don’t, well then what are you doing here?
Good luck!
This was supposed to be a reply to comment-19011 https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/going-clear/#comment-19011
Apologies for messing the threads up!
Thank you, Stewart. Good data :)
Hmmmmm; Lawrence Wright won a Pulitzer Prize and Random House/Knopf, one of the most successful and respected publishers in the world, said “Wright provided officials from the Church with repeated opportunities to speak on the record and they declined to do so.”
Meanwhile, Scientologists, who have been found guilty of fraud on numerous occasions and are facing prosecution in Belgium, say “Mr. Wright’s book is so ludicrous it belongs in a supermarket tabloid.”
I wonder who I should believe :P
PS, I do NOT believe Guillaume Leserve’s and Marc Yager’s “declarations” as long as they’re 1) only written testimonies, and 2) as long as they’re still on Scientology properties. Let them come out and make their declarations…
1) On live television and…
2) WithOUT an entourage of Scientologists around them.
THEN I may be inclined to believe them.
You actually believe Wright that he gave “Scientology” a chance to rebut? LOL. Which “officials”? Who declined? This is so similar to BBC going to an unused back door intentionally and claiming that he’d been “locked out”. Did he ask Guillaume Leserve and Marc Yager directly to confirm? No, he asked “officials”. Puleeze, pull the other one if you believe that.
Pat; I think Ulysses raises a valid point that it would be foolish to outright dismiss. Consider an average person, who has limited information on scientology. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that they have formed no significant opinion of scientology and are hearing this story for the first time.
On one hand, you have a highly respected journalist and a worldwide publisher making one claim; this is the person that wrote the much celebrated work on Al Qaeda and author of no less than eight published non-fiction books. In other words, he has credibility and his publisher has vouched for this.
On the other hand, you have the target of the book (scientology) who is disputing his work. If this hypothetical member of the public does a google search for scientology, they’re likely to see two things- information self-published by scientology (including press-releases and scientology-owned websites) and generally negative news articles and websites. They’ll look at the page that disputes the book and see that the claims are disputed by active scientologists.
Can you see that, if nothing else, it “looks” suspicious to an “outsider”?
Interesting comment on how it “looks to an outsider”.
I distinctly remember going through “layers” when I first discovered Dianetics.
My starting position was knowing nothing of anything, including “reputation”.
First, was seeing the book for the first time – “I’m interested in the mind, what’s this?”
Second, was reading the back of book and thumbing through it – “hmm, not so sure, some pretty bold claims”
(Two weeks later, I decide to buy the book anyway.)
Third, reading the book cover to cover – “ok, interesting theory, not sure it’s plausible, but the philosophical aspects ring true with me (for example, ‘A=A’). I guess the only way to give it a fair assessment is to try some of this ‘auditing’ stuff. I wonder how I can prove I wasn’t hypnotised – maybe tape record the session?”
Fourth – a short weekend course, where I get to try being the auditor as well, with some other Joe Public. Perfect. Having been the auditor, I know it’s not hypnosis. Having worked with another new guy, we spoke pretty freely about what we thought about the book. Definitely thought some of the other stuff in the building was, shall we say, ‘curious’.
Fifth – a friend shows me some stuff from Channel 4 and some other places. “Woah! Panic! I’m involved with a cult! Don’t go back!”
Sixth – calmed down a bit. “Ok, the thing is, that auditing seemed pretty workable as far as it went, and if it is true, the repercussions through the world of mental health is such that it’s bound to come under attack from vested interested. I need to come up with something / do something, that establishes the truth of it for ME.”
Seventh – I take my girlfriend at the time, who had not read Dianetics (eliminates “suggestion” from the book), and give her a Dianetics session for blood (ie, no patty cake shy away from bad reactions). Using repeater technique amongst other things, I drill down into a completely occluded memory, the initial contact with which causes her body to have a physiological reaction as to vomit – there’s no faking it – I really thought she was going to puke in session. Eventually reveal a very severe food-poisoning she’d had as a child. This girl had had a lot of trouble with bulimia.
Eight – I was now satisfied that there was something in this book (Dianetics) of value, which was being ignored by mainstream psychology. No matter what negative stories I am shown or told, over several months I explore and try out every technique in that book, and observe for myself, first hand, every described phenomena, including prenatal engrams.
So you see, my viewpoint is that Dianetics isn’t for the casual dilettante. With the amount of crap on the internet, it’s never going to look other than a certain way to an “outsider”. And yet it still keeps growing!
And when my friends and family tell me that I’m brainwashed and didn’t think it through, and I’ve just given in to a pressured sales pitch – well I’m sorry, _theirs_ is the pressured sales pitch – you would not believe the abuse I’ve had from my own family, just for having an independent attitude, for not giving into to _their_ peer pressure.
so that I may understand your position; you’re specifying Dianetics; are you drawing a distinction between Dianetics and scientology?
like many, I celebrate your ability to practice what works for you, as long as no one is harmed in the process (as a general rule). I have nothing against scientologists and have found most to be very well-meaning individuals. I feel that there is kegitimate reason to hold management of the organization in the same critical light that I eould for any organization, including any to which I belong. would to do otherwise be wrong?
as you’re talking specifically abput Dianetics, rather than scientology as a whole, would you agree that the principles of Dianetics would be consistent, if properly applied, regardless of where one applies it?
also, I believe that you mentioned something about scientology (?) growing; upon what do you. base that statement?
@appless: You raise 4 points. I’ll address them 1 at a time.
1) “are you drawing a distinction between Dianetics and scientology?”
– the original subject was about how things looked to an outsider, so I was simply telling my story of “first contact” through to deciding that I wanted to be involved. It’s just that Dianetics is what I came across first.
– As it happens, there is a difference between Dianetics and Scientology as subjects. Arguably, they are as different as chemistry is from physics. Same underlying principles, but a totally different look.
– I spent about 18 months as a Dianeticist before deciding to look closer at Scientology as a subject. I just wasn’t interested in the spirit, didn’t believe in it as such. The org staff were totally ok with that – no one ever forced a belief upon me.
2) “I feel that there is legitimate reason to hold management of the organization in the same critical light that I would for any organization”
– in broad terms, I actually agree with you.
– Scientology has an internal justice framework wherein and through which one can redress injustices. I have had grievances and have used Scientology justice to get them corrected, and as a system, it works.
– A policy letter LRH wrote called “Keeping Scientology Working” is aimed at the _average_ Scientologist, not just staff or Sea Org. If you observe something wrong, it is upon you to fix it one way or another – most commonly by informing the correct person or senior.
3) “would you agree that the principles of Dianetics would be consistent, if properly applied, regardless of where one applies it?”
– I would. But I would also draw attention to a few things which are known to make Dianetics less workable, or even fail:
— Drug use: If either auditor or preclear is taking drugs, just forget it.
— Undue environmental stress: a person can have a great day at the org, auditing lots, feeling great, and then come home (or to the office) only to have someone sneer at them and start putting them down. In such a situation, the bully has to be handled first.
— The skill of the auditor: although auditing is fairly easy (I think so, anyway) it is possible to make mistakes or do it so poorly that a preclear doesn’t win. My advice to the preclear is: (a) get a new auditor (b) get the auditor corrected (see KSW above)
4) “you mentioned something about scientology growing; upon what do you base that statement?”
– Upon my own personal observation of the numbers of people attending events, courses or getting auditing. I first read Dianetics in 1998. The increase in the numbers of people since then, both locally (I live near London, UK) and nationally (ie. at Saint Hill) is very very obvious.
Finally, thank you for asking such genuinely inquisitive questions.
:-)
Thank you for the answers, Stewart. If I may, for the sake of convenience, respond in a similar manner:
1. “the original subject was about how things looked to an outsider, so I was simply telling my story of “first contact” through to deciding that I wanted to be involved. It’s just that Dianetics is what I came across first.”
Very valid. Again, when trying to put myself in the shoes of an uneducated person, I would think that the difference between the two is merged. From my own perspective, when I was only first hearing about the concepts, Dianetics seemed to be more of a self-help program while Scientology seemed to be an offshoot of the same. I realize now that’s not accurate, but I think that’s a pretty common conception. On the whole, I agree with your concepts.
2. “Scientology has an internal justice framework wherein and through which one can redress injustices. I have had grievances and have used Scientology justice to get them corrected, and as a system, it works.”
I’ve heard this a lot, and I think it’s a valid point similar to the Catholic justice system, or any other organized religion with which I am familiar. Clearly, the Catholic system was not infallible- would you say that the Scientology system is infallible?
3. “I would. But I would also draw attention to a few things which are known to make Dianetics less workable, or even fail”
If Dianetics is consistent when applied independent of the corporate entity (not referring to “corporate” in the legal sense, but as the organized and established body) would you say that an independent Dianetics center could operate effectively?
4. “Upon my own personal observation of the numbers of people attending events, courses or getting auditing. I first read Dianetics in 1998. The increase in the numbers of people since then, both locally (I live near London, UK) and nationally (ie. at Saint Hill) is very very obvious.”
This is great to hear, and I’m happy to hear about your encouraging experiences. How would you reconcile that with independent (as in, non-subjective) sources, such as the Pew Survey and certain non-US/UK censuses (which I don’t believe ask the “religion” question), which have found Scientology to be shrinking?
If I may ask a follow-up question, which I’ve been trying to find an answer to for some time to no avail. Do you believe that exteriorization is possible and, if so, that the spirit actually interacts with the physical world rather than operating entirely in the mind of the practitioner?
Thank you, again, for your time!
1) “I would think that the difference between the two is merged”
– I agree, it’s easy to merge it all. I think there is some attempt to “brand” the subjects differently to mitigate this; for example, Dianetics books are consistently red with a volcano throughout the decades.
2) “would you say that the Scientology system is infallible?”
– Just as a person can make a poor job of auditing, so could the administrators of justice do a poor job. I am satisfied for myself that the framework is as infallible as a human system can be, as there are numerous avenues of redress, appeal, review and petition; for example, if you’re not happy with the findings of local justice.
3) “would you say that an independent Dianetics center could operate effectively?”
– I think “Dianetics” is a trademarked name, and so if you wish to operate as a Dianetics center, you will need permission from Religious Technology Center (http://www.rtc.org/intro/pg002.html)
– I personally would only ever want to operate with Hubbard Dianetics. If someone offered their own brand, I would be skeptical about it, probably more so that I originally was with the Hubbard brand. Their reason for thinking their brand was better would need to be exceptionally compelling. Hubbard’s brand works, and works well. It’s not broken – don’t fix it.
– My understanding of the early days of Dianetics are that the first Foundation did have its own board separate from LRH, as he was only interested in technical research of the mind, but that it went off the rails organisationally.
4) “How would you reconcile that with independent sources … shrinking?”
– I wouldn’t. I’m not familiar with those surveys and censuses. For me, what I’ve observed for myself always trumps what someone else tells me.
– I could look into it, but I’m busy enough as it is, and I figure that over the next few years & decades it’ll become even more obvious whether Scientology is shrinking or growing.
5) “Do you believe that exteriorization is possible?”
– Yes I do. In fact, it was my first ever exteriorization, with visual perception, which lead me from Dianetics to interest in Scientology. It was accidental and, for me, quite dramatic, and try as I might, I cannot find an explanation for what happened without some kind of non-physical (ie spiritual) mechanism.
6) “Do you believe that the spirit actually interacts with the physical world?”
– Short answer: yes (but he mostly doesn’t realise it)
– Long answer: there are 3 (types of) universes – (a) yours, (b) other people’s, (c) the physical universe
— You are god in your own universe
— You have no authority or power in other people’s universes
— Where your universe meets mine, that’s the physical universe
“There’s your universe and the physical universe and the other fellow’s universe. And they’re all different universes. And they’re all real universes.” – LRH, May 1953, Lecture “The Three Universes”
Please forgive the brevity of my message, as my day has become suddenly quite busy.
1. Agree all
2. “Just as a person can make a poor job of auditing, so could the administrators of justice do a poor job. I am satisfied for myself that the framework is as infallible as a human system can be”
Well put; So then it is conceptually possible that there can be problems or issues that are not completely addressed by the boards at any level. Perhaps that has never happened and never will, but the possibility exists. If there is a problem of any size that is not properly handled by the existing redress process, what shall someone do? Consider, for example, the Catholic sex abuse scandals- they, too, had a redress process that didn’t work in this case- was going to the media right or wrong in that case?
3. re: Dianetics
A well-reasoned answer, but it doesn’t exactly answer the question. Regardless of the trademark or branding, is it possible for an independent center to operate effectively using the exact same processes as in the sanctioned center? I understand your point about the legal and practical concerns, but is there a problem with the tech itself if practiced correctly outside of the corporate body?
4. re: size of scientology
I completely understand your point and perspective. If you’re interested, I would be happy to provide links, but it’s a small matter that’s irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. But you would say that, based on your personal observation, scientology is gaining population in your area?
5/6. re: exteriorization
That’s reasonable; many religions believe in some form of the same, be it astral travel or a shamanistic journey into the underworld. When operating outside of your body, would you (or any scientologist) be able to interact with any universe other than their own? For example, if we were in separate rooms and I were to write a message on a piece of paper, would you be able to read it?
Brevity is fine with me – it’s getting late here too. I’m sure you realise that a forum board doesn’t lend to fully complete answers to such large questions. (Be happy to meet with you if you’re ever in London though.)
Also, another comment, just to be clear: everything I’m saying is my own personal opinion, and nothing more.
2a) “Perhaps that has never happened and never will, but the possibility exists.”
– It has happened. For example, the first Dianetics Foundation, as mentioned, or what happened with the Guardian’s Office. (http://www.scientologymyths.info/guardians-office/) A technical (rather than organisational) example might be David Mayo. (http://www.scientologymyths.info/squirrels/who-is-david-mayo.php)
– Current structure and policy includes lessons learned from those situations.
– That’s why LRH issued KSW 3 times over. It applies to organisational matters as well as tech.
2b) “If there is a problem of any size that is not properly handled by the existing redress process, what shall someone do?”
– I think the key to any justice or protest activity is to know exactly what outcome you are seeking, and to do your best to work towards that specific goal through whatever civilised means are available or can be created. It is a principle of Scientology that communication dissolves all problems, so communicating correctly with the correct people will win in the end.
– Do study and make sure you yourself are totally familiar with all aspects of Scientology justice – it’s there for the using.
– Whenever I have felt something is wrong, I have found LRH agreed with me and backed me up, I just didn’t know where he wrote it – so make liberal use of the library, which can be found in any org and is free to use. Ask a staff to help you. Just ask “what does LRH say about ___?” Remember the maxim “if it’s not written, it’s not true”, so ask to see it in writing (including that maxim itself ;-)
– If you’re really suspicious, make sure that your communications are not interfered with by someone in the middle. (For example, say you want to personally write to Executive Director International, and you don’t trust your local org to put the comm in internal post, then use normal post [address is in every Scientology magazine] or send it to a friend in a different area, to then put in the post)
Who are the correct people? Well for me it would be:
— me
— people directly and personally known by me, whom I totally trust
— L. Ron Hubbard (as validated by me, in my exploration of his works)
— people that LRH directly and publicly endorsed
— people who I visibly observe to get, or act to get, results, changes & products of which I myself approve
— people who I’ve communicated with who move the situation forward
— org staff (in general – it is exceptional that a bad apple gets on staff, but it has happened)
etc, etc
– “The wrong thing to do is nothing.” – LRH
3) “is there a problem with the tech itself if practiced correctly outside of the corporate body?”
– The tech is the tech. Done correctly, it works.
– There are many people who, having only read original Dianetics, just went ahead and started auditing people independently.
– If you have a friend you trust, and you’re both up for it, just start auditing each other!
– If you want to form a group of 3 or 4 to run co-audits, have enough copies of the handbook to hand, and then just start!
– I wouldn’t advise trying to take payment for auditing people without the backup of RTC, just like my wife, an osteopath, is registered with and has the backup of GOsC (General Osteopathic Council). If you do that, it’s on your own risk.
4) “But you would say that, based on your personal observation, scientology is gaining population in your area?”
– Yes.
5) “For example, if we were in separate rooms and I were to write a message on a piece of paper, would you be able to read it?”
– It is theoretically possible and would be classed as an OT ability, especially if someone could do it to order!
– I myself have only once experienced visual knowledge of something unknown to me, which, when I checked with my body eyeballs was correct. (No, it wasn’t a lucky guess.)
– I have experienced a number of other things which, while not as dramatic as remote viewing, were definitely ‘spooky’ (for want of a better word)
– My theoretical understanding of how this is possible, as an _analogy_: imagine that we are both telepathic, and always have been, and the entire physical universe, including gravity & Newton & everything, is just a mutually-agreed group hallucination – we would both know and agree telepathically what you were going to write before you wrote it. The trick is then forgetting convincingly enough so that you really think you don’t know how you did it.
– For further reading I recommend either:
— The Factors (http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/01/page03.htm)
— The Axioms (http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/01/page10.htm)
I can’t believe I missed this, my mistake!
I would love to meet you in London, if I ever make it out that way. I’ll treat you to a pint. If you ever make it out to the US, I extend the same offer- I’ll treat you to some meth; when in Rome, right?
2a. I see your examples, thank you. And, yes, there were some terrible examples in the past (as in many organizations). If the possibility exists, and if it has happened, it stands to reason that some of the more recent claims of impropriety (of which I’m sure you’re familiar) are true as well. I’m not saying that they ARE true, but merely that it’s possible. Would you say this is similar to last year’s raid on Scientology offices in Turin, Italy, which allegedly uncovered a list of enemies, along with their personal information?
2b. I think that’s covered in the previous item. One small question, those that LRH personally endorsed, but were declared suppressive after his death, where do they fit into that construct? In many situations, I very much agree with your excellent quot!
3. If the tech is the same regardless of where it’s practiced, how do you feel about the “independent” scientology movement? I understand your point about licensing (a term I used, which I think supports what you said in your last bullet point), which is a great point, but is there really any problem other than personal risk? It seems that, when you say, “If you have a friend you trust, and you’re both up for it, just start auditing each other” that would allow for such a thing.
4. Thank you for the resources! I will read those when I have a moment. Please allow me to ask a difficult question, and I’m not sure if you have an answer to it, but perhaps you have an opinion. When I was much younger, a family friend died in a situation where he could have been saved if rescuers could see where he was. This sort of thing happens all-to-often, with house fires, cave-ins, and hostage situations. Could OTs reliably help in those situations and, if they can, why don’t they? Perhaps on a more positive note, why doesn’t an OT become the first to defeat the Amazing Randi’s challenge and completely overcome all criticism about the claims of scientology?
I’m sorry, I realize that last question is difficult, and I hope you’ll take it as a sincere one for which I’m not demanding an answer. All the same, thank you for the great conversation!
I understand what is said, about drugs (particularly psych drugs) impacting the spiritual ability. What if one is taking a psych drug for a different purpose? For example, what if someone takes the anti-depressant Zoloft to treat premature ejaculation?
Interesting site! Is this yours, or is it paid for by scientology?
I haven’t read the book, but I’ve read some of the points raised by the counter-site. Some appear to boil down to he said / she said, but I’d imagine that if I keep looking I’ll find some that are countered by documented facts- I mean that, I’m certain that it’s there, I just haven’t read very many. So far, I’ve only seen portions that Wright claims based on what someone said, which is countered by scientology by what someone said.
Is this the entirety of the errata from scientology regarding the book?
nevermind, I saw the copyright :)
“Is this the entirety of the errata from scientology regarding the book?”
No, that’s about 15% of it if I counted right. I have a question in when we’ll get to see the rest.
Interesting, I look forward to seeing the rest. Is there anything that is documented by sources other than scientology or scientologists? Will they address the claims about his military history?
Also, I understand that the book covered the claims of Paulette Cooper, and the FBI raid on scientology’s office that cleared her name. Will this be addressed by Scientology’s response?
I’m guessing it will not. Scientology took the low-hanging fruit when developing their number of corrections. “Got the date of Tom and Katie’s marriage wrong? We got you now!!!”
Actually, it’s not Scientology countering but the journal by LRH himself that was used to fact check, so not a matter of “he said, she said”. Where does this idea come from that a valid cite cannot be from Scientology sources? The idea that these need to be from someone other than Scientology to be valid? That’s propaganda at its finest, straight from the critics. Louanne can correct me if I’m wrong, but the journal itself, in LRH’s handwriting, is available for viewing.
An additional thought on this is that books and statements by critics are taken as fact, without any question and as soon as these are questioned the source has to be “outside”.
Please clarify what was countered using Hubbard’s journal? I’m unclear (no pun intended) on that part.
Is it possible (just conceptually) that someone’s personal journal could contain untruths that could be countered by external, unbiased information?
“Where does this idea come from that a valid cite cannot be from Scientology sources”
Excellent question. It certainly introduces the element of bias, doesn’t it? Which is why potentially biased sources carry a higher burden of proof. Similarly, if one accepts scientology sources as valid, one must accept personal accounts from critics as equally valid.
I for one, know what I know about Scientology, having experienced it for myself to be true. I don’t really care who comes in here with the anti-Scientology propaganda. I’ll just keep going up the bridge and getting wins. I see miracles every day that you’ll never see or experience and that’s fine. Scientology isn’t for everyone. Scientology doesn’t need your approval to continue to flourish and prosper.
with all due respect, pat, we’ve long since established that scientology “worked for you”- that’s not in question, nor is the utility of a subjective experience without the ability to objectively demonstrate that which should be trivial to do so. I’m very glad it worked for you, just like I’m glad that psychiatry worked for others and shamanism for others still
I’m curious, pat; what miracles do you see every day that I never will?
Can’t speak for Pat, but I can tell you one miracle I once caused.
A colleague in our office was training for the London Marathon, and had been collecting sponsorship for his chosen charity (British Heart Foundation).
About 4 days before the marathon I noticed him limping as he walked around the office. I asked what was the matter and he said he had fallen whilst training and twisted his ankle. The doctor told him to rest it for 2 – 3 weeks, and that he couldn’t run in the marathon.
That evening, after work, I gave him a Dianetics session and a Touch Assist.
Immediately afterwards he was tentatively walking around, testing his foot, and finding as well as no longer hurting, it appeared strong. He was no longer limping.
The next day, still unsure, he went for a walk along his normal training route, and the day after he went for a normal training run.
He that Sunday he ran in and completed the London Marathon (and I owed him £26 sponsorship money – £1 per mile).
In his own words it was “amazing”, “beyond explanation” and “a miracle”.
That’s a very good example!
Would you say that such an experience is limited to scientology, or are you familiar with other similar experiences outside scientology?
I’m not invalidating your win by any means, but I’m wondering if you would make a distinction between a touch assist and a benny-hinn style faith healing?
1) “Would you say that such an experience is limited to scientology, or are you familiar with other similar experiences outside scientology?”
– All I did was use Scientology to bring about a perfectly natural phenomena – if he was OT enough, he could do it himself without the Assists.
– I’ve no personal experience of similar happening through other means except normal healing. I’d say such “miracle” healing can happen without Scientology, and probably does. I rather suspect there’s a lot of fraud goes on as well.
2) “would you make a distinction between a touch assist and a benny-hinn style faith healing?”
– Absolutely – with a Touch Assist you don’t have to be Benny-Hinn, or OT or anything else. You don’t even have to believe it will work. You just have to be capable of following instructions exactly, have a willingness to help, the ability to observe, and some patience. (There’s no set time on how long any auditing takes, or how much a person might need.)
– A Touch Assist, done correctly, will always work. Some get more dramatic results than others, but you will always get a result. I don’t remember a Touch Assist ever failing to achieve something. Can that be said for faith-healing?
– Also, with a Touch Assist, all the auditor does is bring the preclear round to a point where he can’t help but heal himself with his own native ability to communicate with the body. It’s the preclear that does the healing. With Benny-Hinn (assuming for arg’s sake he’s genuine), he’s doing it for you, which makes the receiver passive in the whole affair. In the long run this is not spiritually healthy, and is directly opposed to the goal of auditing – to increase a person’s own ability and awareness.
Thank you, Stewart, for the well-reasoned answer.
If I may ask for some clarification, you say that the touch assist brought about a perfectly natural phenomenon. By that, may I assume that you mean that a touch assist may improve upon what the body can do naturally? For example, would it be accurate to say that a touch assist would have no effect on something that the body wouldn’t do on it’s own, such as an amputation?
Please note that I’m not saying that a touch assist has no value, but I think I’m capturing your meaning that it cannot be utilized in a case where the end state wouldn’t have been accomplished at some point with or without assistance.
That can be compared with your comment, “I don’t remember a Touch Assist ever failing to achieve something. Can that be said for faith-healing?” If we’re using the same standard for injuries, then I think that effectiveness would be comparable.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the Christian belief system, based on your interpretation. A Christian believes that it’s not benny hinn, or any “healer” that effects the healing, but God through that person. What’s more, it’s the person’s willingness to accept the spiritual healing that’s key. They must play an active role, according to what they believe to be true.
If it’s as you say, that a touch assist will always work, could that be independently verified in an unbiased academic setting?
1) “a touch assist may improve upon what the body can do naturally?”
– That’s about the size of it. A Touch Assist won’t grow back a lost leg.
2) “I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the Christian belief system, based on your interpretation …”
– Thanks for the clarification of faith-healing. My family used to live next door to some Christian Scientists, and I used to go over and chat to them, as my own family were giving me such a hard time. They believed something similar.
– My question to you would be: what is special about Benny Hinn, then? As in, why would God work through him but not the next person?
3) “could that be independently verified in an unbiased academic setting?”
– I believe it could. I’ve actually thought about this before. I don’t know which university you’d turn to though, or where you’d get funding for it. I’d be up for it. (I doubt a university has an auditor to hand ;-)
– Rather than deliberately making people ill, or injuring them, I think an experiment that would get past the ethics committee would be for a subject to drink alcoholic drinks, and then see if various assists sober them up.
— You’d have to have some kind of setup with medical staff which could control exactly how much a person should eat or drink in order to effect a certain blood-alcohol level, so that results across subjects can be compared and normalised (and probably have the subjects in isolation from about 2 days before, to control diet)
— From the moment of first drink, measure blood-alcohol at regular intervals, perhaps hourly
— For the Scientology groups, always use the same auditor, so that that’s not a variable. 2 different groups could try Touch Assists and Locational Assists
— Need a control group that does nothing – just sit on sofas
— A control group whose “process” is just going for a walk
— A control group whose “process” is something requiring concentration, such as IQ tests
— A control group whose “process” is to just talk randomly to the “auditor”
(apologies if there’s a double post… first didn’t show…?)
Thank you!
1. Can one tell the difference between natural healing and accelerated healing due to an assist? I assume that the difference would be in time, if I understand the concept correctly. Would you say that, given two willing and participatory “patients” (for lack of a better term) that the assisted healing time would be consistent for both?
2. Absolutely! Christianity is one religion that has the concept of “faith healing”; Shamanistic systems have a similar concept whereas they will enter the spiritual realm and force the spirit to align with the body, perhaps wrestling disease-spirits away from the sufferer or, in the case of psychosomatic afflictions, bringing one up “to modern time” (so to speak); Spiritualism (similar to scientology) believes that we are a spiritual being with a temporary body that we will someday leave, and that illness and injury can be addressed by relieving the bodily ill through the spiritual realm, and often seeking the advice of the deceased; Voodoo practitioners believe that certain spells and rituals can bring healing by appeasing the spritual realm and following certain protocols… the list goes on.
Please don’t get me wrong- I’m not saying that they’re the same, or even comparable! I’m only saying that the concept of healing beyond physical expectations is one that is accepted in other belief systems, cultures and religions.
Regarding hinn; my personal belief (which is all I can speak to in this case) is… nothing. I think that, according to the judeo-christian faith, he does exactly what anyone else can do- that’s a pretty big part of that the abrahamic religions. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that many of the healings are… temporary… in nature.
3. It would be very interesting. I happen to work very closely with government researchers, who are likely “plugged in” to the university system. If you’re sincere (and anywhere near a major university), then I think we could make this happen. Are you, per chance, near a university? It’s interesting that you use BAC as a metric, and I think that’s a great idea- it’s objective (versus a “how do you feel” question) and could be controlled in a scientific setting.
1) “Would you say that, given two willing and participatory “patients” (for lack of a better term) that the assisted healing time would be consistent for both?”
– No, it very much depends upon the individual.
3) How far in the future are you talking? I have a day job, about 5 different side projects and a family. Not keen to put my private email address here.
Stewart, I think that I need to reiterate here that Scientology needs no proof (refer Personal Integrity by LRH) since the tenet is that what is true is true for you if you personally have observed it in application. The only way it’s going to be true for someone asking for “proof” is to tell them to observe first hand. The assist data is free to read and learn here: http://www.volunteerministers.org/#/tent/enter/assists
If appless wants proof he needs to get an assist and find out for himself. He can use the data in the course for that. Even if someone was to be an exhibit you’re still going to have skeptics per Source of Trouble type H. That can be found on page 217 in Introduction to Scientology Ethics. (2007). Treat any such request for what it is.
“Np, it very much depends upon the individual.”
I think that’s also true of current medical science! What would explain the difference? Or is that known? I understand that the touch assist is also recommended for those that are comatose and unable to participate or consciously comprehend the process- would that factor make the assist more or less likely to succeed ahead of the natural healing process?
“How far in the future are you talking? I have a day job, about 5 different side projects and a family. Not keen to put my private email address here”
Quite a busy fella! I hear ya; perhaps when you find your schedule has opened up we can explore it further.
Pat,
Are Stewart and I not free to discuss, objectively, the nuances of this very fascinating concept? It seems that we’re having a very positive discussion and he’s actually giving me great information that represents scientology well. Must I subjectively experience something in order to discuss it? If so, are you able to speak about psychiatric drugs without trying it?
Besides, he’s suggesting that a touch assist could be objectively demonstrated, which is far more interesting than saying you can only subjectively experience it.
appless
No offense, Pat, but it’s very bothersome to me that you’re being so directive towards the very rare person on this blog that takes the time to thoughtfully answer questions. Is he doing anything wrong, that you would feel the need to directly intrude on our comms cycle?
Pat is making a fair point and is actually being helpful.
There are categories of people who won’t improve under auditing. This is understandable when you consider that it is the preclear himself who actually has to do the hard work to achieve the results, and the skill of the auditor and his knowledge of the technology (in my opinion) amounts to how smoothly he can get the preclear to do the required mental / spiritual action.
As an example, I once supervised someone on the Purification Rundown who, unknown to us, was also receiving government health benefits for a lethargy condition (it had some proper name which I forget.) In other words, he was being paid for lacking in energy, which is a conflict of interest with the Purif. The moment he attests to the success of the Purif, he’s going to have to give up the government handouts, which he wasn’t willing to do. Eventually the Purif starting “grinding”, and we dug deeper and found this situation.
He wasn’t in the slightest bit hostile, but it was a source of trouble for us, hence Potential Trouble Source (PTS)
Similarly with attempting to establish objective proof in an academic setting. With auditing, the intentions of the auditor, preclear and surrounding people can make all the difference. It can result in a no-win situation; damned if you do, damned if you don’t type of thing.
For example, would you tell the volunteers that you were testing Scientology on them? If you do, it’s not a fair test; if you don’t then there could be a PR shit-storm later on down the line because of it.
Besides, there’s no such thing as “covert auditing”. A person has to know he is being audited for it to be effective, and so you have to tell them up front.
Also, what kind of person would volunteer for a psychology department experiment which involves getting drunk? Probably students who like being drunk. Would they also get checked out for all the other things that make auditing unworkable, such as other drug use, lack of sleep, or a lack of desire to actually improve?
Also, professional scientists, being human, are just as subject to personal prejudice and undue influence as other people; and there are some very dedicated powerful people indeed who want Scientology destroyed. How would one go about establishing trust?
Finally, believe it or not, Scientology was born out of anti-authoritarianism – LRH was a natural rebel. Publishing some kind of study which “proves” Scientology in a journal, which then asserts to the scientific community its workability would, paradoxically, result in more authoritarianism (or more hyper-criticism, either way you don’t win.)
As Pat points out, all the material is there, and you’re free to study and test it to your heart’s content, and I believe you should do so, to _your_ own satisfaction, criteria and observation.
Another example is the idea of “mental mass” having actual mass, as illustrated in the book “Understanding The E-Meter”. For a good many years I disagreed with this idea and thought it was absurd, although nobody at all “forced” me to believe it. (The process referenced by the book is to be found in Dianetics 55! by the way.)
Anyway, one day my girlfriend at the time came to me with an enormous upset, and I did something very odd – I weighed her. Then I sat down and audited out the upset using Dianetics & Self-Analysis. At the end of the session, with her now in frame of mind of finding the whole thing very funny, I weighed her again and she was something like 2kg lighter. No, she had not been to the toilet. I’d been with her the whole time. Possibly explainable as within the margin of error of the weigh scales (they were digital readout).
However, I stress that what I did was not therapeutic and did put the session at risk.
So really the question I think you should be asking yourself is: do you want what Scientology claims to offer, or not?
If you do, then you need to invest the time & energy to establish its workability (or lack of) for yourself.
If you don’t, well then what are you doing here?
Good luck!
First hand experience is not the same thing as subjective. You can see someone else operate a camera and still not understand how it works until you do it yourself and experience the result. Observable results. You keep trying to devalue this tenet as “subjective” when it isn’t. The same way you keep insisting on proof when its been pointed out to you numerous times that the “proof” you seek is in the doing yourself. I didn’t say Stewart did anything wrong. Just pointing out the appropriate policy. Not going to debate this with you. By your own admission, you’re “investigating” (government research) which means we say bye bye, per the same reference I gave Stewart.
Let’s use your camera example. If I’m interested in how a camera works, pressing the button and seeing the picture disply on the screen won’t tell me that. It will tell me how to USE a camera, but nothing about how it works. If I want to understand the technology behind a camera, I would look at diagrams and ask experts in its function. In this case, I’m interested in Stewart’s experience and perceptions, and the questions I’ve asked him would not be answered simply by attending a session (and for what, by the way? Do I need to wait until I get injured to even ask the questions?).
And, yes, you are talking about subjective experience. If I, personally, receive a touch assist, then it’s not possible to completely eliminate the “influence of personal feelings” (the relevant part of the definition of the word) when considering its effect. However, if I were to remain objective then I could have a more comprehensive understanding of the concept. Frankly, it sounds like you’re not confident that a touch assist could be objectively demonstrated, whereas Stewart seems more sure.
And I’m not insisting on proof- I’m having a conversation with a knowledgeable person, which has taken the time to thoughtfully reply to my queries. To be blunt, people like him do a great deal to dispel the negative perceptions that some people have of scientologists- he is honest, forthcoming and non-confrontational. I like the guy.
I’m very interested why you think I’m “investigating” anything, when all that I said is that I work closely with people who do research and have certain resources. Do you understand that government researchers are not investigators? Are you aware of the difference?
And you are not merely “pointing out the appropriate policy”. You told him to “Treat any such request for what it is” and answering the question on his behalf (“If appless wants proof he needs to get an assist and find out for himself”).
In summary, thank you for your input on the conversation I was having with a specific individual, and I will treat it for what it is.
“And, yes, you are talking about subjective experience. If I, personally, receive a touch assist, then it’s not possible to completely eliminate the “influence of personal feelings” (the relevant part of the definition of the word) when considering its effect.”
Since when does it have to be about you? Use the data on someone who IS injured or ill and observe for yourself. That’s objective, not subjective. The data is there to be used and it’s free.
Since when does it have to be about me? Since you said, “If appless wants proof he needs to get an assist and find out for himself.” Those are YOUR words, Pat, and now you’re saying something different. You’re all over the map here.
Are you now implying that I should be giving someone an assist? Or that I should observe someone giving an assist to someone else and observe the results?
Thank you so much for posting a link to that site. When you’ve got a “gut instinct” that it’s all wrong, but can’t prove it, that’s a hard situation to be in – but this makes things much easier!