(@Mike, somehow since you changed the WordPress template I have difficulties to place my comments under the correct branch – even though I klick on the correct “Repply” button.)

In the above conversation I can see, Alanzo, that you are very charged on the subject because, as you said yourself, “it did something to you”.
Margarets experiences are different and she maybe wasn’t hurt to the point where she would decide to run around with “filters” over her eyes.

It’s not enough for you to tell non-scientologists what they should see, you dramatize to the point where you tell scientologists that they are somehow in danger because they don’t look the world trough your filters.
It’s somehow sad sometimes, and I really feel for you. I mean it.

Margaret:

I’m so glad that you did not take my question rhetorically. Because it really isn’t a rhetorical question – it is one of the most important things a person can do on a spiritual journey: Find the right teacher for themselves.

I do not doubt that you have applied the same rigor to your choice of Hubbard as your spiritual teacher as you have to your apologetics of him and his philosophy.

That’s why I am eager to better understand the reasoning you have used in this area to form the basis for your conclusion that L Ron Hubbard is the best spiritual teacher for you.

Margaret wrote:

But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.

Mandating that the Creed of the Church of Scientology is put on every wall of every org and mission, while giving the Creed no ethics or justice power, and then writing an HCOPL of crimes and high crimes which DOES have ethics power to declare, expel and fair game anyone who would follow the Creed, is a deceptive trap.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Calling security checking an “OT Process”, and one of the fastest routes to OT, as Hubbard did in the late 50’s when he re-introduced sec checking to Scientology, given what we all know about the results of sec checking in totalitarian countries like Iran, Soviet Russia and Communist China, is a deceptive trap.

I could go on and on (and have, as you know). But my point is that of all religious and spiritual teachers that I can find, none misrepresent or outright lie about what “we of the Church believe” in order to recruit people like L Ron Hubbard did.

None dangled “OT States” out in front of their students in order to get them to confess their sins which would then be used as leverage to buy more, and even blackmail them.

None lied about having served in “all five theaters of the war”, blinded and crippled by shrapnel during combat, and cured himself with his spiritual teachings – that he then charges heavily for – like L Ron Hubbard did.

But let’s say we do find some deception in The Dalai Lama, or Buddha, or even Joseph Smith – then what?

It seems to me you believe that if we can find a flaw in another spiritual teacher, this somehow justifies L Ron’s flaws as a spiritual teacher.

Is that correct?

What is your reasoning here for finding flaws in other spiritual teachers? Please help me to understand it.

Here’s my reasoning:

All human beings have flaws.

All spiritual teachers are humans.

Therefore, all spiritual teachers have flaws.

It is the types of flaws, and the types of abilities, that a person must examine closely in a spiritual teacher. That process of examination is extremely critical in choosing the right teacher for yourself.

About a year ago, I found a great piece of writing on this exact subject which communicates how important this examination and evaluation is. (I’ve looked everywhere to try and find it again for you buy I can’t find it. I’ll keep looking.)

In the meantime, can you give me your reasoning for finding flaws in other spiritual teachers and how finding their flaws justifies Hubbard’s?

Alanzo

Excellent comment Margaret. “If the standalone tech doesn’t work for you, I say not a problem. Plenty of choices out there. But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.”

Reply Comments

Alanzo wrote: “Given what we know about L Ron Hubbard and the traps he laid for Scientologists – is this really the guy you want as a spiritual teacher?”

First, Scientology, the philosophy and approach to spiritual improvement, is the best that I’ve come across. So in answer to your question, Yes, absolutely. Second, he didn’t lay traps for Scientologists. He told us to keep our eyes open and draw our own conclusions.

He did create some organizational policy that has proven ill-conceived, especially when applied literally and without good judgement. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t let Hubbard off the hook for this. But his motive, imho, was one of protection and survival. Some of his organizational decisions were poor ones, imho. But ultimately, policy and organizational matters are a secondary, and frankly, disposable/replacable thing in relation to the underlying philosophy and technology that they are attempting to support.

If the standalone tech doesn’t work for you, I say not a problem. Plenty of choices out there. But if you want to be cynical about Hubbard’s motives, then I say be prepared to be as equally cynical about Buddha’s, Jesus’, ad infinitum. Because if you’re looking for them, you’ll find “deceptive traps” everywhere.

Margaret wrote:

For a warning? I’d say stay away from the organization as if your life depended on it. And that’s the exact warning I give.

That’s a common warning that Scientologists on the Internet are giving these days, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

But my warnings go a little further because, as one would expect from a guy who created a covertly structured organization such as the Church of Scientology, there are quite few concrete examples of the same type of “overly protective” boobytraps being installed in the tech and the philosophy of Scientology, as well.

KSW, for instance, is filled with covert traps, so is the Data Series, the technology on OW write ups and sec checking, as well as the Ethics Tech and PTS/SP tech, too. In fact, there are spiritual deceptions and traps throughout Dianetics and Scientology, all intentionally created and maintained by L Ron Hubbard.

LRH’s “overly protective” side most certainly did not only express itself in his organization. It also expressed itself in his tech and philosophy, too.

And so I believe that a person who comes to Scientology with an open heart, looking for help and spiritual succor, is also in danger of being exploited – even though they have avoided the organization as if their life depended on it, as you warn.

So my warning to new people goes a little farther than yours. But your warning is not nothing. It is not nothing at all. The damage that Scientology can do to people is GREATLY reduced when it is practiced outside the Church power-structure that LRH set up to exploit the spiritual vulnerabilities of Scientologists.

But you really do have to ask yourself: Given what we know about L Ron Hubbard and the traps he laid for Scientologists – is this really the guy you want as a spiritual teacher?

That can be a rhetorical question, if you’d like it to be.

Thank you for communicating with me, Margaret. You always have a choice in people who you communicate with on the Internet, and I appreciate your choice in communicating with me.

Alanzo (The “Southwest Airlines” of Scientology Critics)

(:>)

We aren’t talking about a warning, Alanzo. We’re talking about why and what.

For a warning? I’d say stay away from the organization as if your life depended on it. And that’s the exact warning I give.

And in the same breath I’d say, “The same doesn’t hold true for the underlying techniques and philosophy. Here’s the Code of Honor. And here’s ‘How to Study Scientology’. Have at it.”

Margaret wrote:

Overly protective.

Wow.

You know some of the best insights and reminders that I have come to possess over the last few years originated from discussions with original thinking and deeply intelligent Scientologists like yourself.

These two words that you have used to describe your view of why LRH did some of the things he did – which have caused so much damage to so many people – are extremely interesting to me.

“Overly protective.”

Wow. I….wow.

You know, a person can pick up a lot of cognitive distortions around Scientology, and there are certainly a lot of them in use. “Overly protective” certainly does functionally describe the convoluted and covert nature of much of the behavior we are talking about without necessarily catastrophizing or exaggerating the evil that has been done. It is a conservative kind of 3.0 banker’s attitude on the whole thing.

So this is the warning that you would give to a new person who is about to embark on the Bridge in Scientology and has not fallen into the traps yet: You would warn them that LRH was overly protective, and to be on the lookout for this?

Do you think that this overly protective warning is sufficient to protect a new person from one day becoming the victim of bankruptcy, destruction of his livelihood, friends, and family through disconnection and fair game should he actually believe what is written on the wall in the Creed and apply it for blood?

Because that’s all I have ever done.

And look what happened to me.

If someone gave you this warning of “overly protective”, would it have been sufficient for you to have avoided the pitfalls in Scientology that you have experienced?

Alanzo

“So what would you call a guy who structured a covert organization like this..?”

Overly protective.

Alanzo, Hymn of Asia is what got me to say yes to Scientology.

That spiritual lie, that egotistical drug induced channeling of la la land fooled all of us kids. And some adults too. It is a sort of spiritual crime in my opinion. To claim to be Buddha and then act like he did with people. It messed with our perception of a wise man. “Well now, if Buddha can say it’s alright to slap people then maybe slapping is standard tech” lol.

It was a mega betrayal of trust: straight up!