For me, the problem is that “the truth” for the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology is that anyone making accurate observations about it must be silenced. And that tax payers sponsor this hatred.

A puzzle indeed.

I hope more ex-victims will overcome the PTSD and the programmed-in “blame the victim” mentality inflicted by the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology and make reports (of criminal fraud, of undue influence destroying lives) to the police.

While some prosecutions end up poorly (as the recent Belgian one), others end up successfully (as the French one), so I hope there’s more success to be had. Civil law suits require huge reserves, but the Co$ is breaking criminal law, and there must be a prosecutor somewhere out there who can do better than the ones in Riverside…

Roger, thanks for an eloquent explanation of that.

Pondering the subject, it occurs to me, Buddhists are willing to be spiritually and even materially generous without any expectation in return – as are those of many other traditions. But Hubbard’s doctrine of “exchange” means that Scientologists are not supposed to do anything without expecting something in return, or at least expecting to gain some advantage. Once again, that puts them diametrically opposed to most of the rest of the world’s spiritual and religious traditions.

marildi, the Bodhisattva ideal is a metaphor for showing unconditional compassion. It is not an actual aim to impose a doctrine or system on the world for its salvation.

There is NOTHING laudable about wanting to save mankind. There IS something laudable about going out of your way to assist a person in the flesh (as opposed to the collective in your mind). Sorry, no cigar for DAY DREAMING about saving the world! 🙂

Therefore you have actually demonstrated by use of that metaphor how scientology, while professing the objective of saving mankind, yet demonstrating contempt for mankind, (wogs) does NOT share the aims of Buddhism.

marildi, I’m still not clear exactly what you’re getting at, but perhaps I misunderstood. Regardless, Buddhism seems like the least apt comparison for Scientology, even though Hubbard actually co-opted a lot from them.

The actual basic philosophy of Scientology is Hubbard’s well-documented “Men are your slaves” egoistic utilitarianism, to help oneself regardless of the cost to others. That’s dressed up in a sham of humanitarian idealism, and indeed many Scientologists were attracted by that veneer and even thought that was what it was really all about. But as this part of the discussion has covered, many were also lured by the appeal to ego, and even to personal power, that were among the clear underlying forces. And we can observe the mantle of Hubbard’s selfish and thoughtless utilitarianism that Scientologists ended up taking on, in all the petty examples of callousness and even cruelty documented here (including in Regraded Being) and elsewhere, all the times they stood mute to injustice or the suffering of others for fear of sacrificing their own “case gain” or even their imagined “eternity.”

And I’m not sure what you’re getting at about some like Roger and I.
I had the same good intentions that others speak to, but was bothered by the obvious contradictions from the start, though I can understand how others didn’t see through them until later.

PM, I wasn’t comparing Buddhists and Scientologists in any other way than to say there have indeed been people who were involved in scientology with the idea that they were going to help not only themselves but the whole world – just like some (but not all) Buddhists. And the basic philosophy of Scientology completely aligns with that purpose, irrespective of what came later.

Actually, I’m sure many of the people who post on this blog had that purpose, as well as some like you and Roger who apparently didn’t. This isn’t a criticism of anybody, in any case.

P.S. I really must make time to write the tale of a terribly sincere do-gooder who was denied entry into heaven then subsequently kicked out of hell!

I am quick to believe what appeals to me. But when I’m informed of something I don’t want to believe I check the intelligence of authoritative sources and acquaint myself with circulating criticisms. That is to say, I DO MY HOMEWORK.

My haste to believe what I want to believe is not based on any virtue. It’s based on pandering to my preferences. I call that ‘self-indulgence’ and it sets me up to be a mark. But whatever name you give it, it is a human weakness 100% of the time. That is my opinion.

Again, I’m not blaming anybody. We all play the fool many times in this life and the reason for that is we ARE fools many times in this life.

marildi, I don’t think you can really compare the Buddhists pursuing a humble and compassionate spiritual path hoping that will have benefits for all mankind, and Scientologists who think that they are “homo novis” and who intend to impose “the only workable new civilization and technology” on the planet Hubbard was a utilitarian who believed that the ends justified the means, including to “delete” individuals not susceptible to his methods, and who despised sympathy as one of the worst of emotions; that puts Scientology completely at odds with virtually all of the world’s other religious and spiritual traditions – and there are reams of quotes clearly exposing that ugly side.

For any sort of comparison, you’d have to look to the small minority of religions, and often extremist the sects of major religions, to find those who both believe that they have the one true path to save the world, and clearly seek worldwide totalitarian control to implement it universally. The medieval Catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition, and ISIS, are the most obvious examples. And there are a lot religious groups with general beliefs about saving the planet that compare in their idealism and single-minded self-certainty, though I can’t think of any that have Scientology’s explicit doctrines about taking over the planet through whatever ruthless tactics necessary.

Now of course there are exceptions for individual Scientologists, and all the apologism about how Scientology is different outside the CofS. But the extent to which Scientologists tolerate or even participate in abuses like disconnection and the RPF within the CofS, and that those outside still make excuses for them, exposes some ugly truths.

There could be other reasons why someone who originally had a sincere desire to help as a new Scientologist, now does not find new humanitarian pursuits but retreats into himself, besides just that his original motivation for becoming a Scientologist was status-seeking egotism and vanity.

Of course that could be one of the reasons, and it may even be the most common reason.

An example of another reason for that could be that he now feels “disillusioned” because of the betrayal he has experienced in Scientology and doesn’t feel that help is possible. There may be others.

The things you are Roger are saying have a lot of truth in them, and are very astute observations. (You’re not saying that egotism and vanity were the only motivations, but Roger is). For all I know, egotism and vanity may be the most common motivation, I don’t know.

All I’m saying is that egotism and vanity are not the only possible motivation for wanting to be part of a group whose goal it was to “clear the planet”. Some of us were sincere and passionate about helping others and improving conditions and were not doing it to prove to ourselves and to the world how superior we were to other humans.