12 years of personal observation have shown me that org staff and sea org members will commit all sorts of out-ethics and poor treatment of individuals (which would not be tolerated in the “wog world,” by the way) in the name of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” And yes, I myself have been party to this, and I’m sorry I ever did so.
I have never been handled with more threats of personal doom, fear tactics, “the sky is falling down”, force, and entheta than I have within the org, which is meant to be a place of spiritual freedom–this I find very contradictory.
Regarding actual results that it produces, most scientologists have no datum of comparable magnitude with which to evaluate scientology, as it has been deemed a crime within the organization to mix practices. This is rather odd policy for a subject which is meant to be producing “freedom” and increased “self-determinism.” To me it seems more like an attempt to maintain a monopoly rather than anything else.
Furthermore, the nebulous definition of OT as “Cause over matter, energy, space, time form and life,” or “target attainment” leaves it open to interpretation, creating the situation where the scientologist creates his own concept of OT, imbuing it with a life of its own, defining OT as something that makes sense for him. “OT” has become something which resonates with him, and is now the thing he personally wants to achieve in his life. It is now his uninspected stable datum.
The successes a scientologist has in his life are all too often assigned to scientology. Gradually scientologists are indoctrinated along the line into assigning cause to scientology, instead of to personal effective observation, to experience, to learning and to maturing in the course of life.
As an example of this, sometimes successes achieved by “OTs” are attributed to scientology, whereas millions of non-scientologists achieve similar or even far greater feats without having any scientology data whatsoever. Many non-scientologists are far more “at cause” than even the most successful “OT.”
So when one says that scientology produces no OTs, scientologists may counter that you have a “hidden standard” as to what OT should be. Actually, they have the hidden standard, as each individual defines OT differently for himself, and so their true definition, or “standard” is “hidden.”
In actual fact, the “standard” of OT has been given, as per this description given in scientology 8-8008:
“A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.”
I have never seen Scientology produce this result.
Scientology does not produce what it tells you in all its PR glitz and glamor that it does produce. Yes, yes, I know, policy is carefully laid out to vilify anyone who denigrates the state of “Clear” or “OT”. Well, I guess that is why nobody says out-loud what they are actually thinking–“this guys doesn’t seem OT to me.”
Of course, now I’m being critical. Well, policy also told one that if someone is being critical, he MUST have overts. Therefore the org can never be at fault. What a lovely trick. Truth is, some people at the org ARE at fault. And show me someone who has no overts, please. Besides, the policy says something like “carping criticism not borne out in fact” being an indication of overts. My criticism is based on personal observation, and fact.
In speaking to scientologists, one often gets agreement with the out-points one mentions, but this is also countered with the argument that Scientology “works,” and it is only misapplication of policy that leads to a departure from the ideal scene.
So this got me thinking:
If the Scientology policy is misinterpreted and cannot be applied, even by the “upper tenth of the upper tenth of intelligent human beings” (as L. Ron Hubbard says Scientologists are), then to me it is unworkable policy, and nothing more than a nice theory.
We all wished it were possible, but scientology doesn’t deliver what it promises. Want examples? “OT” A, who is in millions worth of debt. “Preclear” B who gives all sorts of reasons why he is not “stably exterior with full perception,” even though he paid a fortune to achieve such by doing the L’s. “OT” C who still has arthritis, even though this should have disappeared on going clear. “OT” D who dubs in stuff, even though this should have disappeared when she went “clear.” “OT” E Sea org executive who is the most entheta person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. “OT” F who looks like a bum. OT 8′s who cannot remember what happened yesterday, even though they have “whole track recall;” OT 8′s wearing glasses; OT7′s who cry at the drop of a hat; OTs who die of AIDS after having had gay sex with teenagers, whilst the wife is waiting at home. And more, more, more.
Of course, there are all manner of “reasons” why this is so. I’ve heard them all. But the scene never changes. “OTs” have no OT abilities as described in the Advance magazine, or no more than they had before they did the level. And no more than some “wog” friends I have. Oh, but this is all explained away by the fact that they haven’t done OT 9 and 10! Oh, of course. A perfect “carrot” to keep one paying and playing the game (By the way, the term “wog” is very degrading.).
Scientology carefully indoctrinates one into believing it is the only way. This is a lie. It is a lie as evidenced by the fact of its own products. And it is a lie by evidence of results other subjects are achieving.
And it is this lie that keeps people stuck to scientology, being mostly broke, having a string of failed relationships, etc. The lie of the “only way” compounded by the ego boost one achieves when one reaches the “exalted” states of “clear,” “OT,” or “Patron of the IAS,” or the ego boost one achieves through the status of a staff position, is what keeps people going along this road. But this road leads nowhere.
Of course, the policy of disconnection doesn’t make it easier to quit either, or to voice differing opinions, as the “church” has no qualms about separating people from everything they know, their friends, their sources of income, and even their family. Only a group which is weak and has things to hide would have strict policy to cut off those with different viewpoints from the rest of the group. The creed of this organization states that “all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others,” however, if one were to apply this to scientology itself, one would soon be declared “suppressive.”
Scientologists seem to regard every disagreement with scientology as an “attack,” and so they counter this by attacking the character of the person voicing the difference in opinion. This can get quite neurotic. And it can get quite savage too. Why does something that is supposedly so powerful need defending? Well, maybe because it isn’t quite so powerful after all. And the people doing the defending don’t seem all that much closer to serenity than the rest of mankind. In fact, they seem to be people who have loads of unhandled charge, indicative of some unhandled situation. Wasn’t scientology meant to handle such things? Perhaps they have their own uncertainties on the subject? And frankly, the superiority complex with which they look down on ex-scientologists, as if they know everything and the ex’s are being duped, is not only socially reprehensible, but really gets to be “old hat” after a while. They have no idea of how childish they look to the outside world.
Scientologists strongly identify themselves with their opinions and beliefs. They ARE scientologists. Therefore, if one challenges their beliefs, they see it as a challenge to their personal identity, i.e. they take it very personally. They get upset when others don’t accept their viewpoint, as they have become their viewpoint. This is quite sad in a way, as they are doing the Bridge in order to be more themselves, but cannot do so whilst in the synthetic construct of “Scientologist.” Tell a Buddhist you don’t believe in Buddhism, and he’ll be like “cool dude, peace to you.” But don’t try this with your average scientologist.
A scientologist really believes things like:
“Never fear to harm another in a just cause”
“The greatest good for the greatest number”
“….win or die in the attempt…”
One is dealing with a mind-set that one is either “for” them or “against” them, and that one must be wholeheartedly and actively “for” them or you are the enemy.
Scientology has no natural enemies; it actively creates its own.
Sure, most of the guys on staff are good guys, who mean good. And the way they imagine they will achieve this good is through scientology, so of course a guy who says what I am saying is seen as a complete s scumbag. Years ago I probably would have thought the same.
And sure, I have achieved benefits with scientology. But I have also achieved fantastic benefits through going to gym, eating correctly, staying healthy, through the many self-help books I read prior to scientology, and through other spiritual subjects. And some of these benefits have FAR surpassed those I achieved through the overly complex system that is scientology. Whilst most other spiritual practices preach love, scientology preaches superiority over others. The return on investment in scientology is extremely poor.
I think that scientologists should stop isolating themselves from the rest of the world, and should see what actually goes on outside the confines of the walls of their big, expensive, empty buildings.