What is a “Real Scientologist” these days?

By Morris Adams

First I want to give you some background on my own entry into Scientology, more than 40 years ago. I am intentionally leaving out the actual locations I was in and the names of my auditors and associates.

I heard about Scientology from a colleague of mine where I was working. I was very interested immediately. I had been actively looking for answers to my “problems” for years, via reading, psychotherapy and religion. The initial promo piece my friend gave me – written by Ed Lefson and Ruth Minshull – really hit my reality and I got very excited. I read DMSMH immediately and then went down to the local Mission.

I did a couple of intro courses and then signed up for professional auditing. It was the time of Quickie Grades (many of you may never have heard of this). Grades 0 and 1 went by in a flash with nothing at all happening. But on Grade 2 I got a different auditor (she has dropped her body since) who was not into Quickying. In less than half an hour I brought up and discharged most of the things I had been talking to psychotherapists about for years. As the session progressed, I got off more and more charge and the auditor just kept running the process. I felt waves of electrical charge coming off my body and started laughing (line-charging) more and more uncontrollably. I had never experienced anything remotely like this. “What have you done?” and ack my answer. “ What have you withheld?” and ack my answer. But it wasn’t overts I was getting off then, even though it was a Grade 2 process. It was embarrassing moments in my life – things I was too embarrassed to talk openly about. It was really Life Repair, since I hadn’t gotten any of the lower grades or anything else before it, and didn’t even really know what an overt was.

After the session ended I continued to line charge for 15 minutes or more. And when I would stop laughing I just had to look at someone else and I would start laughing again. The material of five plus years of psychotherapy was all blown in less than 30 minutes. It was a fantastic release!

After this I knew with complete certainty that Scientology worked. There was no possible way that anyone could convince me otherwise. Those of you who have had similar wins know what I mean. It is really almost impossible to express in words.

For days after this I would wake up in the morning and immediately think: “Is this really real? Is it possible? Is it really here? I can’t believe it! But it happened!  It is real!” I was on an incredible high for weeks.

So this is how I became a Scientologist and it was this single win that kept me going for the next 40 years. I never did have another win to match this one, solely because of out-tech – the incorrect application of Scientology technology. I could definitely talk reams about this. I definitely had more wins from auditing, but not of the magnitude of this initial session.

There are those of you who know what I am talking about, to whom this is very real. And I know there are those who will read this and NOT know what I am talking about. And some who read this will have their own opinions about what happened to me or about some other aspect of my personality.

But after this, it didn’t matter to me what LRH might have done or not done. There was nothing – and is nothing – that could change my high regard for him and my gratitude to him for what he has done. Nothing. In my mind he is absolved of all sins he has ever committed or will commit. Again only people that have had similar wins to mine will really understand this.

And others who have not, will not really understand. It is a personal thing and no amount of writing or talking can really convince someone else or show someone else, or make someone else “believe” that it works, or provide “objective proof” that it works. It is only one’s own experience that can convince a person.

(Actually there are some people – undoubtedly below “Need of Change” on the Awareness scale – who don’t become Scientologists even when the tech works on them. I gave a touch assist once to a girl and blew her headache, which was a pretty bad one. And she never became curious as to what had just happened to her. And some other people out in the world – contact assist, assist for the loss of a person [her boyfriend had just left her], cold assist – where the assist worked very well, as expressed by the person getting it. But they never expressed any further curiosity or interest in what had just happened to them. Not bad people at all, but their awareness was not up to seeing what had happened. Hard to believe, but that is the reality of awareness levels).

So that is the beginning of my story. And that is one answer to the question: What is a real Scientologist these days? It is someone who has certainty that Scientology tech works, and knows that Scientology tech can help him or her, and knows Scientology tech can help others.

More to come.



103 thoughts on “What is a “Real Scientologist” these days?

  1. Thank you, Morris!
    My first Book One session left me somewhat ill, excited, in bed, giggling, for three days – BUT henceforth I KNEW that this new tech worked! No doubt, no Q&A.
    And I’m in agreement with your definition of a Scientologist. I look forward to the next episode.

  2. Hi Morris.
    “After this I knew with complete certainty that Scientology worked. There was no possible way that anyone could convince me otherwise. Those of you who have had similar wins know what I mean. It is really almost impossible to express in words.”
    This sounds so much like me. I had a period of 5 intensives of auditing given intensively- maybe 2 weeks and finished off with a persistent floating T/A. The abilities which I regained would not be believed or accepted by others- and some people did invalidate my wins. Years after this powerful, good auditing, I was still flying and loving life.
    “But after this, it didn’t matter to me what LRH might have done or not done. There was nothing – and is nothing – that could change my high regard for him and my gratitude to him for what he has done. Nothing. In my mind he is absolved of all sins he has ever committed or will commit. Again only people that have had similar wins to mine will really understand this.”
    No. I am unable to agree with you on this point. My integrity will not allow myself to be aligned with someone who is abusive, someone who is dishonest, someone who tells lies. Your above comment is similar to a wife who stays connected to an abusive husband. She would say, “yes, he hits me but he has sacrificed some much for me, so I will always absolve him of any wrong doing”.
    I will always credited Hubbard with aligning knowledge, knowledge which he “borrowed” from other sources, into a workable subject.
    But he is not infallible. There is way too much evidence against him.
    I am looking forward to more of you story though.

    • Hi Old Timer,
      I definitely agree with you that Hubbard is not infallible. In fact, I think that he made a lot of big mistakes, some of which have led to the sorry, criminal state that the “Church” is in these days. I was talking only about my own personal respect for him.
      I recently was watching some of the videos from the Clearing Congress of 1958, and one of the lectures – I think #3 or #4 – shows how LRH was at that time, where, to me, he has the unreserved and unalloyed intention, simply and only to help people.
      But much happened between then and the 80′s, most of which I don’t know about. And in some ways he undoubtedly changed. But what I am saying is that that doesn’t change my own personal regard for him. Like, if someone saves your life, and then later intentionally runs over your dog (or your kid), that doesn’t change the fact that he saved your life. Whatever, the “reason” he did what he did afterward wouldn’t change the gratitude I had for what he had done earlier. But in one way, which I hadn’t looked at fully until right now, what the person has done since – or even at the same time – should not just be ignored. I would say that looking at the truth about things is always better than not doing so. This is even the reason why Scientology auditing works.
      Whatever other negatives there are or might be, these don’t erase the good things that actually did happen. I certainly wouldn’t want to have the pressures on me that LRH had over the years of developing Scientology. God knows what I would have become.
      Miscavige is another story, who is someone I think was a psychopath from the get-go, and who to my mind has NEVER done any good for anyone.

      • Thanks for the reply, Morris. As you have pointed out, Hubbard was also “guilty” of performing good acts and the 50s and early 60s certainly were years of great discovery.
        May I wish you well on your personal discoveries too. And keep in mind your own realisation that: ” looking at the truth about things is always better than not doing so.”

  3. Lots of people had experiences such as you describe, however, as the years went by, and they learned more, and became wiser, they put those experiences in perspective.

  4. Sadly, my own experiences of Book One don’t align with your’s – though I’m extremely glad to hear such wins have happened. Book One was the first course I ever did and I twinned up with arguably the ugliest person I have ever met. As soon as he tried to put me in session with the count-down, as my eyes zeroes in on his hideous face I felt he was trying to hypnotise me and I rebelled. Later was I told he was out-tech. I dunno. Dianetics, whether Book One or NED was never worked on me and I have had no wins from it. Scn took off for me immediately after this initial experience with the STCC which I loved. Thereafter virtually all my wins were from training, and sec checking (when it was for my benefit rather than the org’s)
    I do feel I have had good wins from auditing, but cannot think of a single session which compares even remotely to what you describe. I can scarcely remember even smiling in session let along line-charging.

  5. One should not generalize that “Sccientology works.” There is a lot of PR in Scientology. One should simply look at what one was doing when one got positive results in Scientology. One should also look at what was happening when there were no results in hours and hours of auditing. You just cannot blame the auditor.

    • Good point, Vinaire. I had some good auditing and other auditing that did nothing for me, like the two FPRD lists I had soon after Clear. According to LRH, this auditing is supposed to be the handling to get Clears onto their OT levels. Well, I was stalled ad infinitum in spite of. What’s more, my life was not a happy one after Clear or after the FPRD lists.
      Only now,a decade and a half later, can I say that as a Clear, I’m more stable than I would have been had I not been Clear. And how do I know what changed this for me? I don’t. I think it was the PDCs but I don’t really know.

  6. I had wonderful wins in Scientology auditing when I first came across it in 1969. Aftre that wins were minor and sporadic for years. There was a lot of grinding in auditing.
    I was declared in 2006 because I would not let my mind be controlled by the edicts and orders from the Church of Scientology. By that time I had already started to have wins again based on my understanding of Axiom 11 (see above) and Buddha’s concept of mindfulness.
    Then I cam to realize that there is valid tech missing in Scientology as it is being practiced in the Church. You cannot say what LRH Tech is being suppressed in the Church of Scientology.

  7. Good for you Morris. One day when the miscavige reign is over, people can start getting the real wins available from the tech.

  8. A Real Scientologist is one who has in-depth understanding of Axiom 11.

    (a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
    (b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.
    (c) IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is called, when agreed upon, Reality.
    (d) NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.

    It is AS-ISNESS that brings about relief in auditing action. I first encountered it on the first drill in Scientology called TR0 and it was mind blowing. It was from this drill that I came to recognize the value of seeing things as they are. It was later that I connected it with MINDFULNESS and understood what Buddha was talking about. This made perfect sense because Scientology acknowledges its roots in Buddhism.

  9. Love it Morris, its these wins and changes that make scientology stand out WAY over any other philosophy hands down! I agree LRH has kha khan status in my books! Yes he did some very questionable things so it has been written, so has it been said. Did I see it? No. Did others see it? Yes they apparently did. Im inclined to believe some of their accounts, LRH was no saint Im sure! But I do chuckle at most of the real crazy stuff true or no. So what? Does the tech work? Yes for many it wonderfully does. That fact wont change no matter what ills or sins LRH may be guilty of I’m afraid! I know the above statements will piss a few die hard LRH bashers off , but so be it.
    Im in the camp that wants what everyone else does deep down. We can disagree on the finer points, put blame on our favourite devil (mine is DM) but ultimately its ours to make go right. Lets get to it.

      • Morris those are tears of Joy I hope ;). To the other chaps all I can say is I spat out the kool aid coz it started to taste like sour beer, flat with no bubbles! If it sounds like Im starry eyed and drunk on LRH moonshine, oh well my joy feels real as does your utter disapointment. Each to their own and I thank you for your comments. There is much merit and lively debate to be had yet :).
        To end off, any of you chaps had the advanced levels outside the church? Just curious.

    • You may not want to face it, but here’s the problem: Some of those “questionable things” are built into the subject, and even built into parts of the tech.
      Some people have, and are, sorting it out.
      IMO, saying “The Tech works!” has become a kind of self induced Scientological hypnotic trance.
      The tech? Which part?
      Works? Works in what way, and how often?
      Some of the tech works in a beneficial way.
      Some of the tech is potentially destructive.
      I agree that 1957&1958 (along with 1953&1954) seem to be years of peak sanity for Scientology. Yet the craziness and darkness never really went away. In March 1955, the Manual on Dissemination of Material was written. It’s in the Red (Tech) Volumes. It instructed that one should attack those doing processing without permission (authorization) from the organization, including by ruining them utterly by way of frivolous legal action.
      In the autumn of 1955, LRH created a hoax document which he called the Russian “Textbook on Psycho-politics,” in which Dianetics was repeatedly denounced as a threat to Communism. (The idea was that Scientology’s “enemies” were somehow mixed up with Russian Communists, or Commies themselves.) He presented this to Scientologists as an authentic document.
      Around the same time, LRH had been writing to the USA FBI, and the letters he wrote, to say the least, are quite bizarre.
      In 1959, the HCO Justice Manual was written. It was confidential. A very dark and disturbing document.
      Parts of “the tech” – which is the practical (know-how) instruction from LRH – is affected by these same negative factors.
      Some sorting out needs to be done, IMO.

      • I agree with you here, B.V. Orts. I’ve lost the stars that were in my eyes, about LRH and about Scientology. And I’m very glad I have. I’ve got more information under my belt and the truth is NOT good but I’d rather have it than still think like a kookaider.
        Thanks for your comment.

    • Exactly, and well put, sheeplebane. “Sully the man and you sully his work” doesn’t work with me. I’ve had tremendous wins with the tech, from both training and auditing. If Ron made mistakes along the way while developing this tech, was wrong about certain things and had to change his mind later (like maybe in his descriptions of the state of Clear), played hardball with Ethics policies in such a way that 30 years on we can all turn and point our fingers and scream, “That man was not perfect!”, I don’t care. To use Ron’s mistakes and imperfections as an excuse to not take advantage of what he developed strikes me as idiocy, in much the same way as refusing to watch Chinatown because someone said Polanski has questionable morals is kind of crazy. You’re missing out on a really good movie. As to the question, “What is a ‘real Scientologist’ these days?”, I don’t get why we have to re-define “Scientologist”, and really, it’s not up to us anyway. Ron developed the subject and the tech, and he defined “Scientology” and “Scientologist”. A person fits the definition or not. I don’t see any advantage in trying to re-define words that are already adequately defined, unless it’s for the purpose of allowing non-Scientologists to then call themselves Scientologists under the new definition, and that’s just plain crazy, in my opinion. If we go changing the definition of “Scientologist”, we will have in one move destroyed the religion altogether. I say leave it alone. If you want to know what a Scientologist is, look it up. And if someone doesn’t want to be what the definition describes, then they’re just not a Scientologist.

      • It’s a not a matter of mistakes.
        Redefining Clear for “PR and marketing” reasons was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act.
        The ruthlessness of “ethics” was not a mistake, but the expression of a mind-set that can be traced back to 1938.
        Using “mental healing” to “assert and maintain dominion over thoughts and loyalties,” was not a mistake; it was a decades long, systematic, series of actions. The e-book ‘Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology’ shows that LRH was applying his own confidential instructions of “using enemy tactics,” but not on his envisioned enemies, but on his own unsuspecting and trusting followers.
        That doesn’t mean there’s not good to be salvaged, there is.
        It does means that those who have a child-like emotional dependence on LRH will have to grow up a little bit.

      • Hi B.V.Orts. I don’t see a way of responding to your response below, so I’ll do it here. I can’t believe I let myself get dragged into this debate yet again. Grow up? You’re telling me to grow up? I have a child-like dependence on Ron? Why are you in this group, B.V.Orts? I thought I was joining a group of Scientologists Getting Back In Comm, but again I find it’s swarming with the opposite. I’m seeing comments from a few Scientologists, but I think the rest of you folks need to figure out who your friends are, and if you’re wondering, “What’s a Scientologist these days?”, well, like I said, look it up. I’m studying this weekend and probably getting a session. I’m having wins with the tech these days, and I would strongly encourage you-all to do the same. Bye-bye.

      • Hi davesoroka,
        What you see is people graduating from Scientology. They’re not anti-Scientologists; they’re just people honestly looking at Scientology.

  10. I was contemplating suicide on Good Friday of 1997. I was very sick mentally and physically and had been for a long time. Long story short,prior to this day I tried everything I could and read 100s of self help books and the bible and the Course in miracles and the Oahspe and the Book of Mormon. . Up to thjis point nothing worked, nothing helped. Friends tried to help me, too to no avail I did not want to commit suicide, but it seemed there were no answers.
    I decided to say a prayer. I simplly said, God I want my sanity back. And fell asleep for about 10-15 min. I woke and decided to get something to eat. On the way to the kitchen I turned the TV on and saw a commercial. It simply said in black and white text, The cause of of all your emotional problems read page such and such of Dianetics. Long story short, I got the book and read it and was blown away. Some how, on Saturday night at about 7 or 8 pm, I found a phone number and called it and someone answered. I was surprised that someone answered, as I thought I would get voice mail. But anyways I asked for more info on Dianetics. The guy asked me if I could come in for a demo I said yes. I said I could be there for noon on Easter Sunday. Again, longer story short, , because the org guy assigned to me, did not show for work, I got a demo from a guy from WISE. He was real Dainetics professional and gave me a demo that lasted about 2 hrs. He was amazing. He found an incident that when I was about 4 or 5 yrs old, I got my new shoes wet in the grass after a rain and my dad saw me and went ballistic and beat me with a 3 ft piece of 1×4, till I was half dead. After the session I felt like I was pulled out from under a rock pile. I had a nice release that caused me to be in a nice high for a few hours.
    I thought to myself that this guy did more for me in a couple of hours than everything else I did in the prior 27 yrs. This was amazing. From then on, I knew what i wanted. But soon after I began to see a lot of things going on amongst staff that raised my eyebrows and raised questions? Long story short, it seemed evident that the insane were running the asylum. I began to ask questions and that ruffled their feathers and eventually caused them to sec check me, persistently. I went through many interviews. They showed me a video of DM and asked me what I thought of him. I said there looks to be something wrong with him. That was not good with them. I was sent to qual for about the 6 th time, by now, and it was here that I asked qual if scn was so good, and according to a certificate on the wall stating he was there fro 25 yrs, I asked why there still was something wrong with him ( I could see that he was still coo coo) ?
    He blew up, told me to wait there and stormed out of the office and came back almost 2 hrs later. And handed me some orange papers, which as most of you know, was a PTS declare. Three months later, I met someone at a business convention, who told me about the fz and about all the problems with the cos and also told me about the Free Spirit Journal fz magazine. And he offered to send me his latest copy. I connected with the now late (auditor) Bob Ross and got more auditing over the phone. I had more wins.
    So I know that dianetcs works.
    But I also learned that the word “works” has to be taken in proper context. I have since learned that Dianetics and scn can solve a lot of problems but not all problems.
    For example, I have witnessed countless times that D and S does not cure the conditions of “asshole” and “bitch”. The average scientologist is still a very screwed up and undesireable and over all poor quality being.
    Scntgy often becomes a valence to cover up a lot of problems.
    After yrs of research, I found the answers to those problems in the bible and other good personal development books and programs.
    So there is a lot of good in scn, but a lot more has to be done.
    I learned the very hard way to never call myself a scientologist. Because of the condition of ill repute. There is no word in the world that causes more problems than that word. I have lost a lot of friends due to mentioning the word.
    I have realized that I can use the good parts of D and S and be anything else I want to be.
    I can be a Christian or anything else. I prefer to call myself an intelligent, sensible, loving, intelligent, responsible, unlimited free spirit.
    What has to be done is to build a new and better bridge and call it something else.
    The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.
    What was true yesterday is not necessarly true today.
    Knowledge is not static.
    The only thing that is permanent is change.
    Every competent and self respecting student always stands on the shoulders of his teachers and sees further.
    Parroting a teacher is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of aberration, ignorance and stupidity. And not able to think for oneself.

    • I like your comments, Dio. There’s a lot I can say about some of them, but I am going to wait until another post that will address some of your points.

    • Hi Dio, I’ve totally got it that “the average scientologist is still a very screwed up and undesireable and over all poor quality being.” I’ve never bothered to analyse why but the most and worst ongoing trouble I’ve ever had in my life has been from Scientologists. This sounds like a generality but, one for one, I’ve found it to be true.

    • Thank you for this post Dio. I have been thinking about, what does it mean, when someone says “Scientology works”? I think it is specific to each person and that time, place, and process. It means, “That piece of Scientology I was exposed to did work for me in a good way.”

      • Val,
        Yes, the datum “scientology works” can be a loaded statement. It is very subjective.
        It is an all encompassing generality.
        It is part of a business plan.
        “Scientology works”, and “keep scn working” , ( are not exactly bona fide statements or datums. That is they are not free of lies, fraud, deceit, traps, subjectivity, covert agendas, and other sinister and insidious agendas.
        Those words have to be thoroughly disected and parsed and scrutinized and evaluated, everytime they are used.
        The truth is the best bait in the universe.
        The most dangerous lies are the ones that are almost true. The more truth there is on a fabricated cognitive set up, the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the hiidden lie, trap, deceit, fraud in place, which is then not inspected and often argued and defended to death.
        Scn has lot’s of these kinds of things.

      • All truth here, Dio. It’s conforting to know that there are like-minded people on this blog, not afraid of looking. And capable of seeing.

  11. Hi Morris,
    I too have had many sessions where I have line charged laughing and this went on for a long time. Good sessions are fantastic and I thank you for vividly making me recall that.
    Having said that, I still don’t believe in all the hype of things like “going off to target two” and also have never been convinced about the theory of OT 3 and above, even though I have had some wins with it.
    I think that part of the trap with corporate Scientology was to get people to equate having great wins with now getting them to buy into the idea that they owed the organization their life.
    The logic seemed to be ; We gave you some great wins so now you owe us anything we ask. You give us all the money we request and do what we want or you are an ungrateful scum.
    I was cool with the organization up until I found out that they wanted it to be their way or the highway and that no matter my level of contribution it was never going to be enough.

    • Thanks, Tony.

      Yes, I think you are right about the organization. I don’t think this awful organizational viewpoint is what LRH wanted, per “Open Letter to Clears” (if you are familiar with that PL) where he leaves it up to the individual to do what he decides he wants to do in Scientlology.

      As for the theory of OT3, I actually have a lot to say about that, which I would like to leave to another post. (However, I will not be saying anything confidential in it. I don’t think it’s right – in my opinion – to put actual confidential OT data on these posts. And regardless, it is already all over the internet anyway.)

      • Respectfully, I suggest that you reread the 1967 ‘Open Letter To Clears’.
        It most definitely does not leave it up to the individual to do what he decides he wants to do in Scientology.
        John McMaster, “the first real (Clearing Course) Clear” of the mid 1960s, who traveled and spoke on behalf of Scientology, and was a major positive influence doing its period of great expansion, was declared a Suppressive Person by L. Ron Hubbard in 1969.
        Clears have been trashed by LRH, like old candy bar wrappers, since 1950.
        That’s the unpleasant truth.

  12. Any datum is only as good as it works.
    The value of a datum is determined by how many prolbems it solves and how well it solves them.
    And: Every datum has to be evaluated on it’s own merits.

  13. You said: “What is a real Scientologist these days? It is someone who has certainty that Scientology tech works, and knows that Scientology tech can help him or her, and knows Scientology tech can help others.”
    I don’t consider myself a Scientologist as I have said, because I don’t like labeling myself like that. I do have the certainty that some of the tech works. I don’t have the idea (generality) that ALL the tech works and works exactly the way LRH says.
    You said in your article that you would forgive LRH anything for what he created. I am not an LRH basher but you got me thinking a little bit.
    Let us take someone else other than LRH. Let’s take a person who created some sort of antidote or technique or something that saved lives. Then lets say later this person went a bit crazy and started beating his wife or killed someone. Would this give the person an automatic pass or immunity for this crime or crimes? Personally, I don’t think so. This idea comes from the idea of ethics protection and even LRH said a Kha Khan only had protection from death 10 times I believe.
    There are different examples and each would have to be made on a case to case basis.
    There is no doubt in my mind that LRH created some very workable and valid therapy. He also created an organization that went wrong and he has to take some of the blame for that doesn’t he?
    Using the logic that you would forgive LRH anything, you would seem to be saying that dm has ethics protection as well. I am sure that the organization still churns out some wins where people are blown out and line charge. Since they are doing this are THEY also forgiven and given a pass to do what they are doing? The regging, the sleep deprivation of the Sea Org, the cob beating people, the disconnection and demonizing of people. Is this too forgiven?

  14. Around 1970 LRH wrote that since Scientology can deliver Total Freedom it can demand total discipline.

    That was back when the level of (old) OT 8 (which, it turns out never existed except for some theory) was being sold. (It was at the top of the Grade Chart prominently displayed in all Orgs) Its End Result was presented as willing and knowing cause, subjective and objective, over matter, energy, space, time, form, life and thought. Total Freedom and Total Power.

    The trade off was that, if one cooperated – and wasn’t “critical” or “out ethics” or “squirrely,” or have any “cognitions that blocked ones path on the Bridge” (See KSW) – that, at the end of the Bridge, one would be an Operating Thetan. This, along with warnings about one’s “agonized endless trillions,” etc., made some people very cooperative.

    Toss in one auditing session with a big key out, and it wasn’t unusual for a person to be absolutely convinced that Scientology was The Way and had the answers.

  15. A New Slant on Theta-MEST Theory.
    THETA is best postulated as an activity-less energy (Shakti of Hinduism).
    MEST is best postulated as a dormant field (Shiva of Hinduism).
    Both of these postulates exist side by side. None is generated from the other. I know this understanding is different from how Hubbard stated it.
    MEST activates THETA. THETA disturbs MEST.
    This creates awareness as patterns embedded within electromagnetic waves.
    Both postulates – THETA & MEST – are static.
    But the resulting interaction is dynamic from which come about space, time, energy and matter.

  16. What Toni said earlier really echo’s how I feel. “We gave you some great wins so now you owe us anything we ask. You give us all the money we request and do what we want or you are an ungrateful scum”
    Many years ago I too was was in a bad way and somebody reached out and helped me with Scientology. That first experience was something that has never been equalled ever again in my Scientology journey. What was the difference? The person who helped me really cared. I cant tell you how many people have tried to help me since under the “name of Scientology” but had some other ulterior motive, whether it be money, donations, getting me to join staff or some such nonsense.
    Where was the point where it turned from something genuinely sincere into some sort of engine to procure more funds, and you simply get blacklisted for not playing along?

  17. Interesting article Morris.
    To me the wins from applying Scientology are as you say *subjective* and *individual* which is why having 10000 solo auditors auditing NOTs which as far as I’m concerned is just spiritual masturbation. Something on the order of this New Age idea that if we all think the “right” thoughts the world will somehow be a better place.
    Total theetie weetiness.
    You got to train auditors and then you got to have these auditors audit individuals so that each individual has their own personal reality on the effectiveness and workability of the subject.

  18. The answer to the question of what a real scientologist is depends upon where one finds oneself. If you’re still in the corporate church the answer is clearly that a good Scientologist is one who complies without question to DM’s CI and happily turns over their home equity, income and retirement accounts for the IAS and building funds. Outside that structure you can actually have this discussion. Refreshing, isn’t it?

    • Agreed Maggie. Toward the end of my time in the church I often said to various So peeps “I am a Scientologist but not the one you want me to be.” that holds true today. I’m the Scientologist I want to be. And that’s real enough.

  19. Morris, thank you for creating this post in response to my earlier question.
    If I were to sum all this up so far it would be “A Scientologist is someone who has honest-to-god subjective reality that auditing works”. I would agree with that statement.
    I believe that one of my basic disagreements with what was said previously on this subject is that someone like Chris Shelton, who does not subscribe to the idea that everything LRH wrote is correct, nor even that everything LRH did in and with SCN was done with good intentions, is actually not a real Scientologist (and never was) despite being in the SO for 25 years, despite being a trained auditor, despite having personally worked to forward the aims of Scientology for his entire adult life….that Chris is just not a “real Scientologist”. I can assure you that Chris had subjective reality that Scientology works at the lower-levels.
    While I agree that someone who has subjective reality that auditing works is a real Scientologist, I would not agree that that being a real Scientologist includes subscribing to the idea that “therefore LRH should never be upbraided or called out on anything he ever did or said”.
    I personally think that is a critical error. Just because someone points out something LRH did or said that was wrong, contradictory or god forbid hypocritical, doesn’t mean peoples’ wins aren’t real.
    You don’t say how high up the Bridge you’ve gone, so I make this next statement carefully. It says something to me that the biggest win you had in Scientology was a win you had on Grade 2, and that no subsequent wins exceeded that.
    I don’t think anyone who has experienced wins at the lower levels could or should be convinced those wins were not real. I think it’s a mistake though to imply that what Scientology is supposed to offer is “key outs”, “happiness”, “certainty”, “relief”, “wins”, etc.
    These are all good things, and I have seen Scientology bring them about in people, but this is NOT, NOT, NOT what Scientology is supposed to offer, and I think this is a very important point that is worthy of much discussion.
    Scientology is supposed to offer complete freedom from the trap that is the physical universe. One is supposed to attain the ability to go exterior at will with full perception. One is supposed to be free of the birth to death cycle and have the ability to avoid having one’s memory wiped in the between-lives areas and to pick up another body while retaining all of the knowledge one gained in the prior life.
    Because I have observed the lower-levels to genuinely improve peoples’ lives, I consider Scientology to be a very valid therapy. But I do not consider it to be “the route out” because I have never met an OT (or a Clear for that matter) who exhibited what LRH says an OT is supposed to be. I have never met an OT 8 (with all 3 L’s) who is able to go exterior at will, PERIOD.
    And I could explain this away if there were more OT levels to do. The fact that OT 8 is the FIRST real OT level is how I, and many others, have explained away the fact that OT 8′s are clearly not Full OT.
    But I have learned from Dan Koon and others that there are no more OT levels. I have also learned from Sarge and others that LRH was in very poor physical and mental health when he died. I’m not LRH-hating here. This data comes from Sarge, who is one of LRH’s biggest fans. So, did the OT Levels do for LRH what he said the OT Levels would do for me?
    And is there any reason why both things can’t be true; that there could be real contradictions in the subject of Scientology AND that one’s wins in SCN are valid?
    You concluded that “Scientology works” due to wins at the lower levels. But if you never had any wins bigger than those on Grade 2 then how can you say with certainty that all of Scientology works? Aren’t the wins supposed to get bigger at the higher levels?
    Don’t you really just mean that what you did in Scientology worked for you?
    Of course if by “works” you means “gives big wins”, then we would agree. But that’s not what “works” means to me.
    For me, it’s the discrepancy between “expectations” and “the reality” of the OT Levels that got me to question the value of the Bridge. Mind you, it did not get me to question my wins. My wins were real. But those wins aren’t why I was involved with SCN. I was involved because of the ultimate promise of what the OT levels offered.
    I’d be really interested in continuing to discuss how people who have left the Church but whom still deliver the OT Levels, explain this. Do they consider the true promise of Scientology is still attainable by OT 8? If not, why do the OT Levels at all? Just for therapeutic value?

    • Hi Deep Six,
      A lot of great points you make. I hope scnafrica will let me post some more. I have a LOT to say about these things. I want to talk about them, but I would like to put it in a separate post.
      I have done probably a few thousand hours of auditing on Solo NOTs, like many other people. A lot I did inside the “Church” and some not inside the “Church”. I am a very different – and, I think, better – person because of this, but not the “OT” that both of us want to be. (I would also have to say from my observations, that some people are NOT better persons because of Solo NOTs auditing. But I will talk about this later also.)
      I hope you can wait for a few days while I get my thoughts together and at the same time take care of my regular day-to-day life, until I am ready to submit another post to scnafrica.

      • I have also observed that people are not better persons because of Solo NOTs auditing. I’ve observed that there are many OTs not better persons because of being on OT.
        Sounds critical, doesn’t it. I know. But it’s what I’ve observed. I could name them so it wouldn’t be a generality but won’t. One or two OT VIIIs have even become criminals – afterwards!

    • Also, I want to apologize to Chris Shelton. I think his videos are great and very valuable. Sometimes I am probably too sensitive when I think someone is putting down LRH. I take back what I said concerning him, and apologize for including him in that list I wrote in my comment on the earlier post. I will watch his last two videos again.

  20. OT VIII is being delivered successfully in the Indie Field. I haven’t done it but know at least one who has to great review.

    • Is that the Church of Scientology OT 8 put together by Ray Mithoff after the departure of David Mayo? Or are you referring to the Bill Robertson’s (Ron’s Org) OT 8? formerly called Super NOTs, now called the Excalibur level?, or to some other OT 8?

    • I am curious as to what skills and abilities does an OTVIII have? What is he differences between an OT and a wog, like Steve Jobs who invented Apple and what he did verses an Indie or Co$ OT?

      What are they – OT’s?

  21. In Scientology, we do not have pure data available any longer. Either others added their data to Scientology data, Or, Hubbard’s own reactive mind corrupted the data. We do not know.
    There should be a way to detect distortions, curves, and hidden assumptions in a subject. The following is one method that may be used for this purpose. I have used it and found it to be workable.

    • Vinaire, you don’t speak for any “we” that represents Independent Scientologists. You have made numerous public statements to the effect that the Axioms of Scientology are entirely arbitrary and wrong. You don’t know that the procedures and techniques of Scientology proceed directly from those Axioms and that by invalidating them you also invalidate the procedures and processes. So, finding yourself in the midst of considerable Confusion on the subject, you now seek to undermine the certainty of everyone else on this subject so that they too may join you in Confusion.

      That having been said, I’ll go with one of Hubbard’s definitions of a “real” Scientologist(no TM) – anyone who uses Scientology to improve conditions on any of the Dynamics.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • Yes, that’s very broad and very vague. BIG FRONT DOOR: Allow almost anyone to “be a Scientologist.” then gradually tighten the screws, as the definition of a Scientologist becomes more restricted and confining.
        There are many definitions of “Scientologist,” leading the person further and further into Scientology, easy gradient by ready gradient.

      • Vinaire: you wrote the following above (perhaps you forgot): “In my view, Scientology largely consists of arbitrary hypotheses knitted together haphazardly”. That’s what *you* said. Please make up your mind.
        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

  22. Nice article Morris.
    Wins are wins. They can stand alone for one person, without a judgment of LRH, IMO.
    I think we should practice Scn translated into Afrikaans:
    (I heard this somewhere)
    For non-SA folk, the word “weet” is the word “know”.

  23. Morris,
    Some interesting responses here.
    I always viewed a real Scientologist as someone who uses Scientology to improve conditions not the IRS approved definition which is basically someone who is a member of a Scientology organization.
    To me a Scientologist is one who applies Scientology since it is an applied philosophy . Not someone who is a certain level of patronage to the IAS or whatever.

    • I do use some of the technology, quite a lot, actually; while at the same time, I can’t take much of it seriously. But I don’t want to be known as a ‘Scientologist’. I no longer think of myself as a Scientologist. I’m no longer proud of the status. I’m many other things besides and, in addition, I’m enjoying being ‘allowed’ to explore elsewhere.
      I am no longer a friend of LRH. I’ve found out too much about him…. I always believed that Scientology was about Truth and Communication. Well, well…

      • Goddamn Ronnie we missed you! 🙂 Please add your well balanced view to this debate I beg you! Its getting too polarised. People need to forget about if LRH was this or that and start working on solving the now I feel!

  24. Morris,
    I also had a huge line charge at Flag. I kept laughing, crying, laughing, crying, laughing …
    It took roughly 25 minutes. We finished the session, but it came back, when we went to the examiner … and I ran against a wall. I just could not perceive the wall and fell on the floor afterwards, still laughing and crying in a maybe 20 second intervall. I nearly suffocated. There was no time to breathe.
    But the loss of money at Flag was too big. It took all the wins and even more. Flag quickly became a synonym for “negative wins”. And since then I was sitting in sessions just thinking about the minutes and constant regging. As soon as I would attest something, I would lose again. My ex-wife never had these problems. She saw the church from a different angle. She never worked, she got all for free and was never regged.
    I understand what you feel for Hubbard. Unfortunately I see it differently.
    LRH has not done all by himself. There have been so many people that contributed without being mentioned. Who knows what Hubbard did and what he did not? He wrote Dianetics, but there was no Clear until 1968 (John McMaster, Sunday, December 22) – what an outpoint! McMaster left the church and was declared SP. So we are talking about 20 years after LRH’s first scientific “Clears”, who were mentioned in Dianetics. Throughout the tapes you hear LRH announcing that he has now found the solution and is making clears. He sounds like David Miscavige sometimes.
    Hubbard wrote the policies for the Guardian office, he wrote OT III, he wrote Dianetics, he wrote science fiction.
    Yes, he gave ideas to people, who then followed-up on what they thought the ideas would be.
    When looking at Synergetics (N. Arthur Coulter in 1954) I quickly understand that people were following Hubbard’s basic ideas. But many of these were stolen from various people. One famous guy was Aleister Crowley. We know that Hubbard did not allow anybody else to be mentioned. He called it “be above the reactive mind of others” and made himself “source” of what others had contributed.
    Maybe, and let me dare to bring up what nobody dares to say, maybe all worked not because of LRH, but despite of LRH. And here is the only point that can make Scientology survive in the long run.
    I know that this is a theory that nobody has thought about. At least I could not find it anywhere. But if you stop your thoughts here, then you know that something is wrong with you and that you can never achieve clear, because you have a severe thought stopping short circuit installed. Real Scientology – what people want it to be – asks you to communicate and learn how to learn. It does not teach you to accept dogmas, stop thinking, stop looking or stop communicating. How can anybody learn by being sure that he/she knows everything already.
    Not Hubbard, it is what we want it to be.
    I cannot consider myself being a Scientologist. But if we could get this far to accept that things happened despite Hubbard and that Scientology has flaws and no dogmas… then I would maybe join again. I would love to be in a group that allows self-criticism and has leeway for improvements.
    If a religion can survive open criticism and communication, then we have something very valuable. We would have the first religion that survives despite looking, self-criticism, honesty, free thoughts and openess.

    • Amazing comment. Perhaps forums such as these have already begun this process. More self criticism and less judgement of any kind. Uncomfortable transparency.

    • A brilliant comment, Barefacedmessiah.
      I’m seeing more and more sanity here and less koolaid-thinking. Arrogant am I to speak like this of fellow Free Zoners? Don’t think so.
      Growing is what we’re all doing, some of us sticking our necks out more than others. That’s all.

    • Before Miscavige, it was recognized, by most Scientologists, that the applied philosophy and technology of Scientology was only using the idea of being a religion to protect itself.
      The chanting of “It’s a religion,” and “My religion,” began under Miscavige.
      See Brennan’s Religious Cloaking legal declaration and video.

    • It’s interesting to consider that if Dianetics and Scientology were allowed to remain subjects that emphasized “practical use” above “belief”…that both subjects would’ve had a chance of actually becoming or remaining what LRH claimed they were to begin with; Dianetics a science, and Scientology a philosophy.
      Dianetics was supposed to be a science. The early adopters treated it as such. My understanding is that LRH eventually refused to allow them to do so. The ones who wanted to use what worked and discard what didn’t were labeled the earliest squirrels and kicked out. These people in turn felt that if the data could not be tested and changed by anyone other than LRH then it wasn’t in fact a science, but a cult or a religion. It’s interesting to me that this seems to have been a primary point of dissension from the very earliest days.
      Scientology is an “applied philosophy” that (as far as the Church is concerned) may not be applied by anyone other than those who are in good standing with the mother church. By this very fact, the Corporate C of S has turned Scientology into an un-philosophy.
      The right to think freely would have permitted these two subjects to remain what LRH said the subjects were supposed to be in the first place.

      • Good point, I agree one hundred percent!! Looking over this in hindsite I will concede LRH’s error here. It should have had less religeous proprietary and more applied philosphy aspect ratios. May well have prevented a DM take over! However, hindsight will always be a perfect science!!

  25. What I have learned from Buddha and “original” Hubbard is to trust my ability to discriminate and question what does not make sense.
    Here is my question:

    Theta is Static, yet it is made up of affinity, reality and communication that vary over a wide scale. How can a static be made up of components that vary?

      • Hi Vinaire,
        Don’t know if you will read this on this post anymore but, first, here are axioms 1 – 3:
        Axiom 1 Life is basically a static.
        DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
        Axiom 2 The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.
        Axiom 3 Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.
        To provide a more direct answer to your question, ARC and all parts of it are considerations. They are not part of the static. They fall under axiom 2. Hope this helps.

      • I don’t think I really answered here exactly what you asking.
        The thetan is a static. The static is a thetan. I don’t know of any other thing that is a static that is not a thetan

  26. “Make no mistake about it – enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It’s seeing through the facade of pretense. It’s the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.” – Adyashanti.

  27. Sitting down, with a person opposite, who looks up to you as having trained extensively to achieve a thorough working knowledge of the mind, spirit and life, then applying an EXACT formula of result producing communication, leading to life changing realizations,–with the addition of understanding– well, that, to me, adequately describes a “REAL Scientologist these days”, (or any others too!) 🙂

    • Back in the early 1970s, to me only an auditor could call himself a “scientologist”. At that time it would indicate someone who had done the HQS course including the co-audit. Better, someone at least working on the HSDC. Anyone else was a wanna-be at best.

      • Bingo, Valkov!… Have the working parameters making up the question, even been acknowledged as such, over the past 40 years? The ‘question’ in question, specifically being, “REAL” Scientologist ? 🙂

  28. I just want to make a few points and then I’ll probably be bowing out of this type of conversation in the future. I’m in touch with a fair number of Scientologists who are no longer in the corporate Church and very few of them spend much time in these forums. Most are just out here getting the job done in terms of auditing and training – converting entheta to theta. I’m beginning to think that this argumentative phase is just something that we all go through when we are decompressing from leaving the Church, and then we just settle down and get to work. Those who are not interested in getting the job done tend to be pretty vocal so it can start to feel like there are a lot of people disaffected with the philosophy itself, when in fact all the Scientologists I actually know in the flesh are active and happy with their progress. I understand that these forums can be a space to work things out, but eventually they become a distraction. The auditors I know are just too busy to comment and so the conversations start to seem a little weighted in the direction of the disaffected.
    I woke up early this morning with all my rebuttals swirling around in my head so here I am posting them just to get it out – but in future my time will be more well spent studying or simply sleeping so that I’ll be sessionable.
    – One of the first things I read when I got in to Scientology was that I should accept what’s real for me and chuck out the rest. I didn’t do that and that’s on ME, not on LRH. In the Corporate Church our thoughts and beliefs were so controlled that once we leave we bend over backwards to ensure that we are not running he same controls on others so we allow any and all open debate. This is treated like a new idea when in fact if we had all done what LRH said way back at the beginning we would not be in the mess we are today. Scientology is developed to create sane, self-determined individuals and if we bought everything hook line and sinker then that is on US. There are lots of Scientologists much smarter than I who have been out for a long time, worked through their issues and are now actively producing and have been for years. This idea that somehow we are the first hard nosed brilliant thetans on the scene and are such truth seekers that we’ll savage the subject just to show how brave and clever we are just doesn’t wash with me. Really, if you’re not a Scientologist why don’t you just get on with your life. I know that phrases like ‘you’re responsible for your own condition’ have been used negatively as control mechanisms, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t true. The longer we make the corporate Church or the philosophy itself or DM or LRH responsible for our personal condition the worse it’ll get. I screwed up, I get it, I’m getting on with the job now.
    – I believe that DM is an ass and a very suppressive one, but I think that putting all of our attention on him is ignoring the fact that much bigger players are involved. Ever since the corporate Church got in to bed with the IRS it hasn’t really been Scientology. The way I see it, for years the government and it’s various bodies tried to destroy LRH and the subject of Scientology. Any way they could raid it or shut it down or discredit it they were there. Now, with all of the facts that are out there about slave labour, forced abortions, financial fraud, etc. etc. etc. doesn’t it strike you as odd that the government hasn’t gone in with all guns blazing and loads of ammunition to shut the place down. And I know that people are quick to point the ‘conspiracy theory’ finger, but if you have any reality on spirituality and past lives at all is it really such a stretch to contemplate that maybe we’re being played by a much bigger team with an aggressive agenda to shut down spiritual freedom? Might not be real to some folks, but this game has been going on for a long, long time.
    – As to whether Clear and the various stages of OT are real states: My view is that LRH postulated ‘thetan’. It makes sense to me. If it’s real to you then you have some sense of what we’re going for. At some point we stepped in to the MEST universe game, lot control of it and have been adding machinery, facsimiles, circuitry, considerations and junk ever since. All the Bridge is basically is a relatively safe path for making that journey back to ‘thetan’. We’re all somewhere on that Bridge and where we are may not exactly match up with the labels LRH developed to help codify it, but if I’ve gotten rid of some stuff and it’s not coming back and I’ve developed a little knowingness so that I won’t fall into the same traps then that’s good enough for me. I’ll just keep moving along that bridge getting rid of stuff and getting closer and closer to me. I’m not interested in making my dog disappear or some such in order to demonstrate my state. I am where I am.
    – LRH did not descend god-like from the heavens. He was, in my opinion, one very smart cookie who managed somehow to stand three feet back of his own case in order to figure out how to get rid of it. That’s pretty cool!!! He had a case! He was being audited on all the stuff we’re being audited on as he was researching it. If he dramatized his case from time to time along the way…well I say give the guy a break. I look at nay sayers and say “what have you done for mankind recently?” It’s my understanding (I wasn’t there so take it for whatever) that Ron got ill while making training films, and that it was because he had been run on a dianetics type action in what is now understood to be a non-interference zone. David Mayo gave him assists and together they working out NOTs. So Ron very much had a case. To me this makes him even more a hero. Instead of caving in and nattering, he figured a way out that can be used by us all.
    – As to the idea that if Ron had achieved such high states why would he let his body be in such bad shape when he died. Really? Keeping a MEST body with a built in create survive destroy cycle going when there are loads of other bodies or other options out there amounts to the same argument as “if you can’t make your dog disappear you’re not OT”.
    – Again, I’m sure there are many that will disagree, but when the argument descends to the likes of anyone who feels the way I do has a “child-like emotional dependence on LRH” then I seriously begin to wonder at the value of all of this chatter. I feel like we’re all just dramatizing a big old GPM here so I think I’ll just pluck out my contribution to the Mass on this one and get on with a much more productive and FUN game.

    • You make some good points, Nora. Auditing and Training are just about the most valuable things a person can do. But if that is all anyone did, at this point we would be lost, and Scientology would be lost.
      These blogs are the meeting ground for the independent field, as well as helping many people to get off their charge who never would even think of coming back to Scientology again otherwise.
      Plus the obvious fact that the current “Church” and its leader are suppressive. Which wouldn’t be such a terrible thing if that fact could be ignored without any bad consequences.
      But it can’t be ignored because it is harming many people every day – the people who are out who are having their lives ripped apart by disconnection, the people who are in who (unbeknownst to them) have actually given up their own Bridge, and the tremendous ill-repute that Scientology now has, thus preventing the majority of mankind from being able to avail themselves of the tech and the road that LRH has provided.
      I don’t think you should stop what you are doing and do something else. But these blogs and the communication that happens in them are very important. The current “Church” must be brought down, for the future of Scientolotgy, for my future, for your future and for the future of everyone else.

      • Bravo Morris. At the end of the day, the core activity of Scientology is auditing, done by auditors……Everything else, is done just to make that possible AND most importantly, to show mankind that this truly effective, restorative, technology ACTUALLY works, and IS available, at affordable prices. And damned be the Doomsayers and Enslavers — ALL!!!
        – Calvin 🙂

      • Thank you for your reply Morris. I really do agree with you 100% in terms of what is needed in order to get Scientology well thought of and productive and the importance of that activity. We’re totally on the same page there. If the blogs help some people to get off their charge and upsets and get back in the game then I stand corrected here. Maybe I have just personally decompressed and should have more patience while others do the same. And I also hope that people avail themselves of the tech in the field. A good session with an experienced and high ARC auditor can make a pretty quick job of handling a world of upset. I am part of a small group in Canada – a group of five: an auditor, an academy sup, a basic courses sup, an admin specialist and a computer technical genious. We have a small academy and auditing is happening. We have access to excellent C/Sing and auditing at a nearby, well established centre. It’s FUN! When this bunch first left the Church, after faltering for a little bit, we got excited about the prospect of taking responsibility for getting ourselves and others up the Bridge now that there’s no huge infrastructure holding our hands.
        I’m also curious about people’s views about how the reestablishment of Scientology should take place. I think some people envision an overthrow of the current leadership and a complete restructuring and restoration of the tech within the existing infrastructure. Others see the future of the subject in the ‘islands of sanity’ created in the independent centres. Others see a loose structure somewhere between the monolithic ‘mother church’ structure and the open indie scene. I’d be curious to hear people’s views on this – especially if they are geared toward a proliferation of the valuable tech. It’s quite the new game we have going here!
        I have a lot of admiration for those of you in South Africa who contributed so much and have been treated so terribly. If any new delivery groups are forming up there I would love to hear of it – or is it better to keep a low profile on this? I would understand that.
        In any case – all good cheer to you from our little spot on the planet in Canada.

      • Hi Nora,
        A late reply, but I am in the US, not SA.
        The question of what Scientology will become in the future is a good one. Did you read the post on this blog by Ryan Hogarth, on 24 Jan 2014, called “Why control of Scientology is no longer possible (or necessary)” ? It is well worth reading (IMHO).
        There are many dedicated, intelligent, self-determined people now outside the “church” who are very active and who are dedicated to seeing that Scientology continues into the future. I don’t think that many of these would be willing to deal with, or be in any way subordinate to, a higher controlling organization of any kind, unless it were run by LRH himself; and for many people, not even then.
        So it is a very good question. I think the answer will evolve over these next few years. But let me again recommend Ryan Hogarth’s article.

    • I agree with most of what you said. It is real to me that we may be being played by a much bigger team. I have read many books on the history of secret societies on this planet.
      These blogs have had a mostly therapeutic effect on me. It’s given me hope to know that real Scientology exists outside.

      • I’m glad these blogs have given you hope about real Scientology existing outside the corporate church Sophia 13. That’s a very good thing!

      • I want to respond to Morris but don’t see a reply button. So hope this makes sense. Thanks for the reference Morris. I can see Scientology playing out as Ryan Hogarth describes.

  29. Great Morris, yes… let’s remember our wins. The church is simply in the hand of ennemies of Scientology. And the subject and LRH are discredited… Two sides of a GPM…
    We have to make sure the subject won’t die that people can still have some wins like yours. Thanks for the rehab

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s