|
CHAPTER 4: The Theories of Scientology
"What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? No matter."
Punch,
vol. XXIX (1855).
(a) Content
82. At different stages in their history either Dianetics
(the first aspect of Mr. Hubbard's teaching to gain public attention),
or Scientology (its later development), has been more prominent than the
other. In its essentials, however, the theory of the human personality
which underlines Dianetics and Scientology is the same, though
Scientology elaborates it further, and adopts different techniques to
seek to bring its adherents to the optimum state of human functioning,
described in its own works as 'clear', or (at a later stage peculiar to
Scientology) 'operating thetan'.
83. The fundamental thesis on which both Dianetics and
Scientology are based - the discovery Scientologists regard as "the
major advance of centuries of philosophy" (68) - is that the mind
consists of three parts. The first, the "analytical" mind, is likened to
a computer: "The analytical mind is not just a good computer, it is a
perfect computer. It never makes a mistake" (69). Every perception is
"filed" in a standard memory bank and remains there indefinitely,
whether or not the individual intelligence has access to it. The banks
contain perceptions for every moment of an individual's existence,
asleep or awake, and even before birth. In Scientology theory, memory
reaches back before the moment of conception to previous lives or
existences, even in non-human forms or on planets elsewhere in the
universe. The analytical mind is programmed to use this material to find
the 'optimum survival conduct pattern': it can only consider problems
from the point of view of their implications for survival.
84. The second, the "reactive" mind is a 'rogue' bank
containing perceptions experienced at moments of pain, painful emotion
or unconsciousness when the analytical mind 'cuts out' anterior
analytical attenuation. These perceptions form a complete record of
experience at these moments, with pain and distress built in: such a
record is called an "engram".
85. There is also a "somatic" mind, 'the genetic entity
plus the brain system of the body'. This is often at the mercy of the
reactive mind and is responsible for most psychosomatic diseases. It
does not seem to play much part in current Scientology theory.
86. When the analytical mind consciously experiences some
perception which is linked. by some perhaps incidental common factor,
with an engram, "some analytical power turns off, the organ or organs
which are the analyser are fused out of circuit in some degree" (70).
The reactive mind steps into the breach. Its rational powers are nil:
its logic is that of stimulus / response and all stimuli associated with
the original engram are identified with one another and equally capable
of prompting the response. As an example -
"here's how an engram can be established: Mary, aged
2, knocked out by dog, dog bites. Content of engram: Anaten, age 2
(physical structure); smell of environment and dog; sight of dog
jaws gaping and white teeth; organic sensation of pain in back of
head (hit pavement), pain in posterior; dog bite in cheek; tactile
of dog fur, concrete (elbows on pavement), hot dog breath; emotion;
physical pain plus endocrine response, audio of dog growl and
passing car . . . Then at age 10 similar circumstances, no great
anaten, the engram is restimulated. After this she has headaches
when dogs bark or when cars pass that sound like that car, but only
respond to the engram when she is tired or harassed otherwise" (71).
The original unconscious experience may well be
misinterpreted: engrams arising from pre-natal experience are
particularly liable to be misinterpreted by the reactive mind and to
be "permanently fused into any and all body circuits" (72). As a
result, the analytical mind loses control in certain sensitive
areas, and so engrams which are fused in in this way may affect the
entire development of an individual's personality. For example: -
"The only reason anybody 'wanted' to 'return to the
womb' was because someone hit mother and yelled 'come back here!' So
the person does" (73).
87. The technique of Dianetics seeks, one by one, to
reduce the store of engrams in the reactive mind by bringing the
individual to recall, and in fact re-live, the original moment of pain,
emotion or unconsciousness which had given rise to the engram until he
can do this unmoved. Most individuals have hundreds of engrams, and by
the time they are adults many of them will have been restimulated
("keyed-in") thousands of times, and each time their hold over the
individual's behaviour becomes stronger or, in Mr. Hubbard's technology,
a new 'lock' is formed. Psychoanalysis tries to break these locks
without being able to deal with the engram itself and is therefore a far
less economic technique.
Summarising Dianetics in Mr. Hubbard's own words: -
"In Dianetics it was found that the mind was
subdivided into two parts. The first was the analytical mind which
did the actual thinking and computing for the individual but which,
in the present civilised state of Man, was almost submerged. The
second was the reactive mind. The reactive mind was considered to be
a stimulus response mechanism which derived and acted upon the data
of experience without thought. The content of the reactive mind was
found to be the accumulated bad experiences of the organism not only
in its current lifetime but in the other lifetimes which it
apparently had led in order to accomplish the task of evolution and
to arrive at its present state of structural beingness. The reactive
mind was the blue print but it was also the stimulus response
dictator of action. The formula which described the reactive mind
was that everything is identified with everything. Dianetics
accomplished a great deal in the elevation of beingness by reducing
the most violent incident in the reactive mind by a process known as
the erasure of engrams. An engram was a period of momentary or long
pain and unconsciousness such as would occur in an injury, operation
or illness. Such incidents could be reduced simply by "returning"
the individual to the moment of the accident and then going over the
accident step by step, perceptic by perceptic, as though it was
happening again. After this had been done several times the accident
was found to have no more command value upon he individual. The
reduction of the command value of the reactive mind was found to be
necessary to a proper resolution of aberration." (74)
88. Scientology departs from the mechanistic psychology
of Dianetics by introducing a new causative agent. In some places this
is spoken of still in mechanistic terms as the "awareness of awareness
unit", a form of creative consciousness. More usually, however, and
especially in recent works where Scientology's religious aspect is put
uppermost, it is called the "spirit" or "thetan". The personality and
beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware,
and is ordinarily and normally the "person" and who the individual
thinks he is, is the "thetan" (75). The thetan is immortal, is
reincarnated again and again. Great store is set by its separability
from the body - "probably the greatest discovery of Scientology and its
most forceful contribution to the knowledge of mankind has been the
isolation, description and handling of the human spirit. Accomplished in
July 1951 in Phoenix Arizona he (LRH) established along scientific lines
that the thing which is the person, the personality is separable from
the body and the mind at will and without causing bodily death or mental
derangement." (76) The awareness which is the thetan "can continue, is
clarified and is not interrupted by a detachment from the body", all of
which is accomplished by standard processing. Among the goals of
Scientology processing are to increase the beingness of the thetan and
thus increase the creative potential of the individual personality, and
its analytical mind until it can command and handle its reactive mind
with ease, and exercise, unfettered, all the powers of which it may, in
its ideal state, be capable.
89. There is a wide range of different Scientology
techniques designed to develop the higher or creative functions of the
mind and, through auditing by trained Scientologists (and, at a yet
later stage, self-auditing techniques), bring the individual to the
ideal condition of operating Thetan where his powers over his own mind
and over material things are virtually without restriction. The
different routes to this goal are listed in paragraph 147 below.
90. Whereas in Dianetics it is held that the individual's
behaviour may be the result of experiences or remarks overheard early in
his life, or even before birth, and he is thus barely responsible for
his defects, in Scientology the separate existence of the spirit or
thetan means that the individual is treated as responsible for his own
actions. The preclear is held responsible for his own mistakes, for his
problems, and for his progress in Scientology training. Failure to make
progress indicates that the individual is either under the influence of
some external factor hostile to Scientology, or is himself guilty in his
attitude towards it. HCO Bulletin of November 23rd l962 argues that slow
students and those who do not gain from processing are always "Rockslammers".
Rockslammers, typically, show suppressed hostility or reservations about
Scientology in one or other of its aspects: the condition is located, 'analysed',
and resolved by a technique called routine 2-l2 which it is worth
quoting in full: -
"ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE
l. Make or use a list of Scientology Items. This
includes Scientology, Scientology Organizations, An Auditor,
clearing, auditing, Scientologists, a session, an E-Meter, A
practitioner, the auditor's name, Ron, other Scientology persons,
parts of Scientology, past auditors, etc. (See HCO Bulletin November
23, Issue II and subsequent HCO Bulletins for "Scientology Lists".)
The list need not be endless as it will be easy to catch a trace of
the GPM if the person is a Rockslammer. The list is composed by the
auditor, not the pc.
2. Assess the list, calling each item once (or until
auditor is sure of the read). Eliminate down to the last 3 or 4
items.
3. Tiger Drill the Items still in. Select the one
with the biggest dirty read or the last one to go out or the one
that went out hardest. No matter how faintly or sporadically the
Item found now reads, if the last one in stayed in at all, use it
for Step 4 below. If, however, the Item found in this step produced
a good Rock Slam (Reliable Item) omit Steps 4, 5 and 6 below and do
the tests in Step 7 and continue with the remaining steps. If two
R.I's are found in this first step, oppose each one as in Steps 7
onward.
4. Using the Item selected list a list from the line
question "Who or what does ... (the Item found in 3) represent to
you." It can happen that steps 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. If the
Item in Step 3 consistently Rock Slammed a third of a dial to a dial
wide and kept on doing it when the auditor said "Consider committing
overts against ..." (the Item found) use it instead of doing the
Step 4 List. If this Rock Slam is on and then vanishes even with
"Suppress" clean, do Step 4, using the Item that so slammed but
vanished. In doing listing beware of stopping listing while the
needle is still dirty or stopping just because the pc says the last
item was it. (The real RS Item you want usually comes after
the pc says the last one he put on was IT. (If the pc stops or
refuses to go on, get in your Mid-Ruds and continue to list until
there is no dirty needle or RS when pc thinks of Items before saying
them to the auditor.) Mark every Item that RSed or DRed on Listing.
While listing keep the meter at about Sens 8 and keep an eye on it
to note RSs and DRs.
5. Nul the list, saying each Item on it once (or more
if the auditor didn't catch the read.) Be sure the Mid Ruds are in.
If a dirty needle turns on while nulling, add to the list, get the
Mid Ruds in and test the question for reactions. If needle reacts to
question the list is incomplete or the pc is protesting the
question. Leave any Item in that reacts. Eliminate all but the last
3 or 4 Items.
6. Tiger Drill the last Items in. Select one Item
with the biggest needle reaction or Rock Slam. (Two Items can appear
on any list. If they both Rock Slam equality and neither goes out,
you have found two Items, in which case you must do the following
steps to each.)
7. Find out if Item turned on Pain or Sensation when
being Tiger Drilled, or say it to the pc and find out. If pain, say
to pc "Consider ... (Item) committing overts." If sensation say
"Consider committing overts against ..." This should turn on a Rock
Slam if it isn't on already whenever the Item was said or Tiger
Drilled. This is called a Reliable Item if it Rock Slammed. The Rock
Slam is very touchy sometimes and has to be Tiger Drilled back on.
If an Item slammed while being nulled it is probably it.
Those that RS while being listed do not have to RS flicker at all
while being nulled, and usually don't.
8. If the Reliable Item found turned on Pain, list
"Who or what would ... (the Reliable Item) oppose." If it turned on
Sensation, list "Who or What would oppose ... (the Reliable Item)."
Complete the list as in any listing. Don't stop just because the pc
nattered or wept. Get the Mid Ruds in and get a list which gives no
dirty needle (not dirty reads, there's a difference) while nulling.
In case of a Coterm, test to see if there's more Pn than Sen or Sen
than Pn and classify accordingly. It you can't decide, listing both
as opposed and oppose and nul as one list.
9. Nul the list saying each Item once. Down to 3 or 4
Items.
10. Tiger Drill the last 3 or 4 that were left in.
Select the last one left in.
11. Test and turn on the Rock Slam on the last one in
(as in Step 7 above). Be sure to properly determine which is Term
and which is Oppterm.
Get pc to examine and align the package for
correctness (and any Bonus Package) and put on the pc's Line Plot.
12. Go over the list used in Step 1 to see if there
are any more Dirty reads or traces of reads on the Scientology List.
If so, repeat the above Eleven Steps on the pc. If not make a list
for the step 1A etc., using questions given further on in this HCO
Bulletin. Note: Only the Scientology list is tested again. Other
lists for Step 1 are used only once.
--------
This is the only action known in auditing which will
undercut the bank of a slow moving or non-gain pc. Every such pc
is a Rockslammer."
It is not clear whether routine 2-12 is still in use: it
bears some resemblance to the technique of security checking which, I am
told by the Scientologists, was given up in the policy changes of
October 1968.
91. Other concepts of importance in Scientology are
Affinity, Communication and Reality (ARC) which together form a tone
scale running from -8.0 to 40.0 on which the level of functioning of an
individual as human organism, and as a spirit or thetan, can be
assessed. Affinity is a range or degree of human emotion, ranging for
the human from rejection of human relationship (death, apathy) to
acceptance (enthusiasm). "Communication is an interchange of energy from
one beingness to another" (77) and includes all types of perception.
Reality in essence is agreement or disagreement. The material (MEST =
matter, energy, space and time) universe is real at a low level of
reality: at a higher level the Scientologist can "break this flow of
agreement and establish his own flows and thus create his own universe"
(78). Creative processing may bring about the rehabilitation of one's
own universe.
92. Since the MEST universe is the result of agreement
between observers, an observer who disagrees can influence the behaviour
of matter, energy, space and time, without physical intention.
(b) Classification
93. This, then is an outline of the theorise of
Scientology, as they appear from the Scientologists' own literature.
There has been much dispute about the correct classification of these
theories, especially during and since the Anderson Enquiry. For
example:-
"Scientology is a religious philosophy of the spirit"
(79),
"Scientology is not, and does not claim to be, a
religion" (80),
"Scientology is the science of knowing sciences"
(81),
"Scientology cannot be studied as an abstract
subject. It is essential to get involved in it." (82),
"Scientology is agnostic faith in that it knows it
knows" (83),
"[Through Dianetics] all data needful to the solution
of mental action and Man's endeavour can be measured, sensed and
experienced as scientific truths independent of mysticism or
metaphysics. The various axioms are not assumptions or theories -
the case of past ideas about the mind - but are laws which can be
subjected to the most rigorous laboratory and clinical tests" (84)
"Scientology is an exact science of the human mind
and spirit" (85).
"Scientology is applied philosophy" (85).
"Scientology is my religion" - a statement which
recurs in many of the favourable testimonials which Scientologists
have sent to me.
94. Scientology has thus claimed, at one time or another
to be
(i) a philosophy; (ii) a science; (iii) a religion.
For myself, I would not have thought that it mattered a
great deal one way or the other whether any of these claims are
well-founded. In a country such as ours which subscribes to the
principles of freedom of thought, belief, worship and expression,
everyone is free to believe in any theory, however one classifies it.
However, the dispute about the proper classification of scientological
theories has been so acrimonious and confusing that I feel it necessary
to deal with it on that ground alone.
95. Besides, a belief founded on scientific evidence is
regarded by many people today as superior to one which is not, and is
therefore more likely to be accepted; again, people who undergo training
in Scientology are thereby involved in substantial expense, which they
may be readier to incur if they believe that what they are learning is
based on scientific evidence. Accordingly it may be useful to see
whether Scientology can properly be called a science. In addition,
religions still occupy a privileged place in our society: for example,
their civil embodiments are exempt from many taxes which the rest of us
have to pay.
96. I do not aim to determine conclusively where
Scientology is a science, philosophy or a religion (or more than one of
these), but rather to propose what I conceive to be useful ways of
examining this kind of question, and to summarise the evidence on them
as it appears to me.
97. The theoretical aspects of science, philosophy and
religion all have one thing in common: each of them is - at least in
part - a system of thought which on analysis, can be reduced to
statements which have some kind of meaning within the system. Following
what is today the generally accepted usage, I propose to distinguish
them as follows: -
(a) Scientific statements are those which are
capable of verification or disproof by observation or experiment in
the material universe as we perceive it at any given time.
(b) Philosophical statements lie within the
field of speculative thought about fundamental questions which may
not be verifiable or rebuttable by observation or experiment in the
material universe, but which do not seek recourse to divine
authority in support of their claims to validity.
(c) Religious statements rest on the authority
of divine revelation or dogma, and claim to be eternal truths beyond
refutation.
(i) Is Scientology a philosophy ?
98. The passages which I have quoted earlier appear to me
to provide ample evidence that Scientology is a philosophy in this
sense. Indeed, much of the content of books like "Scientology 8-8008" is
composed of discussion about the nature of the universe, the nature of
man, and the relationship between the two, matter which have been
central to philosophy since time immemorial. Whether Scientology is
"good" philosophy or "bad" philosophy is another question, with which
this Enquiry is not concerned. Many philosophers require that any
systematic philosophy should be both internally consistent and not in
conflict with the world of our experience, but others who regard all
experience as subjective anyway may not insist on the latter
requirement.
99. If it be held that Scientology is a philosophy this
does not conclude the question of whether it is also a science or a
religion. Science is one way of seeking to discover the nature of the
world, and for many centuries it was known as "natural philosophy".
Again, every religion contains some statements of a philosophical
character. In essence, science restricts itself to statements of the
kind which are verifiable by observation and experiment, while religion
finds an additional source of truth in divine revelation. It remains.
therefore, to see what evidence there is in support of the proposition
that the theories of Scientology fall into either of these classes.
(ii) Is Scientology a science?
100. For any intellectual system to lay a valid claim to
being a science (otherwise than by distorting the meaning which that
word bears today in universal usage) it must, as it seems to me, adopt
what is called the "scientific method" in its investigations and
conclusions. There is today no significant dispute about the scope and
extent of that method: it is accepted throughout the world as the
distinguishing feature of any scientific - as opposed to a speculative -
system of thought. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the scientific
method appears to me to include at least the following requirements: -
(a) All statements claiming to be scientific must be
consistent with observation and, where these are possible, with the
results of controlled experiments;
(b) The methods and results of all experiments must
be reported in sufficient detail to enable them to be repeated by
others, so that they can be confirmed or refuted;
(c) The quality of scientific statements can never be
more than those of a hypothesis or a theory, open to disproof by
later observation or experiment. A scientific theory can never be
affirmatively proved: the most that can ever be said for it is that
it is consistent with all observations made so far, and thus has not
been disproved.
101. I have been unable to discover any evidence which
would support Scientology's claim to be a science if these criteria are
applied. Some of Scientology's theories are, of their nature,
unverifiable either by observation or experiment, If any experiments are
conducted, they are not reported in any form which would enable others
to repeat them. Nor do Scientology's theories appear to me to be put
forward as hypotheses subject to disproof: on the contrary, they appear
to be put forward in the form of unqualified assertions of truth. (87)
102. Another point arises in this connexion. In some
branches of science - and above all in the biological ones--the range of
variation between the individuals who form the subject-matter of the
study is such that all statements must be statistical in kind. Now
statistics can be notoriously misleading and scientists therefore
recognise that in these branches it is especially important to be both
cautious and precise in the reporting of experimental methods and
results, and in the hypotheses which are postulated from them. I find no
evidence of such caution or precision in Scientology. Were it a science
in accordance with the criteria which I have mentioned, I would expect
to see reports specifying clearly what procedures have been carried out
on what kinds of individual (classified by age, sex, occupation and
relevant history), what control groups have been selected and whether
these were matched or unmatched, what precautions had been taken to
exclude extraneous factors, how the results had been observed or
measured, what correlations had been established and what were their
levels of statistical significance. I have found no evidence of any of
this in any of the Scientologists' published literature.
103 There is one other aspect of the scientific method
which deserves mention, and here I quote Sir Peter Medawar, one of our
most distinguished scientists: -
"Hypotheses must be tested, that is criticised. These
tests take the form of finding out whether or not the deductive
consequences of the hypothesis or systems of hypotheses are
statements that correspond to reality. As the very least we expect
of a hypothesis is that it should account for the phenomena already
before us, its "extra-mural" indications, its predictions about what
is not yet known to be the case, are of special and perhaps crucial
importance. If the predictions are false, the hypothesis is wrong or
in need of modification; i.e. they are true we gain confidence in
it, and can, so to speak, enter it for a higher examination; but if
it is of such a kind that it cannot be falsified even in principle,
then the hypothesis belongs to some realm of discourse other than
science. Certainty can be aspired to, but a "rightness" that lies
beyond the possibility of future criticism cannot be achieved by any
scientific theory". (88)
104. Here again, I have found no evidence to suggest
that, when Scientology or its Founder propound a new hypothesis, it is
subjected to this kind of testing or criticism. Quite the contrary: -
"When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined
up for the duration of the universe - never permit an "open minded"
approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they
enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the
same terms as the rest of us--win or die in the attempt. Never let
them be half-minded about being Scientologists The finest
organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations.
Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made
anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem
mild. But only the tigers survive - and even they have a hard
time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we
do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When
we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to
enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that
lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught,
turn that wandering doubt in her eyes into a fixed, dedicated glare
and she'll win and we'll all win. Humour her and we all die a
little. The proper instruction attitude is, "you're here so you're a
Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no
matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." (89)
105. In these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising
that the Anderson Board, having heard the evidence of a number of
distinguished scientists, found that Scientology was not a science. It
is clear that, at the beginning of that Enquiry, Scientology had claimed
that it was, and the first few weeks of the hearings were devoted very
largely to that issue. But by the time "Kangaroo Court" was written in
1967, the Scientology leadership seems tacitly to have abandoned this
position. Again, I quote: -
"Scientology is a religious philosophy of the spirit.
It aims at developing the awareness of the being where he can become
increasingly more certain of things. It is a subjective philosophy
and it orients the physical universe from the viewpoint of the
individual as a being (i.e., as immortal spirit). In the early days.
this was only a working hypothesis, but it has long since proven its
basic assumptions. Let anyone who cares to disprove this study of
Scientology in a systematic manner." (90)
"New processes are developed in Scientology on the
basis of greater workability. It discovers facts which are of a
subjective nature in that they are within the awareness of the
person. Material facts in the physical universe are not used to
invalidate the being. When subjective awareness conflicts with
observable facts in the physical universe the person, in an auditing
session, is never told that he is wrong. He is allowed to increase
his OWN awareness until he can comprehend greater truth, at which
time he recognises things for what they are, because he knows
what they are. They are no longer things that everybody else says
are so, and accepts under social duress, whilst protesting all the
time. This is the road to insanity, criminality, unethical behaviour,
and war." (9l)
Nor do "The Character of Scientology" or the "Report to
Members of Parliament" - both first published in 1968 - contain any
suggestion that Scientology claims to be a science: on the contrary, the
burden of the argument in those documents is that it is a "body of
religious thought".
106. I therefore asked the Scientologists whether they
still claimed that Dianetics or Scientology was a science, and to give
me a bibliography of the published experimental or other evidence on
which they based such a claim. Their answer, so far as relevant, was
this:-
"Dianetics is a science. Our claims are not based on
acceptability but on workability. Since both Dianetics, which deals
with the mind, and Scientology which deals with the spirit, are
broadly subjective, we feel that workability is a most valid
criterion in these fields.
--------
"Dianetics was and is the modern science of mental
health. It is a science in the sense defined in the second, third
and fourth definitions in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary;
that is:-
2. Systematized knowledge derived from
observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to
determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.
3. A branch of knowledge or study, especially one
concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles
and methods, as by experiments and hypothesis.
4. (a) The systematized knowledge of nature and
the physical world;
(b) any branch of this.
--------
Dianetics is, broadly speaking, an explanation of the
nature of the human mind, what it consists of, how it functions, and
of human behaviour. The science of Dianetics is proved by the
technology by which it is applied.
--------
Scientology is a religion. It has also been described
as science, religious philosophy, philosophy and psychology.
--------
Scientology is a science in the sense of the 1st
definition of the word given in Webster's New 20th Century
Dictionary.
1. Originally, state or fact of knowing knowledge,
often as opposed to intuition, belief etc.
--------
Scientology may properly be described as psychology
in its original, precise meaning - study of the soul.
--------
It would be fair to say that we use the word Science
to cover the broad field of human knowledge, and concerning facts or
data held together by principles or rules tested by the scientific
method, involving, in other words, inductive and deductive logic.
Inductive logic, of course, requires repeated
observations from which to draw a general conclusion. Deductive
logic lays down principles or rules from which conclusions can be
drawn."
No bibliography was supplied.
107. The scientific claims continue to be made in current
Scientology literature. The following are some quotations: -
"Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out
conception and mitosis." (92)
"The creation of dianetics is a milestone for man
comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions
of the wheel and arch.
"Dianetics (Gr., dianoua - thought) is the
science of mind. Far simpler than physics or chemistry, it compares
with them in the exactness of its axioms and is on a considerably
higher echelon of usefulness. The hidden source of psychosomatic
ills and human aberration has been discovered and skills have been
developed for their invariable cure.
Dianetics is actually a family of sciences embracing
the various humanities and translating them into usefully precise
definitions.
--------
Dianetics is an exact science and its application is
of the order of, but simpler than, engineering. Its axioms should
not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist as
natural laws hitherto undiscovered" (93).
"The problem of psycho-somatic illness is entirely
embraced by dianetics, and by dianetic technique such illness has
been eradicated entirely in every case.
About seventy per cent of the physician's current
roster of diseases fall into the category of psycho-somatic illness.
How many more can be so classified after dianetics has been in
practice for a few years is difficult to predict, but it is certain
that more illnesses are psycho-somatic than have been so classified
to date. That all illnesses are psycho-somatic is, of course,
absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which
have survival as their goals.
The work of Louis Pasteur formulated the germ theory
of disease, with dianetics is gained the non-germ theory of disease.
These two, with bio-chemistry, complement each other to form the
whole field of pathology so far as can be determined at this time,
providing of course that the virus is included under the germ
theory" (94).
"There are no tenets in Scientology which cannot be
demonstrated with entirely scientific procedures" (95).
"Scientology applies modern scientific methodology to
resolve the problems posed by philosophy, and has come up with the
answers" (96)
(iii) Is Scientology a religion?
108. This question is distinctly more difficult than the
other two. Almost any system of thought, however speculative, can be
called a philosophy without inviting too much disagreement: again, the
boundaries of the concept of a "science" are so clearly drawn today that
it is not too difficult to decide, in a given case, whether a system of
thought falls within them. The concept of religion, on the other hand,
is more diffuse. The great traditional religions were all founded at
times in the remote past when the spiritual and intellectual aspects of
the human experience were far less compartmentalised than they are
today, and therefore present an amalgam of what we would now classify as
theology, metaphysics, cosmology, ethics, law, ritual, history and myth.
Some of these have since become disciplines in their own right and can
be pursued independently of each other, and independently of any
specifically "religious" beliefs, while others can not.
109. It appears to me that there is a strong case for
saying that the main thing which distinguishes a religion from other
systems of thought or belief is that the former includes belief in one
or more divine beings, while the latter do not. It is from the divine
godhead that religious statements derive their quality of authoritative
revelation - independently of the use of logic, observation or
experiment - and the mandatory quality of their moral code. In the face
of modern scientific discoveries, it would be impossible for an
intelligent man to believe seriously that the world and all its
creatures were created in seven days unless he also believed that the
Book of Genesis derived its truth from divine authority: again, it is
perfectly possible to lead a socially useful and good life without
believing in any God, but only a believer in the divinity of Christ
would devote every Sunday to His worship.
110. The definitions of "Religion" in the standard
dictionaries on the whole support this view. For example, the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary gives: -
--------
"3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in,
reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the
exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Now
rare, except as implied in 5.
4. A particular system of faith and worship.
5. Recognition on the part of man of some higher
unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled
to obedience, reverence and worship; the general mental and moral
attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect
upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance
of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life."
--------
The opening sentence of the relevant article in
Chambers' Encyclopedia says:-
"Religion is the word generally used to describe
man's relation to divine or superhuman powers and the various
organised systems of belief and worship in which these relations
have been expressed".
In "Kangaroo Court" the Scientologists quote and adopt
the definition of "Religion" appearing in Webster's New 20th Century
Dictionary, as follows:-
"1. Belief in divine or superhuman power or powers to
be obeyed and worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. Expression of this belief in conduct and ritual.
3. (a) Any specific system of belief, worship,
conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy; as
a Christian religion; the Buddhist religion;
(b) Loosely, any system of beliefs, practices,
ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likeness to such
a system, as humanism is a religion.
4. A state of mind or way of life expressing love for
and trust in God, and one's will of God, especially within a
monastic order or community, to experience religion; to have
personal conscious evidence of the favour of God - the forgiveness
of sin and a chance of health."
I am content, as they are, to adopt this definition for
my purposes. It will be seen that, in anything other than a loose sense,
it includes both belief in a divinity, and worship of that divinity, as
necessary ingredients.
111. I turn to summarise the evidence on this question,
again largely in the form of quotations from Scientology documents:-
"That is not to say that Dianetics is a religion.
It is not. It is a science, but it has a religious use - to free
the spirit from bodily considerations. Such problems of the
spirit are not the function of the medical doctor, nor the
concern of the medical practice laws. A proper adherence to the
distinction between promoting Dianetics the science taught on
the Dianetics Course, and Dianetics the pastoral counselling
technology practised by Minister of religion, will resolve any
problems posed by medical practice laws." (97)
Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, practice,
exercise, meditation, diet, food therapy or any similar occult,
mystical, religious, naturopathic, homeopathic, chiropractic
treatment or any other healing or mental therapy while on course
without the express permission of the D of T / Ethics Officer."
(98)
"Except for the purpose of deceit, Scientology
has not been practised in Victoria on the basis that it even
remotely resembles a religion." (99)
"Scientology is a religion. It has been a
religion since its inception as an enquiry into the human
condition." (100)
"Combining an engineering-like precision and the
depth of all religious philosophy, Scientology is a religion of
outstanding vitality." (101)
"SCIENTOLOGY IS A RELIGION
Scientology is a religion in the oldest sense of the
word, a study of wisdom. Scientology is a study of man as a spirit,
in his relationship to life and the physical universe. It is
non-denominational. By that is meant that Scientology is open to
people of all religious beliefs and in no way tries to persuade a
person from his religion. but assists him to better understand that
he is a spiritual being..." (102)
"NO RENEGADE
Mr. David Gaiman, spokesman for the much criticised
scientology movement in this country, is a member of an old
Portsmouth Orthodox family. But he sees nothing paradoxical in this
fact.
'I am a practising Jew and we keep a kosher home', he
told me. 'I am not a renegade because my belief in scientology in no
way conflicts with my religious beliefs'. Scientology, he claims, is
not a religion. 'We study through various techniques in order to
improve the ability to communicate'. " (103)
"CHURCH SERVICE
In a Scientology Church Service we do not use
prayers, attitudes of piety, or threats of damnation. We use the
facts, the truths, the understandings that have been discovered in
the science of Scientology. We do not read from the Bible (or the
Koran or the Torah or the Vedic Hymns, for that matter) and say to
the people assembled there - "Now this is something you have got to
believe". There would be nothing wrong with quoting from the Bible
or any other book as an illustration of man's continued search for
truth to live by or as a contrast to some point that was being
brought out in the sermon, but there is certainly no necessity to
quote from any other source in a Scientology Church Service.
A Scientology Church Service should be conducted with
dignity and order, but it need not he solemn and "reverent". The
Minister should dress in a way that does not upset the accepted
stable data of what a minister looks like.
Music may, if desired, be played before and after the
service. Suitable music is pleasant to listen to and not strongly
associated with the wrath of the gods on helpless dependence on the
whim of an unknown being. The music could come from tapes, records,
piano or organ. Or no music at all may be used at the discretion of
the minister.
The Church Service shall consist of the following:
The Minister confronts the people and says hello to
them.
A Sermon - This is ALWAYS on some phase of
Scientology and on how it can be of use to those present. The sermon
should be KEPT SIMPLE. ONE stable datum should be given, amplified,
repeated and shown how it applies to living." (104)
"Examples of stable data for sermons:
l. What a person is - mind, body, spirit (see
sample outline).
2. What is a mind? - reactive and analytical
minds.
3. The Eight Dynamics. Any one of the 8 Dynamics
could be used for the subject of one sermon.
4. Gradient Scales.
5. One of the Axioms could be a sermon topic.
6. The Codes of Scientology.
If you've got a good regular attendance - or to build
one - take something such as the 8 Dynamics or the Codes and build a
series of sermons on them. A taped lecture of L. Ron Hubbard can be
included as part of the service. A Q. and A. period can be held
after the sermon or after the tape, during which the Minister can
clear up any mis-duplication anyone has on what he has heard and can
help the people increase their understanding of Scientology. The
Minister may make announcements of special activities or of other
services offered by the Organization - or the local group of
auditors. The Minister thanks the people for coming and invites them
to return. He may ask them to try out something they have learned
here as they go about living during the week." (104)
"INFORMAL CHRISTENING Transcription of an informal
christening performed by L. Ron Hubbard
at the
FREEDOM CONGRESS, July 7, 1957.
To be used as a guide
O.K. The parents of these children will bring them
front and centre. (Speaking to the child): This is Mr .... and this
is Mrs .... I'm introducing to the audience right now. And .... and
.... have decided to be godfather and godmother, so we're all set.
Here we go. (To the child): How are you? All right.
Now your name is .... You got that? Good. There you are. Did that
upset you? Now, do you realize that you're a member of the HASI?
Pretty good, huh?
All right. Now, I want to introduce you to your
father. This is Mr .... (To the parent): Come over here. (To the
child): And here's your mother.
And now, in case you get into trouble and want to
borrow some quarters here's Mr .... See him? He's your godfather.
Now, take a look at him. That's right.
And here's ...., in case you want some real good
auditing; she's your godmother. Got it?
Now you are suitably christened. Don't worry about
it, it could be worse. O.K. Thank you very much. They'll treat you
all right." (105)
"THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
We of the Church believe:
That all men of whatever race, colour or creed were
created with equal rights.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own
religious practices and their performance.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own
lives.
That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own
defence.
That all men have inalienable rights to conceive,
choose, assist and support their own organizations, churches and
governments.
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.
That all men have inalienable rights to the creation
of their own kind.
That the souls of men have the right of men.
That the study of the mind and the healing of
mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or
condoned in non-religious fields.
And that no agency less than God has the power to
suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
And we of the Church believe:
That man is basically good
That he is seeking to survive
That his survival depends upon himself and upon his
fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.
And we of the Church believe that the laws of God
forbid Man:
To destroy his own kind
To destroy the sanity of another
To destroy or enslave another's soul
To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions
or one's group.
And we of the Church believe
That the spirit can be sacred and that the spirit
alone may save or heal the body." (106)
"CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST
1. To keep Scientologists, the public, and the press
accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental
health, and society.
2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best
of my ability to help my family, friends, groups, and the world.
3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse
to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly
help.
4. To decry and do all l can to abolish any and all
abuses against life and mankind.
5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically
damaging practices in the field of mental health.
6. To help clean up and keep clean the field of
mental health.
7. To bring about an atmosphere of safety and
security in the field of mental health by eradicating its abuses and
brutality.
8. To support true humanitarian endeavours in the
fields of human rights.
9. To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.
10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.
11. To actively decry the suppression of knowledge,
wisdom, philosophy, or data which would help mankind.
12. To support the freedom of religion.
13. To help Scientology orgs and groups ally
themselves with public groups.
14. To teach Scientology at a level it can be
understood and used by the recipients.
15. To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a
philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.
16. To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology
as an applied activity in ethics, processing, and administration in
Scientology organisations.
17. To take my share of responsibility for the impact
of Scientology upon the world.
18. To increase the numbers and strength of
Scientology over the world.
19. To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom
of Scientology.
20. To make this world a saner, better place." (107)
"None of the points in this code seem to make any
claim, or even give any imp1ication, that Scientology activities are
religious in purpose. However, the commission concluded that the
question of whether Scientology is a religion or whether a
Scientology organisation is a church was irrelevant to the purposes
of its inquiry. Within our New Zealand constitutional framework a
religion as such or a church has no specific liberty or immunity to
indulge in practices or activities which are otherwise improper or
contrary to law." (108)
112. Although more than one "Church of Scientology" was
incorporated in the United States in the l950s, it is clear that no
serious attempt was made to present Scientology as a religion until
after the publication of the Anderson Report. In that context, the HCO
Policy Letter of 12th March 1966, which appears at paragraph 68 above,
may also be instructive, especially its penultimate paragraph:-
"Of course anything is a religion that treats the
human spirit. And also parliaments don't attack religions. But that
isn't our real reason - it's been a long hard task to make a good
corporate structure in the UK and Commonwealth so the assets could
be transferred."
Since that time, there has been abundant evidence of a
shift in the presentation of Scientology by its leadership towards a
religious image. For example, a booklet entitled "The Character of
Scientology", first published in 1968, depicts a choirboy on its front
cover and describes Scientology as an applied "religious" philosophy,
processing as a "religious" technology, auditors as "Scientology
Ministers", auditing as "Confessionals", and so on. Again, "Scientology
and the Bible" was first published in 1967.
113. Professor Lee appears to have come to the same
conclusion:-
"Evaluation of the right of Scientology to claim
exemption as a "religion" may be made on the same criteria as those
applied to Christian Science, with this distinction: Christian Science
leaders have never cynically announced that it is better to be a
religion than a healing practice. Christian Science took a religious
form from its beginning; Scientology took on a religious form after it
suffered severe setbacks as a "science of mental health". (109)
114 Some people may also find it novel to discover a
religion which recruits new members by the methods of salesmanship and a
"free personality test" described in paragraphs 129 to 134 below (none
of which mention that the subject is being recruited into a religion),
requires its adherents to sign a contract containing exemption clauses
of the type quoted in paragraph 135 below, and charges the members
professional fees in the range of �4 to �5 per hour for indoctrination
in its mysteries. Again, Mr. Hubbard's views on promotion and affluence,
quoted in paragraph 185 below, may not accord with everyone's ideas of
religious zeal.
115. Whether Scientology is a religion as a matter of
law will of course depend on the particular branch of the law under
which the question falls to be determined. I know of only three
occasions when the matter has come before the Courts, and the following
are brief summaries of the relevant events.
116. Some time after the publication of the Anderson
Report, the Scientology leadership applied to the Registrar-General in
England for registration of the chapel at Saint Hill Manor as a "place
of meeting for religious worship" under the Places of Worship
Registration Act 1855. After some correspondence, the Registrar-General
refused, and the Scientology leadership (by that time in the form of The
Church of Scientology of California) moved the Queen's Bench Divisional
Court for an order of mandamus to compel him to register, supporting the
motion with affidavit evidence of the religious nature of Scientology
and its services. The motion failed, and the following extracts from the
judgment of Ashworth, J. will show why:-
" ... for worship to take place there must be both a
worshipper and an object of his worship.
" ... while Scientology may be wholly admirable, I
find it difficult to reach the conclusion that it is a religion.
"Dealing . .. with the service .. . described I can
find nothing whatever to indicate that it is a service of religious
worship.
" ... There is no profession in the Creed [of
Scientology] of any belief in God or indeed any deity. Nor is there
anything in the Creed of what may be called a worshipful character,
for example stating an object of the worship which is said to take
place".
The Scientologists appealed against this decision, but
their appeal was dismissed on 7th July 1970. The following passages from
the judgments of the Court of Appeal are relevant:-
"Religious worship means reverence or veneration of
God or of a Supreme Being. I do not find any such reverence or
veneration in the Creed of this Church ... When I look through the
ceremonies and affidavits, I am left with the feeling that there is
nothing in it of reverence for God or a deity, but simply
instruction in a philosophy. There may be belief in a spirit of man
but this is no belief in a spirit of God".
(per Lord Denning, M.R.)
"Worship I take to be something which must have some
at least of the following characteristics: submission to the object
worshipped, veneration of that object, praise, thanksgiving, prayer
or intercession ... I do not say that you would need to find every
element in every act which could properly be described as worship,
but when you find an act which contains none of those elements, in
my judgment, it cannot answer to the description of an act of
worship ".
(per Buckley, L.J.)
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
117. On January 4th l963, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (a federal Government Agency), under a warrant issued by
a Federal Judge, raided the premises of the Founding Church of
Scientology of Washington, DC., and seized a number of E-meters (110)
and literature. Subsequently, the Administration applied to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia for condemnation and
destruction of the seized material, on the grounds that the E-meters
were "devices" with accompanying "false and misleading labelling " and
lacking "adequate directions for use contrary to the Food Drug and
Cosmetics Act 1964. The Scientologists opted for trial by jury. They led
evidence to the effect that they were a religion, and that auditing and
the E-meters were all part of their religious practices. The
Administration called no evidence to rebut this, but the jury
nonetheless found for the Government.
The Scientologists appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, claming inter alia that the
proceedings interfered with their right to the free exercise of their
religion under the First Amendment to the American Constitution. The
appeal, decided on 5th February 1969, succeeded by a majority of two to
one, and a new trial was allowed. Having commented that the
Scientologists' representations concerning the auditing process appeared
"to be general come-ons, designed to bring in the curious or the
gullible", the majority summarised their reasoning as follows:-
"(1) On the basis of the record before us, the
Founding Church of Scientology has made out a prima facie
case that it is a bona fide religion and, since no rebuttal
has been offered, it must be regarded as a religion for purposes of
this case.
(2) On the record before us, a prima facie
case exists that auditing is a practice of Scientology, and that
accounts of auditing integrated into the general theory of
Scientology are religious doctrines. Since no rebuttal has been
offered, we must take the point as proven.
--------
On the other hand, the following should be noted:
(1) We do not hold that the Founding Church is for
all legal purposes a religion. Any prima facie case made out
for religious status is subject to contradiction by a showing that
the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by
those asserting them, and that forms of religious organisation were
erected for sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the
legal protections of religion".
On 18th April 1969, the majority delivered clarifying
observations on the Administration's petition, which included the
following passages:-
"We did not find insufficient competent evidence to
support a verdict, nor did we find that all literature submitted to
the jury as "false labelling" was religious doctrine. Rather we
found that some of that literature was at least prima
facie religious doctrine, and that the jury, as it was
instructed, could have found against the E-meter by finding false
statements in "labelling" which was at the same time religious
doctrine . . . And, of course, where a jury's general verdict may
have rested upon grounds improper for First Amendment reasons, a
reviewing court will not pause to speculate whether the jury's
verdict was actually reached on other, and permissible, grounds.
--------
Finally, it should be noted that the Government up to
this time . . . has not challenged the bona fides of
appellants' claim of religion. In the event of any new trial . . .
it would be open to the Government to make this challenge. If the
challenge is made successfully, the First Amendment question would,
of course, disappear from this case."
The new trial has not yet been held.
113. The third lawsuit also took place in the United
States, this time before the Court of Claims. Here, the Founding Church
of Scientology of Washington, D.C. claimed to be exempt from Federal
income tax on the grounds that it was "a corporation organised and
operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the earnings of
which inures to any individual".
The U.S. Department of Justice contested the claim, on
the grounds that the taxpayer's "most extensive and significant
activities are directed towards the earnings of substantial fees from
the "auditing" of persons to alleviate a wide variety of physical and
emotional problems", and that "the founder of the organisation remains
in complete control and receives substantial remuneration and
perquisites both from the taxpayer and a network of affiliates".
The Founding Church's claim failed. because the Court (in
a judgment delivered on 16th July 1969) held
"that plaintiff has failed to prove that no part of
the corporation's net earnings inured to the benefit of private
individuals, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The court
finds it unnecessary to decide whether plaintiff is a religious or
educational organization as alleged, since, regardless of its
character, plaintiff has not met the statutory conditions for
exemption from income taxation. In any event, the Government has not
raised this issue. Because of the manner in which the second
question framed by the parties is resolved, we need not and do not
determine whether plaintiff's operations were exclusively for
religious or educational purposes."
That holding was based on the following findings of
fact:-
"According to the trial commissioner's findings, L.
Ron Hubbard received over $108,000 from plaintiff and related
Scientology sources during the 4-year period June 1955 through June
1959. This figure represents $77,460 in fees, commissions,
royalties, and compensation for services, plus $13,538 in payment
for expenses incurred in connection with his services, as well as a
total of $17,586 in reimbursement for expenditures made in
plaintiff's behalf, in repayment of loans made to plaintiff and the
New York organization, and as a loan from plaintiff to Hubbard. As
the commissioner found, and we agree, the precise nature of the
loans and reimbursed expenditures does not appear in the record. Nor
do we find any explanation for most of the expenses paid. The
portion of the $17,460 actually paid by plaintiff amounted to
approximately $6,000 in 1955 56, more than $11,500 in 1956-57,
approximately $18,000 in 1957-58, and over $22,000 in 1958-59.
Hubbard also had the use of an automobile at
plaintiff's expense. During plaintiff's taxable years ending in 1958
and 1959, the organization provided and maintained a personal
residence for Hubbard and his family. Moreover, in addition to all
the foregoing, Hubbard received a percentage (usually 10 per cent)
of the gross income of affiliated Scientology organizations."
"Mary Sue Hubbard, the wife of plaintiff's founder,
had income from September 1955 through December 1958 by virtue of
renting property owned by her to plaintiff. Her total receipts from
this venture were $10,685. Payments amounting to $l,450,
attributable to the debts of her son, were made in 1956 and 1957. A
completely unexplained figure of $250 and loans of $800 were
received in 1958-59.
L. Ron Hubbard. Jr., was the recipient of loans in
1955-56 and 1958-59 totalling $1,226. He was reimbursed for
expenditures of approximately $200 in behalf of plaintiff in 1957-58
and 1958-59.
In fiscal years 1957-58 and 1958-59, Kay Hubbard, the
daughter, received payments, generally designated as salary or
wages, totalling $3,242. The record is devoid of any evidence
showing services performed by Miss Hubbard for plaintiff. This
amount includes loans of $550 made in 1953.
What emerges from these facts is the inference that
the Hubbard family was entitled to make ready personal use of the
corporate earnings."
A subsequent attempt by the Scientologists to have this
decision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court failed on 8th December 1969.
_______________
NOTES:
(68) The Character of
Scientology, p. 14.
(69) Dianetics: MSMH
(1969), p. 44
(70) Dianetics: MSMH
(1968).
(71) Dianetics: ES,
pp. 75-76.
(72) Dianetics: MSMH
(1968), p. 60.
(73) ibid, p.321
(74) Scientology 8-8008,
p. 10.
(75) ibid, p. 9.
(76) The Fundamentals of
Thought, p. 58.
(77) Scientology 8-8008,
p. 21.
(78) ibid, p. 23.
(79) Kangaroo Court,
p. 26.
(80) Anderson Report,
p. 2.
(81) Scientology 8-8008,
p. 11.
(82) Kangaroo Court,
p. 26.
(83) Anderson Report,
p. 16.
(84) Dianetics: MSMH
(1968), p. x.
(85) Anderson Report,
p. 16.
(86) Passim.
(87) They are not, on the
other hand, for that reason immune to disproof by empirical methods, for
example, the proposition that words spoken to an unconscious pre-clear
(e.g. before he is born or while he is under an anaesthetic) wil1 be
recorded in the reactive mind as an engram is central to the whole
theory of Dianetics. But the only independent attempt so far reported to
verify it experimentally proved a failure: when a passage from a physics
text was read to a subject anaesthetised with pentothal, no trace of it
could be found through Dianetic auditing. even though "processing" in an
attempt to recover it went on for nearly six months. See Fox, J. et
al, "Experimental Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis",
Psychological Abstracts, no. 1475, 1960.
(88) "Hypothesis and
Imagination", pp. 164-165.
(89) HCO PL of 7th February
1965, re-issued 15th June 1970
(90) p. 26.
(91) p 27.
(92) Scientology: A
History of Man, p. 20.
(93) Dianetics: MSMH
(1968), p. ix.
(94) ibid, p. 91.
(95) Freedom Scientology
No. 8,1969.
(96) Dianetics: ES,
p. 1.
(97) HCO PL of 3rd June
1969, Issue II.
(98) HCO PL of 7th May
1969, Issue II.
(99) Anderson Report,
p. 149.
(100) Kangaroo Court,
p. 7
(101) The Character of
Scientology, p. 17
(102) Scientology and
the Bible. p. 2.
(103) Jewish Chronicle,
September 13th 1968.
(104) Taken from
Ceremonies, pp. 7/8.
(104) Taken from
Ceremonies, pp. 7/8.
(105) Ceremonies, pp. 47/8.
(106) Ceremonies, pp. 73/5
(107) Taken from HCO PL of
5th February, 1969.
(108) New Zealand Enquiry
Report, p. 18.
(109) Lee, p. 88.
(110) See Chapter 5, post.
Go to Next Page
|