This was posted on Mike Rinder's blog on January 27, 2020. (Posted here in three sections since the forum limits individual posts to 40,000 characters.)
www.mikerindersblog.org
............................................................................................................................................
Mike Rinder writes:
This is a rather lengthy dissertation by long term commenter George M. White, who was one of the first OT VIII completions (that is him above on the Freewinds at graduation).
I am publishing it as he sent it to me. He mentioned this when I saw him at a party recently and I offered to put it on the blog. It makes reference to a document called “Student Briefing” and I have included that for your reference at the end of his piece.
.....................................................................................................................................
Spiritualist Movements, Hypnotism, and the Natural Science Model used in the development of Scientology
©by George M. White, 2020
George M. White, BA, Political Science, Holy Cross College, MBA, Columbia University
KEYWORDS: [Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Religion, Blavatsky, Theosophy, OT VIII, Truth Revealed, Natural Science, Spiritualist movement, hypnotism]
ABSTRACT:
Since Antiquity, the Natural Science Model has emphasized that spiritual essence controls matter in the universe. With the rise of experimental science, the Model has largely been replaced. Yet spiritualist movements have persisted such as Theosophy, Scientology and extreme forms of radical Evangelicalism. While Scientology has replaced Theosophy in the news as a controversial subject, it is argued in this paper that they share common roots in the writings of the Neo-Platonists, Helena Blavatsky and Franz Mesmer. Scientology moved towards a wealthy, dogmatic religion with military uniforms worn by the last of its most dedicated followers. While Scientology defines itself as a modern religion, it is argued in this paper that much of its doctrine can be traced to specific passages used in the Natural Science Model developed over the last 2,600 years of recorded history. Scientology intentionally sidestepped the established ideas of monotheistic religions.
INTRODUCTION:
After the completion of seventeen years of study in Scientology (1) I attained the highest spiritual level officially called OT VIII, “Truth Revealed” (2) Disillusioned by the contradictions found in L. Ron Hubbard’s (1911-1986) highest doctrine, I left Scientology in 1989. In 2008, I was interviewed by Professor Hugh Urban, Ph.D. from Ohio State University (3) He suggested that I read Helena Blavatsky’s works “Secret Doctrine” and “Isis Unveiled” and compare them with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. My first impression was that the negative attitude of both Blavatsky and Hubbard towards the value of experimental science was common and obvious. They both expounded a deeper sense of the power of nature which to them theoretically dominated scientific experiments. The intended use of esoteric spiritual assumptions to build a view of the dynamics of time and events in the universe was to both of them a major goal. Thus Professor Urban introduced me to Professor Catherine Wessinger Ph.D. at Loyola University, New Orleans (4) She then further guided me through the current literature. This paper is the result. I studied dozens of historical religious leaders in the course of research. Only the most important ones are mentioned. What makes Scientology unique and difficult to study is that it contains a foundation in Dianetics which preceded Scientology. Hubbard’s techniques can even be traced to Franz Mesmer, the famous hypnotist. In the end, Dianetics only touches Scientology the religion and the ideas in this membrane will be mentioned only insofar as they directly affect the conclusions reached. Therefore, the influence of thinkers such as Freud and the effectiveness of the e-meter in mental therapy will be excluded (5) Focus is on the substantial views that form a generic Occult Model as they relate to religious development.
There are two faces to Scientology. On the one hand, there are drug rehabilitation programs and Volunteer Ministers who rush to disaster areas to render assistance. While these programs are relatively small, the average Scientologist is motivated by the desire for a better society. On the other hand, stories of separated families and denial of freedom have been reported. This paper argues that the inner core of belief which set the foundation for Scientology by its founder is largely responsible for this. While the current Church has dismissed Hubbard’s role as Lucifer, it was largely a matter of public relations. The inner scripture of Scientology still supports the Occult or Natural Science Model.
The Occult or Natural Science Model is defined as the composite framework of ideas found in pre-scientific explanations of the causes of natural phenomena in the universe. For the purpose of this paper, the Model originated in Western Civilization with Pythagoras and Plato. While Eastern thought contains mystic ideas, the analysis will be restricted to the specific path that I outline. The Occult Model used by Hubbard was then refined by the Neo-Platonists. The most notable was Iamblichus. Gnosticism, in its diverse spiritual cosmology, contains the transition of the Occult Model from the ancient to the modern world. The threads of the Occult Model used by Hubbard then pass through Leibnitz. In the Modern Era, the Occult Model was revitalized by Blavatsky. It is argued that the Model was technologically updated and then extended by L. Ron Hubbard in the development of Scientology. Hubbard then expounded his “extra-terrestrial revelations.” These are defined as doctrine concerning the future spiritual path of the universe in the background of the physics of inter-stellar space. While there were many other side variations, as for example with Aleister Crowley, they are beyond the scope of this paper. In addition, Socrates, Aristotle and Kant are excluded as special cases because their path led towards science.
L. Ron Hubbard never specifically gave credit to Helena Blavatsky but the imprint of her work on his lectures and writings is remarkable. For example, in Hubbard’s “Road to Truth” lecture, he compares the limitations of modern Physics and Chemistry in the same manner as Blavatsky in her book “Secret Doctrine.”
Hubbard also lectured on the reality of Atlantis in the same way as Blavatsky. There are dozens of other interconnections between Hubbard’s extensive works and Blavatsky’s “Isis Unveiled,” but only a few of the most important will be mentioned in this paper. It will be argued that most of Scientology’s doctrine was derived from the basic Natural Science Model augmented by Hubbard’s 1920’s defined “Science Fiction” imagination. It is certainly possible to consider sections of Blavatsky’s work, written in the late 19th century before the term was defined, as Science Fiction. In reality, Blavatsky and Hubbard share a common literary genre.
In June 1980, Hubbard claimed to have acted in the role of Lucifer in the development of Scientology. Blavatsky’s followers published a work called Lucifer. It is tempting to declare some of Hubbard’s passages as plagiarism, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is argued that Scientology is essentially Gnostic Luciferianism. It will further be argued that while cults such as “Heaven’s Gate” used a Biblical framework, the religious ideas of Scientology are essentially derived from the Occult Model mentioned above. The nature of these pre-scientific ideas can also lead to mental entrapment similar to the situation led by David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
PART 1 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – ASSUMPTIVE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE SPIRIT
Pythagoras was known for his mathematics, but only fragments of his works have survived. According to Blavatsky, his grandfather – Lamprias – was one of the first exteriorized spirits observed. Blavatsky also suggests that Pythagoras’ mathematics encompassed a complete theory on the foundation of the universe. At any rate, while empirical science has advanced, Pythagoras remains as a pillar of natural science. He is credited with discovering Venus as the morning and evening star. Hubbard claimed that Pythagoras was an influence in the development of Scientology.
Blavatsky cites various names for the substances that are behind the matter of the physical universe. These included: Fohat, Monad, Akasha, and Ether (6). Hubbard coined the general term Theta to encompass all of these. Thus Hubbard gave contradictory and less specific theories on the origin of the universe but that subject is beyond the scope of this paper.
Blavatsky observed that the oldest religions recorded extremely long cycles of cosmic time. She went into great detail and compared the cosmology of various religions to demonstrate a common religious narrative. About eighty years before Hubbard started to define his thetan, Blavatsky was influencing Thomas Edison who read her books. Blavatsky defined concepts such as soul electricity and intelligent electricity. Thus well before Hubbard’s birth, there was Theosophical research on this subject. These are speculations in the Natural Science Model which pre-date Hubbard’s definition of the Thetan.
Blavatsky used ancient spiritual ideas to describe the existence of the universe. Some are of Hindu and Esoteric origin. Blavatsky’s interpretation of cosmic expansion and contraction is contained in passages related to “The Cycle of Naros” and “Darkness is Light” (7).
Hubbard claimed that the origin of the Universe was about 4,000,000,000,000,000 years ago. It began with an angel, a trumpet sound and a loud snap. He called this “Incident 1.” Hubbard claimed a variety of extraterrestrial contacts. He claimed to have landed a space ship in modern day Afghanistan about 8,000 years ago. He also claimed that the Amazon River had green flourishing cities about 40,000 years ago. This was similar to Blavatsky’s assertion that intelligent life began on earth about 45,000 years ago. Dr. John Newbrough, who predates Blavatsky, claimed that life on earth began 78,000 years ago (8).
The “OT” symbol used by the Church of Scientology was defined by Blavatsky as the sign of ancient monotheism. Blavatsky said that the “The cross within the circle symbolizes pure Pantheism.” Hubbard formed eight “dynamics” or life impulses. The numbers three, seven and eight are often used in natural science, in Theosophy and in Scientology (9).
Plato was an important source for data on the immortality of the soul. He used the “Argument of Affinity” in “Phaedo” as proof.
Affinity will later be utilized by Hubbard in the construction of his religion. Blavatsky wrote with great respect for Plato. She even defended some of his work claiming that it had been corrupted over the centuries. Hubbard did credit Plato.
Kabballah explains the transmigration of the spirit with a double triangle. Hubbard re-constructed the double triangle. Hubbard defined his first triangle as affinity, reality and communication. He defined a second triangle as knowledge, responsibility and control. According to Hubbard, these were the factors needed for the transmigration of the “thetan.” Hubbard’s double triangle is also an adaptation of the star of David used by King Solomon.
The triangle was also known to Pythagoras. Known as his “Theorem” today, it played a larger role in Natural Science than seen on its surface.
Affinity is a common Occult term used as a substitute for gravity as well as for the attraction of atoms. Other building blocks of the Occult included the idea of love or virtue but Hubbard consciously eliminated these.
Blavatsky said: “Humanity and the stars are bound together indissolubly because of the intelligences that rule the latter.”
Hubbard defined the elements of the universe as MEST – Matter, Energy, Space and Time. He defined the intelligence of the universe as Theta.
Hubbard attended Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 1938. He failed physics. Hubbard considered Physics as a specialized division of science which did not encompass the truth of the universe because it failed to include the power of the spirit. He shared this concept with Blavatsky.
Iamblichus (245-325 A.D.) was a Syrian Neo Platonist. He wrote: “the races of superior beings are not in the bodies, but govern them from outside. Hence they do not undergo changes with the bodies”. This was written in his book which has survived (10).
Hubbard used similar language to Iamblichus to describe the thetan. The “exteriorized thetan” is the cornerstone of Scientology belief. While Hubbard claimed credit for the idea of this phenomena, Occult records indicate otherwise. Exteriorization was commonly spoken of for at least 2,300 years.
Hubbard’s called his son by the nickname “Nibs”. This word is hardy used in English and is not complimentary. Perhaps Hubbard derived the name from “Nebo, plural Nebim”, the ancient God of Secret Wisdom and demons. A seer was a Nabin.
Iamblichus, Hubbard, and Blavatsky are also remarkably similar in giving credit to the Chaldeans. Hubbard goes even further and suggests that the Chaldeans were the real source of western wisdom. Hubbard criticized Socrates while Blavatsky was mild. Hubbard and Blavatsky also shared the belief in life on the planet Venus. Hubbard recorded his views on the beings he called “the Venusians” in his Lecture titled “The Role of Earth” (1954).
PART 2 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – DEFINITION OF SPIRITS
The role of a higher deity was left unanswered in Scientology. Hubbard did not define a “God” principle. Each church member was allowed a personal definition.
Scientology was essentially built upon a type of multi-spirit universe and cannot be defined as monotheism.
Hubbard’s demons are not the same as those in the traditional realms of demons or spirits. Hubbard’s demons are more like parasites attached to the body. They are capable of negative impact on their “host” in a different way. Hubbard’s demons more closely follow the tradition in Kaballah. In Hubbard’s terminology, spirits are molded together by nuclear explosions. Hubbard solidified his control over his followers by stating that only his technology could remove demons referred to as “body thetans.” In Kabballah a stone can become a god; a god can become a stone. In Scientology, nuclear explosions create masses of thetans molded together like stones or “aggregates,” a term used by Hubbard on his higher levels.
Scientology is famous for its emphasis on “past lives.” In fact, Hubbard often mentioned his identities through the centuries. He even claimed to have been Cecil Rhodes, the famous South African explorer. Blavatsky did not emphasize this idea. Kabballah is described by Blavatsky as a religion which contains the transmigration of the spirit (11).
Hubbard also did not follow the detailed explanation of demons found in Blavatsky. For Hubbard, it was the thetans which were active in the between lives area. He described these thetans as the real “ghosts.” Hubbard did not emphasize a strict hierarchy of demons. However, he did claim that they were big or small. For Hubbard, the thetan was usually embedded in the mind in an engram or in an implant. Hubbard used techniques from Dianetics to rescue or exorcize these “spirits.” He formed an advanced technique, based on Dianetics, which he called “NED for Operating Thetans” in the 1970’s. On this level, Hubbard proclaimed that both the human mind and the spirit were encased or mixed with matter. New techniques were introduced in Clearwater, Florida in about 1978. Scientology’s revenue soared because of the demand for these new services. After thousands of Scientologists, including myself, experimented with his technique, this movement lost momentum as no one was never able to take the process to a valid ending.
Leibniz is reported to have said to his biographer: “That which exists outside of us in an absolute manner are souls whose essence is force.” While Hubbard believed that absolutes are unattainable, Leibnitz was in reality defining Hubbard’s “thetans.” Hubbard even proclaimed that the power of a single thetan was equivalent to a sun. Hubbard’s denial of an absolute was probably derived from Kabballah. Nucleolus said: “The absolute is not to be defined and no mortal has ever seen or comprehended it.”
Hubbard did not proclaim the divinity of Jesus. In fact, he referred to Jesus as “a lover of boys and young men (12).” Blavatsky did not present Jesus in this way, but seriously doubted the Resurrection. Blavatsky was more interested in tracing the tribes from which Jesus originated. This helped to explain his role as a prophet. Blavatsky also suggests that Jesus had visited India.
PART 3 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – AXIOMS AND LOGIC
Since both Hubbard and Blavatsky were in opposition to scientific methods they claimed as limited, they used assumptions to formulate the basics of their religions.
Blavatsky claimed to have discovered an ancient source of wisdom that formed the basis for a common religion on earth.
The Stanzas of Dzyan, scrolls reported to have been discovered in a Tibetan cave by Blavatsky, were interpreted by her as the building blocks of the universe.
She even had to learn a new language to accomplish this task. In the end, the scrolls consisted of logical assumptions about how the universe could be built one step at a time (13). The Stanzas are explained starting on page 35 in Secret Doctrine Vol 1, part 1.
This methodology of logical assumptions was used by Hubbard in defining the thetan and the principles of Scientology. Hubbard used a similar type of format to the Stanzas in his “Axioms and Logic” book publication. The term “without dimension” is used in the Stanzas of Dzyan. Hubbard used the term “viewpoint of dimension” to describe his thetan. Blavatsky and Hubbard were tracking on the Occult Model with the Stanzas, but it is uncertain that Hubbard ever read them.
In Madame Blavatsky’s time period, scientists questioned the validity of spiritualism and the occult. Blavatsky tried to steer a middle course by denouncing the spiritualists and by trying to satisfy the scientist with valid experimental data. Blavatsky specifically claimed that the sessions of her day did not contact the souls of the departed.
There are numerous terms used in Scientology which first appeared in Blavatsky’s work. The most important are “facsimile” and “static.” The word facsimile, which is basically a recording, was used by Hubbard and changed to “Service Facsimile”. The term “static” in reference to a spirit was first used by Blavatsky. It was later developed by Hubbard into the idea of a “thetan,” a term which he used to describe a spiritual being.
Hubbard considered himself more than a thetan as he defined the term in his religion. In his “Truth Revealed” document, he suggests that he was a master race builder and the creator of the entire universe. Blavatsky never made such a claim.
Hubbard entered the occult more than thirty years after Blavatsky’s death. We know from “Nibs”, L. Ron Hubbard’s son, that Hubbard did study the occult. In an open interview, Nibs spoke of his observations as a child in which he witnessed Hubbard’s study into the Occult (14).
Hubbard retained and expounded Blavatsky’s idea concerning the limitations of the scientific method. Hubbard railed against science as forcefully as Blavatsky. Blavatsky spoke against the scientists of her day while Hubbard openly criticized Einstein. Hubbard avoided commenting on the famous quantum mechanics experiments of the 1930’s. This remains a serious contradiction in Hubbard’s doctrine because his definition of the thetan dealt only with electricity. Hubbard claimed that the thetan was like the base of an electric motor.
Blavatsky blamed the French Revolution for the trend to materialism. Both Hubbard and Blavatsky presented alternative views to the establishment.
Hubbard took advantage of the discontent with the Vietnam War in the 1970’s when he criticized the government. He presented Scientology as a solution to social problems.
Hubbard followed Blavatsky’s focus on secret powers unknown to science but practiced throughout history. Blavatsky visited India in search of magical healing powers and levitation. She also documented most of the major Occult phenomena up to the 19th century. She even investigated the vampire stories and tried to describe a spiritual interpretation. Hubbard constantly stressed that the restored thetan would immediately resume functional supernatural powers. But Hubbard avoided direct confrontations with science or the press on this issue. While it cannot be demonstrated that Hubbard read Blavatsky, there are remarkable similarities to passages in “Isis Unveiled” and the “Secret Doctrine” to Hubbard’s taped lectures.
While Blavatsky did not mention space-ships, both Hubbard and Blavatsky shared a cyclic view of evolution. They both strongly denounce Darwin. Blavatsky cites races on earth from 80,000 years before recorded history. Hubbard copied this style but changed the dates. To formulate Scientology, Hubbard only needed to select ideas from the array of recorded religious experiences in the past. Rather than giving specific personal credit, he carefully modified each idea to fit his designer religion. This process is ultimately limited by advances in technology. The religion must be updated with scientific advancements to retain credibility. Hubbard simply updated Blavatsky’s framework with the technology of nuclear explosions, space travel, DNA, and computers. Furthermore, Blavatsky’s “ascending masters” were benign beings evolving to higher states of consciousness. Hubbard changed the ascending masters into his idea of independent gods. Hubbard carefully transformed the idea of the ethical “ascending masters” into a small group of malicious beings trying to control the universe.
Since Hubbard’s written legacy was seriously contradicted by the discovery of DNA in 1962, in 1980 he had to expand his “Extraterrestrial Revelation” to include a group he thought was in outer space tampering with the DNA on earth. According to Hubbard, technologically advanced beings controlled human minds and DNA from planets outside of this solar system. The implication was that the advancement of technology is not always followed by compassion as implied by Blavatsky. For Hubbard, his Revelations are his own realism.
Hubbard and Blavatsky both gave lectures on the function of the pineal gland. This odd similarity in itself suggests a strong connection between Hubbard’s Occult studies and Blavatsky’s foundation.
As mentioned, Hubbard’s lecture “Road to Truth” covers the contradictions between Physics and Chemistry in a typical University. This material is almost identical with passages from Blavatsky (15).
PART 4 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT
It is argued in this article that Hubbard relied on a process called “Extraterrestrial Revelation” in the development of the religious foundation of Scientology. Hubbard probably copied a term, idea, concept or narrative from the large body of data in the Occult Model. He then transformed it into a building block for Scientology. The religion itself certainly bears the imprint of Blavatsky’s works. For example, Blavatsky’s “ascending masters” are loose prototypes for Hubbard’s “operating thetans.” Blavatsky’s intent was to find the common denominator of all religion on earth. On the other hand, Hubbard was looking for one specific religious vehicle to forward his purpose to dominate earth with Scientology as the basis of control.
While there is no specific proof of a connection to Blavatsky, Hubbard could have heard these ideas from his friend Jack Parsons. (1914-1952) (16). A few broad concepts are obvious. “Extraterrestrial Revelation” can also be viewed as an alternative to Biblical revelation. Blavatsky criticized the Bible. Hubbard only quoted two minor Biblical passages in his work, but criticized Jesus. Blavatsky disliked the tradition of Moses. She also criticized the Middle Ages interpretation of Christianity. Extraterrestrial Revelation centers on cosmological evolution populated by beings changing in a natural evolutionary cyclical process. This is found in Hubbard’s work and in Blavatsky’s works. This is not a new idea and can be found in Eastern Religion.
Hubbard’s Extraterrestrial Revelation did not include love. This is important since Hubbard often claimed to be the Buddha. Buddhism clearly contains the idea of loving-kindness or Metta. The absence of love in Scientology was explained by Hubbard in a simple manner. He claimed that the idea of love had numerous connotations which made it useless as concept in Scientology. In 1981, Hubbard did publish a short pamphlet to fill in the “gap” between his original idea of affinity and the Christian ideal of love. It is called “The Way to Happiness” and millions of copies have been distributed all over the world, especially in South America. This short homily, while it does not mention love, expresses a key Christian principle. Statement #19 says “Try not to do to things to others that you would not like them to do to you.” This is another example of Hubbard’s Extraterrestrial Revelation but here it is Biblical. The twenty-one precepts in the booklet are presented as a non-religious moral code. Is Scientology a religion? The question is left unanswered and is beyond the scope of this paper. Hubbard swept aside Blavatsky’s and Crowley’s idea of love. Theosophy and even Crowley’s Thelema mention virtue and love as key principles. But Scientology rests totally on “affinity”. This is also another example of Hubbard’s “Extraterrestrial Revelation” since Hubbard’s Marcabs, aggressive space aliens, do not practice love or compassion.
Hubbard used the term “Xenu” to describe a great destroyer of a civilization. Blavatsky mentioned “Xisuthrus” as the person who originated destructive world deluges. Hubbard claimed to have discovered the “exteriorization” of the thetan in about 1938. He later used this as one of the founding principles of Scientology. Blavatsky . . .
(part 5, 6 and 7 continue below)
Spiritualist Movements
www.mikerindersblog.org
Mike Rinder writes:
This is a rather lengthy dissertation by long term commenter George M. White, who was one of the first OT VIII completions (that is him above on the Freewinds at graduation).
I am publishing it as he sent it to me. He mentioned this when I saw him at a party recently and I offered to put it on the blog. It makes reference to a document called “Student Briefing” and I have included that for your reference at the end of his piece.
.....................................................................................................................................
Spiritualist Movements, Hypnotism, and the Natural Science Model used in the development of Scientology
©by George M. White, 2020
George M. White, BA, Political Science, Holy Cross College, MBA, Columbia University
KEYWORDS: [Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Religion, Blavatsky, Theosophy, OT VIII, Truth Revealed, Natural Science, Spiritualist movement, hypnotism]
ABSTRACT:
Since Antiquity, the Natural Science Model has emphasized that spiritual essence controls matter in the universe. With the rise of experimental science, the Model has largely been replaced. Yet spiritualist movements have persisted such as Theosophy, Scientology and extreme forms of radical Evangelicalism. While Scientology has replaced Theosophy in the news as a controversial subject, it is argued in this paper that they share common roots in the writings of the Neo-Platonists, Helena Blavatsky and Franz Mesmer. Scientology moved towards a wealthy, dogmatic religion with military uniforms worn by the last of its most dedicated followers. While Scientology defines itself as a modern religion, it is argued in this paper that much of its doctrine can be traced to specific passages used in the Natural Science Model developed over the last 2,600 years of recorded history. Scientology intentionally sidestepped the established ideas of monotheistic religions.
INTRODUCTION:
After the completion of seventeen years of study in Scientology (1) I attained the highest spiritual level officially called OT VIII, “Truth Revealed” (2) Disillusioned by the contradictions found in L. Ron Hubbard’s (1911-1986) highest doctrine, I left Scientology in 1989. In 2008, I was interviewed by Professor Hugh Urban, Ph.D. from Ohio State University (3) He suggested that I read Helena Blavatsky’s works “Secret Doctrine” and “Isis Unveiled” and compare them with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. My first impression was that the negative attitude of both Blavatsky and Hubbard towards the value of experimental science was common and obvious. They both expounded a deeper sense of the power of nature which to them theoretically dominated scientific experiments. The intended use of esoteric spiritual assumptions to build a view of the dynamics of time and events in the universe was to both of them a major goal. Thus Professor Urban introduced me to Professor Catherine Wessinger Ph.D. at Loyola University, New Orleans (4) She then further guided me through the current literature. This paper is the result. I studied dozens of historical religious leaders in the course of research. Only the most important ones are mentioned. What makes Scientology unique and difficult to study is that it contains a foundation in Dianetics which preceded Scientology. Hubbard’s techniques can even be traced to Franz Mesmer, the famous hypnotist. In the end, Dianetics only touches Scientology the religion and the ideas in this membrane will be mentioned only insofar as they directly affect the conclusions reached. Therefore, the influence of thinkers such as Freud and the effectiveness of the e-meter in mental therapy will be excluded (5) Focus is on the substantial views that form a generic Occult Model as they relate to religious development.
There are two faces to Scientology. On the one hand, there are drug rehabilitation programs and Volunteer Ministers who rush to disaster areas to render assistance. While these programs are relatively small, the average Scientologist is motivated by the desire for a better society. On the other hand, stories of separated families and denial of freedom have been reported. This paper argues that the inner core of belief which set the foundation for Scientology by its founder is largely responsible for this. While the current Church has dismissed Hubbard’s role as Lucifer, it was largely a matter of public relations. The inner scripture of Scientology still supports the Occult or Natural Science Model.
The Occult or Natural Science Model is defined as the composite framework of ideas found in pre-scientific explanations of the causes of natural phenomena in the universe. For the purpose of this paper, the Model originated in Western Civilization with Pythagoras and Plato. While Eastern thought contains mystic ideas, the analysis will be restricted to the specific path that I outline. The Occult Model used by Hubbard was then refined by the Neo-Platonists. The most notable was Iamblichus. Gnosticism, in its diverse spiritual cosmology, contains the transition of the Occult Model from the ancient to the modern world. The threads of the Occult Model used by Hubbard then pass through Leibnitz. In the Modern Era, the Occult Model was revitalized by Blavatsky. It is argued that the Model was technologically updated and then extended by L. Ron Hubbard in the development of Scientology. Hubbard then expounded his “extra-terrestrial revelations.” These are defined as doctrine concerning the future spiritual path of the universe in the background of the physics of inter-stellar space. While there were many other side variations, as for example with Aleister Crowley, they are beyond the scope of this paper. In addition, Socrates, Aristotle and Kant are excluded as special cases because their path led towards science.
L. Ron Hubbard never specifically gave credit to Helena Blavatsky but the imprint of her work on his lectures and writings is remarkable. For example, in Hubbard’s “Road to Truth” lecture, he compares the limitations of modern Physics and Chemistry in the same manner as Blavatsky in her book “Secret Doctrine.”
Hubbard also lectured on the reality of Atlantis in the same way as Blavatsky. There are dozens of other interconnections between Hubbard’s extensive works and Blavatsky’s “Isis Unveiled,” but only a few of the most important will be mentioned in this paper. It will be argued that most of Scientology’s doctrine was derived from the basic Natural Science Model augmented by Hubbard’s 1920’s defined “Science Fiction” imagination. It is certainly possible to consider sections of Blavatsky’s work, written in the late 19th century before the term was defined, as Science Fiction. In reality, Blavatsky and Hubbard share a common literary genre.
In June 1980, Hubbard claimed to have acted in the role of Lucifer in the development of Scientology. Blavatsky’s followers published a work called Lucifer. It is tempting to declare some of Hubbard’s passages as plagiarism, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is argued that Scientology is essentially Gnostic Luciferianism. It will further be argued that while cults such as “Heaven’s Gate” used a Biblical framework, the religious ideas of Scientology are essentially derived from the Occult Model mentioned above. The nature of these pre-scientific ideas can also lead to mental entrapment similar to the situation led by David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
PART 1 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – ASSUMPTIVE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE SPIRIT
Pythagoras was known for his mathematics, but only fragments of his works have survived. According to Blavatsky, his grandfather – Lamprias – was one of the first exteriorized spirits observed. Blavatsky also suggests that Pythagoras’ mathematics encompassed a complete theory on the foundation of the universe. At any rate, while empirical science has advanced, Pythagoras remains as a pillar of natural science. He is credited with discovering Venus as the morning and evening star. Hubbard claimed that Pythagoras was an influence in the development of Scientology.
Blavatsky cites various names for the substances that are behind the matter of the physical universe. These included: Fohat, Monad, Akasha, and Ether (6). Hubbard coined the general term Theta to encompass all of these. Thus Hubbard gave contradictory and less specific theories on the origin of the universe but that subject is beyond the scope of this paper.
Blavatsky observed that the oldest religions recorded extremely long cycles of cosmic time. She went into great detail and compared the cosmology of various religions to demonstrate a common religious narrative. About eighty years before Hubbard started to define his thetan, Blavatsky was influencing Thomas Edison who read her books. Blavatsky defined concepts such as soul electricity and intelligent electricity. Thus well before Hubbard’s birth, there was Theosophical research on this subject. These are speculations in the Natural Science Model which pre-date Hubbard’s definition of the Thetan.
Blavatsky used ancient spiritual ideas to describe the existence of the universe. Some are of Hindu and Esoteric origin. Blavatsky’s interpretation of cosmic expansion and contraction is contained in passages related to “The Cycle of Naros” and “Darkness is Light” (7).
Hubbard claimed that the origin of the Universe was about 4,000,000,000,000,000 years ago. It began with an angel, a trumpet sound and a loud snap. He called this “Incident 1.” Hubbard claimed a variety of extraterrestrial contacts. He claimed to have landed a space ship in modern day Afghanistan about 8,000 years ago. He also claimed that the Amazon River had green flourishing cities about 40,000 years ago. This was similar to Blavatsky’s assertion that intelligent life began on earth about 45,000 years ago. Dr. John Newbrough, who predates Blavatsky, claimed that life on earth began 78,000 years ago (8).
The “OT” symbol used by the Church of Scientology was defined by Blavatsky as the sign of ancient monotheism. Blavatsky said that the “The cross within the circle symbolizes pure Pantheism.” Hubbard formed eight “dynamics” or life impulses. The numbers three, seven and eight are often used in natural science, in Theosophy and in Scientology (9).
Plato was an important source for data on the immortality of the soul. He used the “Argument of Affinity” in “Phaedo” as proof.
Affinity will later be utilized by Hubbard in the construction of his religion. Blavatsky wrote with great respect for Plato. She even defended some of his work claiming that it had been corrupted over the centuries. Hubbard did credit Plato.
Kabballah explains the transmigration of the spirit with a double triangle. Hubbard re-constructed the double triangle. Hubbard defined his first triangle as affinity, reality and communication. He defined a second triangle as knowledge, responsibility and control. According to Hubbard, these were the factors needed for the transmigration of the “thetan.” Hubbard’s double triangle is also an adaptation of the star of David used by King Solomon.
The triangle was also known to Pythagoras. Known as his “Theorem” today, it played a larger role in Natural Science than seen on its surface.
Affinity is a common Occult term used as a substitute for gravity as well as for the attraction of atoms. Other building blocks of the Occult included the idea of love or virtue but Hubbard consciously eliminated these.
Blavatsky said: “Humanity and the stars are bound together indissolubly because of the intelligences that rule the latter.”
Hubbard defined the elements of the universe as MEST – Matter, Energy, Space and Time. He defined the intelligence of the universe as Theta.
Hubbard attended Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 1938. He failed physics. Hubbard considered Physics as a specialized division of science which did not encompass the truth of the universe because it failed to include the power of the spirit. He shared this concept with Blavatsky.
Iamblichus (245-325 A.D.) was a Syrian Neo Platonist. He wrote: “the races of superior beings are not in the bodies, but govern them from outside. Hence they do not undergo changes with the bodies”. This was written in his book which has survived (10).
Hubbard used similar language to Iamblichus to describe the thetan. The “exteriorized thetan” is the cornerstone of Scientology belief. While Hubbard claimed credit for the idea of this phenomena, Occult records indicate otherwise. Exteriorization was commonly spoken of for at least 2,300 years.
Hubbard’s called his son by the nickname “Nibs”. This word is hardy used in English and is not complimentary. Perhaps Hubbard derived the name from “Nebo, plural Nebim”, the ancient God of Secret Wisdom and demons. A seer was a Nabin.
Iamblichus, Hubbard, and Blavatsky are also remarkably similar in giving credit to the Chaldeans. Hubbard goes even further and suggests that the Chaldeans were the real source of western wisdom. Hubbard criticized Socrates while Blavatsky was mild. Hubbard and Blavatsky also shared the belief in life on the planet Venus. Hubbard recorded his views on the beings he called “the Venusians” in his Lecture titled “The Role of Earth” (1954).
PART 2 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – DEFINITION OF SPIRITS
The role of a higher deity was left unanswered in Scientology. Hubbard did not define a “God” principle. Each church member was allowed a personal definition.
Scientology was essentially built upon a type of multi-spirit universe and cannot be defined as monotheism.
Hubbard’s demons are not the same as those in the traditional realms of demons or spirits. Hubbard’s demons are more like parasites attached to the body. They are capable of negative impact on their “host” in a different way. Hubbard’s demons more closely follow the tradition in Kaballah. In Hubbard’s terminology, spirits are molded together by nuclear explosions. Hubbard solidified his control over his followers by stating that only his technology could remove demons referred to as “body thetans.” In Kabballah a stone can become a god; a god can become a stone. In Scientology, nuclear explosions create masses of thetans molded together like stones or “aggregates,” a term used by Hubbard on his higher levels.
Scientology is famous for its emphasis on “past lives.” In fact, Hubbard often mentioned his identities through the centuries. He even claimed to have been Cecil Rhodes, the famous South African explorer. Blavatsky did not emphasize this idea. Kabballah is described by Blavatsky as a religion which contains the transmigration of the spirit (11).
Hubbard also did not follow the detailed explanation of demons found in Blavatsky. For Hubbard, it was the thetans which were active in the between lives area. He described these thetans as the real “ghosts.” Hubbard did not emphasize a strict hierarchy of demons. However, he did claim that they were big or small. For Hubbard, the thetan was usually embedded in the mind in an engram or in an implant. Hubbard used techniques from Dianetics to rescue or exorcize these “spirits.” He formed an advanced technique, based on Dianetics, which he called “NED for Operating Thetans” in the 1970’s. On this level, Hubbard proclaimed that both the human mind and the spirit were encased or mixed with matter. New techniques were introduced in Clearwater, Florida in about 1978. Scientology’s revenue soared because of the demand for these new services. After thousands of Scientologists, including myself, experimented with his technique, this movement lost momentum as no one was never able to take the process to a valid ending.
Leibniz is reported to have said to his biographer: “That which exists outside of us in an absolute manner are souls whose essence is force.” While Hubbard believed that absolutes are unattainable, Leibnitz was in reality defining Hubbard’s “thetans.” Hubbard even proclaimed that the power of a single thetan was equivalent to a sun. Hubbard’s denial of an absolute was probably derived from Kabballah. Nucleolus said: “The absolute is not to be defined and no mortal has ever seen or comprehended it.”
Hubbard did not proclaim the divinity of Jesus. In fact, he referred to Jesus as “a lover of boys and young men (12).” Blavatsky did not present Jesus in this way, but seriously doubted the Resurrection. Blavatsky was more interested in tracing the tribes from which Jesus originated. This helped to explain his role as a prophet. Blavatsky also suggests that Jesus had visited India.
PART 3 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – AXIOMS AND LOGIC
Since both Hubbard and Blavatsky were in opposition to scientific methods they claimed as limited, they used assumptions to formulate the basics of their religions.
Blavatsky claimed to have discovered an ancient source of wisdom that formed the basis for a common religion on earth.
The Stanzas of Dzyan, scrolls reported to have been discovered in a Tibetan cave by Blavatsky, were interpreted by her as the building blocks of the universe.
She even had to learn a new language to accomplish this task. In the end, the scrolls consisted of logical assumptions about how the universe could be built one step at a time (13). The Stanzas are explained starting on page 35 in Secret Doctrine Vol 1, part 1.
This methodology of logical assumptions was used by Hubbard in defining the thetan and the principles of Scientology. Hubbard used a similar type of format to the Stanzas in his “Axioms and Logic” book publication. The term “without dimension” is used in the Stanzas of Dzyan. Hubbard used the term “viewpoint of dimension” to describe his thetan. Blavatsky and Hubbard were tracking on the Occult Model with the Stanzas, but it is uncertain that Hubbard ever read them.
In Madame Blavatsky’s time period, scientists questioned the validity of spiritualism and the occult. Blavatsky tried to steer a middle course by denouncing the spiritualists and by trying to satisfy the scientist with valid experimental data. Blavatsky specifically claimed that the sessions of her day did not contact the souls of the departed.
There are numerous terms used in Scientology which first appeared in Blavatsky’s work. The most important are “facsimile” and “static.” The word facsimile, which is basically a recording, was used by Hubbard and changed to “Service Facsimile”. The term “static” in reference to a spirit was first used by Blavatsky. It was later developed by Hubbard into the idea of a “thetan,” a term which he used to describe a spiritual being.
Hubbard considered himself more than a thetan as he defined the term in his religion. In his “Truth Revealed” document, he suggests that he was a master race builder and the creator of the entire universe. Blavatsky never made such a claim.
Hubbard entered the occult more than thirty years after Blavatsky’s death. We know from “Nibs”, L. Ron Hubbard’s son, that Hubbard did study the occult. In an open interview, Nibs spoke of his observations as a child in which he witnessed Hubbard’s study into the Occult (14).
Hubbard retained and expounded Blavatsky’s idea concerning the limitations of the scientific method. Hubbard railed against science as forcefully as Blavatsky. Blavatsky spoke against the scientists of her day while Hubbard openly criticized Einstein. Hubbard avoided commenting on the famous quantum mechanics experiments of the 1930’s. This remains a serious contradiction in Hubbard’s doctrine because his definition of the thetan dealt only with electricity. Hubbard claimed that the thetan was like the base of an electric motor.
Blavatsky blamed the French Revolution for the trend to materialism. Both Hubbard and Blavatsky presented alternative views to the establishment.
Hubbard took advantage of the discontent with the Vietnam War in the 1970’s when he criticized the government. He presented Scientology as a solution to social problems.
Hubbard followed Blavatsky’s focus on secret powers unknown to science but practiced throughout history. Blavatsky visited India in search of magical healing powers and levitation. She also documented most of the major Occult phenomena up to the 19th century. She even investigated the vampire stories and tried to describe a spiritual interpretation. Hubbard constantly stressed that the restored thetan would immediately resume functional supernatural powers. But Hubbard avoided direct confrontations with science or the press on this issue. While it cannot be demonstrated that Hubbard read Blavatsky, there are remarkable similarities to passages in “Isis Unveiled” and the “Secret Doctrine” to Hubbard’s taped lectures.
While Blavatsky did not mention space-ships, both Hubbard and Blavatsky shared a cyclic view of evolution. They both strongly denounce Darwin. Blavatsky cites races on earth from 80,000 years before recorded history. Hubbard copied this style but changed the dates. To formulate Scientology, Hubbard only needed to select ideas from the array of recorded religious experiences in the past. Rather than giving specific personal credit, he carefully modified each idea to fit his designer religion. This process is ultimately limited by advances in technology. The religion must be updated with scientific advancements to retain credibility. Hubbard simply updated Blavatsky’s framework with the technology of nuclear explosions, space travel, DNA, and computers. Furthermore, Blavatsky’s “ascending masters” were benign beings evolving to higher states of consciousness. Hubbard changed the ascending masters into his idea of independent gods. Hubbard carefully transformed the idea of the ethical “ascending masters” into a small group of malicious beings trying to control the universe.
Since Hubbard’s written legacy was seriously contradicted by the discovery of DNA in 1962, in 1980 he had to expand his “Extraterrestrial Revelation” to include a group he thought was in outer space tampering with the DNA on earth. According to Hubbard, technologically advanced beings controlled human minds and DNA from planets outside of this solar system. The implication was that the advancement of technology is not always followed by compassion as implied by Blavatsky. For Hubbard, his Revelations are his own realism.
Hubbard and Blavatsky both gave lectures on the function of the pineal gland. This odd similarity in itself suggests a strong connection between Hubbard’s Occult studies and Blavatsky’s foundation.
As mentioned, Hubbard’s lecture “Road to Truth” covers the contradictions between Physics and Chemistry in a typical University. This material is almost identical with passages from Blavatsky (15).
PART 4 OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE MODEL – RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT
It is argued in this article that Hubbard relied on a process called “Extraterrestrial Revelation” in the development of the religious foundation of Scientology. Hubbard probably copied a term, idea, concept or narrative from the large body of data in the Occult Model. He then transformed it into a building block for Scientology. The religion itself certainly bears the imprint of Blavatsky’s works. For example, Blavatsky’s “ascending masters” are loose prototypes for Hubbard’s “operating thetans.” Blavatsky’s intent was to find the common denominator of all religion on earth. On the other hand, Hubbard was looking for one specific religious vehicle to forward his purpose to dominate earth with Scientology as the basis of control.
While there is no specific proof of a connection to Blavatsky, Hubbard could have heard these ideas from his friend Jack Parsons. (1914-1952) (16). A few broad concepts are obvious. “Extraterrestrial Revelation” can also be viewed as an alternative to Biblical revelation. Blavatsky criticized the Bible. Hubbard only quoted two minor Biblical passages in his work, but criticized Jesus. Blavatsky disliked the tradition of Moses. She also criticized the Middle Ages interpretation of Christianity. Extraterrestrial Revelation centers on cosmological evolution populated by beings changing in a natural evolutionary cyclical process. This is found in Hubbard’s work and in Blavatsky’s works. This is not a new idea and can be found in Eastern Religion.
Hubbard’s Extraterrestrial Revelation did not include love. This is important since Hubbard often claimed to be the Buddha. Buddhism clearly contains the idea of loving-kindness or Metta. The absence of love in Scientology was explained by Hubbard in a simple manner. He claimed that the idea of love had numerous connotations which made it useless as concept in Scientology. In 1981, Hubbard did publish a short pamphlet to fill in the “gap” between his original idea of affinity and the Christian ideal of love. It is called “The Way to Happiness” and millions of copies have been distributed all over the world, especially in South America. This short homily, while it does not mention love, expresses a key Christian principle. Statement #19 says “Try not to do to things to others that you would not like them to do to you.” This is another example of Hubbard’s Extraterrestrial Revelation but here it is Biblical. The twenty-one precepts in the booklet are presented as a non-religious moral code. Is Scientology a religion? The question is left unanswered and is beyond the scope of this paper. Hubbard swept aside Blavatsky’s and Crowley’s idea of love. Theosophy and even Crowley’s Thelema mention virtue and love as key principles. But Scientology rests totally on “affinity”. This is also another example of Hubbard’s “Extraterrestrial Revelation” since Hubbard’s Marcabs, aggressive space aliens, do not practice love or compassion.
Hubbard used the term “Xenu” to describe a great destroyer of a civilization. Blavatsky mentioned “Xisuthrus” as the person who originated destructive world deluges. Hubbard claimed to have discovered the “exteriorization” of the thetan in about 1938. He later used this as one of the founding principles of Scientology. Blavatsky . . .
(part 5, 6 and 7 continue below)
Last edited:
