Why the clouds ?
Obviously I'm being critical on Scientology. It came up when I checked out the subjects of sects for my blog post on forgiveness and on science & technology.
Reading Hubbard's Axioms of Scientology made me feel like stepping into a science fiction story. Brainy, stripped of human feeling. Some self acclaimed leader, telling the world how it is constructed and that his doctrine is The truth... no room for mystery, for different opinions, no kaleidoscope. Totalitarianism breathes through it.
The Axioms were appalling, yet I felt a sneaky interest in finding out if I could 'get into the psyche' of the author. So I decided to focus on Scientology.
During the first phase of my study – I can be brainy too :-) - I didn't want to be biased by reading negative articles about Ron Hubbard, but while searching the internet I couldn't help catching some lines. Affirming my spontaneous feelings... Ron Hubbard was author of a range of science fiction stories
I now have “Dianetics” and “What is Scientology” in the windowsill, close to my desk. I have tried reading them from beginning to end, but I just can't do it.
First because the message becomes clear very soon, Hubbard just goes on repeating it, using different words, conjuring up a variety of examples... but the message stays the same. Now if his literary style were mesmerizing or at least catchy, but it is not. He seems to think his audience is not gifted with great intelligence. He's condescending and his repetition makes him quite 'dictatorial'. I get annoyed when people talk 'down' on me, especially when they are only repeating themselves.
The other reason for not being able to go through the books entirely, is because I felt dirty every time I had read a few pages. I just had to do something else to get rid of that feeling.
Years ago, during times of depression and being put under pressure by others, I've often worked with wood. It's smell, it's 'feel', gave me a certain steadiness and quiet strength. It helped me put milling thoughts to rest. I haven't touched wood for quite some time however. Strangely enough, since I started reading texts from Hubbard, I have picked up a new hobby: creating pastel drawings on wood. Coincidence?
I started to wonder what sense it would make, putting such an effort in a futile scheme. Scientology is about sixty years old, how could I think to get any understanding of it in a short time? Impossible, the track record of Scientology is way too big for a small time writer like me. I have other things on my mind as well!
Yes, I have been busy, too busy, the last few months, so profane things like calendars have been scandalously neglected by me. This Scientology itch didn't make things better. But for some silly odd reason just when I had enough of it, I noticed my Tolle Calendar, next to my refrigerator, was still on February while we were already in the first week of May. I took it from the wall to change it. Of course not without reading the February quote first... and it put me back in place:
“When you listen to a thought, you are aware not only of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. As you listen, you feel a conscious presence -your deeper self- behind or underneath the thought.” [Source: February of my Tolle Calendar]
I recognised my own theory. About the difference between what is 'Socially Accepted' as knowledge but which is actually reasoning and a deeper knowledge, which is just Knowing. It doesn't need reasoning or calculus because it already knows... Eckhart Tolle's “conscious presence”.
So there was my mistake: I had been looking at Hubbard's reasoning with my own reasoning.... to complete that I would have to work my way through 1000 pages at least, each of which made me feel dirty. And the 'answer', the entry for my analysis was already clear: the feelings that Hubbard's writing gave me. I was right in sensing he was into writing science fiction. The impression of being dirty was just another form of that direct Knowledge.
But how to make it a bit more usable, acceptable, for publication? After all, the knowledge-by-reasoning is the Socially Accepted Knowledge, while my so called True Knowledge is often regarded as fallible guessing.
“To judge a book, look at the table of contents” … in time I remembered the words of my geography teacher. Apart from an academical degree in biology I have also been trained as a librarian... so I knew of more sophisticated ways that might replace the table of contents. A little web surfing made my boat strand at 'TagCrowd' where one can upload texts as large as Hubbard's entire Dianetics and have it analysed in seconds. An intricating site that kept me playing with texts and analyses for quite a while. But I had what I was looking for: an an overview of the main terms in Dianetics. Hubbard's vocabulary, an insight into subjects close to his heart.
This is a word cloud of the 100 most frequently used words in “Dianetics”.
Where is love or any other word that expresses affection? They aren't there. Ron Hubbard only dedicates one chapter to love, not enough to be noticed by a Text Analyser.
Hubbard can write really stunning about love and forgiveness in a short article on the Scientology site [“What is Greatness”] But why is it of such minor importance in one of his most important books? The book that is considered to be the basics of Scientology.
The book mentions the word love 60 times, all in all. There is the 5 page chapter entitled Love. It deals only with the relationship between a man and a woman and seems to mock it to pieces. No wonder, Hubbard doesn't really separate the lust part from the love part, [to keep it simple]. What he describes is either extremely annoying or laughable.
Outside this chapter he mentions love too. Sometimes as enjoying, but mostly he writes about the love of an adult for the child (s)he raises. And don't you dare to show love when a child is sick, sad or at it's wits end... you condition the child to become a person who enters these negative states in order to receive love.
For Man, humanity, Hubbard seems to replace the word love often with pleasure or happiness. But they cover only part of love. If overvalued they are bound to result in egotism.
This cloud stuff may function well as a warning system, but it is not much deeper than judging a book by it's cover. Scientology being the book, Dianetics and other scriptures of Ron Hubbard being it's cover.
Cover as in covering up.... a system that, according to many reports, does work as most sects do [see my Forgiveness post] no matter how hard Scientology claims to be a religion and publishes judicial decisions on their behalf.
The only one who can have any real feelings about Scientology is the one who is involved in it, while having her or his ears open for the own inner voice. A free thinker.
Is that allowed in Scientology? It threatens the system, it must be 'entheta' and therefore forbidden. Be it fact or fiction.