Many would argue that what has happened with Corporate Scientology in the last 30 years, was the failure of Scientologists to grasp the meaning of life, as it were. The reasons for this are most probably in the failure to understand Scientology a) as a religion, and b) as a science.
It is a science with axioms, data, and methodologies by which an individual may raise their awareness and increase their potential to find truth, or the Creator, or Cause, or God – and establish true meaning in his life as an eternal, spiritual, being.
Scientology is at once a science, and it is at once the most pure religion ever in that it does not interpose itself at all between the individual and his beliefs in God, and in his own self. Scientology establishes a pathway along which, by travelling it, of his own volition, the individual may find his own values and beliefs.
It is not hard to have a sense of the Mystical Oneness and the integration of all. LRH’s great genius was in differentiation, of identifying the parts, labelling them, and reassembling them into tangible coherence. He opened Pandora’s Box, inspected all the plagues, evils, horrors, treacheries, and foibles of Man, then reassembled all the parts into a huge puzzle, rightly named it a church, and left it behind for us to figure out. He even figured out a way to charge money for it.
Scientology as a science has no ethics. It is completely inert, as regards ethics. It prescribes exactly nothing. It does not even attempt to define “the good,” or to draw distinctions between beauty and ugliness. Hubbard did an exact and masterful job in specifying precisely the parameters of the science as a science. There is no ethical leadership in the science at all.
Scientology as a religion does not moralize, and does not “ethicize.” It does not prescribe worship, nor call upon belief. But it does contain an extremely robust methodology by which an individual may develop his own morals, and beyond that, his own ethics.
Ethics is a category higher than morals, as morals are merely agreed upon and vary widely across cultures, while ethics take a deeper and more permanent form.
Ethics bridges directly into religion if ever there was one, and is the direct accord of the individual with God, and consequently with himself. In opening that door of potential for the individual, Scientology is the purest religion ever to walk. Indeed, it is immaculate.
So … one has a science by definition utterly vacant of any ethics, and a religion which studiously prescribes no ethics.
But people want to be led!
Man wants a direction given, wants the company and comfort of agreement!
All but the First and Eighth Dynamics scream agreement! Leadership, control! There is something about life that compels others. Within the context of Scientology, which seeks to help the individual establish his own self-determinism, the wish to be led, to be given direction, to be given orders, and to have the comforts of agreements, is counter-purpose to Scientology!
Hubbard was no dummy, and capitalized on this counter-purpose wish to have a ring in one’s nose and be a member of “The Club.” (Some may insert “The Sea Org” there.) He wished to accomplish the goal of making Scientology as widely available as possible to individuals, and so prescribed “the growth of the organization.” This was one very, very smart cookie, Hubbard, and he was possessed of a truly remarkable sense of humor.
People have mistaken this “growth of the organization” for their own personal definition of “the good.” The catch phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics” became the “ethics” of the organization.
But the phrase “the greatest good” begs the question. It comes from Jeremy Bentham, a convenient English philosopher of whom you may not have heard great mention. That phrase “the greatest good” does not define “the good.” The phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics” does not define “the good” as anything other than “more people aware of Scientology and the growth of the organization.” Those are the “ethics” of the organization, but not the ethics of any individual.
In fact no organization has ethics.
This is a difficult point to get across.
The Nazi “war machine” was a beautiful organization. They damn near beat the Allies. But the Allies mounted a dedicated war effort and constructed a more formidable organization of their own. The differences between the two organizations may be studied in the abstract, but the differences between who won, and who lost, can only be resolved in the ethics of the individual soldiers, and in those of the men and women who supported them. In stark terms, it is that “only the individual exists” to either populate an organization, or a science, or a religion, or a society; and only an individual is capable of this quality we call “ethics”.
To accept that, one must see through the desire to be led, and the palliative comfort of agreements. Without an individual, first, there can be no agreement of any kind, and it is the individual’s own ethics which determine what he will and will not agree to.