Home

By LRH

The hardest task one can have is to continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not.

And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.

For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope.

For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair. And these are not the things of which greatness, or sanity or happiness are made.

A primary trap is to succumb to invitations to hate.

There are those who appoint one their executioners. Sometimes for the sake of safety of others it is necessary to act. But it is not necessary to also hate them.

To do one’s task without becoming furious at others who seek to prevent one is a mark of greatness-and sanity. And only then can one be happy.

Seeking to achieve any single desirable quality in life is a noble thing. The one most difficult, and most necessary, to achieve is to love one’s fellows despite all invitations to do otherwise.

If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. “Forgiveness” accepts the badness of the act. There is no reason to accept it. Further one has to label the act as bad to forgive it. “Forgiveness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious.

True greatness merely refuses to change in the face of bad actions against one-and a truly great person loves his fellows because he understands them.

After all, they are all in the same trap. Some are oblivious of it, some have gone mad because of it, some act like those who betrayed them. But all, all are in the same trap-the generals, the street sweepers, the presidents, the insane. They act the way they do because they are all subject to the same cruel pressures of this universe.

Some of us are subject to those pressures and still go on doing our jobs. Others have long since succumbed and rave and torture and strut like the demented souls they are.

To rescue some of them is a dangerous undertaking. Were you to approach many ruling heads in the world and offered to set them free (as only a Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry up their private police and generally cause unpleasantness. Indeed, one did-he was later assassinated by no desire of ours but because of the incompetence of his own fellows about him. He could have used Scientology. Instead, he promptly tried to shoot it down by ordering raids and various berserk actions on Scientology organizations. That he was then shot had nothing to do with us but only demonstrated how incompetent and how mortal he really was.

As we become stronger, we can be completely openhanded with our help. Until we do, we can at least understand the one fact that greatness does not stem from savage wars or being known. It stems from being true to one’s own decency, from going on helping others whatever they do or think or say and despite all savage acts against one, to persevere without changing one’s basic attitude toward man.

A fully trained Scientologist is in a far better position to understand than a partly trained one. For the Scientologist who really knows is able not only to retain confidence in himself and what he can do, but also can understand why others do what they do and why. And so knowing, does not become baffled or dismayed by small defeats. To that degree, true greatness depends on total wisdom. They act as they do because they are what they are-trapped beings, crushed beneath an intolerable burden. And if they have gone mad for it and command the devastation of whole nations in errors of explanation, still one can understand why and can understand as well the extent of their madness. Why should one change and begin to hate just because others have lost themselves and their own destinies are too cruel for them to face?

Justice, mercy, forgiveness, all are unimportant beside the ability not to change because of provocation or demands to do so.

One must act, one must preserve order and decency. But one need not hate or seek vengeance.

It is true that beings are frail and commit wrongs. Man is basically good but man can act badly.

He only acts badly when his acts done for order and the safety for others are done with hatred. Or when his disciplines are founded only upon safety for himself regardless of all others; or worse, when he acts only out of a taste for cruelty.

To preserve no order at all is an insane act. One need only look at the possessions and environment of the insane to realize this. The able keep good order.

When cruelty in the name of discipline dominates a race, that race has been taught to hate. And that race is doomed.

The real lesson is to learn to love.
He who would walk scatheless through his days must learn this.
Never use what is done to one as a basis for hatred. Never desire revenge.

It requires real strength to love man. And to love him despite all invitations to do otherwise, all provocations and all reasons why one should not.

LRH Article: What is Greatness

35 thoughts on “Real lesson to learn

  1. If only he and the church should view so-called squirrels like he does above and with this quote than the way they did after KSW:

    “I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.

    Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.

    I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don’t think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.” (from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)”

    • None of us, including LRH, is perfect. But I suspect that LRH felt about squirrels as he describes above. However, KSW and its kin were authored to get the point across of just how severe the crime of squirreling is/was. It’s not a sort of “Oh well” thing. As a squirrel, you are directly destroying the one and only way out of this mess for all those you know. Between 1956 (the date of your PAB) and 1965 (the date of KSW), there was a lot of trouble created by squirrels worldwide. And it finally became necessary to make the point with Scientologists about how bad this was. If, after studying KSW and the like, you don’t recognize the severity of the squirrel’s crime, then you need to augment your ability to confront evil.

      In KSW et al, Ron never encouraged anyone to hate squirrels. But he did put the phenomenon of squirreling in its proper perspective for Scientologists. If, after studying KSW, you now hate squirrels and desire revenge upon them, that’s your issue. It’s not LRH’s fault in any way.

      It’s also worth noting that squirreling is one of the chief methods Miscavige has used to destroy Scientology and the Church. His actions could be call “reprehensible” at best. We are all in this situation with regard to Scientology and the Church precisely because (in part) of Miscavige’s squirreling. As I’ve said before, and others have agreed, the road to the downfall of the Church etc. was paved by our lack of attention to KSW. Miscavige could have been stopped but wasn’t, because we (particularly those in closer proximity to Ron) failed to enforce KSW. So it’s no light thing.

      With criminals who can’t seem to take a breath without harming their fellow man, we segregate them away from the rest of us, so they can do no further harm and so we can get on with our lives. And so it also should be with squirrels. They should be shunned and excluded universally. Should you also choose to hate them, that’s on you, not Ron. And if the Church, as a group, acted with hatred and revenge in mind against squirrels, again that’s on them, each as individuals. Ron never condoned that viewpoint. Yet another failing of the Church, even before Miscavige arrived on the scene.

      Again, KSW was not written to engender hate and revenge upon squirrels, but to emphasize the proper perspective on squirrels and squirreling. Other than direct genocide, it’s hard to imagine a more severe crime against one’s fellows.

      Paul

      • It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions Standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the org.

        The real org action is to put it out that IN AN ORG WE USE AND TEACH HIGH GRADE STANDARD TECH IN DN AND SCN.

        HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 MAY 1975

        SUPERIOR SERVICE IMAGE

        As I’ve written many times before holding Miscavige responsible and blaming him for the condition the Org is in only assigns the rodent more power than he deserves. See following definition of blame:

        1 . it’s simply punishing other bodies. (5904C08) 2 . when one individual assigns cause to another entity, he delivers power to that entity. This assignment may be called blame, the arbitrary election of cause. (DAB, Vol. II, p. 233) 3 . blame e is the negation of your responsibility. You can blame self, that’s the last stage, or you can blame somebody else. That’s an effort not to be responsible. (5112CM28B)

        We to some degree are responsible for the condition that the Organization is currently in.

        Regarding squirrels. All we need is a Centralized Organization that applies Standard Tech.

        Thus I suggest supporting the First Independent Church of Scientology:

        http://religiouslibertyleague.org/ficofs-grade-chart-etc/

        Also KSW does not supplant or replace what Ron originally said about Auditors in the PAB Open Channel as he basically reiterated what he said in the later PL on Auditors.

        • Robin:

          Great reference (your first, above).

          It should also be born in mind that a poorly performing field auditor is not necessarily the same as a squirrel. I leave working out the difference as an exercise for the reader.

          Paul

          • Instead of putting a lot of think there. One should look at the definition of a Squirrel as given in the Admin Dictionary:

            SQUIRREL, n. what makes a squirrel? It is the person on the other side of the squirrel. It is a person invalidating him invalidating his goals, invalidating his interest, and ki- cking the props out from underneath him by covert hostility or overt hostility, but in any way, kicking him apart. He’s interested, he’s working, but part of another universe. But practically on the same time continuum is an invalidative mechanism about this man not
            Scn. It isn’t kicking Scn around, it’s kicking around somebody’s stable data and it’s crea- ting continuous confusions for him. So he splits off not knowing quite where he stands. Is he in this universe called Scn or is he or she in this universe called husband or wife or something? So here we have this invali- dative person who is against it on the other side or our guy and we sometimes can’t reach this other person. (5511CO3) -v. 1. means go off line. (HCO PL 3 Dec 68) 2. (going off into weird practices or altering Scn) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-com- prehension is not of Scn but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65) -adj. by squirrel is meant off-beat technology. (HCO PL 6 Feb 66)

            And also the Tech Dictionary:

            SQUIRREL, 1. a squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn’t understand any of the principles so he makes up a bunch of them to fulfill his ignorance and voices them off on a pc and gets no place. (SH Spec 77, 6111C08) 2 . those who engage in actions altering Scn, and offbeat practices. (ISE, p. 40)— v. to change and invent processes. (HCOB 23 May 69)
            SQUIRRELLING, 1. it means altering Scn and offbeat practices. It is a bad thing. (HCO PL 14 Feb 65) 2. squirrelling is not really different processes—it is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure. (HCOB 15 Jan 70 II)

            Also Ron makes a distinction between types of squirrels in the following LRHED:

            L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE

            ED 149 INT

            2 December 1966

            Applies to HCO Exec Sees
            Intelligence Appointees
            Guardian
            Asst Guardians

                 CONFIDENTIAL
            
               BRANCH 5 PROJECT 
            
               PROJECT SQUIRREL
            

            The Guardian’s Intelligence Officer for the Western
            U.S. should make further appointments to execute “Project
            Squirrel”

            The project consists of the following:

            (a) Listing all SPs engaged in Squirrel actions or
            anti-Scientology actions.

            (b) Get each one investigated (proper evidences and
            witnesses, not rumour).

            (c) File a complete file on the person with evidences,
            affidavits, etc.

            (d) Take appropriate actions to bring any crimes to police
            attention.

            (e) Bring any suit necessary to cause their activities to cease.

            It will be found uniformly (despite first view there
            is no evidence of it) that anti-Scientologists have in
            their background this life crimes for which they could be
            arrested.
            When one finds such a crime one must get documents or
            witnesses and evidences sufficient for prosecution.
            The evidences should be turned over to the police.
            When the person is arrested, one then sues the person
            for anti-Scientology libels and slanders
            If we do the above as our pattern, we will successfully
            bring the following facts into public consciousness:

            (a) People who attack Scientology are criminals.

            (b) That if one attacks Scientology he gets investigated for crimes.

            (c) If one does not attack Scientology, despite not being
            with it, one is safe.

            L. RON HUBBARD
            Founder

      • I agree with you in principle and thank you for your insight, Paul. I’d also say that’s why “Smash Squirrels!” and “Squirrel Busters” per Miscavige fails or backfires.

        Would you not argue though that LRH had hate for psychiatry? I’m playing devil’s advocate but also looking to clear up any misconceptions I have as well. Enjoying the discussion.

        • Ian:

          I don’t think LRH “hated” psychiatry. But from his writings and research, I think it became more and more obvious to him that today’s psychs represented the tail end of a class of being who had been suppressing mankind for millions or billions of years. And again, I think he felt the need to emphasize the role they had played down through the ages.

          But like I said, no one is perfect, not even LRH. A moral or ethical code may be breached from time to time by any of us, including LRH. Perhaps he did briefly harbor “hatred” for the psychs, considering that a majority of the problems of this universe can be traced back to them. But LRH was a pretty big being, and I suspect that if he did harbor hatred, he soon got over it. Hate is a pretty low toned emotion, after all.

          Paul

          • Contrary to public perception generated by the Anti Scientology Cult as Marty correctly calls them Ron didn’t hate Psychiatrists. He simply pointed out their crimes against Scientology and Humanity in general.

            To reduce it to a personal attack is to miss the point entirely.

            Also Ron didn’t “hate” all Psychiatrists. He in fact supported and aligned the Organization with Dr. Thomas Szasz who was one of the founders of the Anti Psychiatry Movement and later CCHR.

            In fact many of Ron’s directives relating to CCHR were directed toward making Szasz and other leaders in the Anti Psychiatry Movement like Breggin opinion leaders.

            A focus which was changed when CCHR went after Eli Lilly instead in order to short their stock and pad the pockets of the Feshbachs.

            • Valid points! I wasn’t aware of the motives for Eli Lilly attacks – thought it might be more noble (perhaps at the ground troop level but not the higher ups)

                • In 1994 when the Eli Lilly ads were placed in the NY Times by the C of S, how were you, RV,”in the know” on these treacherous goings-on?

                  Were you working for CCHR at that time? For OSA? For middle management? For the Feshbachs?

                  Your statement of “A focus which was changed when CCHR went after Eli Lily instead in order to short their stock and pad the pockets of the Feshbachs” is based on what hard evidence?

                  Or are we back to conspiracy theories and conjecture that paints CCHR staff as terrible horrible people who were only lining the pockets of fat cats?

                  • I was at CCHR Int at the time auditing staff and I know that most of staff objected to the shift of focus from patient rights to Eli Lilly.

                    Also I was familiar with the directives that Ron had issued on CCHR.

                    I also had reliably souced Intel on the fact that Mat Feshbach owned stock in Lilly and a few other drug companies that he was planning to take down for a profit by shorting their stock.

                    Not theory but fact. BTW conspiracies do exist Lana like the one Ron called “Smersh” as in Notes on Smersh or do you accept the pablum promoted by the MSM which is controlled by CIA that such things don’t exist?

                    Another thing is you are erecting a straw man if you are saying that I said that the staff at CCHR were “horrible rotten” people which I never said at all.

                    Just like many staff at the Church they may be miss guided but they certainly aren’t evil.

                    So quite using logical fallacies.

            • Always enjoy your input and references RV, could you enligten me as to where the information came from regarding CCHR going after Eli Lilly so as to shorten the stocks for the Feshbacks?

              • Some PR Flack from OSA. She was telling us what Feshbach’s plan was without stating the obvious which was Mat would make a lot of money on the project with CCHR’s back up.

                We didn’t always do what OSA wanted. For example their was a big effort to get Clinton on our side while in the meantime our CCHR lobbyist was working diligently to cobble a coalition together to kill his wife’s secret Health Care plan.

                On that action we were totally successful. We were also scored a success in taking down National Medical Enterprises who had a bunch of Psychiatric hell holes they called “drug rehab facilities”.

                As far as the fight against Prozac went. From what I know Mat took a bath because the big law suit that was supposed to bankrupt the company fizzled out when the company settled out of court with the plaintiffs and were able to issue a gag order as part of the settlement.

                Though he probably made his money back when he shorted UA and AA stock back in ’01.

          • Thanks Paul. I agree with you just wanted more thoughts. This helps me to understand it better and debunk various arguments I’ve heard but haven’t formulated as well as others have.

        • Actually the “Squirrel Buster” Project was never conceived by Miscavige but initiated by RTC back in the early ’80’s when Dear Dave was running the Special Project which later became Mission All Clear from ASI.

          Actually it was quite successful at the time.

          Ron talks a bit about why the Project was started in RJ 38.

          As I said if one assigns everything to Miscavige. All one does is assign the little rodent a position of “cause” that he does not deserve.

          • Unfortunately RJ 38 has been debunked as false via voice analysis. Also the mannerisms of the speaker and the intro with Thus Spoke Zarathustra are markedly different.

            What’s wrong with assigning cause? We’re not 100% responsible for everything – just our part. But others have responsibility as well.

  2. A great reference. Ron not only describes the optimum attitude towards your fellow man, but tells you how to achieve it, if you have difficulty: understand why he does what he does, which is only possible with Scientology.

    Paul

    • That’s right, Paul: only possible with Scientology.

      And just to be clear, the Church of Scientology is no such thing: they have twisted the subject out of all recognition. They don’t do ‘Greatness,’ they do roboticism and literalness.

      • Come on Poet what has the Church of Scientology have to do with the actual practice of Scientology?

        🙂

        The only reason they get away with this scam is because religion or philosophy is so hard to define unless one understands it basic tenets which exist in the abstract or are subjective.

        Whereas if they were selling a tangible product such as the example Ron uses of “Green Meadow Butter” they’d have been sued into bankruptcy by now.

        That and fact that the IRS gave them a boost by making all “donations” FKA fees for services tax deductible meaning that a person claiming a tax deduction should have no expectation of “tangible benefits” or in other words results.

    • I totally agree Poet.

      I look forward to Lana and Jim posting more source refs. I find it refreshing. Better than the interpretations posted on another blog. Name not mentioned.

      • Yes, very refreshing, RV.

        Even after all these years, since 1968, I still enjoy studying Scientology. Ron had a way of cutting to the quick; but because aberration is such a slippery customer, he offered many different angles for viewing and solving problems. For instance, he describes the dynamics often yet almost never uses the exact, same words. Or the different approaches he takes in explaining the ARC triangle, for example, how each point relates to the Tone Scale – a fabulous study just on its own.

        I don’t believe everything can be handled simply through auditing.

        He says in HCOPL 18Sep1967 COMPLEXITY AND CONFRONTING: “A large number of people de-aberrate just by the education contained in Scientology…” (https://goo.gl/Bshrti)

        This PL is an absolute revelation, and can be equally applied to squirrels, such as the CoS, and mischievous bloggers, whom I don’t read – what’s the point? As we like to say: “Look not to interpretations.” LOL!

        • Piet13cL “I don’t believe everything can be handled simply through auditing. He says in HCOPL 18Sep1967 COMPLEXITY AND CONFRONTING: ‘A large number of people de-aberrate just by the education contained in Scientology…’ (https://goo.gl/Bshrti)”

          Good reference. I had forgotten about that datum.

          LRH also said that 50%(!) of the gains come from training.

          • Thanks for the link, RV. Interesting read.

            I agree that voice analysis is imperfect but that is not the same as totally unreliable. My comment was not just on the voice but also the way the recording is different i.e. Thus Spake Zarathustra at the introduction and a number of terms & phrases used.

            Moreover the article makes more claims about legal issues more than it does for science. DNA evidence is not perfect either but people forget that as well. In short, no one thing is perfect but a number of factors can help determine authenticity.

            Regardless of who did the smash squirrels campaign, it was a dumb move by the church. If something is more successful they should figure out what and why, and if less then it will enervate itself. They already have an ample legal team to go after copyright and trademark violations if they’re copying and reprinting.

            Funny you mention polygraphs because in that case while the e-meter is no polygraph machine, it does bear a number of remarkable similarities. Do you believe that auditing via e-meter is less valid due to your logic on polygraphs & e-meters?

            (Not attacking you, I am asking a legit question).

            • The emeter is not the same as a Polygraph and is only used for spiritual counseling. Also a read on a question does not necessarily mean it is valid (see HCOB Arbitraries) whereas a spike on a Polygraph is assumed to be “valid” when it just could be a reaction to being asked the question.

              In other words what is called a false or protest read.

              Also a Polygraph consists of a Galvanometer, a Cardiograph and a device used to measure respiration. Can you imagine hooking up a PC to one of these things?

              Also the way a Polygraph is set up. There is no way of knowing if when the operator asks the question whether the response was prior, latent or instant.

            • By the way. DNA testing is far more accurate than voice printing and Ron saying “thus spake Zarathustra” differently is not confirmation of any kind.

              Like I said listen to RJ 38 and listen and compare it to RJ 28 or some other lecture picked at random then judge for yourself.

              BTW there are other factors that affect a recording like the quality of the recording equipment used.

              Another thing was that the original Squirrel Buster program achieved its objective which was to shut down Mayo’s AAC and salvage many cases that were subjected to squirrel “auditing” which in many cases was horrendous from a technical viewpoint.

  3. Nice to see the Spirit, spunk and occasional spitting has returned to MS2 in full bloom. It’s great to see and hear you all jumping back into some interesting subjects.

    As for “blaming” DM – well come on now, won’t you give a Thetan a break on this one for at least another week. Then I’ll get fully responsible and tread the straight-and-narrow, I promise.

    R

  4. Forgiveness carries with the illusion of an overt (transgression). No such thing exists except in the solidified illusion of MEST.

    The secret to having successful postulates is the realisation that nothing has ever be done wrong, by anybody, ever.

    All of existence is a game designed by us. The not-knowingness, the randomity and the perceived suspense, mystery and excitement that one encounters throughout the adventure are all part of the game conditions of non-arrival that enables interest and effects to be enjoyed.

    When one realises that there is none has done wrong, and that there is no wrong. the illusion of overts and transgressions will cease.

    One realises that all are basically good, and this very realisation is your exteriorisation, your freedom 🙂

What is your view?

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s