8 thoughts on “Brian Culkin On Scientology

  1. I’ve never seen Brian’s video before — thanks for posting it.

    He made a comment that Hubbard was “anti-human” and I got to thinking about whether that was actually something I noticed or not. I realized after a while that it was true, although to be more accurate, under his own philosophical system, Hubbard was anti-human but still pro-life. This was because he concluded that reliance on habitual patterns, lack of mindfulness, and a loss of ability to create paradigms without a total reliance on or restrictions from predominating human paradigms was tantamount to the degradation of life force/source/creation.

    In retrospect, I wonder if that was simply my own understanding of this, listening to Brian speak, it seems that it may well have been. What do you think Chris?

    • Good observations Maria. What do I think? That religionists in my culture are generally anti-human as a justification for their objectification of people because of shooting for something higher. This to me is objectification for the purpose of doing as they will without a conscience to bother them about the havoc they wreak in the name of higher powers.

      This is how I view Hubbard’s “pro-life” that he unnecessarily engendered a harsh look at man’s condition and remedy incepting harsh solutions such as the Sea Org as a cover for his money grubbing and power grabs from those who truly developed the useful processes of Scientology. This is a harsh look at Hubbard as I have been and am coming to grips with a distaste for his model of life and living.

      Man continues to work out and to excel his technology but with regard to himself, I think many men and women have worked out what there is to be worked out about themselves, about their personal reality of life. We have done this and been doing this since we first had 5 minutes of spare time to stare into a campfire and consider our condition.

      1 Corinthians 13:1 . . . If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

      This is the love of which Hubbard speaks, that of a resounding gong or clanging cymbal for the reality of his creation had no love.

      • Hi Vinnie – mindfulness as a concept was my interpretation. I am realizing that I read my own reality and understanding into most, if not all, of what I read in Scientology. Makes quite a difference in how one works with it too! Looking back, I see that I assumed that mindfulness (as awareness or consciousness) must surely be a component for I couldn’t see it any other way at the time! In all likelihood it would be better described as awareness or alertness or vigilance – three terms Hubbard routinely used for description. None of them have anything to do with compassion, love or even any kind of affinity that I can think of.

        • Hi Maria – I know what you mean. I did Scientology from the viewpoint of Buddhism. I looked at Axiom # 1 (the most basic starting point) as ‘neti neti’ (unknowable), and not as individuality as LRH intended. Individuality appeals to all individuals because it validates self. But when individuality is worshipped, it filters out compassion.

          LRH looked at everything through the filter of individuality. Look at how Tone 40 is regarded as the ultimate ability because it is the way to get absolute compliance to one’s individual will. One learns Tone 40 by drilling it with heavy ash tray. If you look carefully at Tone 40, it leaves no room for compassion. It is one’s individuality that must rule. I had a heavy dose of it during my 12 years in the Sea Org. Wow! You feel that are the most elite, the upper crust of the top 1%. It is quite heady.

          Compassion requires a tremendous outflow of love for all. When one is in that mode one doesn’t think of the puny little individuality. It is not possible to practice mindfulness through the filter of individuality, because one is then not able to see things as they are.

          Those who had true wins in Scientology, certainly weren’t looking through the filter of individuality. Those who were are now fighting for status in IAS. That is the idea of win for them. It is pitiful.

          Christ talked about and practiced love and compassion. Buddha was all love and compassion. One must have no reality on Christ and Buddha to swallow Scientology the way it is rigged by Hubbard. No wonder we all left it feeling disillusioned after a while.

          By the way. I like the analysis of Scientology by Brian Culkin, so much so, that I had also put it on my Blog.


          By the way, have a look at KHTK Axiom #1, recently posted on my blog. I am having some great fun. 🙂


    • Yes, that’s a really good point about justifying or positioning shooting for something “higher.” When I look back on my own ideas on the matter oh so many years ago, I see that I was thinking in terms of consciousness vs. unconsciousness. The idea being that merging into a human existence necessitated a loss or reduction of consciousness because of the narrowing of the lens or focus on existence to this infinitesimal blip on the radar screen of practically infinite galaxies. Thus a human existence could be seen to be a reduction of consciousness. Addiction to the human paradigm could be seen to be a spiritual malady and ultimately destructive just as addiction to a drug or some kind of co-dependence would be.

      Oddly, in Yoga Nidra, what is sought is that deep “unconsciousness” that is yet present during sleep when there is no consciousness via the body — because of the body dependence, and from the point of view of the bodily existence, it is nothing at all, there is no consciousness. Yet, the tibetan masters speak of the spirit passing through the bardo at death, hopelessly ensnared in illusions and delusions, so weakened by reliance on the body for perception and creation that there is no possible chance of liberation. Is the liberation then from a form of addiction? Is this not anti-human as well?

      • We can assume “higher” states, but they mean nothing if they are nothing more than assumptions. We take many things on faith. How do we know if they are not somebody’s assumptions? Didn’t Hubbard imposed his assumption of “the individuality being the ultinate reality” on us?

        This is where mindfulness strategy of ‘seeing things as they are without assuming anything’ comes in handy. It has paid dividends to me since I got a better understanding of it, and have been applying it. It has lead me to KHTK Axiom #1, that I truly feel bragging about. But I an well aware that this can also change.



  2. When I look at my attraction to Scientology many moons ago, it came from the help it provided in organizing my earlier exposure to Eastern philosophy. I very much liked the analogy to the computer in Dianetics. I also liked the way it analyzed life in its axioms, logics and factors.

    But mind you, I was looking at all that from the context of Eastern philosophy. But when I start finding contradictions in Scientology with eastern philosophy I start to feel betrayed. The passage in Scn 8-8008 on ‘Individuality versus Indentity came as a wake up call to me. That passage is quoted here:



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s