Buddhism vs. Scientology.

Veda

Sponsor
Hubbard BEFORE OT3

From the Scientology lecture "The Hope of Man", L Ron Hubbard talks about Gautama Siddhartha Buddha.

[video=youtube;vzngYUP1jc4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vzngYUP1jc4[/video]


That lecture was given in 1954, around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.


However, during the 1954 Phoenix Lectures, Hubbard couldn't resist depicting himself as being responsible (by implication) for the arrival of the Vedas on Earth, and at a much earlier date than usually recognized:


"It does happen that there are a set of [Vedic] hymns which as I recall were introduced into the societies of earth in about 8212 BC."


The next year, Hubbard wrote The 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the re-incarnated Buddha. Seems as though not only did Hubbard originally bring this knowledge to Earth "in about 8212 BC," he also, as Gautama Buddha, continued to develop it and popularize it. However, such gloating and boasting was not meant for the "homo saps," as Hubbard called them, but for the "homo novis," the Scientologists, who were to regard it as special, whispered, inside information, meant only for the "elite of the elite" of Earth - namely themselves. In other words, while gratefully beholding the wonderfulness of Hubbard, Scientologists were allowed to respectfully participate in Hubbard's ego-bloat.


During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.

It was quite a productive year.


By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.

"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.

Yet, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on ("wog") religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.

Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.

An 'Advance!' magazine cover from 1974:

2ns9wte.jpg


advance0026000.jpg


I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.


521253047.0.m.jpg


L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'


As with his predecessor Crowley, Hubbard had expressed some critical views of Buddhism. The last was during the Dianetic Clear frenzy of the late 1970s/early 1980s, when some Scientologists, certain that they had "gone Clear" as disciples of the Buddha (of course, believing Hubbard to have been Buddha, thus making it OK), were rebuffed by Hubbard when he told them, in no uncertain terms, that one "does not go Clear by garbage eating," i.e. by being Buddhist monks (with begging bowls.)

The poor Scientologists. It's not easy being a Scientologist and being at the mercy of the whims of "Source."


And for those Scientologists, and ex-Scientologists, who are still trying to "word clear," by studying actual Buddhism, the name or term, Metteyya... psst... it doesn't matter. It was something Hubbard made up to impress people.


Looking beneath Hubbard's various expressions of the religious cloaking PR, prior to his activation of the "religion angle," one finds Hubbard speaking to nascent Scientologists during the 1952 Philadelphia Doctorate Course:

"Our whole activity tends to make an individual completely independent of any limitation... Old Aleister Crowley had some interesting things to say about this. He wrote 'The Book of the Law'.


m0zYveK3SD3VIz6okQN1-uA.jpg

All editions of 'The Book of the Law' are blood red,
which is, oddly, also the color of the 'Tech Volumes'.​


From Crowley's 'Magick in Theory and Practice':

"The whole and sole object of all true Magickal training is to become free from every kind of limitation."


More from the 'PDC':

"The old magical cults of the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries in the Middle East were fascinating. The only modern work that has anything to do with them is a trifle wild in spots, but a fascinating work by itself, and that's the work of Aleister Crowley... He signs himself 'the Beast', mark of the Beast 666..."

aleister_crowley2.jpg


Possibly the most honest moment, during the Philadelphia Lectures of late 1952, was at the very beginning of the first lecture, when Hubbard made an odd, non-sequitur, joke about being "the Prince of Darkness."

The audience of "thay-tans," listening attentively as they were promised God-like abilities and powers, chucked unsuspectingly.

It would be over thirty years before Hubbard's 'Affirmations' - written six years before the 1952 PDC lectures - and Hubbard's taste for "slaves," as expressed in those 'Affirmations', was revealed in a Southern California courtroom.

But that's another topic. :)
 

AnonKat

Crusader
That lecture was given in 1954, around the time of Hubbard's activation of Scientology's "religion angle," as Hubbard called it.

THANKS, I like your short essay. He probably figured if people can believe in Zombie jezus than they can believe in anything even a red haired Buddha. More and more I see it a a big magic show or the biggest sale pitch ever.
 

Loohan

Am I Mettaya?
T

advance0026000.jpg


I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.


521253047.0.m.jpg


L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'




And for those Scientologists, and ex-Scientologists, who are still trying to "word clear," by studying actual Buddhism, the name or term, Metteyya... psst... it doesn't matter. It was something Hubbard made up to impress people.

LOL! But actually, i have read about quite a few scammers pretending to the throne of Metteyya, Maitreya, whatever.
http://www.share-international.org/

I know they are fakes because I am the true one.:yes:
 

kate8024

-deleted-
LOL! But actually, i have read about quite a few scammers pretending to the throne of Metteyya, Maitreya, whatever. I know they are fakes because I am the true one.:yes:

Instead of saying "oh man that guy can't be the new buddha or jesus or whatever" I prefer to think of it as "of course he is, so am I and so are you and so is everyone else."
 

Veda

Sponsor
Instead of saying "oh man that guy can't be the new buddha or jesus or whatever" I prefer to think of it as "of course he is, so am I and so are you and so is everyone else."

:) Yes, but that's not exactly what Hubbard was conveying to Scientologists, except to the extent that they could little Buddhas to his big Buddha...

sea_org.jpg

There was no doubt about who the big Buddha was.
 

ClearedSP

Patron with Honors
What's an EP ? Is that end product ?

"End phenomena," the result obtained at the end of a process or set of processes.

Hubbard was also very consistent in denouncing some of the basic ideas of Buddhism.

PDC 6 said:
People have had the idea that there was a main body of theta and everybody became "one" when you got to the top of the tone scale. Fortunately that isn't true. But you go down tone scale and everybody becomes one. And the oneness is mest. There's no individuality whatsoever in mest.

OT III said:
Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.

For contrast, from a Buddhist's blog:
Brother Phap Niem was a gentle, soft-spoken monk who talked to us about "cultivating dharma eyes to see things as they are." He said, "We see an orange and think, ‘I know oranges.' But the thing we call orange is only an appearance."

Looking with dharma eyes, we see that the orange isn't what we think it is. It's not a separate entity. It's not solid or permanent. The orange is made of all the elements that created it -- sunshine, rain, dirt, insects that turned the dirt, farmers that fertilized and tended the tree. The orange is also made of all the elements that created these elements: the cloud that changed into rain, the farmer's mom and dad. And the orange is also all the elements it will become: worms that eat its rind, you who eat its sweet wedges.

In the great kaleidoscope of life, none of us can exist without all the others. But it gets deeper: each of us is all the others. So, really, there are no others.

Brother Phap Niem explained: "Inside of you, you can find everything. There is only one thing you do not contain -- a self." This is a Zen master's way of saying: a) you're purely made of stuff that isn't you, and b) everything that seems to be outside you is actually part of you. The fancy spiritual term is nonduality, also known as oneness.

Hubbard was dualistic in splitting spirit from MEST, but also opposed to oneness on a spiritual level. The Pasadika Suttanta, on the other hand, ends with a fairly long diatribe on how discussions of the idea of a soul have nothing to contribute to Buddhism. The self is considered temporary and illusory. In very fundamental ways, Scientology and Buddhism seem completely at odds. One wonders whether Hubbard ended up with as mixed feelings about the whole Buddha thing as he eventually developed WRT Cecil Rhodes.

Both are atheistic systems which pursue enlightenment, and Nibs stole the core of the TRs from Buddhism, but it's hard to see much more resemblance than that. They look at the universe in fundamentally different ways.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Been reading quite a bit about Buddhism for last few years. I keep finding concepts and techniques that Hubbard had to have read and appropriated. The Buddhist influences are clearly there in Scn.

Now, before anyone jumps on me (I get a LOT of value judgments here, and they rarely make any sense) about how I'm saying it's the same or I'm trying to do something or other, I really don't think the two things are identical or that Hubbard improved on Buddhism or upon any of the other things that influenced him. I think he thought he could and did improve on them- yes. But I don't think he did. There are many reasons why this improvement did not take place, IMO. (love of money and power and lack of consideration for the adherents/members beign three of them).

But he really cribbed (or attempted to) a lot more from the vedic than I'd previously thought. It's rather interesting to me.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Been reading quite a bit about Buddhism for last few years. I keep finding concepts and techniques that Hubbard had to have read and appropriated. The Buddhist influences are clearly there in Scn.

Now, before anyone jumps on me (I get a LOT of value judgments here, and they rarely make any sense) about how I'm saying it's the same or I'm trying to do something or other, I really don't think the two things are identical or that Hubbard improved on Buddhism or upon any of the other things that influenced him. I think he thought he could and did improve on them- yes. But I don't think he did. There are many reasons why this improvement did not take place, IMO. (love of money and power and lack of consideration for the adherents/members beign three of them).

But he really cribbed (or attempted to) a lot more from the vedic than I'd previously thought. It's rather interesting to me.

For your consideration

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/14/spinoza-understanding-emotions
 

ClearedSP

Patron with Honors
The Buddhist influences are clearly there in Scn.

[....snip....]

But he really cribbed (or attempted to) a lot more from the vedic than I'd previously thought. It's rather interesting to me.

Yeah, purloining the cycle of action from Shiva was kind of rude. Overall, I think he snagged enough from Hinduism to make scientology most resemble a sort of black Jainism, as if it had been stripped of all love and compassion, and the bank/BTs substituted for karma.

I'm interested in your thoughts on resemblance between Buddhism and Scientology. I've heard it almost endlessly as a generalization (even the organization told me that, to help excuse religious cloaking), but I haven't seen anyone mount a detailed argument, with quotes from sutras or whatever, to back it up. Nothing better than slanted junk in Advance, anyway. Do you have such an argument to make?
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
for karma.

I'm interested in your thoughts on resemblance between Buddhism and Scientology. I've heard it almost endlessly as a generalization (even the organization told me that, to help excuse religious cloaking), but I haven't seen anyone mount a detailed argument, with quotes from sutras or whatever, to back it up. Nothing better than slanted junk in Advance, anyway. Do you have such an argument to make?


As a long time practitionner and student of Buddhism (and Taoism)
(I have never been the best student - worst I would say - but qualified to teach basics and meditation)
I can state without any doubt that nothing I studied and experienced within the cult ressembles the Tao or Buddhism nor seem to be inspired from it.

It's possible LRH read some stuff like suttras, vedas and tried to adapt it for building the basics of his new ''religion scam'' but it doesn't have any of buddhism axioms or basics.

How can I proove it to you without any doubt ? - (and it will be of futur use for any Guru who wants to teach buddhism)- you will decide yourself if it's buddhism or not!

With the following sceals - anyone who had truly studied Buddhism had been first taught
'' how to proof a genuine buddhist teaching'' to decide of this teaching being genuine or not.

So these are the the 4 sceals of Dharma

1) All compounded things are impermanent.
2) All stained emotions are painful.
3) All phenomena are empty.
4) Nirvana is peace (end of suffering).


For more informations you can look here
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/fourseals.htm

If you look at any of LRH teaching, it is all about to reach for eternity and power - it's all about to make things permanent - (reaching for a constant raising stat is a proof - $cientology teach a falling stat comes from ''sins'' - Life is itself a constant ups and down - life is base on growing up and dying - the circle of life of the Tao! Fighting against it is not at all a path of wisdom. Wisdom is to agree on what is IS - and what is not IS NOT
so it doen't fit with sceal no1

Now , the whole bridge is made with a purpose of selfish attachement to power and self eternity while seeking the possession of truth.
Behavior of $cientologist become sooner or later extremely selfish - they give up their friends, family, children parent for being denied their bridge and their own eternity. They soon or later experience fear of loosing it and start to practice the moto they are taught
''The end justifies the means'' That ''TRUTH'' doesn't exist with the Tao or Buddhism. There is only what is in a mindfull mind and a historic truth wich is based on common agreement about facts.
It doesn't fit the sceal no2 at all

The interdependence is the same concept than the emptyness of all phenomena. The interdependance is never taught in $cientology - to the opposite, one is taught to behave in a way to secure HIS futur and doesn't give any importance to the interdependance of all sentient and living beings on this planet. The $cientologis Homo Nuovo IS the most important society on this planet and others (wog) are lower race of lesser importance. The lovingness and compassion are seen as a weakness to the opposite of buddhism where it is a strenght.
The concept of family is denied - even though it is the most important base of a society.
So sceal no 3 is not taught nor even known.

They sell a bridge that is supposed to be the truth revealed - people tends to believe they will cease to suffer going up the bridge- an may associate it with nirvana.. Ok - here I can refer you to many Oatee 8 you tube video to look if these people had reach an end of suffering ..quite the opposite..they tend to build a suffering karma with their family, friends, fellow human beings. So the truth revealed ( LRH being the antechrist or the buddha reincarnation is a joke) THey sell you new beliefs to the opposite of buddhism wich teach you to give up on your beliefs.
So .. The nirvana has not yet came in $cientology - or please tell me when or where.


Buddhism practice is mainly to cease or lower suffering while learning living in present time with mindfulness
Many school od Buddhism - like Mahayana - teach people that they should practice to free all sentient beings of any suffering as one person to attain the nirvana could never be free as this person will suffer to know other are still suffering. So the nirvana is for all sentient beings.

Does it ressemble $cientology ????

Also, the main attitude towar any being should be one of compassion - mindfull behavior is about knowing the bad taughts we have, speaking with hate or vengefully or even gossip as well of any bad behavior are the cause of our suffering. So we shall pay attention of any of these poisons of the mind and spech and practice in a way to improove it with mindfull attention to it.

Does it ressemble Scientology ???? I guess it's more the opposite - eith the SP doctrine, fair game, KR, ethics...

There is so much to compare - but truly - I never read or experienced anything where I could find the 4 sceals.
So to me, anybody, a buddhist practitionner or not, who finds scientology has buddhist or Tao basics - can't be a true practitionner or doesn't know , mindfully, what $cientology is about, or didn't truly study buddhism as he or she can't recognize genuine buddhism teaching from false or fake.

This is not a question of opinion to me - it's a question of the 4 dharma sceals proofing - like when you learn physics there is basics to be taught, these basics not there - it his not true physics :confused2:

( I apologize for my english wich is not very good - hope Iit can be clear)
 
Last edited:

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Yeah, purloining the cycle of action from Shiva was kind of rude. Overall, I think he snagged enough from Hinduism to make scientology most resemble a sort of black Jainism, as if it had been stripped of all love and compassion, and the bank/BTs substituted for karma.

I'm interested in your thoughts on resemblance between Buddhism and Scientology. I've heard it almost endlessly as a generalization (even the organization told me that, to help excuse religious cloaking), but I haven't seen anyone mount a detailed argument, with quotes from sutras or whatever, to back it up. Nothing better than slanted junk in Advance, anyway. Do you have such an argument to make?

Well, I'm no expert (well, not on Buddhism- yet) but here's what seems to happen when I read about or see a documentary on Buddhism. I keep seeing different things that sound a lot like Dn and Scn. For instance, earlier this week, I was watching a Religions of The World DVD; which, that particular one was about Buddhism. One of the monks on there was saying that we record our experiences and take them with us from lifetime to lifetime. Boy, that sounds a lot like Hubbardism to me. And I don't mean that the monk cribbed it from LRH, either.

I was reading something a while back where the author commented that with karma, it's more that we punish ourselves- it's not that some god punishes us. That sounded a lot like "thetans do themselves in" to me.

I was reading a book by Lama Surya Das a few years ago and he had an exercise in it that was quite like a TR. And I don't think he took that from Hubbard.

There've been other times, too. The most well known one may be one lifted from Hinduism- where Hubbard got the idea for start change stop, or in Pro TRs, it's create/destroy/etc.

I'd always heard there were influences. Scn even admits to it. But I've come to opine that the extent to which Hubbard cribbed from Buddhism (and Hinduism) is far more than I'd (and maybe others) had ever previously thought.

TRs are, of course, not meditation. But I think Hubbard was influenced by it and thought he could do it one better. There's a supervisory TR where you do TRs with the room. Wow, to me that's a lot like someone's bastardization of the practice of meditation.

So I don't agree with Lotus, though I can understand Lotus' thoughts, I think. Since Scn has a structure completely unlike any practice of Hinduism or Buddhism; since it emphasizes aliens (and not just Incident II. There are lots of taped lectures that are not "confidential" where Hubbard talks on and on about Marcabs, earlier civilizations, eetc.), since it has a rather large dollop of (Hubbard's remaking of) early psychoanalysis, has some occultism in it (Postulate theory seems to me to be something he got from that), being part and parcel of Scn, Inc or, I suppose, even the FZ, would be markedly dissimilar from practicing Buddhism. I mean, however it started when it was just a gleam in Hubbard's eye, the finished product became very different, what with all that other stuff tossed in and the cultic structure and all.

But idea wise? Virtually every time I open a book on Buddhism and read a concept, I see so many conceptual similarities.
 
Last edited:
Top