Scientology as a multi-level game


Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientology can be viewed as a multi-level game.

It has been viewed as a multi-layered onion. And it's a good parallel.
The Scientological Onion article is available here:
- Highly recommend it to those who haven't read, or even read before but didn't think much of it.

I hope to be able to give you a picture of what I mean by multi-level game.

Here are some points that need to be taken into consideration if we are to view it as a game:

1. The Scientology game has several levels. Having finished 1 level, one moves onto the next one (or maybe even jumps thru several levels, as a bonus or by using "cheats" - so they are called in online games)

2. There are some (minority compared to the Earth's population) who play the Scientology game.

3. Individual player as well as groups of players can park at a certain level, or try to move onto the next one.
(this point is important to keep in mind)

4. Once got into the game (especially, having successfully gone thru several first levels) it's really hard to stop playing this game.

5. "At the bottom", "below" players is the general population who doesn't play the game.
- Actually they are NOT at the bottom or below... They are all around. They are majority. They are those who don't care to play, and just watch players with indifference or amusement. (Or, as Anonymous, try to indicate to players that it's a bad game and there are better games to be played).

- So, that's general conception of what I meant.

Later posts will be about specific levels of this role playing game (as our ChuckNorris likes to call it)
Last edited:


Gold Meritorious Patron
Excuse me, if I don't say "mindf**ked" and "brainwashed" in this thread - for the sake of the pespective I'm trying to relay.

If you view Scientology as a multi-level game, you can see all kinds of levels here:

1. Front groups (WISE, ABLE,...) publics,
2. Front groups staff,
3. Missions public,
4. Missions staff,
5. Class V Orgs public,
6. Class V Orgs staff,
7. Service SO Orgs (AO, Flag, Freewinds) publics,
8. Service SO Orgs staff,
9. Management SO Orgs (OTL, CLO, ILO) publics,
10. Management SO Orgs staff
11. Int Management SO Orgs (CMO I, WDC, RTC...) publics (Celebs, OLs,...)
12. Int Management SO Orgs staff.
Then we have various splinter ("squirrel") groups from the official Co$:
13. Ron's Orgs
14. FreeZone
15. Independent Scientologists

So, all those above can be viewed as different levels of the game called Scientology.

And then, we have some more levels which I won't call just yet.
Last edited:


Gold Meritorious Patron
Each level comes along with a certain package of Beliefs for that level.

And one who moved onto the the level has to accept the package for that level to stay there.

For example, "the most advanced" group of players named "Independent Scientologists", have in their package that "it's all David Miscavige's fault, and Hubbard, while had his faults, it didn't reflect on truthfullness and sacredness of his matirials" (i.e. "DM bad, LRH good"). - It includes "goodness" of KSW and extensive list of Crimes and High Crimes, Ethics and Justice doctrines and lots of other goodies.

To compare beliefs of Indies to others:

1. AFAIK, not all Freezoners or Ron Orgers look up to Hubbard's Ethics and Justice, KSW, etc.

2. Up to Level 3 in above post people might not even know who David Discavige is.
To make long story short, here is my view.
It ties in with my other three recent threads here:
Hubbard, understood:

Do people want the Truth:


Re: Level 16.
Some are ex-scientologists that still have the Belief package that they know the Truth. And they go to Marty's blog and tell him and them: "The Truth is...." (about Hubbard).
We can consider them of the game. - They are still players in the game.
Here is a thread from where I came to this conclusion:
Banned from MartyLand:

And there are also some ex-scientoogists around level 16 with view "The Truth is that some parts of the Tech were good but corrupted by Hubbard" (such as those into Idenics, Knowledgism, Metapsychology, Paul's rabbit, etc). They say that Hubbard either plagiarized those parts of the Tech from others, or corrupted it .
- Those are also in the game.

IMHO, the totality of all those levels comprises the game of Scientology.

And it's interesting to view it from outside, i.e. not being a player.

In fact, I don't consider who at what level holds more Truth. - To me, they are all believers.

But! It's just my view. You are welcome to disagree.

"Life is a game.
A game consist of freedom, barriers and purposes.
Fundamentals of thought.."

"....Transcript of lecture given in Switzerland

Thank you very much!
Life is basically a game. LRH said that many years ago. And it is just in the last few years, as we progress through the Bridge, the upper levels of the Bridge, we realise more exactly what he’s talking about.

So, this is.. we’re going to this ......."


Gold Meritorious Patron
Life has great many games - for everyone's choice and taste.
Last edited:


Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh! Scientology! :melodramatic:
It's been so controversial.

There is no other church/cult as controversial as Scientology that I know of. (Am I mistaken?)

I've been deeply involved into Scientology (Level 10).
For the last 1.5 years I've been intensively reading, listening, watching all of that controversy going on. - And participating in that as well.

Now I don't know.

I observed and tried to understand. - But it's impossible. Every side seems to be pushing their own agenda. - And amount of disagrements is collosal.

Seems, one just can't reconcile sides. - They are many, and every side has a group that supports it.

It's as a multi-level game where everyone wants to win: CoS vs. Indies vs. FreeZone vs. Ron's Orgs vs. Facts vs. ex-Scientologists vs. Scientologists who had wins and liked it/some of it vs....

I think this controversy will keep going on until sides come to some sort of agreement.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Every side (and it's followers) seem like they own "THE Truth" while it's just what they believe in.

A new Scientologist says, "I had a win. I can talk to people better".

Ex-Scientologit tells him, "It's BS. You've been brainwashed into believing into that! Here's the link...".

It's a game. Both are players.

Both know that there are at least TWO definitions of "reality". - But everyone pushes his own definition.



Gold Meritorious Patron
Now you tell me this:
if some old-timers who played in the game for very long on levels 11 and 12, now come together and start playing at level 15, who are you to tell them "the Truth"?
(Who am I, either?)

Do you know the Truth? - Good. Know it. Don't shove it down other people's throat. (Well, one can keep shoving it but he may get banned (see "Banned from MartyLand" thread)).

To tell others "The truth" is a game of sorts, isn't it?


Gold Meritorious Patron
Reality, Knowledge, Secrets, Mysteries, Truth - such offer a game of sorts (and games of all sorts).

Scientology is a very controversial multi-level game around those.


Gold Meritorious Patron
If we were to build a house, we could also have lots of "interesting" games around building it.

- IF we operated in some vague field such as human's agreements (Reality, Knowledge, Secrets, Mysteries, Truth), and not in a field of solid and proven architectural concepts of how to build a house.

- Hope you understand.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Anyways! - I'm just a simple little human being who has his own little truth.

MY truth is that Scientology is a multi-level game.

With this thread I'm done speaking about what Scientology is or what Hubbard was.


Patron with Honors
Both know that there are at least TWO definitions of "reality". - But everyone pushes his own definition.


There may be multiple definitions of reality, but there is only one reality. We may differ in our perceptions of what is real, but that doesn't mean there are multiple versions of reality.

Also, wikipedia sucks. Definition #4 that defines reality subjectively was written by an idiot.


Gold Meritorious Patron
There may be multiple definitions of reality, but there is only one reality. We may differ in our perceptions of what is real, but that doesn't mean there are multiple versions of reality.

Also, wikipedia sucks. Definition #4 that defines reality subjectively was written by an idiot.

I'm heart-broken.


Gold Meritorious Patron
ClamSource, help me here.

I got curious.

Let's say daltonic ( sees things in backward colors, what do we need to say:
1. He doesn't see a reality.
2. He sees a reality unlike we.
3. His reality is different from the one we have.

Which one is good? (for all of us?)

P.S. What is he runs a red light? - Should we forgive him or what?


Gold Meritorious Patron
If I feel hungry or tired, is it real or what?

I might not look tired or hungry, but - will you think that my hunger and tiredness are not real?

What is "reality" then in such cases?


Let's take Maslow's hierarchy of Needs:

Are those needs real?

Are they a reality?