There are two basic underlying assumptions here that are potentially faulty:
A. The Co$ knew & understood the nature of the tradition which they got from LRH and was thereby in a position to make a meaningful endorsement.
B. LRH knew & understood the actual tradition on which he based his poem and his claims.
I've never seen anything to suggest that either A or B was true. The internal evidence that both A & B are false is fairly clearly. It certainly requires little in the way of fact checking now to dispute.
[n.b. Although, in fairness to Hubbard's acolytes, prior to the 1970s there were certainly far fewer english translations of original Buddhist texts in general circulation in the west. They did exist but much of what was available (though not all) was of poor quality and typically heavily biased. Many such books had been written by christian missionaries for the express purpose of training christian evangelists. Indirectly these say much more about the nature of christianity than they do about Buddhism.
There was certainly a very great need to sift "the kernel from the chaff" from such blatantly biased and fundamentally erroneous material. In this regard the western world owes China a very great debt for its brutal invasion of Tibet and subsequent persecution of Buddhist religious. As with the Turkish conquest of Istanbul, the world has gained much from such a brutal historical event. The mystery of karma in action.
]
Hubbard was very clearly correct on the issue of always seeking out "source". Where he was incorrect was positing himself as a "universal source". He certainly wasn't "source" for Buddhism. He demonstrated little understanding for its basic precepts, much less a command of the comprehensive nature of Buddhist philosophy. I doubt very much that he ever made a thorough or serious study of Buddhist traditions, philosophy, or practice. He may well have read some of the poorer materials that were generally available at the time on the subject of Buddhism.
Mark A. Baker
