What’s Wrong With The Independent Field, Part 3: Decompression
People leaving the Church of Scientology, particularly those leaving from management, typically go through a period those in the field call “decompression”. They’re leaving a suppressive environment, and are experiencing the relief of no more censorship or continuous repression on their comm lines. This is understandable.
My wife and I have been in contact with a person who has recently left the Church, and is going through such a period. When she left, she was in the middle of OT VII. Of course, as with many who have left, important friends and family disconnected with her and her husband on her way out. There is nothing which can be done about this until those disconnecting rise in the awareness levels to “need of change” and “demand for improvement”. So our primary concern with regard to this person is to reassure her that she does have friends, and that she completes her Bridge.
Recently when communicating the above to this person, her reply was that she might complete her Bridge if she felt the need, but that right now she was enjoying her new found freedom to explore other philosophies and religions.
My wife and I have heard a similar refrain from others in the Independent Field. And to some extent I can understand it. But it puzzles me. What would you hope to find down such roads?
I’ve been in Scientology since the mid-70s (and the early 50s last lifetime, for what it’s worth). Prior to entering Scientology this lifetime, I did a fairly extensive survey of other religions and philosophies. I spent most of my youth engaged in the search for truth and the answers to the questions of life. And I can say, with no equivocation, there is very little of value down that road. In fact, once I got into Scientology, I realized that the path of other religions and philosophies contains just enough truth to invite interest, and enough falsehoods to wrap you around a pole if you’re not careful. I’m reminded of Safeguarding Technology:
Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.
In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. …
It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. …
People have following the route mixed up with the “right to have their own ideas.” Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions– so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. …
So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route.
Of course, the context of Safeguarding Technology is in terms of being strict in the application of Standard Technology in auditing. Nothing in it prohibits anyone from reading, studying or adhering to any other religion. My point in quoting it is that, if you’re looking for a system to dig yourself and your fellows out of the mess of this universe, you need look no further than in Scientology. The answers you seek are here somewhere. And probably nowhere else.
I had a friend in my youth who shared my enthusiasm for “The Search”. We shared many a book looking for answers. At some point my friend “tried” Scientology and ultimately found it not to his taste. (Bear in mind that his family was heavily antagonistic to Scientology.) I ultimately realized that my friend was far more interested in the search for answers than he was in the answers themselves. I don’t think he really wanted the answers. The game was to continue to ask the questions. At one point he asked me why I continued to adhere to Scientology. I explained that I had found the answers to my questions. He still didn’t understand. And probably still doesn’t to this day. He ended up seeing a psychologist regularly.
If people want to read Santayana or Kant or Jung, I would never forbid them from doing so. Whatever floats your boat. I just find it puzzling when you’ve got thousands of answers in the lectures and writings of LRH.
Personally, I’d opt for some Asimov or Heinlein.