Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1953, 23 March
Document title: Review of Dianetics, Scientology and Para-Dianetics/Scientology
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: London Spring Lectures
Document ID: SPRL-01
Description: Hubbard discusses his ideas about religion and talks about why there must be at least two gods; says why auditors shouldn't get emotionally involved with their preclears.
There’s two sides to survival: you live or you die– two, two, two. They run around saying-you know somebody’s liable to get the idea that I’m down on religion or something of the sort. I’m really not down on religion any more than you’re down on witch doctoring in the cannibal isles.
You know when you use this word religion and when you use this word Christianity, you’re not in communication because you don’t know what what the other fellow thinks you mean. Now, when he says religion, if I were talking to a bunch of boys in the cannibal isles and we talked about religion they’d know what we were talking about. Why, of course, in order to appease the tribal gods you have to cut off the heads of your enemies and drag them across the fields, otherwise your crops won’t grow. Everybody knows that.
And that to him would be religion.
And somebody else you’re talking to, you say, ”Ah, the principles of Christ,” and he says, “Yes, yes.” Oh yeah? What principles?
Don’t get a copy of the St. James edition a hundred years ago. It’s a different book. Don’t try to look at the New Testament under various translations. It’s a different book. You’ve got a terrifically wide difference here. People are shooting all off from the middle. Well, what’s the middle? The reason they shoot off from it, they say, “There’s just one god in this universe.” Oh no! You can’t have one god in a universe that’s based on a terminal of two unless you want to drive everybody down Tone Scale and make slaves out of them. Of course, if you want to make slaves out of everybody you’d convince them there is just one god but I’m sure nobody ever intended to do that with religion.
There’s two gods-at least two gods. And actually, when you get this minimum number of two, you’ll find a society was just about as healthy as it had gods. Well, let’s have thousands of them. Let’s really get up there and, of course, then you get into the impossible figures and you start downhill again because a society can’t work with more than a few thousand gods; you can’t keep track of them. All right. .
But we had a basic two, didn’t we? We had God and we had the Devil. And then they say, “Worship God only.” That’s real good. That’s real good.
That’ll kill you deader than a mackerel.
So, I’m not down on religion. I believe in religion, except I don’t believe in limited religion. If we’re going to have two gods let’s worship two gods, that’s all. If we’ve got to have worship of gods, let’s at least worship the minimum number allowable in this universe.
Now, let’s not fool around with this religion, tell people what they can’t do with religion and what they can do with religion. We’ve just got religion-if we’re going to have religion, then let’s be honest with it and look and see and find this to be the case: that everybody who starts worshiping one god and one god only, and shaping his pathway straight toward one god and only one god and good, and it’s good, and that’s all we can have anything to do with is good, winds up bad. Ever know any minister’s sons?
All right. Self-determinism depends upon, we have learned, eight dynamics. And we find out that we’re liable to cut down- you understand, I’m not death on religion, it’s perfectly all right. I’m not even death on slavery. If you want to go make slaves that’s all right with me. It’s just this-it’s just this: is everything that’s introduced in this universe, no matter how good or how beneficial or how much freedom people intended that to have, unless the whole answer was given out, those principles were used to enslave. Isn’t that sad?
Chap by the name of Christ could get born and raised and try to say, well, “Love your neighbor,” and “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you,”-terrifically workable philosophy, by the way. And what do you know? They hang him up on a cross and drive nails in him. Why? Because they were afraid that he would say what he was saying so loud that nobody would ab- be able to rush in suddenly and control it all and limit all of that and mix it all up and reevaluate it so they could pass collection plates down the aisles and get the nickel on the drum. This couldn’t have been, could it have?
So, right at the inception here I’m not trying to compare Dianetics and Scientology to Christianity or compare them to anything particularly. But I will say that this principle exists. If you study Dianetics and Scientology just from the angle of the good it can do for people, and if that’s all you will pay any attention to at all, you will wind up a very bad auditor. Why? Because you’ll pay attention to its good and pay attention its good and it’ll make you eschew all the evil in the universe and that will pull you right over to it as a terminal. The next thing you know, you will be sitting there saying, “Why the hell don’t I cut this preclear’s throat.” You will be sitting there alongside the couch in a high state of criticism of this preclear’s family and you will get emotionally involved with the preclear’s life. Why? Because you say, “Look at the horrible things this family did to this poor person.” Well, that’s all right, you can say that. But if you really wanted to wipe him out you’d say, “Isn’t it wonderful how nuts people can be,” or “Isn’t it wonderful how beautifully certain principles of child raising can be employed.”
So this is how you control somebody. But let’s not get emotionally involved about it. If you did, as an auditor, get emotionally involved with every preclear you had, what would happen? You’d go right on down scale, zong, in the absence of a process which would pull you right up scale again, zong!
So it’s been a dangerous liability being an auditor. And auditing itself could pull you out of this.
Hubbard, L. R. (1953, 23 March). Review of Dianetics, Scientology and Para-Dianetics/Scientology. London Spring Lectures, (SPRL-01). Lecture conducted from London.