What do you think?
Rate this book
Scientology The Fundamentals of Thought
From the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Dianetics , with over 22 million copies sold What is the "meaning of life?" So many of us spend most of our lives searching for the answer to this age-old question. Well, what if you have had the answers all along and all you ever needed were the tools to access them? In this groundbreaking book, The Fundamentals of Thought , you will embark on a remarkable journey, mastering the tools of life as you uncover the most important discovery you will ever make—the knowledge of you . Learn and immediately apply the fundamental processes and principles that define the primary architecture of how life works . Achieve a complete understanding of the mind, spirit and life . Recognize what motivates your actions and the actions of others, and unblock the barriers of the extraordinary potential you have locked inside. Life is a game—and quite simply, herein are the rules. You can be happier, more capable and play a better game, harnessing all life has to offer. Here are the answers you've been looking for. "The data here is usable and workable for everyday life. I like becoming smarter and more competent and able to understand life better. I have been applying many of these fundamentals already and it has definitely helped me to be successful in life. Besides helping myself, I am able to help my co-workers, family, etc. I highly recommend this book to others.” (J.R.)
242 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
25 people are currently reading
1014 people want to read
About the author
L. Ron Hubbard
1,927 books649 followersL. Ron Hubbard is universally acclaimed as the single most influential author and humanitarian of this modern age. His definitive works on the mind and spirit—comprising over 350 million copies in circulation and more than 40 international bestsellers—have resulted in a legacy benefiting millions and a movement spanning all cultures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
October 12, 2014
I found myself in a youth hostel last night with nothing much to do for an hour or two except to skim the selection of books on the "take a book/leave a book" shelf in one of the hostel's common areas. What better time to wander into the dark weirdness of Scientology?
So, in short: Each page has about 5-10 footnotes, consisting entirely of definitions to words you already know, like "physics" and "foundation" and "chemistry" (no joke, I remember those all from page 2). However, there are usually not definitions to the words Hubbard made up, like "havingness." I don't care that I can figure out what "havingness" means; I would like it acknowledged as a made-up word. Especially since the book's introduction is entirely about looking up words you don't understand so as to better appreciate the text. Listen, stupid dead L Ron Hubbard -- if I'm the kind of person for whom "chemistry" must be defined, what do I do when I hit "havingness," which isn't in any dictionary not written by aliens who live in volcanoes? Help a brother out, dog.
So, the rest of the book is pretty much the same as what you can learn from reading about Scientology on the googles. Basically existence is called a "game," and "auditors" are Scientologists who have magical powers to help "preclears", which are folks who, like, need Scientology in their lives to get rid of the alien ghosts in their bodies. (Except for the alien ghosts part, all that is pretty much verbatim.)
Scientology is also based on the idea that we are always in a state of either "create," "create-create-create," (and yes, create-create-create is an actual term that gets used repeatedly) or "counter-create." Since this makes no fucking sense, there is also a page-long explanation of how when you hurt your leg, you've actually "created" a bad leg, and you create-create-create the bad leg until you counter-create it, at which point it is destroyed, revealing the good leg that was still there the whole time. Or something. Seriously, the book doesn't make any more sense than that paraphrasing just did.
There's also a lot of charts for all this stuff, giving you lists of all the emotions you have at various states of your existence and crap. It's supposed to be this 'scientific' approach to psychology through 'technology,' except that there's not really any science to it -- mostly just references to the two or three random books on actual psychology that Hubbard probably skimmed before deciding he could just make everything up. It's sort of like if a D&D nerd decided that stats tables and dice rolls could be applied to actual people. "I'm sorry sir, but your Chaotic Neutral character alignment makes you unfit to be a preclear. Have a verdant cloak instead."
Anyway, I thought this book would make me depressed and mush my brain with brainwashyness, but instead it just made me sad that people have been stupid enough to fall for this crap for decades now. Which is obviously just what you can say about any religion ever, but at least the Bible is an interesting read. This is just moronic and loony, like listening to a burnt-out hippie try to explain the establishment to you.
Oh, also? An entire section on how "brown people" and "yellow people" talk to the earth, and are stable but 'not progressive', while "white people" are full of anxious energy that causes them to need to save the world.
Here's the direct quote.
Do you think Tom Cruise told Will Smith that part?
So, in short: Each page has about 5-10 footnotes, consisting entirely of definitions to words you already know, like "physics" and "foundation" and "chemistry" (no joke, I remember those all from page 2). However, there are usually not definitions to the words Hubbard made up, like "havingness." I don't care that I can figure out what "havingness" means; I would like it acknowledged as a made-up word. Especially since the book's introduction is entirely about looking up words you don't understand so as to better appreciate the text. Listen, stupid dead L Ron Hubbard -- if I'm the kind of person for whom "chemistry" must be defined, what do I do when I hit "havingness," which isn't in any dictionary not written by aliens who live in volcanoes? Help a brother out, dog.
So, the rest of the book is pretty much the same as what you can learn from reading about Scientology on the googles. Basically existence is called a "game," and "auditors" are Scientologists who have magical powers to help "preclears", which are folks who, like, need Scientology in their lives to get rid of the alien ghosts in their bodies. (Except for the alien ghosts part, all that is pretty much verbatim.)
Scientology is also based on the idea that we are always in a state of either "create," "create-create-create," (and yes, create-create-create is an actual term that gets used repeatedly) or "counter-create." Since this makes no fucking sense, there is also a page-long explanation of how when you hurt your leg, you've actually "created" a bad leg, and you create-create-create the bad leg until you counter-create it, at which point it is destroyed, revealing the good leg that was still there the whole time. Or something. Seriously, the book doesn't make any more sense than that paraphrasing just did.
There's also a lot of charts for all this stuff, giving you lists of all the emotions you have at various states of your existence and crap. It's supposed to be this 'scientific' approach to psychology through 'technology,' except that there's not really any science to it -- mostly just references to the two or three random books on actual psychology that Hubbard probably skimmed before deciding he could just make everything up. It's sort of like if a D&D nerd decided that stats tables and dice rolls could be applied to actual people. "I'm sorry sir, but your Chaotic Neutral character alignment makes you unfit to be a preclear. Have a verdant cloak instead."
Anyway, I thought this book would make me depressed and mush my brain with brainwashyness, but instead it just made me sad that people have been stupid enough to fall for this crap for decades now. Which is obviously just what you can say about any religion ever, but at least the Bible is an interesting read. This is just moronic and loony, like listening to a burnt-out hippie try to explain the establishment to you.
Oh, also? An entire section on how "brown people" and "yellow people" talk to the earth, and are stable but 'not progressive', while "white people" are full of anxious energy that causes them to need to save the world.
Here's the direct quote.
Do you think Tom Cruise told Will Smith that part?
September 2, 2012
I can honestly say that I don't know WTF I just read.
December 2, 2008
Worth reading to understand the bizarre worldview of Scientologists. This book focuses on the peculiar "psychology" created by L. Ron Hubbard. It's entertaining to read as a psychologist, as many of the basic tenets of thought as Hubbard describes them have been well-researched and empirically disproved by cognitive psychologists half a century ago. A large cornerstone of the Scientology cosmology is the idea that it is based on reason and science (as opposed to the other legs it stands on, like alien reincarnation and Randian economic principles). This book alone clearly illustrates how deeply grounded this cult is in the sci-fi machinations of a poor author.
January 27, 2018
Disclosure: I bought this for a quarter at a yard sale, to add to my reference library. I read it purely out of curiosity. I would never knowingly give any money to this cult.
Review: Anybody who thinks this is anything but drivel is an idiot. You could take copies of "Naked Lunch," an HDTV manual, and a cookbook written entirely in Esperanto, tear out all the pages, toss them in the air, then collect all the loose pages in random order and read them backwards while drunk, and it would make more sense than this book.
Review: Anybody who thinks this is anything but drivel is an idiot. You could take copies of "Naked Lunch," an HDTV manual, and a cookbook written entirely in Esperanto, tear out all the pages, toss them in the air, then collect all the loose pages in random order and read them backwards while drunk, and it would make more sense than this book.
December 28, 2015
Wow. If you want to understand the basic tenets of Scientology, this is the book to read.
December 8, 2014
The book is a collection of articles written by Mr. Hubbard on some clear, basic fundamentals of Scientology. If you study this book to see what you can use and apply, then buy this book. If your attitude is such that you want to make fun of the book or want to prove it wrong, then go elsewhere.
I found the best parts of the book regarding how to deal with people especially with the chapter Life is a Game and the idea that people create problems was fascinating. Life is a game, and there are freedoms, barriers and purposes in anyone's life. Some people become the total effect of the barriers. If you tell them that this is a game (which I have), they'll look at you like you're crazy. They lost.
A good student of this subject will really get a lot out of the book. No one need join a group or get on a bandwagon. Just read the book, use it and get some positive gain.
Also comes in CD's and a DVD form.
I found the best parts of the book regarding how to deal with people especially with the chapter Life is a Game and the idea that people create problems was fascinating. Life is a game, and there are freedoms, barriers and purposes in anyone's life. Some people become the total effect of the barriers. If you tell them that this is a game (which I have), they'll look at you like you're crazy. They lost.
A good student of this subject will really get a lot out of the book. No one need join a group or get on a bandwagon. Just read the book, use it and get some positive gain.
Also comes in CD's and a DVD form.
June 22, 2015
Just garbage. Poorly written and concepts are self-important drivel that don't actually say anything. Here's a prime example sentence:
"In Scientology, the word 'postulate' means to cause a thinkingness or consideration."
THINKINGNESS?! You have a good word right there to use! I know you know it because it's in the sentence. The book is full of these made-up words that just add confusion while trying to sound grandiose.
"In Scientology, the word 'postulate' means to cause a thinkingness or consideration."
THINKINGNESS?! You have a good word right there to use! I know you know it because it's in the sentence. The book is full of these made-up words that just add confusion while trying to sound grandiose.
April 30, 2021
Update: Yeah.. on 2nd reading this seems less interesting.
As I said in my previous review on "Scientology: A New Slant on Life", I am trying to understand what Scientologists believe as it doesn't seem to be widespread public knowledge. Somewhat like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member, there is a disinformation campaign that seems to try to discredit and misrepresent them led by apostates and other people out there with an axe to grind. In the spirit of Article of Faith number 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.", I would like to say that I respect what other people believe and while I am not looking to join their religion, I am wanting to understand what makes them unique.
This is the book I thought that I had picked up when I picked up "Scientology: A New Slant on Life". From my understanding, this is considered a basic text explaining Scientology. The book explains many fundamentals and tenets of their beliefs including the eight dynamics, ARC triangle, the purpose of auditing, and their views on psychology.
I have found it often true that the "milk before meat" concept is used while sharing the gospel with LDS investigators and new converts until they are able to handle the more difficult doctrines. I understand why people are taught layer upon layer, but I remember at the time thinking it was a bit dishonest. I remember greatly struggling with the concept of going to the temple and performing ordinance work that it could be argued is based on Masonic rituals and not original or inspired.
Now I understand their purpose and that teaching in the temple is done by symbolism, but I remember wondering what sort of church I had joined when first exposed to it. I imagine that the doctrines of Scientology work in a similar way and that they avoid "casting pearls before swine" and this is why there seems to be some confusion about what they are about. Either way I found this to be an interesting read - finding a lot of information I agreed with, some that I did not. I don't think I will be joining them any time soon, but I trust that anyone who calls themselves Scientologist comes from a place of sincerity and I hope they find what they are looking for.
As I said in my previous review on "Scientology: A New Slant on Life", I am trying to understand what Scientologists believe as it doesn't seem to be widespread public knowledge. Somewhat like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member, there is a disinformation campaign that seems to try to discredit and misrepresent them led by apostates and other people out there with an axe to grind. In the spirit of Article of Faith number 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.", I would like to say that I respect what other people believe and while I am not looking to join their religion, I am wanting to understand what makes them unique.
This is the book I thought that I had picked up when I picked up "Scientology: A New Slant on Life". From my understanding, this is considered a basic text explaining Scientology. The book explains many fundamentals and tenets of their beliefs including the eight dynamics, ARC triangle, the purpose of auditing, and their views on psychology.
I have found it often true that the "milk before meat" concept is used while sharing the gospel with LDS investigators and new converts until they are able to handle the more difficult doctrines. I understand why people are taught layer upon layer, but I remember at the time thinking it was a bit dishonest. I remember greatly struggling with the concept of going to the temple and performing ordinance work that it could be argued is based on Masonic rituals and not original or inspired.
Now I understand their purpose and that teaching in the temple is done by symbolism, but I remember wondering what sort of church I had joined when first exposed to it. I imagine that the doctrines of Scientology work in a similar way and that they avoid "casting pearls before swine" and this is why there seems to be some confusion about what they are about. Either way I found this to be an interesting read - finding a lot of information I agreed with, some that I did not. I don't think I will be joining them any time soon, but I trust that anyone who calls themselves Scientologist comes from a place of sincerity and I hope they find what they are looking for.
December 18, 2008
This book is just funny I have got to say. Kudos to a man that can make a religion off of pseudoscience and call it their own through books after books on the stuff. I had to read a little about it though to see for myself.
Read
July 20, 2007Wow... and not necessarily in a postive way.
September 29, 2010
I love philosophy that is on the practical side and this book nails it. Really, really good.
March 5, 2020
How do people get sucked into Scientology? This was so ridiculous, Hubbard must have been under the influence of some hard drugs when he came up with this.
April 22, 2009
I picked this up hoping to get some insight into Scientologist beliefs, but I don't feel all that much more informed. The very basic principles of Scientological thought are briefly outlined, but Hubbard gives very little depth to any of the ideas, most of which seem quite contemporary by today's standards (creation and destruction lifecycles/game theory/spirituality and astral projection). The second-half of the book, bizarrely, appears to outline instructions for a practitioner, describing how to 'process' an initiate. In short, if this is a book designed to enticle people to a new religion, I'm not surprised there are so few of them around...
November 25, 2018
I picked this up out of curiosity. You always hear...interesting....things about Scientology and I was hoping this would provide some insight into what it's really like. It did a little, I guess? I get the feeling this only scratches the surface, and of course it leaves out the bad stuff. Here's what I gathered from my perusal: Scientology is mostly about making up stupid words like "havingness" and "beingness" and "thetan" either a) to replace words that already exist and that work quite nicely or b) to describe stuff that they made up. It's also about making wild statements about things like the afterlife, claiming that these statements have been scientifically proven, and then offering no citation or details whatsoever to go along with those statements (hmm wonder why.) I think my favorite chapter is one in which the author earnestly explains that the way to solve your problems is to think of other problems that you could have instead of the one you have. Then when you get back to your original problem, it will have been solved. Wow. Gee, I'll go tell all the people I know who are dying of cancer just to think about having leprosy instead. That should fix the cancer problem for sure.
You know how I said this book leaves out the bad stuff? Well, it does for the most part. There are a few parts where it ventures away from just giving ludicrous self-help advice and steers into scary cult territory. For example, there's a chapter on "The Code of a Scientologist." The very first item on the list is this: "I pledge myself to hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science." Anytime you come across a religion, or government, or ANYTHING, that says you shouldn't, and in this case, CAN'T, question it....frickin' run the other way!! A statement like that should raise a field of red flags and set off a warehouse of alarm bells in your mind. Not good, man. Not good.
You know how I said this book leaves out the bad stuff? Well, it does for the most part. There are a few parts where it ventures away from just giving ludicrous self-help advice and steers into scary cult territory. For example, there's a chapter on "The Code of a Scientologist." The very first item on the list is this: "I pledge myself to hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science." Anytime you come across a religion, or government, or ANYTHING, that says you shouldn't, and in this case, CAN'T, question it....frickin' run the other way!! A statement like that should raise a field of red flags and set off a warehouse of alarm bells in your mind. Not good, man. Not good.
March 10, 2008
For my view on why I don't believe in reviews, see my commentary on "The Problems of Work" in my books read. I am reading these basic Scientology books because they were recently re-released in Summer 2007 after a pain-staking 20 years of research into the original books and discovery of mistakes made by transcriptionists which made many of the books incomprensible. The publisher had each book checked against the original notes and dictations of L. Ron Hubbard. In having read The Problems of Work and this one in their entirety (original version) I couldn't believe the difference. It made the information both clear and, more importantly, USEABLE. I was able to use it.
What mostly interests me in this book is what L. Ron Hubbard said in Chapter 8 of the book: "Scientology does not teach you. It only reminds you. For the information was yours in the first place." This rang true for me because everything I have learned and used so far, I found I somehow always "knew" was true. What being reminded of it did for me was to make it mine - mine to use to some result.
This was the perfect follow-up book to Problems of Work and I was glad I read them in that order. It gave me the tools to really let go of problems I consider trivial and never have them bother me again while adding some new "problems" which were mroe along the lines of problems you face in any game. These are problems we like to have and - who diesn't like to play a good game once in a while.
What mostly interests me in this book is what L. Ron Hubbard said in Chapter 8 of the book: "Scientology does not teach you. It only reminds you. For the information was yours in the first place." This rang true for me because everything I have learned and used so far, I found I somehow always "knew" was true. What being reminded of it did for me was to make it mine - mine to use to some result.
This was the perfect follow-up book to Problems of Work and I was glad I read them in that order. It gave me the tools to really let go of problems I consider trivial and never have them bother me again while adding some new "problems" which were mroe along the lines of problems you face in any game. These are problems we like to have and - who diesn't like to play a good game once in a while.
April 27, 2014
lame.
the book is completely condescending. at one point i recall the author stating something to the effect of: "if you don't understand anything in this book, reread it until you understand it." it's also got a glossary in the back which is strange. further, there were illustrations to the "belief" system of scientology which was weird.
some interesting things though: how "auditing" was explained and should be implemented. how scientologists view life as a "win-lose game." there were other metaphors for thought which i found a bit strange. i wish there were more about the scientologist's beliefs on creation, etc.
it does give a good explanation about the theories behind scientology and how screwy they are. i find that the book, albeit weird, was a good intro to the cultish religion. it's a shame that the author is an alum from my alma mater.
the book is completely condescending. at one point i recall the author stating something to the effect of: "if you don't understand anything in this book, reread it until you understand it." it's also got a glossary in the back which is strange. further, there were illustrations to the "belief" system of scientology which was weird.
some interesting things though: how "auditing" was explained and should be implemented. how scientologists view life as a "win-lose game." there were other metaphors for thought which i found a bit strange. i wish there were more about the scientologist's beliefs on creation, etc.
it does give a good explanation about the theories behind scientology and how screwy they are. i find that the book, albeit weird, was a good intro to the cultish religion. it's a shame that the author is an alum from my alma mater.
March 2, 2011
While the book states that scientology is not a religion, it sure seems like one. I gave up on reading this book after about two chapters because it did not make sense to me. Also, the writing style is very repetitive, almost to the point of attempted brainwashing. I know some people think Scientology is a crazy religion, with crazy practices...but is it really any different than any other organized religion?
As a book, "Scientology" is cyclical and repetitive, but I think that's the point. As an idea, it's not my style, but if it works for others - great.
As a book, "Scientology" is cyclical and repetitive, but I think that's the point. As an idea, it's not my style, but if it works for others - great.
June 2, 2008
To start with I am not a Scientologist nor do I have anything against them. I was really expecting this book to be more interesting. I was sadly disappointed at its very basic philosophical notions. It had interesting ideas in a couple of areas, but very little evidence or logic to back up these ideas. I enjoy learning about different religions and schools of thought, but unfortunately there wasn't anything new or exciting to be found in this book.
September 1, 2012
I always like to read up on something before I judge it. Now I can honestly say Scientology is one of the most assinine concepts ever. Written in an oversimplified language, it is also very repetitive and makes claims that it would be impossible to actually deliver on.
April 27, 2009
Though it gives the reader a glance into a sphere of abnormal structure of living, but it certainly gives the reader a deep look into the twisted norms of a cult.
December 18, 2010
Laughably terrible
June 15, 2021
source: dude trust me
April 2, 2023
Scientology:
Some things I enjoyed, some things concerned me, some things I forgot about, and other things I just couldn't stand. Mr. Hubbard probably was on to something, and some of his philosophical musings were profound and eloquent, but as one may notice, this book found its way in my mediocre-atrocious shelf. It's not as bad as I anticipated it to be, but it's not like it will sink into my head and change my life.
Scientology is a belief system that states that life is like a game, in which every individual must attain beingness and havingness, or have full control and independence over their own existence. A person has a spirit referred to as a thetan, and the thetan can act as an entirely separate and independent entity from the body.
Scientology is believed to help civilize people spiritually, mentally, and intellectually. A person can train themselves to do this through a series of drills conducted by a person referred to as an Auditor. These drills are supposed to help people become trained in the game of life.
Other fundamentals in Scientology include the cycle of action, which is pretty much the way humans view how life works. It is labeled as "CREATE (be born)-SURVIVE (live)-DESTROY (die)."
I admire Mr. Hubbard's method of bringing awareness to the fundamentals of thought, as he likes to put it. He formulates his own system of terminology for certain fundamentals, defines the terminology in this system, and, at times, even forms his own neologisms to encapsulate his ideas. Beingness and havingness, for instance, are his own neologisms that are meant to denote the act of being, or existing, and the act of having possession (especially of oneself and one's life), respectively. Sure, these terms do sound a bit unnatural and "made-up," as my mother would probably put it, but I could not help but admire his ability to use words to develop and bring awareness about Scientology's principles.
A lot of new terminology you should know is written in all capitals. Some are pretty self-explanatory, and are not directly defined due to being self-explanatory, but the very action of writing them in all capitals is convenient and makes me more aware of how things work. Others are treated like dictionary entries. You will have a term in all-caps, a colon or equal sign in front of it, and a definition.
I enjoyed how Hubbard was able to give new terminology to encapsulate the ideas, because like with studying any other thing, you can logically deduce something without knowing the word for it, but having the word brings awareness and makes it more memorable. For instance, if someone were to say, "Mermaids exist. No one has proof against this," I could deduce that this is logically fallacious. Just because no one has proof against a claim believed to be true, or proof for a claim that is believed to be false, doesn't mean that the claim is true or false, respectively, because you are appealing to a lack of evidence to support or refute a claim, not evidence itself. This is a legit strategy, but then, you could learn that this fallacy is formally known as an Appeal to Ignorance, so instead of having to deduce the inaccuracy of an Appeal to Ignorance every time I encounter one, I could have a convenient term to take and apply in the situation.
There were some wonderful insights Hubbard provided. I liked what he said about valences and a person's identity. You could easily try to assume another person's habits and mannerisms (valence) just to compete in the game of life, for instance, to get someone's attention, but you are merely assuming a valence identity, not your real identity. I like how Scientology establishes human beings as independent beings.
The definition of terminology sometimes went a bit too far, under certain circumstances, to the point where it seemed as if the author was doubting the audience's intelligence. There were times, especially around the beginning, when Hubbard would write a sentence with a particular word, and then put a parenthesis that contained a synonym after that word. What was problematic was that there were words he did this to that many people would probably know, or could just use a dictionary to look up. Take the following quote, for instance:
"Scientology is employed by an Auditor (one who listens and commands) as a set of drills (exercises, processes) upon the individual, and small or large groups. It is also employed as an educational (teaching) subject.
It makes sense for the author to put parenthesis after the term auditor, since auditing a person in the game of life is specific to Scientology, but putting synonyms for drills and educational seemed a bit redundant. I'm pretty sure many people know what drills are, and anyone who knows about school should know what educational means. Here's another quote like this:
"Scientology in the hands of an expert (Auditor) can cure some 70% of Man's illnesses (sicknesses). Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business
organizations) on Earth."
I'm pretty sure we all know what illnesses and companies are, thank you very much.
Another criticism I have for this book is the Vital Statistics chapter. I was actually very excited to read about the Vital Statistics chapter, because I wanted to confirm that people were being helped by Scientology, but I hardly saw any numbers. There were very few percentages. The quote about curing 70% of Man's illnesses was part of the Vital Statistics page, and I think it was the only real "statistic" in the Vital Statistics page. However, the statistic seems a bit sus. What do they mean by "illnesses?" Do they mean physical illnesses or mental illnesses? Does it refer to illnesses you can get from an environment (like a disease) or an illness that you can inherit from someone? There are different things that can be seen as an "illness." The statistic is just too broad and ambiguous. Plus, how is it even possible for a single belief system to do that? I am not trying to doubt that it can do this, but I wish there was a better explanation behind this.
The Is Scientology Valid part in the Vital Statistics section actually made me doubt Scientology's validity. It merely asserted that Scientology was valid, but it did not show the numbers or logic behind it. Just look at the following quote:
"No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings)...Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business
organizations) on Earth. It is valid. It has been tested. It is the only thoroughly tested system of improving human relations, intelligence and character and is the only one which does."
The author merely claims that Scientology is rigorously tested, but it never mentioned who tested it, how it was tested, and how the results of the actual tests corroborate the validity of Scientology. It said that large companies use Scientology, but which ones? And are these companies actually successful?
Scientology does have a lot to offer ideologically but it falls short scientifically. I think intensive Auditing might help some people, and that's good for them! But the "Vital Statistics" section was just proof of how narrow and unsubstantiated some aspects of Scientology can be. I think that might be the reason why some people consider Scientology a pseudoscience---they make assertions that are not scientifically or statistically backed.
Then, there were some principles that I just couldn't agree with. Take this paragraph:
"Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people. Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution for people as the only purveyors of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes he can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown people's attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive but, by and large, saner. And
the white race is progressive but more frantic."
Hubbard actually has pretty radical views on race, at least during the time it was written in, but as people may know, the paragraph still contains racial stereotyping that I believe is detrimental to both Caucasians and people of color. The "yellow and brown races" can still be progressive, and the "white race" can still be sane. I'm pretty sure most Scientologists of this generation do not give credence to the paragraph above, but if you are a parent reading this to your child for a bed time story, you should consider this.
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought was an okay book overall. I don't think it is that deserving of the low 2.56 avg. star rating it has on Goodreads, but I do empathize with the people who do not like it much. This book is worth reading, but you should not spend hours trying to search for it, nor should you purchase it. That's why I found this free PDF to this book, so you can read it without having to spend unnecessary amounts of money and time on it:
https://stss.nl/stss-materials/Englis...
Happy reading!
Some things I enjoyed, some things concerned me, some things I forgot about, and other things I just couldn't stand. Mr. Hubbard probably was on to something, and some of his philosophical musings were profound and eloquent, but as one may notice, this book found its way in my mediocre-atrocious shelf. It's not as bad as I anticipated it to be, but it's not like it will sink into my head and change my life.
Scientology is a belief system that states that life is like a game, in which every individual must attain beingness and havingness, or have full control and independence over their own existence. A person has a spirit referred to as a thetan, and the thetan can act as an entirely separate and independent entity from the body.
Scientology is believed to help civilize people spiritually, mentally, and intellectually. A person can train themselves to do this through a series of drills conducted by a person referred to as an Auditor. These drills are supposed to help people become trained in the game of life.
Other fundamentals in Scientology include the cycle of action, which is pretty much the way humans view how life works. It is labeled as "CREATE (be born)-SURVIVE (live)-DESTROY (die)."
I admire Mr. Hubbard's method of bringing awareness to the fundamentals of thought, as he likes to put it. He formulates his own system of terminology for certain fundamentals, defines the terminology in this system, and, at times, even forms his own neologisms to encapsulate his ideas. Beingness and havingness, for instance, are his own neologisms that are meant to denote the act of being, or existing, and the act of having possession (especially of oneself and one's life), respectively. Sure, these terms do sound a bit unnatural and "made-up," as my mother would probably put it, but I could not help but admire his ability to use words to develop and bring awareness about Scientology's principles.
A lot of new terminology you should know is written in all capitals. Some are pretty self-explanatory, and are not directly defined due to being self-explanatory, but the very action of writing them in all capitals is convenient and makes me more aware of how things work. Others are treated like dictionary entries. You will have a term in all-caps, a colon or equal sign in front of it, and a definition.
I enjoyed how Hubbard was able to give new terminology to encapsulate the ideas, because like with studying any other thing, you can logically deduce something without knowing the word for it, but having the word brings awareness and makes it more memorable. For instance, if someone were to say, "Mermaids exist. No one has proof against this," I could deduce that this is logically fallacious. Just because no one has proof against a claim believed to be true, or proof for a claim that is believed to be false, doesn't mean that the claim is true or false, respectively, because you are appealing to a lack of evidence to support or refute a claim, not evidence itself. This is a legit strategy, but then, you could learn that this fallacy is formally known as an Appeal to Ignorance, so instead of having to deduce the inaccuracy of an Appeal to Ignorance every time I encounter one, I could have a convenient term to take and apply in the situation.
There were some wonderful insights Hubbard provided. I liked what he said about valences and a person's identity. You could easily try to assume another person's habits and mannerisms (valence) just to compete in the game of life, for instance, to get someone's attention, but you are merely assuming a valence identity, not your real identity. I like how Scientology establishes human beings as independent beings.
The definition of terminology sometimes went a bit too far, under certain circumstances, to the point where it seemed as if the author was doubting the audience's intelligence. There were times, especially around the beginning, when Hubbard would write a sentence with a particular word, and then put a parenthesis that contained a synonym after that word. What was problematic was that there were words he did this to that many people would probably know, or could just use a dictionary to look up. Take the following quote, for instance:
"Scientology is employed by an Auditor (one who listens and commands) as a set of drills (exercises, processes) upon the individual, and small or large groups. It is also employed as an educational (teaching) subject.
It makes sense for the author to put parenthesis after the term auditor, since auditing a person in the game of life is specific to Scientology, but putting synonyms for drills and educational seemed a bit redundant. I'm pretty sure many people know what drills are, and anyone who knows about school should know what educational means. Here's another quote like this:
"Scientology in the hands of an expert (Auditor) can cure some 70% of Man's illnesses (sicknesses). Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business
organizations) on Earth."
I'm pretty sure we all know what illnesses and companies are, thank you very much.
Another criticism I have for this book is the Vital Statistics chapter. I was actually very excited to read about the Vital Statistics chapter, because I wanted to confirm that people were being helped by Scientology, but I hardly saw any numbers. There were very few percentages. The quote about curing 70% of Man's illnesses was part of the Vital Statistics page, and I think it was the only real "statistic" in the Vital Statistics page. However, the statistic seems a bit sus. What do they mean by "illnesses?" Do they mean physical illnesses or mental illnesses? Does it refer to illnesses you can get from an environment (like a disease) or an illness that you can inherit from someone? There are different things that can be seen as an "illness." The statistic is just too broad and ambiguous. Plus, how is it even possible for a single belief system to do that? I am not trying to doubt that it can do this, but I wish there was a better explanation behind this.
The Is Scientology Valid part in the Vital Statistics section actually made me doubt Scientology's validity. It merely asserted that Scientology was valid, but it did not show the numbers or logic behind it. Just look at the following quote:
"No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings)...Scientology is used by some of the largest companies (business
organizations) on Earth. It is valid. It has been tested. It is the only thoroughly tested system of improving human relations, intelligence and character and is the only one which does."
The author merely claims that Scientology is rigorously tested, but it never mentioned who tested it, how it was tested, and how the results of the actual tests corroborate the validity of Scientology. It said that large companies use Scientology, but which ones? And are these companies actually successful?
Scientology does have a lot to offer ideologically but it falls short scientifically. I think intensive Auditing might help some people, and that's good for them! But the "Vital Statistics" section was just proof of how narrow and unsubstantiated some aspects of Scientology can be. I think that might be the reason why some people consider Scientology a pseudoscience---they make assertions that are not scientifically or statistically backed.
Then, there were some principles that I just couldn't agree with. Take this paragraph:
"Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people. Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution for people as the only purveyors of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes he can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown people's attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive but, by and large, saner. And
the white race is progressive but more frantic."
Hubbard actually has pretty radical views on race, at least during the time it was written in, but as people may know, the paragraph still contains racial stereotyping that I believe is detrimental to both Caucasians and people of color. The "yellow and brown races" can still be progressive, and the "white race" can still be sane. I'm pretty sure most Scientologists of this generation do not give credence to the paragraph above, but if you are a parent reading this to your child for a bed time story, you should consider this.
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought was an okay book overall. I don't think it is that deserving of the low 2.56 avg. star rating it has on Goodreads, but I do empathize with the people who do not like it much. This book is worth reading, but you should not spend hours trying to search for it, nor should you purchase it. That's why I found this free PDF to this book, so you can read it without having to spend unnecessary amounts of money and time on it:
https://stss.nl/stss-materials/Englis...
Happy reading!
October 6, 2021
Right of the bat it you are in for a unique experience as far as introductory works on beliefs are concerned as on the very first page it carries the following disclaimer - that the reader should view this book as “not a statement of claims made by the Church or the Author”. Which in fairness does become understandable given the statements made which would otherwise be major claims about science and medical efficacy.
Even though it can at times get a bit lost in Hubbardisms, which look like:
The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness
It does give you a good overview of some of the central teachings, including its pretty radical cosmology wherein objective reality is an illusion with it actually being what is collectively agreed to by people as spiritual beings and where God exists but is largely irrelevant.
Even though it can at times get a bit lost in Hubbardisms, which look like:
The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness
It does give you a good overview of some of the central teachings, including its pretty radical cosmology wherein objective reality is an illusion with it actually being what is collectively agreed to by people as spiritual beings and where God exists but is largely irrelevant.
June 6, 2018
Garbage from a cult leader.
A person researching religions could waste less time to just to look at Buddhism, for that is what Scientology is. L Ron Hubbard loved Buddhism. Scientology also has many links to Gnostic thought. One could also draw many parallels with Mary Baker Eddy's cult, "Christian Science" which is neither Christian nor scientific.
The basic premise in this book is that our life, now on this earth (or rather what we perceive to be our life) is just a game. "One could say, then, that life is a game" (pg 72) "Life can best be understood by likening it to a game. … it might strike you as peculiar that people would go on living or would enter into the 'game of life' at the risk of all the sorrow, travail and pain just to have something to do. Evidently there is no greater curse than total idleness." (pg 62). It is a state of consciousness that we enter into willingly but upon condition of forgetting. "In para-Scientology there is much discussion about 'between-lives areas' and other phenomena which might have passed at one time or another for heaven or hell, but it is established completely that a thetan is immortal and that he himself cannot actually experience death and conterfeits [simulates] it by forgetting." (pg 92) He states this premise of life being a game 25+ times in this book as if to drill it into your head, that we as thetans (immortal spirits or gods that pre-existed our material birth) entered into for something to do, out of a state of boredom; a game to play to challenge us. "[Scientology] is intended as an assistance to life at large, to enable life to make a better civilization and a better game." (Pg 97)
Like Gnostiicsm or the Doctrine of "Maya" in Buddhism, the reality that we see or think is real is not real. You know sort of like the Matrix movies (whose writers said was written in large part based on Buddhism). Hubbard states on page 23, "Reality is the way things appear. Reality is apparency. To do anything about reality, one must search into and discover what underlies the apparency." But his definition of apparency on page 20 is "Apparency = appears to be, as distinct from what actually is." So Hubbard is speaking doublespeak. Inserting his own definition into his statement then, he is saying "Reality is [what only appears to be, as distinct from what actually is]."
Reality is what only appears to be but is not real?
Does that sound like a sane man? Or an insane man?
Fortunately Hubbard clears this up for us (sarcasm) on page 26, Hubbard says, "For example, a man is sane. He gets the idea that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) and then does numberless things in order to stay sane. Here he was already creating the state of sanity. He counter-created insanity. He then counter-created sanity against insanity.
The theme of reincarnation is apparent! in this worldview, though L Ron never uses the word in this book. But in this scheme it is not reincarnation proper but more of using up "lives" in a video game idea or that in this dreamworld dying is called a-"Wake" which these gnostic interpreters think means actually waking up to the actual reality. In the chapter entitled "The Parts of Man" where Hubbard describes his gnostic or platonic view of our real selves living in these temporary and disposable material bodies, he says, "the person, having exteriorized [astral projection/ out of body experience type of idea or as he says on pg. 85, "exteriorization or the departure of the soul"], usually returns to a planet and procures, usually another body of the same type of race as before" (pg 92).
To finish this review, I'd like to finish with Hubbards words on page 168, "Scientology does not owe its help. We have done nothing to cause us to propitiate. Had we done so, we would not now be bright enough to do what we are doing."
As a Christian, I found this comment with the word "propitiate" interesting. What does the word mean? Oxford dictionary defines it this way, "the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person." So Hubbard must either mean that they don't need to appease, or apologize to anyone because they have done nothing wrong. Or on the other hand he may mean that they have no need to make a sacrifice to God or gods for anything they have done.
In pagan religions, people sacrificied to gods, some even to the point of throwing babies into the river, Ganges, to appease the gods. In Christianity in contrast, God himself in the person Jesus Christ made propitiation for our sins. This is mercy. This is grace. You can read more about this in Hebrews 2:17, Romans 3:24-26, 1 John 4:10, and 1 John 2:2.
A person researching religions could waste less time to just to look at Buddhism, for that is what Scientology is. L Ron Hubbard loved Buddhism. Scientology also has many links to Gnostic thought. One could also draw many parallels with Mary Baker Eddy's cult, "Christian Science" which is neither Christian nor scientific.
The basic premise in this book is that our life, now on this earth (or rather what we perceive to be our life) is just a game. "One could say, then, that life is a game" (pg 72) "Life can best be understood by likening it to a game. … it might strike you as peculiar that people would go on living or would enter into the 'game of life' at the risk of all the sorrow, travail and pain just to have something to do. Evidently there is no greater curse than total idleness." (pg 62). It is a state of consciousness that we enter into willingly but upon condition of forgetting. "In para-Scientology there is much discussion about 'between-lives areas' and other phenomena which might have passed at one time or another for heaven or hell, but it is established completely that a thetan is immortal and that he himself cannot actually experience death and conterfeits [simulates] it by forgetting." (pg 92) He states this premise of life being a game 25+ times in this book as if to drill it into your head, that we as thetans (immortal spirits or gods that pre-existed our material birth) entered into for something to do, out of a state of boredom; a game to play to challenge us. "[Scientology] is intended as an assistance to life at large, to enable life to make a better civilization and a better game." (Pg 97)
Like Gnostiicsm or the Doctrine of "Maya" in Buddhism, the reality that we see or think is real is not real. You know sort of like the Matrix movies (whose writers said was written in large part based on Buddhism). Hubbard states on page 23, "Reality is the way things appear. Reality is apparency. To do anything about reality, one must search into and discover what underlies the apparency." But his definition of apparency on page 20 is "Apparency = appears to be, as distinct from what actually is." So Hubbard is speaking doublespeak. Inserting his own definition into his statement then, he is saying "Reality is [what only appears to be, as distinct from what actually is]."
Reality is what only appears to be but is not real?
Does that sound like a sane man? Or an insane man?
Fortunately Hubbard clears this up for us (sarcasm) on page 26, Hubbard says, "For example, a man is sane. He gets the idea that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) and then does numberless things in order to stay sane. Here he was already creating the state of sanity. He counter-created insanity. He then counter-created sanity against insanity.
The theme of reincarnation is apparent! in this worldview, though L Ron never uses the word in this book. But in this scheme it is not reincarnation proper but more of using up "lives" in a video game idea or that in this dreamworld dying is called a-"Wake" which these gnostic interpreters think means actually waking up to the actual reality. In the chapter entitled "The Parts of Man" where Hubbard describes his gnostic or platonic view of our real selves living in these temporary and disposable material bodies, he says, "the person, having exteriorized [astral projection/ out of body experience type of idea or as he says on pg. 85, "exteriorization or the departure of the soul"], usually returns to a planet and procures, usually another body of the same type of race as before" (pg 92).
To finish this review, I'd like to finish with Hubbards words on page 168, "Scientology does not owe its help. We have done nothing to cause us to propitiate. Had we done so, we would not now be bright enough to do what we are doing."
As a Christian, I found this comment with the word "propitiate" interesting. What does the word mean? Oxford dictionary defines it this way, "the action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person." So Hubbard must either mean that they don't need to appease, or apologize to anyone because they have done nothing wrong. Or on the other hand he may mean that they have no need to make a sacrifice to God or gods for anything they have done.
In pagan religions, people sacrificied to gods, some even to the point of throwing babies into the river, Ganges, to appease the gods. In Christianity in contrast, God himself in the person Jesus Christ made propitiation for our sins. This is mercy. This is grace. You can read more about this in Hebrews 2:17, Romans 3:24-26, 1 John 4:10, and 1 John 2:2.
July 23, 2025
Beyond stupid; jumble of meaningless words. Glad I read it; however. Awfully quick to.
January 23, 2023
This "book" is utter garbage, just like all the other literary efforts of Mr. Hubbard. It is probably the worst book ever written (yes, I'm aware of the "50 shades of Grey" existence).
Years ago I was interested in the Scientology "philosophy", mainly for 2 reasons:
1. I wanted to understand how to establish a church (just for tax evasion purposes, duuuh) and get rich very quickly by manipulating a few very wealthy people with obvious mental deficiencies;
2. I was very curious about the heavy drugs L. Ron Hubbard was on during the process of writing this gibberish (as a pharmacist and from a purely professional perspective, I promise).
Needless to say/write, I couldn't finish this tremendous rubbish, mainly because it is absolutely unreadable. Some people are saying that it's a great comedy book, but those people probably think SNL, James Corden and Jimmy Fallon are funny too.
If you are a committed atheist just like me, please check the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church. It makes so much more sense than the scientology nonsense.
Greed is not good, Mr. Hubbard, even if Gordon Gekko says so.
Pastafarianism über alles!
Last but not least: I'm so sorry about Tom Cruise. He is indeed a brilliant actor, probably not the brightest human being, though.
One star is too much.
Years ago I was interested in the Scientology "philosophy", mainly for 2 reasons:
1. I wanted to understand how to establish a church (just for tax evasion purposes, duuuh) and get rich very quickly by manipulating a few very wealthy people with obvious mental deficiencies;
2. I was very curious about the heavy drugs L. Ron Hubbard was on during the process of writing this gibberish (as a pharmacist and from a purely professional perspective, I promise).
Needless to say/write, I couldn't finish this tremendous rubbish, mainly because it is absolutely unreadable. Some people are saying that it's a great comedy book, but those people probably think SNL, James Corden and Jimmy Fallon are funny too.
If you are a committed atheist just like me, please check the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church. It makes so much more sense than the scientology nonsense.
Greed is not good, Mr. Hubbard, even if Gordon Gekko says so.
Pastafarianism über alles!
Last but not least: I'm so sorry about Tom Cruise. He is indeed a brilliant actor, probably not the brightest human being, though.
One star is too much.
April 8, 2016
The Book of Mormon has been passed on the right as the most crazy religious text I've ever read.
All bluster. No science. No logos.
It's as if the r/iamverysmart subreddit became a human and wrote a book.
It starts off with a concept all religions do. This religion is most correct. Believing anything else is stupid. Except Hubbard's book actually uses the word stupid over and over again.
It nonsensically redubs Soul to Thetan. It takes basic psychological tenants and breaks them down to useless fragments and displays them useleslessly.
If The Book of Mormon is bad fanfiction, this is the same disease's attempt at original fiction.
All bluster. No science. No logos.
It's as if the r/iamverysmart subreddit became a human and wrote a book.
It starts off with a concept all religions do. This religion is most correct. Believing anything else is stupid. Except Hubbard's book actually uses the word stupid over and over again.
It nonsensically redubs Soul to Thetan. It takes basic psychological tenants and breaks them down to useless fragments and displays them useleslessly.
If The Book of Mormon is bad fanfiction, this is the same disease's attempt at original fiction.
July 17, 2008
As interesting as any other religious text I've read, and like most religious texts there is some real wisdom in its pages and much silliness. If the things Hubbard claims truly have been "scientifically proven," I would like to see that proof. But this book implies a need for faith that I cannot give. I will certainly continue reading, however, if for no other reason than to be able to speak intelligently to Scientologists and to those who badmouth Scientologists without ever having picked up one of Hubbard's books.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews