Scientology and Living

Somehow, somewhere along the line, Corporate Scientology lost the following truths that make Scientology so workable.  I point it out in the hope that none of us ever lose sight of them.

From L Ron Hubbard Lecture titled Scientology and Living, 4 July 1954:

Now, there are two other categories of human beings.  And one is the category, upper scale, where things can be good or bad at will; everything on the Know to Sex in the upper scale can be good, you see? But when they’re on lower scale, everything on the Know to Sex scale – which is Mystery, there, to Sex Scale – is bad.  And when you get something where everything on the Mystery or the Know to Sex Scale is bad, you have somebody who is inverted, very badly inverted.

And when they’re consistently and continually “everything is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad” — watch out. They’re well below 2.0.  They’re using some kind of a mechanism of it’s bad, it’s bad, that’s why we’ve got to make something, you see?  Or it’s bad, it’s bad, it’s bad, that’s we have got to make nothing.  This is your 1.5.  He is actually operating there 100 percent.  He can only operate on emergencies.

“We are about to have this tremendous disaster, and therefore in view of the fact that we’ve got this disaster, we have to have this emergency legislation,” and so forth.  “And therefore we can make something here.  We can make this army so as to make nothing” — big compulsive sort of reaction, you see?

But it’s bad.  All that reasoning is bad.  The only reason we can do anything is because something is bad.  They have lost concept of doing something because it’s fun, and there is your last keynote.

Individuals who can do things, no matter whether good, bad or indifferent or outrageous, simply because they’re fun — an individual who can freely and with a clear heart do things because they’re fun is a very sane person.  And he’ll be in good shape.  And the amount of laughter which a person laughs — which is, by the way, not your harmonics of laughter.  Laughter, you see, has a number of harmonics down the line. Rather upscale laughter: a person, he laughs, he doesn’t laugh because he’s embarrassed, he doesn’t laugh this way and that, he laughs because he thinks something is funny.  And if a person laughs fairly often, and is very easy in that laughter, you got a sane man in your hands.

And they just go downscale and laugh less and less and less or laugh more embarrassedly or compulsively or obsessively, more and more and more, as we get clear down to the bottom.

Person down at the bottom doesn’t laugh at all.  He doesn’t live, either.  He just lies there, a lump of energy, being mass, meaning and no mobility.  He’s not even a symbol anymore.

from LRH lecture The Role of Laughter in Processing – Dangerousness, 5 July 1954:

Now, here is a coordination here. And so there is a coordination with laughter and a thetan.  An individual can laugh as long as he feels he has some freedom to make nothing out of it.  What do you think your preclear is doing as he sits there and chews and chews and chews on a lock or a secondary of the sort?  And he doesn’t digest it even if he can swallow it.  He’s unable to make nothing out of it.  Well, isn’t there a simpler mechanism to make nothing out of things than to run this arduous seriousness?  Yes, indeed there is, indeed so: to cure him of not laughing.

Now, supposing we just used this as an overall process, and we just cured our preclear of this condition: no laughing.  We cured him of not-laughingness. We reassessed our cases that we confront on this basis: melancholia versus jovialovia.  Today, jovialovia is the most horrible disease known to man. “Do you realize that fellow laughs? Hah! Give him the place of the president of the University?  Oh, no!  No, no! We need somebody who can drag his chin across the thresholds. That’s obvious that.  That’s somebody we need!”

257 responses to “Scientology and Living

  1. Thanks Marty for keeping an eye on the ball!

    I love that line and invented word: ” Today, jovialovia is the most horrible disease known to man.”

    • Indie-saurus-rex

      That line is both great and true. I’m not a perfect being by any stretch and I’m sometimes prone to nervousness or ‘bad days’ but the one thing I always do is to take time to enjoy the small moments and laugh! However, at places of employment, my lightheartedness always gets me into trouble with low-toned bosses, as they always, always, ALWAYS mistake a lighthearted person with an incompetent nincompoop. At my last job, I had some of the best stats in the office and was well liked by all of my clients. This did not stop the bad mouthing of me after I left that low-toned scene.

      But the low-toners can have their negative nattering.

      I’ll just laugh – and live! And I’m pleased to report that my current supervisor laughs her a** off every day. She’s a real gem!

      Thanks for the references, Marty!

    • Alex castillo (Concerning History)

      Sinar,
      I believe that in 1954 LRH was in the UK being exposed to the English culture, which would have been a bit foreign to him. The expression that was recorded as “jovialovia” is incorrect in it’s spelling. The correct expression, still used by many in the uk is”lovleyjobley”. It is is used mainly by working class british people, meaning “lovely job”. The Upper Class Brits would say “jolly good job, old chap”. I don’t know why LRH chose the working class version to put in his speech, maybe because the expression “lovelyjobely” was being used by many who saw the state of the world and were ignorant or uncaring and didn’t want to know and when they heard or saw the bad news they just said “lovleyjobley” and turned their back on the whole thing. LRH said “melancholia versus jovialovia” in this lecture, and I am sure he was refering to the British people who at that time were actually emabarrased to laugh (many still are), were not interested in the state of the world and humanity and were still hung up on the idea of Britain being an Empire, intent on ignoring the changing world. Brits have always been against “change”. I have lived in Britain for the last 25 years and I have made a point of researching and understanding the culture. Normally, British people don’t smile or laugh at the drop of a hat. In fact, if they laugh outloud in public, they promptly chech themselves and apologize for it. LRH was an American and he was dealing with brits and trying to understand their culture. I don’t know if he ever understood the English people though.

      In 1980 I was on mission in the UK and was getting my briefings from FOLOUK. During my stay there, I saw a new poster that had come from Pubs US advertising the Purif Rundown, depicting a herd of Buffaloes out in the planes. The first comment I heard from a Brit was: Why the hell are they advertising survival of buffaloes when they are an endangered species?? And the joke was: “lovely jobley” (1.1 “they have done a good job of advertising survival”). This is not a joke, by the way.

      And that’s what I think and know :))

      Love
      Alex

  2. I love how, no matter how many injustices and perversions of the legal process Independent Scientologists continue to endure at the hands of the KKKult-ists, you all continue to bring the conversation back to sharing your own unique Truth about the world.

    What you good people are doing is precisely what Gandhi meant when he said, “BE the change you want to see in the world.”

    Well, the whole (civilized, rational, compassionate) world is on your side!

    Big Love,
    John in Austin

    • That is an intersting point of view. To my knowledge people can’t wait to involved in Scientology after reading Dianetics and discovering they may go Clear. And then once in, the same people can’t wait to get the hell out. A few years ago many people would have thought there was something not OK about the people leaving rather the people who are being left. The internet, and many former members just through communication have changed all of this forever. Not just for a week or two. The more the Church of Scientology tried to expand the more they will crash head on into all the remnants of their make believe expansion. And for beginners, I can’t believe that David Miscavige is boss of anything. So, I am sad to say, I am glad it is not me. But happy that it isn’t me that will take orders from worn looking bra like David Miscavige.

      • I am beginning to get like Karen #1 and type at 70 m.p.h. and skip the typos! :) Karen, you and I need to talk! :) Anyway here is my post again, I am sorry, from a pefectionist like myself that authored the Scientologist’s Diary. :)

        “That is an interesting point of view. To my knowledge people can’t wait to get involved in Scientology after reading Dianetics and discovering they may go Clear. And then once in, the same people can’t wait to get the hell out. A few years ago many people would have thought there was something not OK about the people leaving rather than the people who are being left. The internet, and many former members just through communication have changed all of this forever. Not just for a week or two. The more the Church of Scientology tries to expand the more they will crash head on in to all the remnants of their make believe expansion. And for beginners, I can’t believe that David Miscavige is the boss of anything. So, I am sad to say, I am glad it is not me who works for him. But happy that it isn’t me that will take orders from a worn looking brassiere like David Miscavige.”

  3. Fascinating viewpoint. Three questions: Does Miscavige ever laugh for the sheer fun he is experiencing? 2. Tom Cruise’s obsessive, compulsive bursts of laughter says what? And 3. Can it be that one at the bottom and the other on his way?

    • I had a similar question, Michael: So, perhaps this quote ….. ” And if a person laughs fairly often, and is very easy in that laughter, you got a sane man in your hands.” …is what brings on that stupid, constant, phony “laughter” of many celebs? I think the answer is in this: It’s phony: Period. You can see it, feel it, hear it. So? That’s what it is. It isn’t “laughter”—it’s pretend laughter. BIG difference. Love to ALL :) Tory/Magoo

      • Phony laughter from phony celebs. They don’t serve the culture or the public, they serve themselves.

        Phony celebs are mediocre “safe” substitutes for the real thing, for the wild ones who once upon a time earned their laurels. To corporate enslavers, anything that inspires and wakes people up (real celebrities & artists) is frightfully dangerous.

        Hence, once any sign of big&free life is targeted by Miscavige, only when it’s under control and degraded into a box is it championed by David Miscavige and the phony “Celebrity” culture. At their core, they both target people as disposable commodities, as “consumers” to whom they feed crap, and from whom they can get money. A complete inversion.

        • Phony laughter from real celbretries trying to sound phony really laughing when they don’t feel like it. Isn’t that great? :) I guess Grade IV is just for lucky people SD! :) Leave it to Tory! :)

      • Great observation, Tory. Phony laughter is probably the creepiest thing in the world to me. Just slightly above spiders. :)

    • My experience of having been around Miscavige for several years is that he laughs only when he is putting down or degrading someone or something behind their back. He is more likely to get insanely angry as many know towards staff members and people when he is in front of them. Later he may laugh in a covert hostility way when he is in his office with others making less of the person he was earlier angry at.

      And don’t you dare laugh in his vicinity because he will come in and confront you and ask “what’s so funny?” Then turn it into a “woe is me” about how he is having to wear everyone elses hat and he doesn’t have time to laugh and have fun.

      • Mark — 100% spot on.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          HI mike, thanks again for all the one liners!

          speaking of which, here’s another;

          Google up “Laughter therapy” by Enda Junkins and do enjoy

      • Actually it’s the GLEE OF INSANITY!

      • Alex castillo (Concerning History)

        Mark Fisher, old friend,

        Havent’t you learned anything? :))

        GLEE OF INSANITY, 1. a specialized case of irresponsibility. A thetan who
        cannot be killed and yet can be punished has only one answer to those punishing
        him and that is to demonstrate to them that he is no longer capable of force or
        action and is no longer responsible. He therefore states that he is insane and
        demonstrates that he cannot possibly harm them as he lacks any further
        rationality. This is the root and basis of insanity. (Scn 8-8008, p. 55) 2 . also
        called the “glee of irresponsibility.” Manifestation which takes the form of
        an actual wave emanation resulting basically from the individual dramatizing the
        condition of “must reach—can’t reach, must withdraw—can’t withdraw.”

        L. Ron Hubbard
        Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary

        From what one can see of this guy Miscavige, the above is the only thing that can explain any laughter or smile from him. Notice his insane actions demonstrating that he HAS NO POWER!

        Alex

  4. Michael,

    This video might clue you in to the answers…

    • Sinar, The laughter you see on DM’s face there is saying “Look at me and what I just did spending hundreds of thousands of donated dollars on a birthday party for Tom Cruise – the biggest movie star on the planet – and
      I have him right where I want him. Wrapped around my little fingers.”

      That’s what I read behind DM’s smile and laughter there. There is no real joy there. It is all about him and what he wants.

      • Mark,
        At about :19 the laugh and fun seemed an apparency and says it.

        Cruise laughs at his own “Thank You” – I’m sure he realizes that this over the top party costing more than $400K doesn’t seem right and just laughs it off. It is not making more Clears or OTs but perhaps amends for having had some bad shrimp and getting really sick?

        • Repulsive. The maniacal laugh and insincerity, and how Tom Cruise & David MIscavige are both perfectly unctuous

          • unctuous
            Perfect word. Loved it SD. Besides me, I am sure many others increased their vocabulary tonight. Anyway, your other comments were great too..

          • Unctuous, SD!

            Unctuous Chocolate cake was POB’s favorite dessert in the later ’90s. It looked like a hockey puck and was soft and runny in the center, very rich and decadent with over 1000 calories per portion served with a creamy peanut butter sauce and exotic fruits & nougat on a dinner sized plate, with fancy chocolate piping as decoration all around the plate.

            He first had it at an IAS paid for dinner at a top luxury restaurant at hotel Gustavia, St Barths. Cheapest suite at that hotel was over $2500 per nite. The IAS got the recipe from the Chef and the pastry Chef at Int and I had to duplicate it and serve it up at his birthdays. Unctuous indeed!

            • Wow. That’s too perfect. Tell me the cosmos doesn’t have a sense of humor. He didn’t realize what it means!! And kept the name!? LOLOLOL!!

              Sounds like a lovely culinary creation and since the root of the word ‘unctuous’ is “fat, oily, greasy”, could be applicable to a cake by a long stretch. (poor cake!)

              I was watching the video of David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, trying to comprehend what I was seeing, and the word “unctuous” was right there.
              As I look it up, I am once again thrilled by the wonderful symbiosis between words and perception! Definition #3 is sort of a bingo.

              Definition of UNCTUOUS
              1
              a : fatty, oily
              b : smooth and greasy in texture or appearance
              2
              : plastic
              3
              : full of unction; especially : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality

              kind of like people who named their daughter ‘Traviata’ thinking they were emulating the finesse of an opera, and didn’t realize she was a “fallen woman”.)

            • Sinar I want one of those cakes! Unbelievable.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Mark, watching this video brought home the fact that T.C. has unwittingly been lead up the GOLDEN BRIDGE OF MISCAV OLOGY, through a painstakingly researched,tightly guarded roll-out, step by step demonstration to the star, THAT HE IS THE WALKING,TALKING EMBODIMENT OF THE END PRODUCT OF ( the superior ) GOLDEN AGE OF “RETCH”

        I’m certain that Marty,assigned by DM to lengthy auditing of the star,was all too painfully aware,of just how duplicitous
        was the “MONSTER” manipulating his “ROLL OUT.” Marty,
        how you must have ACHED to ” spill the beans ” on WHAT
        was REALLY “going down” We feel for you in this C-22.

        Can anyone expect TC to have ANY REALITY at all, of the legion of atrocities, slavery,violent brutality, suppression, criminality and purposeful destruction of LRH’s tech (that now factually exists in name only) while HE IS ONLY PARTAKING IN “THE GOLDEN AGE OF PUKE, as is now paraded out, by his “OH SO BRILLIANT, “THETA” “SUPPORTIVE”(1.1 MIND CONTROLLING )” BUDDY.”

        You can be ASSURED,dear reader, that absolutely NO expense has been spared, to “cover over ” ANY / ALL peep-holes, which may have exposed the CHAMBER OF
        HORRORS hidden so painstakingly,from HIS VIEW !!!

        Alas, the MIND CONTROL OF T.C. is complete. So sad.

        Thanks for all your revelations, Marty. YOU are the STAR.

        Much luv to YOU ALL. Li’ll bit

        • It’s painful and outrageous and tragic to see.

          Even more so than seeing Cruise & Miscavige interact, two sycophants in action.

      • This video is the epitome of unctuous sycophancy.

      • Maybe he’s laughing because TC has yet to realize that just he paid for his own birthday party with his last big IAS donation.
        That laugh says ‘Ha ha ha ha ha! Sucker!’

    • “It was one of the most theta nights ever” -overheard at Freewinds that night

      “Those Scientologists are fucking insane” -overheard at port next day by passerby

    • One can see “Ron Savage’(DM’s father) in the background on the right. I wasn’t aware that DM would let his dad off the Ranch, but I guess this was a SPecial occasion.

      • Ron Snr always gets around and always came around to the galleys to get special gourmet food leftovers and to socialize. He could PR his way into most anything.

        Peter Schless on keyboards, IAS Freedom medal winner, would end up in the Hole later.

        • Oh no. :-( That is sacrilege. He is an awesome keyboard player. I wondered who that was, just fluent and rocks the piano. They put him in the hole!? Now it follows… Evil is terrified of artists!! And would try to sully them. It happens with David Miscavige, who systemitically removed, trashed, wasted, oppressed artists and briliant aware initiators, and offers the world “substitutes”, i.e..phony “celebrities” … just as it happened in Vietnam, artists and educated were targeted as enemy #1.

    • What a truly revolting video. What a bunch of phonies!
      By the way the black woman at the beggining of the clip is a singer on the X-Factor and could win a 5 million dollar recording contract. This is the next incarnation of American Idol. She never says on the show that she is a Scientologist but obviously must be to make it onto the Freewinds A-list for TC’s birthday bash. Stacy Francis probably wouldn ‘t want this video to go viral, but if you are watching Mr. Ortega from the Villiage Voice you may want to post this clip and see what Stacy Francis thinks about the whole TC and dm relationship?

    • I see Marcotai is still trolling strong judging by the comments on the video. ;)

    • At least he admits he is in confusion.  I guess I had to be there to understand THAT reality… 
      TC, please find out where you are. 

  5. You hit a grand slam with that one, Marty
    Corporate Scientology somehow lost the relationship between Scientology and living.
    In the late 1980′s, when I left Mr. Miscavige in the dust, it was very real to me that the movement had shifted to what we called ” a stuck one-way flow”. The flow was money ‘in’ utiizing high pressure sales techniques. I did the Pro-Sales course early on so I knew about “tag team selling” which was very common in the late 1980′s. It was brutal. First, you discover ‘buttons’. Then you line up a large group to “tag-team” and go in for the “kill’. It was relentless pressure. I cannot even imagine living in current Scientology with the infinite demands for money for such a wide range of ’causes’.
    Real living started for me years after we left Scientology. It took time to actually recover from the surrounding greed. Scientology lost so many great people during the 1973-2011 time period due to silly demands for money. If Scientology really took a long term interest in people, money problems would be a minor issue.
    Real living, Mr. Miscavige, is when my 19 year old daughter, who you fortunately never met, decides to enter a forest nunnery in Sri Lanka next week. She has decided to try the holy life as a Theravadin Buddhist Nunn. It is our great desire that she be successful in her very rigorous training in the monastery. We have purchased her airplane ticket and she is ready to leave next week. You focus on harm and money; we focus on developing virtue with the money we have.
    May all beings be well and happy!

    GMW

    • George: Please give your daughter my very best wishes. I will hold her in my daily practice. Recently someone in my community – an American nun has reentered a silent 3 year retreat. It’s pretty remarkable and inspiring.

      And the more people can admire this AS a chosen lifestyle – then the more young people MIGHT consider committing themselves to this practice.

      In the hope of a world without war, insanity and criminals.

      Love,
      WH

    • George,

      Kudos to your daughter for valuing spirit over matter.

      However, how far up the Scientology bridge did she get before deciding to go to a Theravada nunnery?

      • Kassapa AKA Buddha in Pail –

        Why would you ask this question? George has been out of scientology for most of the past 19 years, if not all of them, so it’s unlikely his daughter has done anything on the bridge.

        And why would that matter?

        Does it make her decision to become a nun flawed? Or perhaps you believe had she done some of the bridge she never would make that decision?

        I’m puzzled by the intention behind this question from you.

        WH

        • Windhorse,

          I don’t claim to be the historical Kassapa, but I chose that handle quite deliberately, as my intention is similar. If you know the story of the historical Kassapa, you know that he was the staunchest defender of Gotama’s Dharma (standard tech), and that 3 years after Gotama’s death he brought the top 500 Arhats (enlightened followers of Gotama) together for the First Buddhist Conference. At that conference he catalyzed a discussion on what was Gotama’s true teaching (standard tech) and how to preserve it and forward it. He then became the unofficial First Patriarch after Gotama.

          One of Kassapa’s first actions, even before the conference, was to openly correct, of all people, Ananda. Ananda was Gotama’s cousin and possessed a photographic memory, which was a very valuable asset in the age before written language in India. Ananda followed Gotama everywhere to memorize his teachings for later repetition to others. His flaw was that he was not enlightened himself, and so did not fully understand what he had memorized.

          Some of the enlightened monks attending the conference didn’t want Ananda to be there, while others were outraged that Kassapa would dare to criticize Ananda. But Kassapa held to the Middle Path. He insisted on Ananda’s participation, but was ruthless in correcting Ananda’s understanding.

          Ananda then served Kassapa for several years, and under Kassapa’s mentorship, attained enlightenment. When Kassapa died, Ananda became the Second Patriarch. So, Kassapa’s earlier criticism of Ananda turned out to be “much loving kindness.”

          As I said, I don’t claim to be the historical Kassapa. Nor am I trying to assume a role in Independent Scientology as grand as his was in Buddhism. But I do share his purpose of upholding the Three Treasures — the Buddha (Source, in our case LRH), the Dharma (standard tech), and the Sangha (the brotherhood, which in our case means getting Independent Scientology sufficiently well organized to survive and accomplish its purpose — I have much to say about his, and will in future posts).

          When I saw COS falling apart as a provider of actual Standard Tech (Plan A), and was also uncertain of ever being able to get real Scientology outside of COS (Plan B), it definitely occured to me to go back to traditional Buddhism whole hog (Plan C), as my only sensible option. But the last 2 years have shown that real Standard Tech IS available outside COS. So, I’m now gung ho for Plan B.

          Any ex-Scientologist going for Plan C certainly has my best wishes. I can grant all the beingness in the world to their doing whatever seems right to them, from their own point of view, using their own self-determinism, to continue on a workable path towards greater spiritual gain. However, in a public forum like this, I see it as my responsibility to defend Plan B. After all, I did vow, a very long time ago, to save all sentient beings. And I very sincerely believe Scientology to be an essential component of any saving there is to be done.

          I don’t disagree with George regarding his going back to Buddhism after he’d done all he considered he could in Scientology. I definitely disagree with anyone, including George’s daughter, skipping Scientology and entering a lifetime commitment to monastic Buddhism. Becoming a monk for a short while, I can see as being useful for some people, but not a lifetime commitment that cuts out any possibility of also doing LRH’s bridge.

          In addition to the historical Kassapa who succeeded Gotama, there was another who preceded him. The original Kassapa was the Buddha of the aeon before our own. He was to that aeon what Gotama was to ours. Well, I don’t claim to be that Kassapa either, but like him and I’m sure many others on this blog, I’ve been at this game for an unimaginably long time. I’ve seen promising technologies rise and fall, and individuals attain enlightenment only to lose it later.

          Just as Buddhism can be seen to be the precursor of Scientology, Buddhism had its own precursors. And those precursors had theirs. It’s an ancient, ancient game. But right now, right here, we have the best chance for permanent success I’ve ever seen, in LRH’s creation of Scientology.

          My personal opinion is that if LRH had lived another 20 years, not only would DM never have been able to remain on staff, let alone take over the Church, but George never would have left Scientology to go back to Buddhism. Nor would you have.

          The problem with Scientology is not Scientology, it’s NOT-Scientology. COS became CONS (the Church of NOT- Scientology, aka the Church of the Nazi Substitute).

          Understanding both Buddhism and Scientology at a very deep level, I’m unwilling to give up on Scientology, and I intend to continue to stand up for it, even though I love Buddhism, too.

          So, I hope that answers your question concerning my intention. Now, a question for you and George: What is YOUR intention on this blog? Have you forever shut the door behind you re Scientology? Are you here to disseminate Buddhism? Lend your support to a parallel path? What, exactly?

          • Kassapa: Thank you for your very long and detailed comment.

            I was not in the best of moods this morning and you ended up the target. As I obliquely mentioned in my follow up comment to George. That said — I am not here to disseminate buddhism or try to convince anyone to become a buddhist.

            I am here to offer from time to time perhaps a milder middle way tone as on occasion this blog has become rather strident concerning those posting here who were still under the radar.

            Mainly my intention has been to keep up with what is happening within and outside of scientology as I dedicated 20 years of my life to scientology and I miss many of my friends still captured inside.

            So to that intention I share episodes that I have personal knowledge about having been in the Sea Org in the early days at CCLA and at Flag as a senior executive for about a year, then staff in the Flag Service Org. As a public person who started solo nots when it first came out and did OT VIII fairly soon after the maiden voyage, I have felt I have “stories” to share that help others connect dots.

            Marty was the first blog I came across that to me was critical of what is happening currently and yet upholds the core tenets of LRH. Prior to Marty’s blog the website about scientology were too lop sided and the critiques were way way too strident.

            PLUS I connected with Marty personally and felt a kinship.

            You mention understanding buddhism at a deep level. Were you a vajrayana practitioner? What lineage? If I may ask.

            I haven’t given up on scientology and defend it IN the world – to my buddhist friends, to other people but having gone up to OT VIII and subsequently left – I feel my way forward is through my current practice.

            I applaud Marty’s efforts in the world and those who follow the independent path of scientology.

            I’m not sure there can be TOO many wisdom traditions in the world — scientology is but one.

            And a workable one — not THE one. There isn’t, as far as I can see, THE one. Claiming so, borders IMHO on fundamentalism, which is how scientology and other isms have gotten into trouble.

            And the Kassapa I was referring to was the buddha prior to Shakyamuni but your story about Kassapa and Ananda was terrific. I know more Tibetan stories but the early pali stories are wonderful.

            Peace
            WH

            • Windhorse,

              I’m very glad to here that you haven’t given up on Scientology. And I, too, see workability in many other paths. But only limited workability. They all eventually trip over factors that Scientology is designed to handle.

              It’s interesting that both you and George turned to Buddhism after getting to OT 8. The thing is, OT 8 is not the end of Scientology. I don’t know if you did the original OT levels, and none of the 4 versions of OT 8 that have been delivered by COS have been the complete level as designed by LRH. I also don’t know if you’ve done the L’s. And no one has done the further GPM handlings from OT 9, 10, 11, etc.

              LRH developed Scientology philosophy first, and then the tech from that. If you compare the two, it’s painfully obvious that there was a lot more possible tech that he just didn’t get around to finalizing, given the ridiculously short human lifespans we have to deal with. So, while I’d never MIX practices, I see nothing wrong with doing everything possible in Scientology, and then doing the same in Buddhism. I do see something wrong with abandoning Scientology practice before doing it all, and that’s what motivated me to comment on George’s daughter becoming a Theravada nun. To tell you the truth, I felt grief when I read George’s report on that.

              I appreciate your contribution to “a milder middle way” re the factional disputes that sometimes have occured on this blog.

              Re my own Buddhist practice this lifetime, it’s been pretty eclectic, and has included Vipassana, Zen, and Vajrayana. I also did a substantial amount of Transcendental Meditation and knew Maharishi personally. I never settled into one practice, under one master, for very long, though. Part of the reason for that was that I’d done so much of every one of these approaches prior to this lifetime that they felt like going back over paths I’d already travelled. Scientology, however, I saw as a new and superior variation on the theme, that made all the others obsolete, at least for me.

          • Kassapa,
            Thanks for your comments.
            I will get right to your questions.

            “What is YOUR intention on this blog? Have you forever shut the door behind you re Scientology? Are you here to disseminate Buddhism? Lend your support to a parallel path? What, exactly?”

            My intention on this blog is in two parts:
            1. To outline the Theravada teaching and to compare and contrast it
            to Scientology in order to show the differences. I have been contacted by many people who really want to know about Theravada Buddhism.
            I have been asked by many to continue to post on this blog as it is their
            only outlet to an alternative to suppression. I do it out of compassion to these and others who have told me of the benefits.
            2. To preserve the tradition of old style Scientology auditing which I feel is valuable. I actually admire good auditors. As a former Class IV myself, I know what is possible. It is wrong that Mr. Miscavige changed auditing and I am not at all happy about it.

            Have I shut the door on Scientology?
            No, I have not shut the door. However, Miscavige’s ‘church’ is a tangled mess. As a matter of fact, I have stated that I have no objection to independent auditing. In fact, I was ready to send some people to the auditors but the need vanished.
            As stated, I am perfectly happy with the Theravada tradition and I practice it and see no need for Scientology at present. This includes re-tread on any OT- levels. It has been 23 years since I practiced Scientology. The independent movement is new within the last year for me. Scientology as a path had faded to nothing. The Theravada tradition filled the void. Once I got on the path, I had no need for further OT levels of any kind. This has been a great relief.

            Am I here to disseminate Buddhism?
            No. I have stated over and over that we do no ‘disseminate’ in the Theravada tradition. In fact, I stated that it is my policy to refer people back to the study of Scientology. I have done this at least 12 times in the last year.

            Lend support to a parallel path?
            No, This I know of no other path.

            I hope this helps, Kassapa.
            We disagree on many other points but I respect your right to your viewpoints.

            May all beings be well and happy!
            GMW

            • George,

              I’m glad you want to contribute to preserving the tradition of old style Scientology auditing. Certainly that tradition was much more filled with Buddhist compassion than DM’s Church of the Nazi Substitute (CONS).

              I can also understand your relief at not having to do any more squirrel OT levels in the Church. I just think you might feel differently about Scientology if DM hadn’t put his suppressive curve on the tech you received.

              Also, while Class 4 is great, a much deeper understanding of Scientology philosophy and technology is available on the Briefing Course, especially when supplemented with 50′s lecture series. Then the Class 8 course pulls it all together.

              Perhaps you never really left Scientology. Perhaps what happened was that you didn’t fully arrive, due to truncating your training and getting squirrel upper level auditing. DM’s alterations have done this to many people.

              I’d never try to steer anyone away from what’s working for them. But for people who don’t have a solution, I think their best bet is Scientology — real, complete Scientology. That’s what most of the participants in this blog are trying to re-establish.

              • Kassapa,
                Appreciate your comments.
                The BIG difference I see in regard to Scientology and Buddhism is exactly what you said above. In Scientology, there is a big ‘carrot’ out front. It always postulates that if you do ‘more’ or if you just get past all of the ‘misunderstandings’, you will reach the goal of OT. This is the route that David Miscavige teaches and I listened to him for over an hour. In the end,it was nonsense. You have no idea how many people contact me from Scientology who followed exactly what LRH said. You will say in response that David Miscavige altered the tech and it it not LRH. Just go up to Class VIII and you go full OT. There is an alternative to the Scientology OT levels and that is very real to me now.
                The point about Buddhism is that it REALLY WORKS. I don’t know any other way of saying it to you. I have experienced both – Scientology and Buddhism. Scientology has its value. I think traditional old style auditing is a brilliant technological advancement. I defend Scientology on that point. However, you have no idea what LRH really missed. There is an alternative path that does not cost $500,000. I paid real money for Class IV and OTVIII. It was PURELY a business transaction in the end. That is a naked fact. It is not important to me that Miscavige or LRH could not deliver real value for the money. If Scientology is what you say it is,
                it would be FREE. Can you see that?
                Much loving-kindness,
                GMW

                • George,

                  David Miscavige is an SP. He DID alter the tech, both training and processing, so it wouldn’t work at upper levels. He DID get reg’s to tell people they just needed to buy more service and all would be well. Your experience was NOT of actual Scientology.

                  Your decision to stop buying the Not-Scientology that DM and Company sell was correct. Your observation that Buddhism worked better for you was correct. Your decision to stick with Buddhism for years and years was correct.

                  But you didn’t get real Scientology. It wasn’t available then. It is available now in the Independent field.

                  Does that mean you should come back — end your Buddhist practice and give Scientology another try? Not necessarily. Everyone has to do what works for them. If Buddhism or anything else is working for you now, it would make sense to keep doing it. But if you did suspend your Buddhist practice, and got a thorough repair of your Scientology experience (auditing, training, ethics, regging, DM, the works) from an Independent Scientology auditor who’d give you the real thing (Karen, Trey, Pierre, etc), that would be even better in my opinion. You could always go back to Buddhism if you weren’t happy with the results of your Scientology repair.

                  My personal experience with Scientology auditing was that whenever I got actual Standard Tech and the actual Grade Chart, the auditing was a joy. My TA would go up in session, and that sometimes took a little confront to get through, but the discomfort wouldn’t last long, and the end result of every session would be that I felt great, more aware, more able, more in PT, more in love with my environment and everyone in it, etc. This happened almost every session. And in many sessions there were big gains even without a lot of TA motion, because I’d spot something fast and blow out.

                  Unfortunately, most of the auditing I received from COS was not Standard Tech. As a trained auditor who also had a deep understanding of the philosophy underlying the technology, I always knew when I was getting squirrel bullshit. It never produced happiness for me right now, the way Standard Tech did. Instead, I’d be told that the way out is the way through, and that I needed to just crank up my confront and get through it. I did my best to co-operate (knuckle under to the enforcement), but the promised result never occured with that type of auditing, and when it was repaired, it always turned out that it had been out-tech in the first place.

                  After years and years of this, I just refused to do anything I didn’t think was Standard Tech. That made me an ethics particle. But whenever they gave me the actual Standard Tech I asked for, it worked like gangbusters.

                  Throughout all of this, I never lost confidence in LRH and Standard Tech. The problem was always the people delivering it. As DM acquired more and more power, and changed the tech more and more, it eventually got to the point where I could see no hope of getting Standard Tech inside COS. But I never lost confidence in the tech itself.

                  For me, Standard Tech definitely produced big-time spiritual gain. Perhaps that was because I’d already gone way, way “up the pole” in Buddhism prior to Scientology both this lifetime and on the whole track, so that when Standard Tech removed something that had keyed in to pull me down out of a more enlightened state, I’d pop back up. But, however it worked, Standard Tech and the actual Grade Chart always produced fast, big gains for me.

                  George, I DO know what you say LRH missed. I had my this lifetime Buddhist enlightenment experience prior to Scientology, and it was definitely in the realm of “above these things there may be speculation only” per The Factors. That was through Zen practice. I also did TM prior to Scientology and had many OT experiences as a result. And even after getting into Scientology I fooled around with Vajrayana techniques, which caused big upper-level effects. Don’t ask about the details of any of this, though. I’m not going to put any hidden standards there for others. One gets out of practice what he gets, and that’s that.

                  Meditation can be similar to auditing, depending on the type of meditation being used. Simple mindfulness, as-ising whatever comes up as it comes up, is similar to auditing. So is using a mantra, koan, or other mental device as a sort of auditing command. The device restimulates something that can then be as-ised by being there and looking at it with no inval or eval of either self or whatever came up.

                  Certain other meditation techniques, however, can get into “mood making,” as can the rituals and cultural trappings serving as a context for one’s practice. There are Vajrayana techniques that for me produced near instant good feelings. And Transcendental Meditation produced a palpable, high-wavelength substance that had both weight and viscosity. It felt very good to be in an environment filled with that substance.

                  When I attended my first Scientology event in 1968, in a hotel conference hall with staff, public, and many new Clears and OTs, what convinced me was the clean emptiness of the space. No enturbulated energy like the wog world, and no cotton-candy, warm and wonderful cloud like at the TM center. I wanted Empty, not Pleasant. So I became a Scientologist.

                  Of course, this was when orgs were delivering real Scientology. DM was 8 years old terrorizing only the smaller neighborhood kids. Professional audting was $25/hr. The Briefing Course was $800. The original OT 1-7 package was $2800. And there were no long eligibility programs or 6-month checks to run up one’s auditing hourse. LRH had cancelled disconnection, fair game, and sec checks. The Sea Org had just started and had no influence on local orgs and missions. For the most part, people were winning and having fun.

                  Do what works for you. But avoid mood-making. And when you compare Theravada to Scientology, please compare it to REAL Scientology, not DMs Church of Not-Scientology (CONS).

                  • Kassapa,
                    Thank you for your comments. You are 100% Scientologist.
                    All that I can say to you is very simple. There are few words to describe it.
                    There is no auditing repair that I need. You have never really experienced the Buddhist Path. This is obvious from you massive comments. You are trying to say things with viewpoints and that is the point – you can’t.
                    When you get truly get that, you will be on the first step of the path.
                    After that, I can recommend a teacher for you.
                    Much loving-kindness,
                    GMW

                    • Kassapa, the 100% Scientologist:
                      Another point you are very seriously missing. Most of my Scientology was delivered way before Miscavige. In fact, I had contact with LRH when he visited Flag. I don’t remember the exact year – like 1976?.
                      Also, I wrote to him in the days when he really did reply.
                      I listened to all of the tapes and lectures. I studied the entire subject from top to bottom. You are in a very serious minority if you believe that there are no contradictions in his work. I respect LRH for what he did. As stated on this blog, I defend auditors and auditing in public.
                      You really don’t see it in youself but you have a self-centered way of expressing your viewpoints about Scientology. In this way, you are following one of the worst traditions of Scientology which is better left with Miscavige. Please lighten up.

                      Much loving-kindness

                    • George,

                      I’m not going to argue with you over whether or not I was ever a real Buddhist, because it’s largely a matter of awareness levels. The lower level can’t even see the upper one. So, if I’m higher, you can’t see me. And if you’re higher, I can’t see you. So, go in peace, and I’ll do the same.

                    • Kassapa, brilliant answer. I’ll go with your peace.

              • Kassapa,
                Just could not resist reading what you wrote above in regard to your practice in Buddhism. You have been critical of the fact that I never completed CLASS VIII and so you say that I missed the real Scientology.
                Your description of your path in Buddhism is exactly what I went through
                from 1964-1973. It is amazing. You went from practice to practice and from master to master and never really got it. I did exactly the same thing.
                The real teaching is very subtle. The Buddha says this over and over.
                Please do not give up; you will hit the path if you persist.
                Here is what you wrote:

                “My own Buddhist practice this lifetime, it’s been pretty eclectic, and has included Vipassana, Zen, and Vajrayana. I also did a substantial amount of Transcendental Meditation and knew Maharishi personally. I never settled into one practice, under one master, for very long, though. Part of the reason for that was that I’d done so much of every one of these approaches prior to this lifetime that they felt like going back over paths I’d already travelled. Scientology, however, I saw as a new and superior variation on the theme, that made all the others obsolete, at least for me.

                You hit the “fortress wall” that very few pass through. What happens at the upper levels in Buddhism is truly amazing. I can’t describe it to you in words.

                Much loving-kindness,
                GMW

                • George,

                  I did go through the “fortress wall.” I had a full-blown Zen satori at 19. It was, as you say, “truly amazing.” Like you, “I can’t describe it to you in words,” and even if I could, I wouldn’t in a public forum like this. No one I ever tried to explain it to came close to understanding it if the hadn’t had the experience themselves.

                  This and the study and practice that led directly to it was my FIRST this lifetime experience with Buddhism. TM, Vipassana, and Vajrayana came AFTER.

                  I did get it, George.

                  • Kassapa, the 100% Scientologist:
                    If you did get it, why are you now so fixed in views? You would have achieved inner peace. It is obvious that you have an aggressive tendency.
                    Perhaps you did not eradicate your inherited kamma? Just asking.
                    Much loving-kindness,
                    GMW

                    • George,

                      You are on a Theravada path that does not vow to save all sentient beings. I am on a Mahaya/Vajrayana/Scientology path that does so vow. So, when I achieved inner peace for myself as a result of my Zen satori it wasn’t enough. I immediately felt like sharing it with others. Every major advance I made in Scientology also gave me inner peace, and resulted in the urge to share my gains with others.

                      Ultimately this sharing means getting things DONE. It doesn’t mean just letting happen whatever will happen without trying to influence at all. Once can influence without opposing.

                      Also, true enlightenment is not just subjective, but objective in terms of increased ability to operate and cause good effects in the “real world” shared by all sentient beings.

                      So as one travels the “true path” he experiences ever increasing inner peace, spiritual connection with others, the urge to help them, and the real world ability to do so. This is not based in one’s karma. It is based in the fundamental Buddha nature we all share.

                      I am not at all fixed in my views of what constitutes a worthwhile life. That’s up to each person to decide for himself. But I do have certainty on how to get certain things done, as did the historical Kassapa who led the Sangha after Gotama’s death. He was both revered and resented for his strict adherence to Gotama’s Dharma (standard tech). Yet when Gotama said to his gathered followers at his last public appearance that he would now teach the ultimate essence of Buddhism, and then silently held up a single flower, Kassapa was the only monk who smiled in recognition. Gotama then invited him to come to join him on the dias, handed him the flower, and proclaimed him his spiritual successor AND guardian of the Dharma. There was no “different strokes for different folks” in this at all. Kassapa had arrived at the goal of the Dharma by being strict with himself about following Gotama’s instructions.

                      As I’ve said, I don’t claim to be the historical Kassapa, but he is an inspiration to me. LRH is gone. The Church has gone to the dogs. The Independent Scientology field is fragmented, with many disagreements over what constitutes standard tech and whether or not we should even try to follow it. I believe that the solution to our situation is to take refuge in the “Modern Three Treasures”: LRH, standard tech, and some workable form of decentralized organization similar to the old mission network. If anything viable is to come of Scientology at this point it will gather around people who stand up for these 3 “treasures.” So, that’s what I’m doing.

                    • Kassapa — please see my comment to George.

        • wh,
          It seems a legit question. You and George are pushing this Buddha thing pretty heavy here. Kassapa has more than a passing KRC on both subjects and has expressed that very clearly in other threads.

          My take on his question is that it is in keeping with what he has laid out thorougly in those previous threads.

          Whatever it was you and George found as a solution to whatever it was you were/are trying to solve, in your new practice of whatever variation of Buddhism it is you practice, is yours. It skirts the line of urging another practice or “mixing”, heaven forbid, while doing one or the other.

          I get it. You are dissatisfied with your experience in the Church and now have found an answer to it. Fine.

          George, I knew a woman once, very well in fact, who had learned Pali and studied the canon. She did this prior to her experience in Dianetics in Scientology. Her first track run, down to an incident that was real and impinged, that left her completely out of that portion of the track, and more aware than she’d ever attained in other practices, left her certain she’d found where that earlier material had led – to the exteriorized being as Static.

          OK, fine, thankyou, I GET IT. You are Buddhists.

          I am.

          • Jim:

            And I get it — you are a scientologist.

            And you are quite loud and clear about that and have been consistently on this board. In fact, you often have urged those of us under the radar to come out … and I don’t agree.

            However, if you are so offended and need to say IN CAPITALS — YOU GET IT …

            Then I am happy to just read the various articles by Marty and the comments.

            Apparently you feel as if George and I are tarnishing the good work of LRH or something — not really sure which of your qual buttons have been pushed but again —

            Am happy to be quiet. Sad though — there is LOTS that can be gained by being open to learning — about Sufis, about buddhists, about Ken Wilber — tons to learn and helps to not lock someone down into the

            My way is THE best way. I just happen to know about buddhism and thus felt I could share that here. Apparently not and least not as far as you are concerned and I prefer not to be jumped on.

            WH

            • wh,
              Apparently you didn’t get it. I said “I am”.

              Being isn’t the same as an identity. the Static, the Ultimate Truth, the Ultimate Solution isn’t a valence. Nothing isn’t Something. The Creator isn’t the Created until the Axioms play out and then Theta is Theta the Problem.

              I’m kinda disappointed with the “I’m taking my buddha-ball and going home” sort of thing.

              I’ ve got a viewpoint and said what I saw. I have no objection to and routinely do learn about Sufis, Zoraster, Kleptinshteinosd, Pollopquians, and today, Grades of Sandpaper (the Working with Cedar sect). Eat a really big donut, the squishy soft Krispy Kreme glazed variety.

              • Jim: You continue to be condescending.

                Your “I am” — could have been a typo — I was unsure.

                It certainly wasn’t clear to me —

                Sorry to disappoint. I’m not really much different from anyone else who doesn’t like being metaphorically slapped.

                WH

                • I’m guessing Kassapa is going to go quiet for awhile. It appears he accomplished what he wanted.

                  Remember — it’s been Kassapa who has waxed paragraphs about buddhism – not me or George.

                  Let’s see if he answers my questions about what he practiced? And Georges questions about his scn experience, posts etc.

                  Sometimes a bot in a different disguise is how to tell. Who would think a bot would call himself a buddhist?

                  WH

                  • Windhorse, If there is a bot here, it will be the one who keeps the focus on Buddhism and this upset, or starts another one.
                    Buddhism has a place here, as a spiritual ancestor of scientology. Its an honorary place. I feel the amount of information on various buddhist sects given out recently has been welcome, but also more than enough for the non-practitioner.
                    Any personal wounds on pride are always an opportunity for spiritual advancement, as you know. So I hope these recent exchanges have served their purpose.

                    • Old Lang Syne,

                      The long exchanges about Buddhism have been my fault.

                      I originally intended a couple of weeks ago to make a quick, passing correction to George’s saying Buddhism doesn’t recognize the existence of thetans. Doubt about thetans seems to be a common denominator for many people who got squirrel OT levels, packed up a lot of BPC, and experienced a drop in reality level as a result. I didn’t want them to get support for that doubt by misunderstanding the Buddhist doctrine of no-self. I didn’t expect that there would be so much interest in discussing that issue. Once the group comm cycle started, and so many people expressed appreciation for the data I was giving them, it seemed that I should keep responding to others responses as long as I had something useful to say.

                      The long discussion on this thread was also started by me, when I responded to George’s reporting that his 19-yr-old daughter was about to become a Theravada nun for the rest of her life. I felt grief over that. And it clarified for me that George’s intention for people he cares about is that they NOT do Scientology, but go right into Theravada instead. I had to respond to that. Frankly my thought was, “What relevance does George’s Buddhist adventures have to the purpose of this blog?” I wanted to REDUCE the amount of irrelevant Buddhist chatter on the blog, not increase it. Or, at the very least, steer the discussion of Buddhism back to the reason Scientologists become interested in actually practicing it, which is the failure of COS to deliver REAL Scientology. Both George and Windhorse quit Scientology and took up Buddhism after getting substantial amounts of squirrel CM tech.

                      I actually DON’T want to be doing all this posting about Buddhism. I really don’t have time for it. But because I understand both subjects, I’ve felt a responsibility to set the record straight on certain things. I want to talk about Scientology, not Buddhism. I have a great deal to say about how the Church went off the rails, and how we can get Scientology back on track. I want to get to that.

                  • Windhorse,

                    OK. It’s time for some straight talk.

                    When I agreed with you, you said I was very wise and wonderful. When I disagreed with you, you said I’m a bot, “sent in” to be “divisive.” Rather than deal with my ideas, you’re trying to change the subject to me, my intentions, and my qualifications. Sorry, that won’t work.

                    The subject of my posts has been Scientology vs Buddhism. My “beef” with you and George is that you DID give up on Scientology, and you ARE disseminating Buddhism to Independent Scientologists through this blog, no matter what you say. You are subtly encouraging Scientologists to leave not just the Church, but Scientology as well, and do something else altogether, when all they really need to do is hook up with real Scientologists in the Independent field and do real Scientology there.

                    And that’s what the two of you need to do, too. You’re using Buddhism as a substitute for Scientology, because you have unhandled bypassed charge from receiving out-tech auditing from the Church of Not Scientology. Buddhism, whether Theravada or Vajrayana, does work well enough to give you some emotional relief and spiritual gain. But it’s a substitute for the Auditing Repair Program you actually need.

                    Telling you this IS “much loving kindness,” in the same vein as the historical Kassapa’s correction of Ananda, which is why I told you that story.

                    I do understand and empathize with what you went through at the hands of the Church. I had epic wars with them over my own bridge. But now that real Scientology is available outside the Church, the in-ethics thing for you and George to do is go get your lousy auditing repaired. There’s really nothing more to say than that.

                    • Very well said, Kassapa. I too had years of out tech delivered to me in Miscavige’s organizations. But I knew the real Scientology from LRH worked. I proceeded to get that from 1998 (when I left) onward. It has proven to be a very wise decision.

                    • Kassapa,
                      Thanks for your comments. You are entitled to your opinion. If you go back in history on this blog, you will see that the definition of an independent Scientologist was covered in depth. It is a very loose definition designed to stimulate discussion.
                      You are heavy into evaluation of your own view. It is very difficult to see you as a follower of the Buddha. The great thing about my tradition, is that we allow other viewpoints. I think we really need to get to the bottom of this:

                      1. I am not trying in any way to get Scientologists to leave the Church.
                      I will say it again. I always tell people to go back and study Scientology. This is my policy. Do you think I try to get people to leave Scientology?
                      NO WAY. However, let’s look at it. You are trying to change me and that is not your right.

                      2. I am not talking in a subtle way with covert intentions to get people to leave. I am telling my story. You may accept it or not.

                      3. Your comments about going into the independent field to get the true tech are spoken from your own personal viewpoint. The independent field is just starting. It has a long way to go.

                      I have no problem if you call yourself Buddhist. That is your right.
                      However, I regard you as 100% Scientologist.

                      Much loving-kindness,
                      GMW

                      It is done willingly

                    • I am not trying in any way to get Scientologists to leave the Church. Flunk, you should.

                      You are trying to change me. Falsehood, he’s pointing out aberrations.

                      I am not talking in a subtle way with covert intentions to get people to leave. Falsehood, you’re posting as an LRH OT VIII bragging Buddhism while dismissing OT powers as inferior to enlightenment.

                      The independent field is just starting. It has a long way to go. Correct estimation.

              • Jim,

                I got it when you said “I am.”

                Not to mix practices or anything, but when Moses asked the burning bush who he was, didn’t Yawheh say, “I am that I am”?

            • Windhorse,

              You are a vital voice here. Don’t you dare consider not communicating openly to us.

              Ok. Go ahead and dare. What’s the harm in considering anything? Choice is senior. But…

              To evaluate any datum requires a datum of comparable magnitude. The closest comparable magnitude datum on this planet to Scientology is probably Buddhism. Comparable doesn’t necessarily mean opposite or exact.

              There’s much to learn about how Buddhism progressed to help predict what is happening to Scientology and what might happen.

              Any subject is merely a bunch of words unless someone sees the truth that those words represent. Like Kassapa and Ananda. Having a perfect memory of what was said doesn’t mean it was understood.

              Every subject has emphasis. For Buddhism, one emphasis was love and compassion as a means of discovering truth (complete affinity which allows understanding at its highest.) Scientology always emphasized “workability.” Whatever worked to attain the goal. Which leads to all sorts of misunderstanding and wrong emphasis.

              So, before I go off too far, your voice is valued.

              To be proselytized provides an opportunity to test one’s beliefs and reach greater understanding.

              • Morning, Once:

                No worries. It’s hard to keep me quiet for long :)

                Thanks for your thoughtful words.

                And I’ll have to watch myself — proselytizing isn’t really a very appealing way to communicate … and typically doesn’t achieve the apparent goals of conversion (though certainly not mine here, however unskilled my communication has been) as people just dig in their heels harder on their belief.

                Although presented with different beliefs – that does enable people to test their own.

                I TRY to not cling to a beliefs but work to examine based on experiential knowledge what remains true for me.

                WH

                • Windhorse,

                  Yes, I would tend to think that as a proselytizer, you are lacking, lacking the true zealot’s fixation on being right and needing to dominate.

                  As for watching yourself, one of the great things about being around friends is being able to let it all hang out. To be embraced and appreciated by another despite disagreements and flaws? Priceless.

            • ♥♥♥♥Windhorse.♥♥♥♥

              You are an ASSET to this blog.
              I so appreciate your observations and musings.
              love/Karen

              • I agree that WH is a real asset to this blog and I don’t ever feel like she’s pushing Buddhism. Seems to me she’s just being gently honest about where she was then and where she is now, with zero make-wrong of anyone else’s choices.

                The only thought that keeps going through my mind about ex-Scientologists who wind up in Buddhism etc is: what about Charge? Is it considered to exist? If so, how is it dealt with?

                If the Axioms are correct, to as-is (vanish) a negative or charged experience requires its perfect duplication – ie, getting its exact time, place, form, event. It beats me how you get to this by chanting or meditating or reading or listening.

                I’ve never been able to understand how anything can be as-ised via such practices as meditation. I understand how you could easily key out from such practices. I just don’t get how you can achieve an as-isness from them. Maybe someone can answer this question for me.

                • I’ll put it down very simple, but there is enough material to build a NEW bridge if someone is interested (ironic).
                  Scientology is into Triangles, there are more than 2, maybe there are 200 or more. one of this maybe the Triangle of BE, DO, HAVE. Where BE is the assumption of a Viewpoint, DO is the interaction of the Viewpoint with the MEST universe and HAVE is the past experiences including any Bank.
                  Almost all LRH tech from Grade 0 up to NOTs is involved in handlig the HAVE part of the triangle. But mind you IT’s a triangle, if you make better one side the other two improve too. Subsequently, if you address the BE part of it, e.g. changing slitly the viewpoint of people, you are going to improve the others. Part of the past experiences (bank) discharge even without you seing them. The prove is OT2 material on, or PTS tech, where if you move away from your SP you get better. Ron did do that also, with the Creative Auditing. Part of them are in the book the creation of human ability.
                  Much love to you

            • windhorse,
              My wife has been reading your comments and she just loves them. There are so many people reading this blog who appreciate open discussions about religion. If Scientology is based on sound principles, then it should be discussed in the open. The Buddha allowed all questions.
              Scientology or any other religion has the right to defend itself. When Scientology defends itself, it gets aggressive that is a known fact.
              The only point I am making for the benefit of Kassapa is that my tradition of Buddhism REALLY WORKS. In the end that is all that matters.
              I can see that windhorse’s tradition also works and I have grown to respect that truth on this blog.

              At any rate, we are from Massachusetts and my wife wanted to mention that. We love New England.
              Much loving-lindness,
              GMW

          • Jim: I wasn’t dissatisfied with my experience. I was not allowed on the base due to a breakdown after OT VIII. Not wanting or believing that my spiritual eternity was owned by the church I looked elsewhere.

            It’s possible that Kassapa has more than a passing KRC on both subjects but most of what he stats about buddhism can be found on the web without any actual experience. What I am aware of is that his post was divisive and I mentioned it to him.

            Afterwards came paragraph after paragraph of explanation. From what I can tell intended to make me wrong. But I could be projecting :)

            Perhaps he’s really someone sent it to create dissension. Not all things are what they might seem.

            But I get your point.

            One way to really dirty a needle though — are all those rapid acknowledgements — but you know that so I’m assuming it was your intention.

            • Windhorse,

              I’m very sorry to hear that you had a breakdown after OT 8. However, to me that’s proof that you got out-tech. Then Flag or FSSO wouldn’t take responsibility for their overts, and barred you from the base to cover up those overts rather than helping you by correcting them. So, of course you had to look elsewhere. As “elsewhere’s” go, you could have done a lot worse than Vajrayana.

              But if you crashed after OT 8, you got out-tech, not real Scientology. That’s the point.

              As I understand it, the purpose of this blog is to help people recover from DM’s suppression, and make it safe for them to practice real Scientology outside of COS. Anything and everything I’ve posted here has been to support that purpose.

            • wh,
              I’ll admit I’ve lost interest in the rabbit’s journey. The other night I went out with a neighbor here in New South Wales. He had two high-powered lights on the grill and a rifle with another on it. Kangaroos be the aim. No roos so out he jumped and with as clean a shot as I’ve seen, at about 20 meters, phhttt, the .22 dropped the bunny. For the pot.

              I thanked the rabbit for the food. I imagine the theta in it is now one of 4 thousand other rabbits, overrunning the neighborhood. Not much randomity in a rabbit, but more than a bug I suppose. Cuter too.

          • Jim,
            One of the reasons I talk about the Buddha on this blog is because of the misunderstandings by Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Cruise on the subject.
            As stated many times on this blog, Mr. Miscavige’s nightline comment about “Scientology being like Buddhism” would apply to the independent movement but not to corporate Scientology. Here we have Mr. Miscavige who is altering Scientology saying it is like Buddhism. Next thing he will try to do is alter Buddhism. I don’t want that to happen.
            In the end, if a former Buddhist goes into a past life experience and then embraces Scientology, this is perfectly fine with us in the Theravada tradition. It really is. Now when Mr. Miscavige sees a Scientologist become a Buddhist, he sends out the dogs.

            May all beings be well and happy!
            GMW

            • Hey George,
              What years were you in Toronto? I was there in the mid 70′s. The Avenue Road org, and a bit in the various other spots, the hotel around the corner from Maple Leaf Gardens was one.

              Dave isn’t going to cut the Buddhist thing George, so he won’t have a chance to change whatever variation you are thinking about. I wouldn’t worry about that.

              • Jim,
                I was in Toronto 1977-1981. There was a mission run by? – I can’t remember names – but it was on a little street about 1/2 a mile from the main org on the big street that is famous. I took many courses and really enjoyed it. David Mayo was hot and most of the people left to follow him and then drifted out.
                I would fly to Clearwater every other weekend and get auditing at Flag.
                Great city. I actually lived in Missisauga in a luxury condo so life was very, very good for me. I was a pampered marketing executive at the time.
                Please tell about your experience. I have more.
                GMW

          • Hi Jim,
            I get what you’re saying. I don’t care if people are Buddhists or Catholic or whatever. But too much of the details gets to be a bit boring to me.
            Even someone going on and on about their wins in Scientology can be a bit much. :-)
            I think the common deniominator here is to be able to talk freely about Scientology experiences and that we want the SP handled in some way.
            But it is Marty’s blog and he gives a wide berth, which I think is cool.
            I just wanted to let you know that I was feeling ya a bit.

      • Kassapa,
        We have been attending services and devotions at our local Vihara for
        more than ten years.
        She is not a Scientologist.
        In Theravada Buddhism, we rely only on the Pali Canon.
        It is all that we need.
        The independent movement is less than a year old for us.
        Much loving-kindness,
        GMW

        • George,

          I sincerely wish you the best on the path you have chosen, even when I have chosen a different path. However, something puzzles me. If the Pali Canon is all you need, what are you trying to get from your participation in this blog? What is your purpose here? Is it to disseminate Theravada? If so, how does that help Independent Scientologists intent on re-establishing delivery of Scientology outside of COS suppression?

          • Kassapa,
            I answered the questions above.
            There is one additional point.
            Independent Scientologists can be helped by an honest discussion of the different Buddhist traditions. After all, LRH claimed to have been in contact with a monk named Dharma 10,000 years before recorded history.
            As a Theravadin, I don’t accept that. However, I am very certain you would find another tradition that would accept it. In addition, I respect your right to accept the narrative. It is OK.

            May all beings be well and happy,
            GMW

            • George,

              I never believed the “monk named Dharma” story either.

              • Kassapa,
                It is common to discredit a source if it is not factual. How can you weave together Scientology and Buddhism after you discredit source???

                GMW

                • I don’t require anyone to be perfect.

                  • Kassapa, 100% Scientologist:
                    You said:

                    “I have a great deal to say about how the Church went off the rails, and how we can get Scientology back on track. I want to get to that.”

                    You are fully qualified to do that. Why don’t you get off the Buddhist gig?
                    I would love to hear your views on getting Scientology back on track.
                    I’m sure we will all find your opinions interesting.
                    Challenge?
                    ML,
                    GMW

                    • George,

                      You think the Pali Canon is “all we need.” So why wuld you be interested in my views on getting Scientology back on track?

                      Re the Buddhist conversation, I’d love to get off it. I’ve really said all I have to offer, at least with regard to those aspects of Buddhism that have been discussed here. I really only intended to make a couple of passing comments in the first place.

      • Kassapa,
        I now remember reading about a different Kassapa in the Pali Canon who was a naked ascetic. It is very interesting. Your question is in substance very similar.

        Kassapa:
        “How is it, Master Gotama, is suffering of one’s own making?”
        The Buddha:
        “Do not put it like that, Kassapa.”

        The Buddha refused to answer because he would be silent if the question was not framed properly. It was his policy.

        Much loving-kindness,
        GMW

        • George,

          The historical Kassapa was very spiritually accomplished before he ever heard of Gotama. So, when he first met Gotama he tested him with a lot of questions such as you quote. With Gotama’s help, Kassapa then completed his attainment of enlightenment. Ultimately he exceeded all of Gotama’s other followers in his spiritual awareness and strict adherence to the Dharma. At Gotama’s last public appearance he announced Kassapa as his spiritual successor and guardian of the true Dharma.

          • Kassapa,
            I know a monk in Texas who is a far better authority on Kassapa than I am.
            I will ask him and get back to you with his viewpoint.

            May all beings be well and happy!
            GMW

            • George,

              Do you know of a friend of the Buddha who hovered on the outskirts, attained enlightenment, was never a monk per se, but mostly served as an external viewpoint of the movement?

              • OnceUponaTime,
                There were many householders who attained enlightenment as you say. In fact, I have read historical accounts which claim that tihis was unders-stated in the Canon. Have no specific names that I recall now.
                Do you have a name?

                GMW

                • George,

                  No name. Just memories. Some individuals in history seem so dominant now, but might well have been of little “significance” at the time. We would think that Jesus and Buddha were household names in their lives, but they weren’t. Communication systems were limited. Outside the Bible, Jesus is only casually mentioned in very few (2 or 3?) writings of the period, one being Suetonius–about a sentence.

                  Thus, a person living alongside of such a figure might not have realized how this individual would emerge as historically important. A man could have memories of drinking night after night with a crazy artist who couldn’t sell his paintings for anything, and who depended on his brother for support, not quite sure if this was the painter recognized now as Van Gogh.

                  If someone who had gone to high school with Janis Joplin died before she became famous might recall through an historical lens “this trashy loudmouth that I think might be…” Not being invidious with this, just using an example.

                  Some individuals gain far more importance after their deaths, while some lose all the importance and fame granted them by their contemporaries. History is replete with great spirits spreading a message and acquiring followers.

          • Kassapa,
            Afterthought. I don’t know much about your Scientology experience.
            Curious to know what posts you held? You seem to be extremely dedicated to Scientology. Can’t understand why you left or why they let you go.

            GMW

            • George,

              I left COS for the same reason everyone else did. It ceased to deliver actual Scientology. I never left Scientology.

              • three buddhists and a scientologist walk into a bar. The scientologist says “&%$@#! that smarts.”

                How many buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?
                Three. One to change the lightbulb, one NOT to change the lightbulb, and one to neither change nor not change the lightbulb.

                How many scientologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
                Three. One to screw in another’s lightbulb, another to screw in one’s own lightbulb, and another to screw in another’s lightbulb.

                (okay ya’ll are going to have to shoot me now, srsly)

              • Kassapa,
                You are probably one of the most dedicated Scientologists I have ever encountered. Were you in the Sea Org? Were you around in 1988 when I completed OTVIII?
                I can see that you actually never left Scientology. You live it fully.

                GMW

                • That’s right. I never left Scientology. The problem is not Scientology itself, as a philosophy, technology, and movement, its the cancerous cult of Not-Scientologists that grew inside the Church, took it over, and ruined it.

                  • Kassapa, 100% Scientologist:
                    I really want to know something about your Scientology career.
                    We are all open on this blog. I sense you are really holding back a lot.
                    Can you make us all feel more at ease with you?
                    How can you talk of reforming all of Scientology unless we know who you are?

                    ml,
                    GMW

              • Kassapa,
                I really want to know. Did you hold a post in Scientology? Were you just public? You obviously are fully dedicated to Scientology.
                GMW

              • Kassapa, 100% Scientologist:
                If you left Scientology for the same reason everyone else left,
                if you claim to have the ability to reform Scientology to its true nature,
                if you claim to be an authortative tech terminal,
                why did you not just reform it from within?
                Why spend years with the independent movement with no money and buildings.
                If you really want to expand Scientology, go back and kick out Mr. Miscavige with your OT TR-0 and other OT abilities

                Make sense?
                ML,
                GMW
                PS I just meditate,you know – harmless We Theravadins rarely come out. So this might be your last chance.

                • George — As much as your comments have been enlightening and valuable to readers of this blog, it seems like its time that you started your own! A stranger logging on here may be rightly confused about whether they have visited a Buddhist blog. You have a lot to say and there is likely an audience for it, but honestly, at this point, I for one skip over the comments discussing the merits or lack thereof of Buddhism. You and Kassapa have pretty much had free rein. Do you think we could now return to the topic that most people come to this blog to read about and discuss? And while I know you to be a decent man, I do find you to be sounding sort of superior and preachy of late. I liked the old George better :)

                  • Thanks, Mike. I’m out. No more from me on Buddhism.

                  • Hi Mike –

                    I think George just got swept away and somehow allowed Kassapa to get under his skin.

                    I predicted that Kassapa would “go quiet” and his comment posted at 6:18 PM second to the last comment says exactly that. He’s dropping out of the scien vs buddhist conversation.

                    The part that was so tricky/sticky is that he spoke *some* wisdom and then some very flawed parts and I feel that George got swept away trying to correct those flawed parts, as did I.

                    Kassapa created the effect I believe he intended. To make any of us who might not BE active scientologist nor intending to get independent auditing or training — hesitate before posting anything that isn’t “pure” scientology.

                    I know I am now.

                    And I try to ONLY post support of Marty, you and others who are seeking hard to bring LRH back into the proper light as a man of great wisdom with a modern technology to help beings.

                    I believe our shared support and wish that those who are still suffering within corporate scientology or those families and friends who have lost people to corporate scientology have a place they feel safe coming to … means we should stay open.

                    I don’t think George has any interest in starting a blog. I just think he’s like me or most of us, subject to letting someone get under his skin.

                    Peace :)

                    WH

                    • Thanks WH. You know I love you dearly. I have no personal issues with you or George or Kassapa. I just expressed my view that I was tired of reading this and felt it had gotten out of hand. I hope neither you nor George feel you are “uninvited” or even “unwelcome” here. It’s not the case at all. Just felt I needed to say something about the seemingly never-ending back and forth.

                    • Windhorse,

                      Well, I told Mike I wouldn’t post any more on Buddhism, so the discussion could get back on track with Scientology. But you’re telling people what you think my intentions have been. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t want others to be misled by it. So, with apologies to Mike, here’s one more post on this thread.

                      You are right that the long discussions were started by me when I posted responses to some of George’s comments. I didn’t intend for them to be long, but you, George, and others kept posting repsonses that I felt needed answering, and the conversation just kept going and going and going.

                      The discussion was not you and George correcting my misunderstandings, it was the reverse — I was correcting you and George. No thetans? A 19-year-old girl skipping Scientology altogether and making a lifetime commitment to being a Buddhist nun? My sense of responsibility required me to stand up for the truth as I see it.

                      I had no intention to drive either of you into silence. But I did think that much of your continuous comments on Buddhism, that were going on long before I joined in, were just off-topic and off the purpose of the blog. I also got tired of George repeatedly originating how completely perfect Theravada is, and how it renders Scientology completely unnecessary, even if he does send Scientologists back to Scientology rather than instruct them in Buddhism.

                      Mike has assured both of you that you’re welcome here, and I have no disagreement with that. But I do think that both of you could better align your comments to the purpose of the blog. It’s not a general chat room for seekers of all stripes. Its purpose is to run out the 3rd dynamic engram of COS, and make it safe for Scientologists to practice their religion outside COS. How is that purpose served by someone saying over and over that he’s found something better, even if it’s true that he has?

                      Then there is the issue of Theravada itself. Most Buddhists disagree with the Theravada approach, including everyone in your own Vajrayana, and me. If any variety of Buddhism was going to be indirectly promoted to Scientologists, I didn’t want it to be Theravada.

                      It’s not evil to make an effect on people that encourages them to move in a direction that will benefit them in the viewpoint of the person creating that effect.

                      As for my appearing and disappearing suddenly, I have a business that keeps me extremely busy. I really don’t have time for these long discussions, but felt I owed it to others to take the time when my brief inital comments sparked such interest. Then I have to disappear to catch up with my work. That’s what will happen after this post.

                      OK, Mike, I’m off now.

                  • mrinder,
                    I am not interested in starting my own blog.
                    However, I understand what you are saying.
                    Please go back to your own topic with my utmost appreciation to you and
                    Marty and all other blog members. I started here because of the St.Pete Times article and kept on while the “seige in Texas” was in progress. I really wanted to just help you get rid of Mr. Miscavige. The Buddhism developed because so many people started calling me about it. To this day, I agree with what you are trying to do in regard to reforming Scientology.
                    I don’t know why Kassapa pressed the Buddhist issue so much. He is a Scientologist and that is his right. He probably wanted to bring it to a head.

                    Just to set the record straight. I do not, with intention, try to get people to leave Scientology. It is a by-product of my own enthusiasm for my chosen path. I spent from 1973-1988 in Scientology and studied it with great care. I really do sent people back to Scientology. That is not a falsehood
                    as reported on this blog.

                    I WILL NOW SIGN OFF

                    Much loving-kindness,
                    GMW

                    • George — see my note to WH. And I do believe you concerning your views on Scientology. And even if that was not your view, it matters not to me, you are free to believe and act as you wish. I hope you didnt take this as an effort to make you feel unwelcome to post at all. It was not intended that way. I just said what I thought — that long debates about Scientology versus Buddhism are not what I come to this blog to read. That was all.

                    • George: No need really to leave –

                      Neither you nor I had extended buddhist vs scientology discussions. It was Kassapa who got this going. Go back to earlier articles and see those threads.

                      I believe he wanted to create an atmosphere wherein any voices outside of pure LRH would be silenced.

                      Which would completely change the flavor of this blog. Next would be to figure out WHY he wanted to do that. There are plenty 100% pro-scientology blogs not particularly open to other views.

                      This blog works because it is open, involved and decidedly pro LRH and his wisdom BUT open to wisdom.

                      Otherwise it becomes another anti-dissenters, exclusively pro LRH – closed community.

                      Kassapa posted several comments a few weeks ago — then nothing and then this entire long mish mash.

                      Go with date-coincidence.

                      WH

    • George-

      Sounds like your daughter is really committed. Obviously an evolved being.

      I would just like to comment that in my experience “real living” does not have to include living in a monastery, joining the SO, or doing Yoga everyday.

      “Real living” as Dr Suess said is saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Its about being authentic and dusting yourself off and getting back in the game when your not. “Real living” as you put it is being who you are despite a world frantically trying to stop you from that.

      This is not to say being a monk is not real living. It most certainly is! But so isn’t being a dishwasher or a anything else.

      This is not to say I have it figured out– not even close. I can be as cynical a bastard as you ever met. But- somehow I come back to that place inside myself.

      Kierkegaard said once “Be the self one truly is”

      Easier said than done– but some of the “realest” people in my life– have never meditated once, never held the cans, or anything else.

      Something to think about maybe?

      • Brian –

        Agreed about some of the realest people having never picked up the cans, meditated or anything else …

        BUT almost guaranteed they *somehow* woke up to the realness that is them …

        Most of us require something that HELPS us find this authentic self and I completely agree that that self could be a prince, the pauper, the candlestick maker — anyone.

        I am always amazed when I feel myself slipping out of a place of authentic presence to one of bitchiness, egoness and all sorts of othernesses — all those habitual patterns that make life chaotic and yet it is THROUGH the chaos that can find wisdom.

        “grant your blessing so that the path may clarify confusion
        grant your blessing so that confusion may dawn as wisdom”

        Two lines of a 4 part chant by Gampopa — one of my favorites

        Love,
        WH

        • wh,
          “grant your blessing so that the path may clarify confusion
          grant your blessing so that confusion may dawn as wisdom”

          I really like that one!

          Much loving-kindness,
          GMW

          • I like it too.

            The first 2 lines are:

            Grant your blessings so that my mind may become one with the dharma
            Grant your blessings so that dharma may progress along the path

            Then lines 3 and 4 above.

            These are known as the Four Dharmas of Gampopa and could be considered the entire teachings of the Kagyu path as so much is said in 4 short lines.

            Love,
            WH

      • Dr. Suess also said quite eloquently, “Today you are You, and that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.

      • Brian,
        A most insightful response.
        My conceit got a little bit in the way with my jab at Mr. Miscavige.
        I believe in the end he has a right to his viewpoint. It was his intention to shove it down my throat that caused me to leave Scientology.

        I agree that ‘real living’ is as Dr. Suess says.

        You said:
        “But- somehow I come back to that place inside myself”.

        This is what the Buddha tried to teach. The idea is in the Pali Canon.

        Much loving-kindness,
        GMW

        .

        • George- I totally agree and see your point. You too WH.

        • To George and others: Mike Rinder made a comment that he doesn’t come to the blog for this topic being discussed. So just scroll down Mike, very easy to do.I think posts that are insulting, not respectful or abusive should be completely censored. I also think this isn’t the blog to post your comments on potential trades your baseball team should consider or to debate whether Marvin Gaye was better than Sam Cooke (I rate them equal by the way). But I think George and WH and others express some important viewpoints on spirituality. I’ve gotten lots of gains in Scientology, but I am open to other ways as well. BUT notice that there are just SOME folks who play the age old religion game – they just can’t STAND it when anyone presses forth a viewpoint that ANOTHER religion might have some validity. Thus comes the condescending remarks, the references that back up THEIR religion as superior, the insistence that the people who went to the other religion must not have done THEIR religion correctly. And the beat goes on. Why am I open to considering other religions after 35 years in Scientology? Today I got another email from a formerly very close “friend” on OTVII, who in some attempt to “recover” me has been accusing me of being a List 1 RSer, of being crazy on the subject of Scientology, of “disconnecting from THE grooup”, etc etc etc. Now maybe it is all the Miscavige altered tech (for sure I think it is the force and pressure on how to think now being enforced in the COS, and the 6 month checks). I have seen a person who was consistently in strong interest to enthusiasm now being chronically 1.1 to me and someone who is allegedly handling OT case dramatising GRADE IV case. So yeah, not having reached that case state myself, I have to wonder if it is “working” (whatever the hell that means now). And when I read posts from people who did OT8 pre-Miscavige saying they have found a better way, I am at least interested in what they have to say. Frankly, I don’t know if I have the eneergy anymore to start full scale on another religious quest, but I may just decide to do that one day.So I don’t think there is any reason to protest postings which are respectful and are still within the bounds of the subject of Scientology. Grant beingness. YOU CAN ALWAYS SCROLL DOWN ON ANYTHING YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN. I do it all the time. And yes, I will be applying the data from the PTS materials and I am going to handle a very enturbulating day by deciding to cut the entheta comm line with my “friend.” Yeah, I’m gonna jump the gun and this time I will be the one to do the disconnecting.

      • Brian,

        Well said, and I agree. Real life, is, well, real life! Buddhism, Scientology, etc. are corrective actions. They are lived, so they are part of life. But they arent’ all of life.

        It’s great to attain a higher spiritual state sitting on one’s little round cushion in the mediation hall. But what happens when one returns to the great wide world?

        The famous Ten Oxherding Pictures of Zen are a pictorial representation of the stages of seeking and attaining enlightenment. A man sees an ox (enlightenment) and goes after it. Eventually, in the 8th picture, he rides the ox. The 9th picture is blank, and is called, “no man, no ox.” The 10th picture is “returning to the marketplace bestowing gifts.”

        The ten stages are gone through many times, on many aspects of life. So, one “returns to the marketplace” many times. In this respect, properly done Buddhism is exactly like Scientology.

        • Kassapa: Did you practice Zen?

          WH

            • “First there is a mountain…….”

              “Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.
              [Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin)]

              “Everywhere is the Pure Land in its beauty.” [Torei Zenji]

              “The Pure Land is not far.” [Hakuin Ekaku (1685-1768)]

              “This mind is like space.” [Bodhidharma]

              “Free yourself from karma. If you do not see your nature, quoting sutras is no [great] help.” [Bodhidharma]

              “Nirvana is here, before your eyes.” [Hakuin]

              “Heaven and earth and I are of the same root, the ten-thousand things and I are of one substance.” [Sêng-chao/Sõjõ (384-414)]

              Personally, I like to listen to LRH’s lectures, the Congresses and ACCs. I find that he says all of the above, and more, and tries very hard to explain it all in everyday American English language.

              Most of Buddhism has not been translated into English, but in fact in Buddhism the creation and existence of Space is a prime consideration, perhaps THE prime consideration, as per the Factors. There is in fact a great deal of detailed discussion of Space among Buddhists.

              I have not yet found anything in other philosophies that is not junior to, or better explained at least to my understanding, and aligned in the lectures. I have not listened to even a large fraction of the 3,000 hours of lectures available. But I believe the heart of it all is there in lecture series like “The Factors” series, and the 4th London ACC in particular.

              To me, the “First Postulate” totally aligns with Buddhism’s concept of “Ignorance”.

              Whatever of the Truth a person is ignorant of, is because of his own postulate that he “doesn’t know”.

              Thus any arguments that arise are a result of Ignorance, of Not-knowing, as per the Expanded Know to Mystery scale and the first 4 postulates as described in the 4th London ACC lectures

              Donovan first sang this song in 1967. Jim Logan sang it today about a rabbit.

    • RE Scientology and Buddhism, here’s my take. Dianetics and Scientology are anchored in epistemology. What is knowing? How does one know? What channels does one use to know and how does one apply that knowledge?

      LRH said that the entire purpose of what he was doing was to increase the ability of an individual to know so that person could survive better. That a therapy developed around his purpose was more a distraction than anything. I repeat, a distraction. How to get rid of the aberrations which prevented a person from knowing and applying that knowledge to life to live better.

      Auditing at the “lower levels” came to be viewed as negative gain. You were getting rid of that which hampered your ability to reason and know. Each process ended with a cognition, which was an increased understanding or a bit of knowing. With that increased understanding, you had “very good indicators.” People are happier when they know and realize.

      Even the OT levels came to be considered “negative gain” or getting rid of what hampered the being. But hampered what? Aberrated what?

      Hampered the ability to perceive and know.

      From knowing comes all ability. ALL.

      Now, a clamor and protest might arise from this simplicity: Scientology is the study of knowing. The end result of studying Scientology is knowing. And from knowing comes increased ability. Those whose importance rests in knowing lots of complex information others do not will protest that simplicity.

      And the protest might include, “Well, organisms need to survive and live, but we’re dealing with thetans, who are immortal and that doesn’t apply to thetans.”

      However, even at the highest levels attainable, you have a being whose intent is to know and experience and “live.” You have an awareness which wants to be aware. You have an awareness which seeks to improve abilities, knowledge, conditions. You have a being who wants to be engaged with others in creating common realities which are shared and which do not bring about unwanted conditions ( such as eternal ignorance and suffering.) You have a creative awareness that loves to use that creativity above all else.

      We have this great, postulated mystery over what the “missing” and “upper” OT levels might be. It all boils down to increased knowing and increased ability. However one achieves increased knowing and ability is a valid approach.

      The problem with “knowing,” which was discovered in Dianetics and Scientology processing, was that much of the path to knowing has been booby trapped. (I helped booby trap some of that path so I have a fair familiarity with it.) The way to control other beings was to control what they know. And much of this trap is very subtle. Much of the “higher levels of spiritual experience” are designed to prevent a being from knowing truth by substituting a very aesthetic and pleasurable lie. The experience is just wonderful. Just marvelous. It’s a wavelength with an altered quality so close to theta as to be almost indistinguishable. But it’s an alteration. Designed to trap.

      And this is just one of the categories of traps along the path to regaining one’s spiritual freedom.

      So, Kassapa has some legitimate concerns about the path one travels to enlightenment. Scientology is a roadmap that reveals the traps and overcomes them fairly effectively. Since Buddhism is based in the methodology developed by the individual who came to known as The Buddha (amongst many) one would have to examine what knowledge was available to him. Was he aware of all the “theta traps?” Was he aware of the vast history of beings? The creation and destruction of so many universes which lead to creating more sophisticated universes?

      Though the goal of both Scientology and Buddhism is enlightenment or increased knowing and understanding which leads to increased ability, there is a definite advantage to having the knowledge gained from millions of hours of processing, of taking beings back into their past and exploring what abilities are available.

      Think of what Buddha might have concluded had he been aware of what occurred in the development of Dianetics and Scientology. Do you think he might have changed his mind a bit?

      Now, as for having a casual understanding of Scientology being sufficient, it is not. A person studying Scientology is saddled with all sorts of misconceptions and complexities. A cleared theta clear might just sit down and grasp immediately all the concepts of Scientology with a brief study because he’s sitting right there knowing what he’s studying. But, a human is far from sitting right there.

      One of the simplest concepts of Scientology is ARC, which comprise theta. But, I would venture that few actually understand this concept fully. Certainly, a Class 3 auditor is just beginning to get his feet wet with the concept. But, until one is fully familiar with theta and all its glory, how could one possibly grasp completely these things “which comprise theta?” One might see how these interact as a human and even as a thetan, but full understanding?

      The point is: Scientology is a pretty effective means of gaining knowledge and increasing ability. It’s not perfect. It’s dealing with imperfect individuals.

      When Scientology provided a sense of community that was safe, there was little reason to look elsewhere. The more the organization moved toward enforced ethics that allowed “no nonsense,” the less safe it became. The organization became more and more bleak, harkening back to totalitarian regimes, while promising a life of joy and understanding. The discrepancy…

      Those looking for a loving community would have to look elsewhere. Which Buddhism provided.

      And which the Independent Scientology Movement has begun to manifest. When the groups formed in the Independent Movement provide those needs and wants on a wide spread basis, many will return.

      Some will not.

      • Excellent post. Thank you.

      • ouat,
        Agreement on this salient point:

        “When Scientology provided a sense of community that was safe, there was little reason to look elsewhere. The more the organization moved toward enforced ethics that allowed “no nonsense,” the less safe it became. The organization became more and more bleak, harkening back to totalitarian regimes, while promising a life of joy and understanding. The discrepancy”

        ml,
        GMW

        • I agree George.
          I also like what you write here and hope that you continue to write here.
          I didn’t read the whole thread, but it started to sound a bit like some bad dissemination cycles I have been involved with… Lol. As I said above anything can go on too long.
          I thought Wind horse brought up a valid point as to whether or not someone may be trying to create dissention amongst us. Let’s not let them have a win on getting that product eh?

          • Tony,

            If you had read the whole thread I don’t think you’d be thinking that I was trying to create dissention. My intention was quite the opposite.

            • Hi Kassapa,
              I didn’t name you as the person doing this. Maybe nobody is creating dissention. I just think it should always be looked at as a possibility because that is how OSA rolls. I would hate to lose good posters over some silly shit.
              I am not saying Buddhism is silly shit. I like Buddhism and I like the Scientology philosophy. I just think when things get kind of nasty and good posters are sort of attacking each other a bit, then the unseen hand should be looked for.

            • Right, I learned a lot about Buddhism and your excellent insights. I even learned from George. Without you guys I might have needed to spend much more time on it. Love to meet you one day.

      • Good post OUT.

        “But, a human is far from sitting right there.”

        This is basically just his consideration. He is actually “sitting right there”, can’t do anything but, so has postulated that he is not sitting right there and is elswhere, far from “it”. Postulated this to have a game. It gets boring just sitting there eternally without motion. Also, as anyone who has done it knows, sitting and doing TR-0 for any length of time can really make your ass hurt!

        • If your as hurts you didn’t sit long enough.

          • Right on Erwin. I love to sit. My ass hasn’t hurt in years. But it’s because, like that old cowboy song says, “I eat when I’m hungry, and I drink when I’m dry. And if I get lucky, I’ll live ’tilI die.”

            The joke back in the 1970s was: A guy does all of the original OT levels. He goes in to receive his final CS and is handed an envelope with a single sheet of paper in it. He unfolds the paper and on it is written: “Now, go do OT-TR0, only this time, do it right.”

  6. The mindset in the Church is pushed toward a completely different, OUT reality world. The idea is that it is “all about them”. If one does not place the Church, along with their emergency orders of the day, as #1 in their life… and put that above all other dynamics, actions, goals, etc. that one might have…then one is committing an overt of magnitude, as I was so accused of when I communicated that I was in fact creating the things that achieve happiness and expansion along my dynamics..

    • You are so right, Mona!

      If they would only postulate that Theta is all around them, that people are OK, if they would be Interested instead of whatever the hell they actually are being and focused on how they could serve other dynamics as well as themselves, it would be a different world!

      As LRH said, “You get an increase of whatever you put your attention on.” And boy are they getting it – an increase of outreality, crisis and disaster.

  7. I think they lost boo-coo artists in the early 80′s when laughter became “joking and degrading.”

  8. Yeah, Cats be too serious these days.

    How that “Emergency Legislation” workin’ out for ya’…

    Oh, and here’s a real knee slapper – (makes me laugh just thinking about it)…

    http://usdebtclock.org/

    • Nice connect Scott.

      • Scott

        I want to personally thank you for coming out to the media about your Sea Org odyssey which is one of the worst I have ever heard.
        The abuse can only stop when there is enough uproar.
        Abortions stopped only because of Internet outrage
        Here is the announcement on WWP.
        QUOTE
        This week on The Edge, Tom Smith interviews a victim of torture in scientology’s sea organization. Drugging, beatings, encouragement of suicide, and emotional trauma are the tools of scientology’s Golden Age. Listen Friday, 11 November 2011 and Sunday, 13 November 2011 from 2 – 3 p.m. eastern U.S. time on http://hawkradio.com

        Anonymous will post a link to a podcast after the show broadcasts.
        UNQUOTE

        Scott tells his story.

  9. Thank you for this great blog. Love from Jovilovia (love that L. Ron Hubbard!)

  10. So: “Individuals who can do things, no matter whether good, bad or indifferent or outrageous, simply because they’re fun — an individual who can freely and with a clear heart do things because they’re fun is a very sane person.”

    Hmmmm.

    I’ll have to try that here some time. Or try it some where. Who knows.

    Interesting what resonates where and what does not.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  11. This is how I look at DMs antics:

  12. One of the most amazing hours of my life was running the laughter process on 35 people. Among my most exterior moments.

    LRH, from the Creation of Human Ability: “Start laughing. Keep on laughing.”

    miscavige, from the bottom of a very cold heart: “Start cringing. Keep on cringing.”

    He really is a very funny guy.

    • Les,
      In ’78 while in the RPF, I had to run my twin on Remedy of Laughter. My twin and I had the entire co-audit courseroom laughing for quite a while! I regret it interrupted other sessions, but we all had fun. I’m sure that many of the other guys were hoping for a cognition and EP after a couple of hours of this!

    • +1
      Had a hell of a lot of fun running R 2-26!
      Greta

  13. I’m always up for some fun.

  14. Some of us wogs can’t understand your posts. Even Jesus tried to make his messages known to the masses and the early Christians promoted simple translations of his words. Why do Scientologists not speak plainly? Some of us are actually interested in what you have to say.

    • Guest 95759
      In regards to your message I would have to mention its a good point. raised.Because some posting’s make clear sense to those that understand the inner circles. and the way some writings are done, and easy for a lot to get the sense of the matter in discussion Yet those external that would read from out side and never were within cant get it all and can find some postings confusing and unclear .

    • I saw James Randi reading a chapter from one of Rons books the other day. Can’t remember which reference it was but it was about “dummy auditing.” He used a few passages to prove that none of Rons writings made the slight bit of sense. However, I understood every word quite clearly. You’d think a smart guy like Randi could at least look up the word “dummy” and realise it has at least a couple of definitions.
      Guest, it’s probably down to the definitions of the words.
      You say;
      “Why do Scientologists not speak plainly? Some of us are actually interested in what you have to say.”
      That’s exactly how I feel about mathmeticians;)

      • I saw the same video. My retort would be to open a physics textbook at any page and start reading… or a medical journal… or a book on Computer Science. I thought it was one of the stupidest thing I ever saw, and Randi is smarter than that, which means he is being disingenuous on purpose.

        • I wrote to Mark Bunker on this. I told him that Mr Randi’s reasoning on this video was one of the stupidest things I’d ever seen. I illustrated to him about how if someone who never studied brain surgery before opened a brain-surgery textbook, opened it up to a random page and read a random paragraph which contained advanced nomenclature, the person would not be able to understand what it was saying.

          I told Mark that I do value the writings in Scientology but even if I didn’t, I would still think that Mr Randi’s reasoning is utterly asinine for implying that just because someone doesn’t understand a random paragraph on a subject that they had never studied before, that the whole subject is just a useless farce.

          Mark responded by telling me he saw my point, and hopefully it will influence him in any decision he makes as to whether or not to include that video in his final draft of “Knowledge Report”.

    • Guest95759,
      I left Scientology 23 years ago at the highest possible level and I don’t understand some of the posts either.
      In the end, Scientology is very simple. It got complicated as the years rolled on. In my view , it has reached far beyond the point where the average person can cover it with casual reading.
      Someday in the future I think the independent movement will create a hybrid blend that will be easy to understand.
      Corporate Scientology thrives on secrets and there will be more of them coming in the near future. Mr. Miscavige thinks it his his great weapon and source of power to be “in the know”.
      May all beings be well and happy!
      GMW

      • George,
        The “cover it with casual reading” thing is nonsense. Scientology is a subject based on Axioms, the Factors, the PreLogics that covers some thousands of lectures, thousands of issues, books, and PRACTICE. There is nothing “casual” about it.

        If you don’t study the subject, fully, and apply it fully, and get it, fully, then you don’t GET it. That’s the deal.

        If you don’t get the Opening Piece, the Know to Mystery Scale as describing from the state of Knowing, down through the creation of space and Looking, to that space condensing through the Emotions and affinity as a consideration of distance AND type of particle (see e.g., the Pheonix Lecture, 20 Aug 54, AXIOMS PART II), to tighter and tighter at Effort all the way down to close proximity but Mystery, well, then I dare say that you’ve missed a bit or two in your Scientology route.

        No worries…it’s a longish future. Plenty of time – if you postulate it.

        • Jim,
          Thank you for you comments. You are a true Scientologist!
          The point I was trying to make is that the average person
          today on the internet is faced with volumes of data that take a long time
          to read – that’s all.
          Much loving-kindness,
          GMW

          • George,
            I personally wouldn’t and haven’t recommended the internet as the place to find enlightenment as to what Scientology actually comprises.

            You ceased your study 23 years ago, according to what you’ve stated here. That’s before the release of the ACC’s for instance. Now, attempting a full study of Scientology (to say nothing of a full practice) without those lectures is impossible.

            DM’s comm lag on releasing these tapes aside, LRH wanted them out decades ago for the purpose of providing the complete research and development line. Having them available was LRH’s intention and for the purpose of providing the true BASICS he refers to in the Class VIII materials. That is, the backdrop and explanation of the Factors, Axioms, Logics – the full foundation of the subject – to the processes and disciplines expounded in the Grade Chart and the various Rundowns and actions of the Bridge.

            I don’t recall any missions 1/2 a mile from the Toronto Org, on Yonge St or any other street. There was a CC. Perhaps that is what you are referring to in response to where you were in TO back when. Perhaps not.

    • Guest
      Hi. I understand your question. You do of course realize that some of what is discussed here is of a technical nature, or being spoken of in technical terms. It is not deliberately done to confuse (except by very few).
      You will notice that the Buddhists posting here have their own terms too, as do the “computer technology guys” and several others.

      This blog is not “closed” or limited to any particular “public”, but as you have come to realize, it is mostly about Scientology, by Scientologists. (which I would venture a guess is why you are here reading it in the first place) It is sometimes easy to forget that some people reading this blog may not be familiar with all the terms that many of us here have used for the greater part of our lives.

      But here is the deal. If you are interested in knowing the meanings of any particular words, or what someone meant by a particular phrase or sentence, it is OK to ask. You have an incredible “search engine” here in the people who post these comments, and most would be willing to help clarify what they meant if they thought that your question was being asked in a true quest for understanding and was not simply an attempt to “invalidate”. (make less or nothing of someone or something)

      So… Go ahead… What word or phrase can we help you with?

      Eric S

      • Thanks WindWalker….I sometimes get frustrated with this blog because when LRH is quoted, it often reads like translated stereo instructions. The technical nature of Scientology’s lingo honestly gives credence to some critics’ claims that the specialized language acts as a separator from the rest of the world, feeding into an elitist attitude (that seems to define most cults). I come to this blog to learn more, which often doesn’t happen when my eyes start to cross.

        I couldn’t get past the first two paragraphs of the LRH quote on this post. I really cannot make sense of it. The only aspect I understand is a little bit about the tone scale, but considering that LRH claims homosexuality is the same as a covert hostility I have major doubts about that part of this quote as well (although that’s probably another issue all together).

        • guest,
          What terms used in the posting are the ones you don’t get?

          Following the thread, from the Opening Piece, if you have words, terms or symbols you don’t quite understand or don’t get at all, is going to be eye-crossing, head-scrunching, and wits-wracking no doubt.

          Experiencing the things you are is one of the aspects of Scientology’s study discussed in a bulletin entitled THE BARRIERS TO STUDY. If you don’t have a copy, write to me and I’ll see you get one, with a glossary.

        • Guest

          OK. Let’s see if I can help shed some light on those first two paragraphs.

          First off: The scale being referenced there, is as follows:
          ————-
          Know to Sex Scale July 1954

          The Know to Sex Scale upper is predominantly “good”:
          Know
          Look
          Emote
          Effort
          Think
          Symbols
          Eat
          Sex
          The same scale inverted is predominantly “bad”:
          Sex
          Eating
          Symbols
          Thinking
          Effort
          Emotion
          Looking and Being Looked For
          Mystery
          ——————
          Also…If you Google Scientology Tone Scale you will find that the Wikipedia entry has the Tone Scale and some other data about it.

          Had you read Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, and Science of Survival, it would also make things a lot clearer. Please keep in mind that the original lecture was given to a group of people who were actively studying and applying these materials. L. Ron Hubbard was talking to people very much “in the know”, and familiar with these scales and their applications.

          OK, so hopefully that helps sort out some of the confusions you may have. I know, it is pretty technical, but that is the nature of some of the results of the research that L. Ron Hubbard was doing around that time frame.

          It is not even necessary that you agree with these scales, or some items on them. That really isn’t the issue here, at this time. The reason that I posted this is because you will hopefully have a better idea about what is being referred to in those first two paragraphs.

          Hope that was of some help. If not, perhaps you have a specific question?

          Eric S

    • Like any science, Scientology has its own terminology. Many studied it 30 (!) years or longer. We speak clearly within our own terminology. This blog is not meant to be for beginners. I suggest to find an old-timer Scientologist who is willing to explain to you the individual posts.

    • Funny that you say Jesus spoke in simple words, because most people don’t understand the language of the bible.
      Haha. Good look understanding this:
      Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

  15. Thank you – nice post.

  16. Thank you Marty,
    it is always interesting to see the LRH Tech angle on things, and your in depth knowledge of what/where to access is invaluable!! :)

  17. Gosh Marty,

    Who do I know that simply talks ALL the time about how bad eveyrthing is?

    Who do I know that goes ON and ON and ON about how terrible things are, how desperate it all is, how no one is wearing their hats, and how the only things that get done are by his own two hands?

    Who do I know that takes pride in joking about others in a way that degrades them personally, that pushes their anchor points in, and ridicules them to others — AND finds it funny.

    Who do I know that finds laughter, genuine laughter by another, to be abhorrant and an indicator of out-ethics and “fish to fry”?

    Who do I know that can take the tone level of hundreds of dedicated high toned veteran Sea Org members and force them down scale to a point where they will jump when he says jump, and spend the rest of their days in fear?

    Who do I know …… hmmmm…..

    I guess the answer is why I find the picture of a dwarf pope on an apple box so very very funny.

    When you sit out here, free from the suppression, in a large and beautiful space, with wonderful friends and family — one has to smile and laugh! Because from here, we CAN do something about you Dave.

    Yes, you…..

    And when I think about it …. I do laugh.

  18. This video entitled Boddhisattva on train always makes me laugh. You may have to copy and paste the link. Worth the 6 minutes if you have not seen it and want a laugh.

    • that is funny!!! loved it! I remember a time on key to Life when you had to do the alphabet backwards and I started laughing and could not stop and the entire course room started laughing and I swear it felt great! It is great to laugh. Love it!

    • I remember seeing an interview, when I was younger, of the current Dali Lama,( in New York, when he was about 14 or so I think,) and he was the lightest and happiest person you could imagine. Life seemed to be one huge joke to him, and yet at the same time, he was VERY REAL. He seemed to look at everything from a lighter, simpler place. It was a totally captivating experience.
      I remember thinking how much I would like to meet him, just to look into his eyes and smile, and say HI!

      Eric S

      • one of those who see

        Would love to see a video of him younger because he seems light and happy now. It’s a key out just to watch him.

    • OLS,
      That’s such a wonderful video!! I’ve seen it before and wondered if it was played daily in the workplaces of the world, the university halls, the palaces and school rooms, wouldn’t things be a little Clearer.

    • one of those who see

      Great! Been laughing!

    • That was amazing.

  19. I had several good laughs today:
    A business partner wrote a very enturbulating E-mail and I’d just to laugh about it, one phone call and we were again in great arc and created some even better opportunities !
    I’d to cancel an important meeting because of a staff that overslept and was too late. First I was very upset about him but when he finally arrived totallly nervous and feeling bad etc… It was so funny i just laughed and talked to him until he was able to laugh about it.
    And the best was, it’s somehow sad but also funny. my banker explained to me how to get better admin into my business and he wrote especially for me a sheet where it explains how i can draw an admin scale for my business (he called it business plan). And I thought for myself, who the hell is now trained on admin tech ? The banker tells me I should get admin in ! :) :) :)

  20. Fun and laughter is good, only if not at the expense of others.

    • Don’t forget “Many a true word is spoken in jest”
      Chaucer
      Shakespeare

      Comedy, parody, satire are used as great tools/mediums to highlight “tabu” truths that people would normally feel uncomfortable in expressing. They also bring attention to subjects others are unaware of.

  21. FCDC Class of 1974

    Any day is a good day to laugh. Back to the push we felt in FCDC in getting that money into the org. I “graduated in 74′” when I was told that co-audits were taking money away from the org. Co-audits were the most fun I’d ever had and when we ended uptone we laughed. DM is no laughing matter, not even a giggle.

    • FCDC

      Aw come on, really? I find that a little hard to believe.

      You don’t find it just the teeniest bit funny that David Miscavige takes himself SOOOOoooo seriously?

      That he has appointed himself as “the leader of a religion, a Pope if you will” and goes about in has day to day activities like the “Everyready Bunny From Hell?”

      You have never cracked the glimmer of a smile, and shaken your head in utter disbelief, when you tried to fathom what the hell he was saying in one of his “prononciamentos”.

      Have you ever conjured up the picture of him standing there in his “Golden Thong” and nothing else, showing TC ALL his muscles? (OK you are right, that one didn’t work for me either)

      You didn’t get a bit of a giggle when you saw “John Allender And The Squirrel Buster Brigade” show up at Marty’s door with cameras duck taped to their heads, and finding out that it was probably the “brainchild” of a certain megalomaniacle failed camera boy?

      Did you miss that easy smile that came to your face the first time you read Mike Rinder call him “Pope on a box”? , or J Swift call him “The Lunatic AntiChrist of Hemet”?

      No?

      Damn… tough crowd…

      Eric S

  22. Marty – thanks for this interesting post.. It totally reinforces the fact that RS is off the wall. The first indoctrination is that everything in RS is good, good, good and everything outside of RS is bad, bad, bad. Is it any wonder why Scientologists act the way they do?

  23. TRs the hard way…………

    “Flunk for Laughing! Start!”

  24. Yes… the world of people is too serious.
    Nothing like a nice big bite of insouciance to set things right.
    The Co$, like Governemnts has to be serious for if it wasn’t, their inposing control over everyone would evaporate. Not all solutions have to be so damn serious.
    Fun is good. Splurge on it!

  25. Laughing. I want to share with you mone of my personal heroes

    Daney Kay, King of “theta”. Ik cry and I laugh thinking of this wonderfull man

    On one of his visit to my country as an Embasseder of one of my favorit charity Organizations UNICEF

  26. Message to Marty

    Sorry to go off-topic but for the life of me I cannot find any contact info on your blog.

    Here is my suggestion for a future posting. Do any OT levels beyond OT 8 actually exist? I have heard it suggested (back when I was in Scientology — and, of course, in whispers only) that DM shuffled around Hubbard’s original OT levels, and added ‘new’ NOTS levels like (4, 5, & 6) . Marty, you may be the only man qualified (short of DM, and he is not talking!) to answer this question. Do you think we can see the answer to this in an upcoming post?

    Thanks,
    ted

    • The actual OT levels beginning now with New OT VIII and going on up.
      LRH ED 342 INT, 9 May 1982, RJ 35, “FROM CLEAR TO ETERNITY”

      UPPER LEVELS. There are other OT Levels above VIII but these will be released from time to time when people are ready for them.

      Although several upper OT grades have been researched, pre-OTs were not ready for them and so they were not released. The needed link which makes it possible is NED for OTs which is its prerequisite. The upper levels above VIII will probably be released from time to time into the future. OT VIII’s release is a real cap for the tech breakthroughs of ’78.
      LRH ED 301 INT, 17 December 1978, RJ 30, “1978 – THE YEAR OF LIGHTNING FAST NEW TECH”

    • Ted,

      DM isn’t qualified to pour piss out of a boot – with the directions written on the heel.

    • The Span of Time from the Release of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to the Release of OT VIII was 28 Years. It’s been 33 Years since, and no new OT Levels have been released, 27 Years since LRH wrote up “Superpower”, of which Miscavige has been at the Helm for, officially & unofficially, 29 Years.

      Under his supposedly wonderful, prodigious and C.O.B.ly Guidance, existing workable Tech has been altered and/or arbitraries added to it.

      His net Achievement and spiritual Final Valuable Product has been: Stop!!!

      Except for the Release of the KTL/LOC, everything else he’s done were regurgitations to haul in $$$ under sensational and bogusly urgent Fanfares, be it the Basics, Tape Restorations and other Materials re-sold again and again. Add to that Idle Morgues, IAS and every other trick to extract Money from it’s member-base.

      The Second Product (Not that Valuable) is: Stash of Money

      Either he’s lost the Upper OT Levels, or delivering them covertly to his Brown-nose OT VIIIs “Sec-Checked to the Ying-Yang” under very controlled Conditions so these Levels never leak out into the Freezone, and/or wants to scam Scientology into a Real Estate Empire out of Existence slowly, getting every last Buck before the Game is over. It’s highly doubtful many other possibilities exist. Having People parked on the Bridge for 25 Years is not a successful Course of Action expanding every Org to St. Hill Size, but is best done by making Standard Tech Auditors (not GAT Robots) and opening the Doors to the Upper Bridge.

      Thus CO$ Scientology has been engineered to gradually fade out of Existence, and trying to reform the current Monster is Contrary to it’s own Intentions as charted by the Course of it’s current Leadership/Management. The Freezone is the only Future it has left …

  27. old OT 8 in a young bod

    When you acknowledge that you can Be, Do, or Have any viewpoint including ones you deem “bad”. The badness will cease to BE! Because you are EVERY single viewpoint ever created, even MEST’s. Ahhh! Native State!!! It’s FUN to forget and even FUNNER(native state doesn’t care about grammar) to remember! What a great game!!!

    • Good grammer is often overrated but nevertheless proper when in possesion of the abillity to produce it.

    • Please add here that this is not a free ticket to commit OWs. Taking a viewpoint doesn’t mean committing OWs. And it also shouldn’t result in becoming reasonable with OWs. I took viewpoint of DM, and still think he’s bad.

  28. Thanks, Marty, for keeping the eye on the mountain. These comments are the most in-depth analysis of laughter and seriousness. I loved the Bodhisattva video. But the most important thing here is the actual mountain. We can call it Scientology, LRH, Bodhisattva or whatever but it is huge and eternal while DM and all these troubles are insignificant and short-lived by comparison.

    Also loved the phrase “We need somebody who can drag his chin across the thresholds.” Creates images.

    Here is a funny word I learned today from my aspiring MD step-son: Hippocampus. It is a part of the brain. Who cuda thunk?

  29. “Ron Hubbard …Scientology and Living”

    “There is only one way, really, to get into a state of living, and that’s live! There is no substitute for an all-out, over-the-ramparts, howling charge against life. That’s living. Living does not consist of sitting in a temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold stones. Living is hot, it’s fast, it’s often brutal! It has a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.
    If you are really willing to live, you first have to be willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But it’s one of those awfully true things that you wonder why one has to say it. And yet it has to be said.”

    -L. Ron Hubbard

    • Thank you, Cat Daddy! I enjoyed the truth in that quote.

      What a universe of both cause and effect, eh? experiencing both is part of it, but we are the ones who initially engaged the game.

      One of the things I most admire about Hubbard is IMHO the core of his life’s work, the product of his devotion, research and refinement, and that is how to give people back the respective steering wheels of their lives… and of Life. How cool is that?

      The auditing processes, the writings, what he pondered have that magnanimous heartbeat as intent.

      Here’s a Hubbard quote I like, which resonates with why a person’s ability to know, to laugh, to have fun, to create, to laugh are valid increments that measure sanity:

      “The best way to know any future is to cause one. And that’s why, you see, when you start consulting the oracle at Delphi, you’ve taken a step downhill. You have assigned cause for the future elsewhere…

      So one predicts the future as much as one is cause. The future isn’t a pattern laid out to abuse and bully you. The future is a beautiful playground that nobody happens to be combining. You talk about virgin territory—the most virgin territory there is, is the future. You can do anything you want with it. Nobody is doing anything with it.

      When everybody is just kind of drifting along, saying, ‘I’m not cause and I’m not going to do anything. I’m not going to change any particles. Let’s have a board meeting. Let’s have a this, let’s have a that. And let’s not have any cause here anyplace. Let’s just drift along and skid along and go along. And somehow or other we’re going to wind up somewhere or other on the track and we’ll find a future waiting there for us. Isn’t it nice that we’re so logical that there’s always a future waiting for us.

      “He has to cause a future playground in order to continue to have a future playground for himself. And that’s about what it amounts to.”
      -L. Ron Hubbard

  30. I used to call my path in the church “freedom through domination”. It made me laugh every time I thought it. Now I see it was because it was true! Very unworkable, though. LOL

  31. This fine piece reminds me of a fellow I was privileged to meet a few years ago. Barney Barnett. Otherwise known as David Miscavige’s Father-in-Law. Otherwise known as the ex-husband of Sterling Management Star Consultant, Kathy Barnett.

    Barney was a wonderful fellow. I met him when he found love in the person of a friend of mine, Elizabeth, who had been booted out of the Sea Org, penniless and homeless, when, after years of dedication, she had some kind of physical ailment that made it impossible for them to work her to death.

    I understand that Barney has now passed away, and I am not sure what Elizabeth is doing … probably diligently trying to pay off her “free loader” debt.

    I mention these two love birds because, despite their impoverished states when I knew them, they were two of the kindest, most genuine, most caring and truly happy people I’ve met in a long time. Barney, I understood, had not seen or talked to his Daughter, Mrs. Shelly Miscavige, for quite a long time, because, as I understood it, he wasn’t “upstat” enough. I am not sure why Kathy Barnett divorced him, but I suspect, given what I know of her, that it was for the same reason.

    What I, later, found odd about the fact that his own daughter had, basically disowned him, and that his ex-Wife who made her living advising others how to apply LRH tech so as to better order their lives … that neither of these people had had the moral fortitude to ‘salvage’ him from whatever ruin he was facing when they knew him. By the same token, I found it odd that the S.O. would boot out such a truly lovely being, simply because of some ruin she was facing that LRH tech could have addressed, with ease.

    What I now realize is that, both in the case of Barney Barnett and Elizabeth, the people who left them in the proverbial lurches, did not want these wonderful beings to get better. David Miscavige and his wife Shelly Barnett Miscavige didn’t have a clue how to use LRH tech to salvage one of their own kin. The S.O. didn’t have a clue as to how to apply LRH tech to salvage one of its (at the time) truly dedicated members. So, these people were just flushed down the Tech-Less Toilet.

    Their ‘sin’ was that they were too happy. Too good. To ready to truly help others. I still laugh when I see Barney and his parrots. He loved them and they loved him (even if one of them would try to bite him if mis-handled!).

    Good luck, Barney, where ever you are.

    • Very nice comment Otto… a touching story.. thanks, it helps put things into perspective.. “Their ‘sin’ was that they were too happy.” I think this has been the fate of many others under the cruel hand of DM…

    • The Otto?
      :)

      Great observation.

    • Otto. Thanks for the info of Barney’s Barnett’s departure. I haven’t seen him or his ex-wife Cathy Barnett for more than 2 decades. But I don’t think he’d really lay any blame upon his daughter Shelly Miscavige or his former wife Cathy for anything regarding his own life. And I don’t think they should receive blame. I’ve seen Cathy decades ago make decisions for the kind of life she wanted and have seen Barney decades ago make decisions for the kind of life he wanted. It is good to hear from you that Barney was happy in his later years and with a new-found love. RIP Barney.

  32. Thanks for sharing, it was great to read that first reference again. “He can only operate on emergencies.” Spot on.

  33. I was thinking about Marty today on my way to work for some reason. He just entered my mind. And I thought “Wow, it is really great that he posts this information for people. He’s not the “Boss” so to speak of all ex’es, but who cares, even is he was I would probably listen. Why not? What the matter with him?” And I think this is reason the Church of Corporate Overts and Witholds resents Marty the way that they do. Because of his ability to bring even articles like this one that he just posted to mind that people would not normally think of, ponder or discuss. Isn’t that wonderful? I am such a theta person I feel most of the time and even I think Marty very often makes sense. Reading is believing.

  34. Paul McCartney: “I remember Harry Nilsson offering me some angel dust. I said ‘What is it?’ He said, ‘It’s elephant tranquilliser.’ I said, ‘Is it fun?’ He thought about it for about half a minute. ‘No,’ he said. I said, ‘Well, you know what, I won’t have any.’ He seemed to understand.”

  35. “Now, here is a coordination here.” Oh Really?

  36. “We are about to have this tremendous disaster, and therefore in view of the fact that we’ve got this disaster, we have to have this emergency legislation,” and so forth. ”And therefore we can make something here. We can make this army so as to make nothing” — big compulsive sort of reaction, you see?
    Marty, for us non-thetans, what does this paragraph actually say or what do YOU believe it says, because I have read it in the context of your Blog entry and it doesn’t make any sense to me.
    Please Marty, refrain from any smart-ass remarks and/or derogatory statements involving my education, I am sure your adoring readers will have many of their own.

    • I’ll tell you what it means. It’s a very simple concept. Some people look at the glass of water as half full, handle it in whatever way they need to, and then go on with their lives. Others say “Oh no!, the glass is only half full, and it will never get filled!, and all you kids are grounded and have to go straight to your room! And we can’t go out to dinner tonight, because the glass is only half full!, and we have to save every penny cause it’s a disaster. And where I work everything’s just half full! etc etc”.
      Just one little example of many. Can take many forms and dramatizations. So really, there are people out there where everything they see is only half full. And that’s ALL they act upon. And those things that are not half full, they don’t see, they can’t act upon, and they don’t ever experience.
      Hope that helps.

  37. I would say the greatest barrier to be a free being in Corporate Scientology (an unfree being cannot laugh) is the pressure of the group that one „IS“ a Scientologist (Clear, OT, Staffmember). Some sort of enforced beingness.
    If you express yourself, your dreams, your beingness you had choosen you are sent to ethics.
    If you like women and you show that you are „out second dynamic“. If you spend some money for things you like you are not a Scientologist that saves planet earth. If you are on staff or in the Sea Org you have no chance and money to do something else. In the „before DM“ times we after payday went to Cinema, eating in a restaurant, Disco, or whatever to have some fun. As I had not much money as Staffmember I applied LRH policy on finance. I had a balance sheet and all that stuff and a financial planning sheet on weekly and monthly basis. One point on that planning sheet was „for personal use and fun“. Like nowadays 100 Euro a month. I can do whatever I please with this money. Throw it out of the window, buy things I do not need but want to have. Had this point in my financial planning since I started in 82 with that. Try it. Put some money onto your FP you can spend freely without feeling „regret“ or whatever after buying something. And BE yourself. If others do not like it is not your problem. That is the biggest fun I ever found. BE and express myself .

  38. I would like to share my personal take on Scientology in the greater scheme of things.

    There is the Truth of existence. That Truth is absolute in that it does not change with the viewpoint of the observer. This Truth, if really understood and applied in relation to a spiritual being, will bring about his or her betterment, will increase spiritual awareness and abilities and will eventually get one out of all the traps—kind of like Keanu Reeves in Matrix.

    The Truth has never been a secret. Here and now, it was first described in Vedas and then thought through and clarified by generations of monks in Asia and India. Then it was written down again some twenty six centuries ago by Lao Tze in Tao Te Ching which has been in print ever since and was translated into a ton of languages by now. However, Tao does not attempt to explain things in clear terms or help a vast number of people to improve their lot. Although Tao contains some clear statements of truth, it does not attempt to help people understand anything. Tao Te Ching correctly claims that validity of any philosophy is reversely proportional to the number of people who accept it. If some philosophy of life is broadly and readily accepted, it is probably trash. Lao Tze was not a proponent of throwing pearls to the pigs. Tao just states the facts that can be incomprehensible to people, such as that blackness within blackness is the gateway to understanding. How is an average Joe going to use this knowledge to solve his problems?

    The first attempt to use the Truth to actually help people was Buddhism with its 8-fold path, ethics and peaceful philosophy. Buddhism gently conquered half the world at some point but it had no technology and no certainty of results. One thing was certain, however: if you were truly a Buddhist, under normal conditions you could very well become a relatively happy and sane person.

    Christianity and Islam were further attempts to help people with the Truth but a great deal of cross-purposes to control the population, get production and protect the ruling elite came into the picture, obscuring the Truth and making these religions ineffective as the means of actual spiritual growth and achievement of immortality. Driven by the purpose to control the ignorant masses, they both were a success as the means of control and they still are. However, despite their failures in the realm of the spirit, the original intention of their founders could well be helping their followers.

    Then LRH came along with an intention to really and honestly help EVERYBODY who applied his new religion—or science—100%, no if’s and but’s. It is intended to bring people up from however far down they may be all the way up to the threshold of OT. Scientology does not actually take people into the sphere of OT and so to that degree there is no Bridge, actually. But it is not a Bridge to nowhere, either. It is an assembly line kind of a mass production Bridge to the threshold of OT.

    Scientology is the first real and workable attempt to help people since the Vedas and it was successful for some 50 years and we all were a part of that powerful movement. Then we were beaten to a pulp by the evil little man and that was that. But we are still around, the auditors are auditing, the technology exists and will not disappear completely, ever, because the Truth itself stays the same and people will keep on trying to get at it. Since the Scientology techniques already became known, recorded and used, they can no longer completely disappear.

    Calling oneself a Scientologist may feel limiting and detrimental as it seems to exclude seven billion non-Scientologists from the dynamics. Well, I think there is simply no reason to take such a limiting view on Scientology. It has its place in the arsenal of mankind as a very effective tool for getting at the Truth and thus helping people and that is all there is to it.

  39. Swift change of attention : Today is Veteran’s Day Parade. 11/11/11

    The person who produces this parade year after year (since 2000) is a dear friend and known to many of us …

    A former Vietnam Vet

    But here is a live feed to the parade — it’s heart warming how Veterans are being honored … and not forgotten.

    Thank you Tom Martinano for your service and to my friend — who I’m keeping nameless at the moment but who has produced this parade

    To Marty’s father who served and to the others …

    http://www.myfoxny.com/subindex/video/live_video

    Love,
    WH

  40. BTW — Yvonne Jentszch’s granddaughter is in this Veteran’s Day Parade.

    Her mother knows the producer and he arranged to have her daughter and her choir mates in the parade. They flew in from Las Vegas I believe.

    He was a dear friend of Yvonne’s and he loved her dearly. I said — she must be smiling now from “heaven”

    Love,
    WH

  41. IF you are watching the parade — Yvonne’s granddaughter is singing with her choir — I have tears!!!

    • Does anyone know where Yvonne Jentzsch’s complete hat write up might be? According to L. Ron Hubbard, as quoted in Celebrity Magazine, 1978, “She did a complete hat write up and turnover before going.”

      I never met her personally, but saw her through the warmth, the love, the inspiration, the kindness in many who spoke to me about her. That cannot be faked.

      Hubbard’s published eulogy states: “She handled individuals and brought about broad public dissemination, using all possible Scientology tools to enable rapid progress up the Bridge for every individual she contacted. Her stable datum and winning attitude was that she cared so much for others.”

      “Yvonne set an excellent example for others and personified the service motto that ‘A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.’”

      It’s a wonderful eulogy and reflects the original founding spirit of actual Scientology.

      (How things have changed in todays’s impostor “church.”)

  42. For those of you interested in the Buddhism vs Scientology conversation, I’m dropping out. I’ve said my peace, and I hope some useful TA motion resulted.

    • Kassapa, I found it very interesting. Although it came close to the buddhist version of a fistfight before it was all over. Pillows flying everywhere. “Fortress Wall” litmus tests. It was an inside look at buddhism few get to see. Thanks. I mean that.
      Now its time to move on to the matter at hand. Looking forward to your views on the expansion of the independent field. You seem to have an easy grasp on the situation without carrying a lot of personal baggage. I believe your contribution will have value and can make a difference.

    • Hey. It was … Stupa-fying. Just like the original conflicts about what size the stupa should be (Stupa: A dome-shaped structure erected as a Buddhist shrine.) :-)

      I hope you resolve the vs. aspect of the two topics. (middle path!)

      As for TA, driving TAs up — it’s useful on the blowdown! I personally like identifying “What & How”to get the discharge, and I personally haven’t found anything more specific or efficacious than pure Scientology to address that.

      (TA is a technical nomenclature of Scientology, Tone Arm, used to locate and measure mass that negatively affects a person, and its dissipation)

      For me, that doesn’t create a vs. situation with Buddhism. I read Lao Tzu since a child. I lived in a Buddhist country for 6 years. I love Buddhism. I apply Scientology.

    • Kassapa,
      I think you did superbly in wringing out some of the items that came up. I want to thank you personally for a well-intentioned and pan-determined series of comments.

    • Kassapa, I studied the subject of Buddhism, in a relatively superficial way, prior to Scientology… Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed your discussions on the subject. You are very good at this… today or 2,500 years ago, as it may be.

  43. Marty-
    Thanks for this article and the wonderful reminders of the sheer FUN to be had in Scientology! I once made a tape of my laughter … giggles, laughs, chortles, guffaws … re-recorded on top of same, and compounded until it sounded like a whole room of people laughing their heads off. Great fun!

  44. Li'll bit of stuff

    Marty ,(Scientology and Living)

    Thank you (as always!) for your “APT” topic headers. This item
    by LRH is clearly a “potent ” tool to restore sanity. IT WORKS!!

    You may well be aware of “LAUGHTER” being applied in other areas as organized Stress Relieving Therapies.

    I came across Some POWERFUL data, explaining the nuts & bolts of this human phenomenon. Really SURPRISED me.Wow!

    To check it out – Google- Laughter Therapy – Enda Junkins
    She’s certainly got a handle on “THE TECH ” enjoy .

    Much luv & support to you & Mosey, Li’ll bit.

  45. Just for information. Today I got the Issue 345 of “The Auditor” from AOSH EU. The Releases and Graduate listing: NO ONE listed here having completed Solo 2 and up. No single OT made and no one on his way. Only some OT prep completions. None may have made it through the sec checking part.

  46. Admiration and graditude to you all. Some really great communications and videos on this intriguing subject of SCN and Living. You all are wonderful beings. Thanks for sharing and thank you Marty for initiating this and all the others. I found SCN 26 years ago to be a hope for a world “in communication,” and that is what it means to me to be “moving on up higher.”

  47. I would like to include here a Phil Spickler’s talk “Ability to Laugh” that parallels this Marty’s article. Here is a link, (if someone turned it into the video I’d appreciate). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON5-8e1keJc

    Visit Phil Spickler’s website “From Stanford With Love” with more videos and articles at http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s