New York Times Says God Is Alive

Well, that may be an over-statement.  But, a column in the Sunday edition of the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof may also be a good sign of how the times are changing, Learning to Respect Religion.  Kristof notes that atheists and scientists seem to be increasingly  recognizing the good that religion has done in the evolution of humanity across the centuries.

A little detour is in order to explain why I view Kristof’s column so positively.

Philosopher Ken Wilber treats the differentiation of the fields of art, morals (religion), and science as the foundation that ushered in the age of enlightenment in his thought-provoking book A Brief History of Everything.  He reminds us that until a few hundred years ago religion made advances in science and art a dangerous proposition.  But, he brings the conversation up to the present and suggests a further positive step in our evolution.  That is, a trend toward more integration of art, morals, and science.  That is not to say regression back to the days where one got burned at the stake for looking through a telescope and reporting what he saw.  Instead, Wilbur is talking about understanding and integrating the spirit into art and science, integrating advances in rational thought into art and study of the spirit, and integrating aesthetics in religion and science.

Another good read along these lines is Scott M. Tyson’s The Unobservable Universe.  Tyson is a scientist that began to tread on the province of the spirit, through pushing the envelope of science.  He contends his ventures resulted in him being treated much as scientists of the Middle Ages might be treated by the Catholic Church. Except it is the scientific community treating a trailblazer like that in the present.

Incidentally, I highly recommend A Brief History.  It was critical in unchaining me mentally and spiritually from an adult life spent in a religion that was Medieval in its super individuation from advances in art and science and morality and the evolution of civilization as a whole.

Whether the New York Times thinks God is alive or dead, that there is a trend toward integrating art, religion and science in my view is a very heartening sign.

By the by, notwithstanding Elton John’s lyrics in his wonderful song Levonthe New York Times never did declare that God was dead.  Refs:

John T Elson, Time magazine editor who asked “is God dead?”

Wiki answers

225 responses to “New York Times Says God Is Alive

  1. At some point in our planetary evolution science and religion (spiritual practice) will be one. There is only truth.
    I always say: the external sciences is the science of the observable. And meditation science (one’s chosen spiritual practice) is the science of the observer.
    At the point in quantum mechanics when the wave/particle controversy caused a stir, that was the moment in history were consciousness and matter became linked. They found that the behavior of particles were being affected by the observer. The expectation of the scientist was causing a direct link in sub atomic behavior.
    The nature of matter being energy and light has been discussed in the Vedas since time immemorial.
    That is why there is a growing body of futurists, psychologists, physicists etc that are practicing mystics.
    And that is why I support Free Scientology. I may not agree with all Ron had put together as a cosmology, but his essential approach to putting a person in a position to look within for answers, I believe, will become part of the fabric of spiritual culture.
    Scientology and all other isms must respect each other. This only way crap has to be dumped. It won’t and never has worked. But there is a place for Ron’s work. I believe that.

    • martyrathbun09

      You’d probably get more than a kick out of listening the PDC lectures.

      • I have. I loved them when I did. Those and the whole track tapes.

        Though I’d now rather to talk to and have a respectful intense debate with Ron over a beer at this stage in my development.

        There are some pieces of church dogma that I’ve tossed and some pieces that are stronger then ever.

        It would be fun to intellectually tussel with him, for the sake of honoring truth as an intention and purpose…………. and a nice tasting beer.

    • “At some point in our planetary evolution science and religion (spiritual practice) will be one.”

      Get well soon, Brian.

      • Steve, I appreciate your position. And can understand your “get well soon, Brian” statement. Because of the negative and murderous things done in the name of religion.
        I understand your position, but you do not understand mine. Because you have not experineced what I have experienced, not believed or had faith in, but experienced, directly, up close and pesonal.

        There are reasons that cancer wards teach meditaion, there are reasons that they prescribe yoga postures in hospitals. These things are real doable acts, that bring about real world results. And when these practices are done consistently on a dedicated basis, realities open up within that prove to the experimentor that life is not all flesh and bone.

        But for us to be able to converse intelligently you would have to have the curiosity to experiment with your own personal potential. Nothing other than passionate curiosity will do.

        Otherwise, I’m just an idiot rube dramatising a primitive throw back to mindless superstition. And that’s ok, I really do understand. You have many facts to back up your position. But you do not have all the facts. I understand your position, but you don’t understand mine.

  2. Another book that bridges the gap between science and spirit is “My Big Toe” by Thomas Campbell. In it he posits that based, on his conclusions from Quantum Physics, it appears there is a sea of consciousness which has constructed an illusory physical universe as a learning laboratory. In the same way that there might be a sock puppet made out of a bed sheet yet be the bed sheet that other sock puppets are made from all is this sea of consciousness. The purpose of the illusory universe we call the MEST universe is to increase our consciousness and essentially become more able. One is a function of the other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ

    • What i liked about Campbell is he is a physicist who has a pretty good understanding of the Theta Universe and the MEST u. I saw so many parallels with what I learned in Scientology.

  3. Thanks for the book references. I’m one who has (since childhood) considered myself more oriented to science than religion. I’ve read Gould’s argument that science and religion could stake out mutually self-respecting but separate “magisteria” –domains, if you will. I’ve read Hitchens and Dawkins’ incisive condemnations of religion in general (Hitchens, e.g., “God is not great”) and religion when it pretends to be science (more in Dawkins thinking, e.g., the God delusion).

    Where I’ve ended up (always subject to change I guess, so not really “ended”) is very much akin to my science hero Carl Sagan — a synthesis of sorts. Toward the end of the movie Contact (based on Sagan’s book of the same name) there is a dialogue which affirms that after all, science and religion have a common goal: truth.

  4. Times are changing… it’s great to see this trend. I just read a related one a few weeks ago – the author makes some great arguments against the cult of materialism and fake “neuroscience”: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7714533/brain-drain.thtml

    (subtitle is “Neuroscience wants to be the answer to everything. It isn’t.”)

    • I agree that religion is toxic, and it always has been. Religions are in essence an attempt to control and pervert the individuals seach for enlightenment. Spirituality and religion are as divorced as is law and justice.

      The only ‘good’ any religion has had, the only ‘advancement’ in anything, is where it was in their best interests and to their advantage to do so, and none of it outweighs the utter desolation it has left in it’s wake. The spritual quest would have progressed much beyond today had it not been userpt by people of bad intent.

      When someone keeps knocking you on the head, if they give you an aspirin doesn’t mean they have made up for what they have done.

      Re; Scientology being a religion. There is a tape on the BC, just a few months prior to the creation of the CofS, where LRH very emphatically denies that Sceintology is a religion. He is very clear about it. If any of you still have your BC notes, the tape is only a few months before the CofS was brought into being. If you can find the tape title, I’d greatly appreciate it. I still have all my notes from the SHSBC, but I didn’t start making them until after that tape, unfortunately.

      b

      • My above response was meant to be for はいどら.

      • Not sure of the tape, but the C of S was incorporated in 1954 I believe. So couldn’t be a Briefing Course tape. The BC ran from May of 61 to Dec 66.

        • Hi;

          Actually, I was refering to the SHSBC course, which starts with the very first writings of LRH on the subject, excluding Astounding SF and such. You are corrrect, the original BC ran during that period, but the course, the SHSBC, covers all the material from the first serious writings to the end of the actual BC, in ’66. The SR. SHSBC covered all the relevant LRH material from ’66 to present date, which is today. I doubt if it even exists any more. When I did it, back in ’76-’77, it was already being degraded.

          That tape is quite valuable, and you can bet it is not on the BC today. In it LRH goes over reasons why Scientology is NOT a religion, and that it is in the fields of art and science. IF I recall correctly, he was stating the the science is the tech,and the application is the art, but … I sure would like to hear that tape again.

          A few months after the incorporation of the CofS, on another tape on the SHSBC, he comments on why going the ‘religious’ route has it’s advantages. If any one here can dig it up, please let me know.

          b

  5. “Kristof notes that atheists and scientists seem to be increasingly recognizing the good that religion has done in the evolution of humanity across the centuries.”

    I think this is incorrect. Atheists and scientists are speaking out more and more, and louder, that religion is toxic to mankind. And it is. It always will be, and the less religious people there are, the happier we all will be.

    As a note, I don’t think Scientology is a religion. Maybe the CoS is, but Scientology is a science. Religion, by definition, requires blind faith–we as Scientologists don’t do that.

    • You say: “religion is toxic to mankind.”

      I am 100% certain that your viewpoint is toxic to mankind.

      • Underdog, religion is not inherently toxic, I agree. However, for every good thing that a religion has done, or is doing, for a group of people, there is the antithesis of it as well. Unitl human beings stopp dramatizing case, groups will comprise good and evil in both intentions and product. Thus, the statement that ‘relgion is toxic to mankind” is sometimes true. Simply look at history, and while you are at it, look no further than Scientology as practiced under current management!

        • IMHO. Most religions aren’t problematic in as of themselves. All problems come from the churches formed around them. It’s the churches that provide the follow the leader structure that facilitates the abuse, whether it’s fleecing the flock so the leader(s) grow fat or cultivating suicide bombers.

          This is why I feel the world would be a better place if spirituality was more individual, such as seems to be the case with the independent scientologists.

          Science does not preclude spirituality, it just holds that dogmatically held beliefs are wrong, preferring instead a constant process of investigation and learning where beliefs can change when demonstrably scientifically wrong; it is also accepted that beliefs of today may be disproved tomorrow and indeed much effort is often put in to doing just that.

          Even the likes of Richard Dawkins will admit he cannot prove god doesn’t exist, he just doesn’t happen to believe a god does. What he can say is his understanding of things is based on what is demonstrably scientifically true today.

          Someone coined the phrase hypocritical atheist. In so much as atheism is the subject of the hypocrascy the phrase makes no sense. I am an atheist, I don’t believe there is a god. Anything else I believe or how I act or my “moral compass” is irrelevent to my being an atheist; I don’t believe religion and certainly not churches are necessary for people to be good though.

          For an atheist to be hypocritical they’d have to believe in a god while proclaiming they don’t. I suppose it’s possible but highly unlikely.

          • Clarification:

            *dogmatically held beliefs are wrong.

            The belief may be correct but to hold a belief dogmatically is wrong, one should always be open to the possibility it is wrong; that’s not to say one cannot rely on it as fact until proven otherwise.

          • martyrathbun09

            For the record, “hypocritical atheist” referred to expounding judgmental belief about religion qua religion as creating judgmental belief.

            • And i agree that i probably did that.

              Like everyone there are millions of threads of thought going on in my head.

              Under normal circumstances there is a filter mechanism that ensures the thoughts expressed are a) final in their point and b) appropriate to the audience.

              I have occassion to drink alcohol and judging from my own missives this filter mechanism is slightly impaired as a result you’re treated to several of my thought patterns. Some of which have would have failed the usual auditing one performs.

              Naturally i assess religions based on my own experiences as an auto process of normal thought.

              As an an atheist i natually believe all theist religions are inherently faulty. I cannot prove this though and accept this; i could be wrong.

              Hsving consulted with several christian varients including methodist, evangellical, mormon, jehovah’s witnesses and others i’ve determined that if there is a god and i’ve led a basically good life he(?) Will grant me one last chance to believe in him.

              If i am ever faced with god and he(?) Asks if i believe in hin my answer will surely be yes. In the mean time i don’t feel the need to join a group or conform to an ideology beyond my own, which i think is basically good.

              Marty i read what you say but am at a loss. I have no intent of:

              expounding judgmental belief about religion qua religion as creating judgmental belief.

              Of course i have beliefs as does everyone here. But i have no interest in “creating a judgemental belief.” I could but i wont.

              I seriously considered setting up my own religion but my conscience wouldn’t let me. I really couldn’t abuse people like that.

              I make my comments and am judge by them and learn from that judgement. That is what i do and all i do.

              • I have a lot of respect for you Marty. The above is merely a clarification of my intent that acknowledges i may have been remiss in my representation.

                Keep up the good work.

      • “religion is toxic to mankind”
        Sounds literally like the mental diarrhea of Karl Marx´s philosophy.

    • There is more than one definition for “religion.” LRH has one definition that goes something like “a seeking and discovery of man’s spiritual nature.” From this viewpoint, Scientology itself is definately a religion. I would also say that this venture of finding out about one’s spiritual side can be very vital to one’s understanding of life and ultimate happiness.

      On the other hand, we also have in man’s history “institutional church/religon” which is an organized structure with a power source atop it that seeks (and usually suceeds) to take charge of a population, controlling its every dynamic, all its resources and ruling by threat and punishment. This method of operation has been operational from a witch doctor on a small island to the history of the major religions on planet Earth.

      Of course, this becomes a bit complicated as the effort to explain man’s spiritual history gets all mixed up with the oppressive institutional church side. In my opinion, this definately happened with Scientology, starting in the 60s and reaching the extreme stage we now see under Miscavige.

      BUT the oppressive and controlling side of religion doesn’t invalidate the side that seeks to enlighten man (though there always has to be the option for each individual NOT to accept the offered explanation and unfortunately this option rarely exists in religon). One positive aspect of the history of religion though is that there are always small groups who seek to keep the enlgightening and productive side of a religion and cast off the oppressive side of any religion and its practices. This has been true of Christianity and Judaism and we see that now in Scientology.

      • Joe Pendleton wrote, “There is more than one definition for “religion.” LRH has one definition that goes something like “a seeking and discovery of man’s spiritual nature.”

        I agree. I came to understand religion as it appears here
        http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Religion

        “Relegere meant to gather together, collect, hence to go over a subject again in thought, from re and legere, to collect together, hence to read, collect at a glance…men were called `religious from relegere, because they reconsidered carefully and, as it were, went over again in thought all that appertained to the worship of the gods.

        The alternative derivation, from religare, to fasten, bind,” (There’s much more there)

        At any rate, seeing that even primitive man thought about, inspected, paid homage to, and finally worshipped ritually “gods”, or, anything that evidenced power. The paying homage to and worshipping seem to be a result of that which they eventually felt they couldn’t control or understand and therefore made attempts to appease, or bound themselves to making some diety happy so destruction and death may not happen.

        I mean really, if primitive man would have been able to understand that lightning could travel great distances (up to 10 miles) then perhaps they wouldn’t have thought it was a god in a thundering chariot, or some such, striking them down for something it was displeased with.

        Two sides of one coin imho. Of course once people fall into propitiation it’s easy for a toxic person to grab control and run roughshod over tribes, communities, or entire countries.

        My viewpoint is that religion cannot be toxic, it’s just a name for something – like government.

        It’s the bank and suppressives that can make it appear to be toxic. Clear out the suppressives, de-PTS the populace, and people start to think for themselves again.

        Or at least that’s the way I see it. :-)

    • martyrathbun09

      What’s this ‘we’ stuff, はいどら?

    • Its toxic people that cause toxic religion. Religion as a whole has been a very civilizing force as well. More people were killed in the name of political ideology but we don’t say politics is all evil, well ok, I won’t go there lol.

      The point is, that it’s the mindset of the people not necessarily the subject. If a subject that preaches love, starts killing people, it’s time to get out a dictionary.

      • Saying Christianity has done good for mankind is a joke. It’s an innately unhealthy religion. Please read some Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.

        And I thought I explained it well enough, but the definition I was using was blind faith religion. If you blindly believe things, you’re not really following the first rule of Scientology.

      • @Brian: politics is a form of religion, actually. Blindly following your “leader”. See Hitler, Stalin, emperor Hirohito of Japan. In fact, the Japanese people thought Hirohito was literally divine.

        These are all pure forms of religion, just in a political form.

        (So yes–it’s evil. A Scientologist civilization would be an anarchist civilization)

        • Bob Grant just proved my point, if what he’s saying is correct.

        • I agree, blindly following anything is a bad thing. But I believe intelligent people who use constructive critical thought and experimentation can be a good thing.
          Unfortunately, in the name of power, religion and politics have been used for destructive purposes.
          But there is more to these subjects than greed, power and mindless adherence to dogma.

          BTW, I am not a Scientologist. I am a dedicated meditator. My leader is critical positive constructive reason, and faith in those discoveries that bring more happiness into my life.

          But I do understand your sentiment on mindless adherence to any ideology. It is unreasonable though, to postulate that anyone with a spiritual life is a mindless superstitious primitive rube.

          BTW, Einstein, Newton and countless other rational luminaries all had a faith or experience with transcendent realities.

          There are blind believers and there are blind doubters. Both have one thing in common: rigid adherence to fixed ideas with an unwillingness to experiment with new ways of experiencing life. Fundamentalist believers and fundamentalist doubters have more in common than they think. Different sides of the same coin.

          • You guys seem to have trouble putting “science” and “spirituality” together. They can both be combined. If we, in fact, are spirits, that is a proveable thing by science and will someday be put down as scientific facts.

            Anything outside of science is faith, religion, nonsense.

            • はいどら I agree. But I’d say that faith, if based on a achievable, attainable truth, can lead to directly perceiving a thing. That would make faith essential to any investigation.
              If I went to a piano teacher to learn piano and all he had me do was worship pictures of pianos, that I think is the religion you are talking about. So はいどらwe agree. :-)

              I want to play piano! I want to know that I am knowledge itself.

    • WEll, mabey not ‘blind faith’ as people read a book and agree with it, or they take a course and agree, or they get auditing a become more aware. However, if Ron said that the color blue was the most powerful or theta color in the universe then Scientologist would immerse themselves in blue! I even knew people who thought Ron smoked Marbleboro cigs (because of a picture) when he evidently smoked Kools at one point, so they proudly smoked Marlboro cigs! Thus, anything he utters is gold, and people do not inspect, even when it comes to policy and tech. So, there is a type of faith which premeates Scientology.

    • Random Stranger

      I recall in the ’70’s it being continually put forth by International Church management to just “Do as Ron says”. Entire PR campaigns were designed and pushed based on that notion, when it came to getting the targets done on all the numerous ‘programs’ and LRH EDs and evals.

      It wasn’t, “do as you should because you understand it, agree with it and can contribute to the motion based on self-determinism.” No, people were already being asked to accept blind faith as the best route and just get right to what ‘management’ wanted which was for everyone to do as “Ron said”.

      Management in the 70’s was ALREADY asking for blind faith and expecting Scientologists to follow it in order to be considered good Scientologists. In the Seventies. Therein lies the seed to grow a maniac like Miscavige. The seed grew.

      And many Scientologists did and still continue to do just that. That’s what holds ‘em in place, I think, the blind faith that they need to hang in there and do what David Miscavige says what Ron said to do.

      That, and an actual inability to differentiate something cool that L. Ron Hubbard said or a technique he developed and published versus something he said or developed that was uncool that they wouldn’t normally buy into if they were doing their own thinking. The higher up the org board, the more this automatic unthinking blind faith would be to the precise adherence and letter of the law to what L. Ron Hubbard supposedly spoke or wrote.

      One takes the OT levels as blind faith all the way up the line. One can surely have wins based on such things as the communication cycle, the ARC triangle, auditing processes producing a change of mind, etc. But when it comes to a certainty or guarantee that the applied religious philosophy is going to save the world, give each person spiritual salvation and the only way to mess up is if you DON’T do exactly what Ron says, well then that’s just asking for blind faith, just like every other twisted religion.

      I wonder how many long-term Scientologists, including Sea Org members, org staff members and public who are still in the church today, would with what they now know and based on their experience, would have so easily and readily bought into the command intention hierarchy of compliance that is demanded within not only this regime but the ones prior to DM?

      It’s a big case of the amazingly naive and the chronic blind faithfully continuing to allow themselves to be led.

      • I don’t know. I think it’s more a mixture of things. You know I had a cognition about responsibility recently. For me, now, being responsible is being accountable for that which I caused.

        I don’t think a lot of people get that. If they did then “The Why is God” wouldn’t rear it’s head so often.

        Anyway, naive. I was naive when I joined the Sea Org. I REALLY thought that I was entering into a world where other Scientologists understood what was going on and we all were going to get hatted and help people.

        Yeah – right.

        Interestingly the EPF was glorious for me and my group. Frank Byrnes was the EPF I/C on mission from CMO Int and regardless of what anyone else may think about him, I liked him, salty dog that he was. He granted us so much beingness that our partical flow was extremely high when we were ready to enter our orgs.

        It was like going from gliding along the breeze to running in knee-deep wet sand.

        Five or six of us were so BI’s about it that one night we Comm-eved the people of Earth in the Mess Hall and thus blew tons of charge ;-D

        Well, my innocence wasn’t shattered for a while and I took to heart what LRH said about wearing his administrative hat for my post. I didn’t :Do what Ron said”, I asked myself, “What would Ron do?” Then I would jump on SIR and look up everything about what I was working on.

        Do I know WHY sending letters to CF results in walk-ins? Absolutely I do not. Does it work? Yes.

        If I’m in the chair do I expect the auditor to run the process they’re SUPPOSED to? Absolutely. It’s my damn mind we’re tinkering with there and I really need to know that what’s being run is what is expected to be run and not some ka-ka of the auditor’s own manufacture – and yes, I’ve been there. It stinks.

        The point is I can’t know why something works until I study it, understand it, and see through demonstration that it does work. In the meantime I’ll ask myself “What would Ron do?” and go find out.

        Now I CAN see where you’re coming from, but to me, that’s just some individual’s robotism as a result of not wanting to be accountable. If they just grab a policy or bulletin and go through the motions they can blame it on the tech if it doesn’t work as expected. However, much depends on whether they bothered to evaluate the situation correctly in the first place so that they were applying the correct tech.

        You can’t apply the tech of watering plants to the action of waxing cars and get the expected result.

        A little wild there, but I hope you catch my meaning.:-)

      • There are atheists that believe religion is toxic and there are those who think it’s okay as long as it’s dogma is not imposed on others.

        Dogma isn’t sensible measures to protect one from another or provide sensible mechanisms for dispiute resolution it is some felt others shouldn’t do because it goes against the belief.

        Take masturbation. This is a sin in several religions, atheists and hopefully a few others would object if masturbation were criminalised and enforced (you’d be amazed at survelliance capabilities these days) in society because there is no evidence it causes harm unless you count the destruction of millions of potential life forms (male only).

        As a side note Queen Victoria refused to acknowledge lesbianism (ladies don’t do that kind of thing) and as a result it was never criminalised in the UK unlike being homosexual, an act not unknown amongst the more beastial men. Also lesbians have a far lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases within their group than homosexual men and hetrosexuals which, according to the logic of some suggests god favors lesbians.

        Finally a supposedly scientific study suggests masturbating five times a week reduces the chances of testicular cancer by around 20%; so men you can relax if you masturbate more than 25 times a week. If you don’t well, you know what to do… Apparently a real study, though there has been much sniggering with speculation that some scientists were caught and this was an excuse. Ah yes, erm just doing a study dear. Research… Not sure if it’s been repeated.

    • Religion did not create or drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not create H-Bombs, or Neutron Bombs, or Mustard Gas, or Nerve Gas, and did not deploy them to forward its causes. Religion did not create or operate the drones being flown over Afganistan. Stalin did not kill his 16 million people because of religion, nor did Mao or Pol Pot or numerous other atheists who seem to think killing people is a good idea.

      Evil is toxic to mankind, not religion OR science per se. Religion at least recognizes the existence of evil. Science does not.

      • I agree with most of what you say, but it’s a fact that some aberrated groups have killed in the name of religion. That’s not a knock on religion, per se, but we should remember that cults do sometimes grow up around otherwise begnign religious philosophies.

        • You’re right, Ronnie – that is very true. But what chaps me is atheists claiming to be the only ones using “reason” and “rationality” in the world, and who claim that religious belief and faith is proof of weak thinking, and who claim that religion and religious people are dangerous to the world.

          These people claim that religion should be, basically, eradicated, and that people should apply “reason” to… believe what they believe, which is that we are all just particles of dust floating in space who somehow self-organized into clumps of stuff that can read and write Shakespeare; into units which have NO free will.

          And then they claim religion is evil on its face, when it is atheists like Stalin and Mao which have spilled more blood and caused more terror than any religious leader ever has, and scientists who are actively inventing new and revolutionary ways to slaughter us.

          My point is: If religion should be blamed for “ruining everything”, as Hitchens wrote, and therefore should be banned or eradicated, then science and atheism, which has killed far more people, should be too.

          Of course, both positions are ridiculous. Evil is the correct target.

          • “then science and atheism, which has killed far more people, should be too.”

            Am I supposed to take that seriously?

            Nowhere in a science book does it say “infidels must die”, “homosexuals should be stoned”, “sex is a sin”, et cetera and so on.

            If you are a part of a religion, chances are, your book has it. You may ignore it, but it has it. Actually, the only religion that I actually like and I think is HEALTHY, coincidentally happens to be Taoism. Which is very similar to Scientology, and someday, the facts of these schools of thought will be recorded in science books.

            I don’t consider Scientology a religion, I consider it a science, and I think LRH did too.

            As I said, Stalin and Mao created or embraced state religions (like communism).

            • Sure. Look at the products of Marxism, the greatest atheistic system of all. Count the dead of the communist regimes, and then ask me if I am serious,

            • Oh, and to call communism a religion is like calling democracy a religion, or fascism a religion, or, for that matter, pacifism. If you are going to do that, than anything a person uses as an excuse to kill someone is his “religion”.

              • Communism, fascism and neo-conservatism among others are ideologies. Idealogies motivate and inspire people just as religions do. There is little difference between religion and ideology and yes both have been abused by some to get others to kill.

                Science does not kill, people kill. Science may only facilitate people killing each other but science is driven by the motivation of people. Science does not motivate people. Science doesn’t start wars. Scientists can be religious or follow an ideology.

                Atheism is not an ideology. An atheist can be a communist, facist, pacifist, naturalist, scientologist, humanist, racist, nationalist, conservative, liberal, UFO’logist (I kid you not) and so on, they just can be in a religion that holds to the idea of a supreme being. Hence atheism cannot be abused by some to get others to kill.

                • That’s pretty much my point, Dean. It is not rationalism vs. religion/irrationalism. Religion does not have a monopoly on badness or being misused.

                  • Ah, okay I certainly agree with you there. Religion doesn’t have the monopoly on making people do bad things.

                    Any ideology you can convince people to follow will do but neither science nor atheism are ideologies; as you rightly point out there are atheistic ideologies but the atheism is incidental, belief in a supreme being is counter to the ideology that demands worship of “the state” or “the leader” as the supreme authority.

                    The Nazi varient of fascism had a lot of religion and many in the Catholic Church supported it; groups within the Catholic church helped several leading Nazi’s escape after the war. Religion was one of the many tools used as a means of convincing people to go along with it though it played a comparitively small part.

                    Suffice to say Nazi Fascism was not “atheistic”; you probably didn’t say it was but I wanted to make that point as some wrongly assert Hitler was an atheist, of course those same people go on to say it was atheism that made him do it.

                    • Yep, the Nazis had their own amalgam of crazy ideas. One of the most chilling scenes I saw was Christmas in Berlin with swastikas taking the place of stars on top of Christmas trees.

      • Agreed Grasshopper

      • Your humble servant

        Good point, Grasshopper

      • Atheism is simply the none belief in a god or supreme being. Atheism has no other dogma. It is certainly true that Atheists can conceive of great evil but not because they’re Atheists.

        I venture to suggest that no-one has ever inspired the masses to go to war because there is no god, yet. Okay they may not have all used a theist religion but they all used an ideology of some kind.

        As to the Atomic bomb, most of those involved in it’s commissioning as a project, the research, the construction, the testing and ultimately it’s deployment were Christians; check for yourself the info is out there. This is not to say their dogma was involved in their decision to be involved but they all for their own reasons felt they were doing the right thing at the time; this probably had more to do with defending their own country and way of life by ending the war. There was no cabal of atheists driving forward this agenda.

        People imbued atheism with lots of things it isn’t. Scientists are no more disposed to atheism than men in trenches or artists or any other demographic.

        An old saying:

        Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but to get a good person to do bad things you need a religion. I’d replace religion with ideology but most ideologies have their roots in religion.

      • Nazi germany was very inspired by Christian hatred toward Jews.

        Stalin and Mao were all political or “state” religions. Richard Dawkins has some very good speeches on this.

        And to say science doesn’t recognize evil is just absolute nonsense. Science is what maps out our moral code by determining what is beneficial or harmful to our wellbeing, not priests and imaginary gods.

        • Agreed.

        • The great dialetical materialistic societies spawned from Karl “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses” Marx were “State” religions? I suppose if Dawkins says they were, they must have been! Come on. Democracy is a religion then, or republicanism, or fascism, or anarchy. In that case, you are absolutely right. If two people agree on something, anything, it is a religion.

          As for the concept of “evil”, there is no evil at all unless it is taken in the context of Man. A shark is not evil, nor is it cruel. An earthquake is not evil or cruel, nor is a hurricane, nor is a rock. Evil can only be defined in terms of Humanity. One man’s evil is another man’s honor. To me, someone strapping on bombs and blowing herself up in a public square is evil. To someone else, she’s a hero.

          So, at what point does evolution create “evil?” Why is there NO evil until “wham!” all of a sudden, evil exists when Man awakens at the dawn of our existence? I have read the “natural selection” “reasoning” behind all of this, and I don’t buy it.

          Science is out of its league when it comes to evil. How would they tell what is “beneficial” to our well-being? Who is to decide? Scientists decided that damming our great rivers was “beneficial to our well-being” and yet we killed a lot of fish – not evil then, evil now. Scientists decided that it was better to spray DDT all over the place because killing insects was beneficial to our well-being – and killed a lot of birds in the process. Not evil then, evil now.

          Eugenics is the culmination of Science deciding what is in the best interests of our well-being.

          Scientists said that nuclear energy is safe and effective, and look at the results of that.

          It is never the scientists who pull back, it is the outrage of the common man that puts scientists on their heels.

          My point is not that Science is evil, or is destined to be evil. It is not. My point is that for Science and Atheists to point their fingers at Religion as being the root cause of all evil is pretty damn specious.

          People do some pretty evil things, and they do them for all sorts of reasons.

          • You’re still mixing up science with atheism.

            Many scientists are also religious even those who work with such “evils” as nuclear energy, arms manufacture and research in to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

            There is no link between immorality and atheism. There is no link between science and atheism. There is no link between science and immorality.

            Atheists can also be spiritual, they just don’t believe in a supreme being.

    • Are you a fan of Anime?
      “Haidora” appears to be “Hydra” rendered in Japanese hiragana characters.

      How did you happen to choose that handle?

      Anyway, I don’t agree with your thesis that religion is toxic, although Chairman Mao certainly agreed with you on that.

      It’s the old argument of “Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?”

      Put the responsibility where it belongs – on the person committing the act, not on his justifications about it. Or do you advocate banning all religion as a solution? Nothing totalitarian about that, huh? Hey, the Chinese have been doing it…..

      • How about religions don’t kill people, churches do?

        Goes to my argument that in order to radicalise a religion one needs a church. Churches have leaders that dictate meaning to followers.

        Individuals interpreting their beliefs there way are generally well intended and good people who do good things.

        Exceptions being psychopaths, some of whom end up infecting others by becoming the leader of sa church.

        • How about religions don’t kill people, people do?

          Water, as religion, is very beneficial to people.
          And some aberrated people use water, or religion, to kill others.
          Any particle or idea can be used to harm.
          It isn’t good or bad in itself.

          Factor 17) And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms, their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.

          – LRH, THE FACTORS

          SCN-Axiom 31) Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.

          – LRH, Scientology Axioms

          I used to study any big religion on this planet and all religious concepts are very similar in its core belief. Different languages, different practices, but very similar goals. And none of them has war, insanity and destruction as its purpose.
          I don’t say all religions are the same. They are not. They’re different. Cultural and conceptual.

          But it’s not religion which is bad.
          People do have engrams.
          People are, to some degree, aberrated.
          No matter what they believe or where they’re from they can do stupid things.

          • People ultimately do kill people.

            Not sure on the reference re water as a religion as it’s vague.

            Religion is typIcally a justification for killing either by a church such as suicide bombers or very rarely the psychotic individual on a mission from God.

            I’ve only ever come across water as a means to kill, never as an excuse though i’m aware of a few aquatic based belief systems.

      • I may be, why do you ask? ;)

        You’re right in essence that the people are doing the evil, not the religion. However, if you have a torture device, no matter who gets behind it, it’s going to do something bad.

        That’s my point. Faith religion or state religion, just like a country with 1 supreme leader, is INHERENTLY bound to become evil. Hmm, reminds you of the CoS don’t you think?

        The only thing we should follow is logic. And logic will bring us to spiritual happiness, NOT blind faith.

  6. This song was originally done by Joan Osborne, but Alanis’ version is faithful to the original.

  7. Robin Williamson was a prime mover of The Incredible String Band, and early Clear and OT, and an awesome poet:

    THERE IS A MUSIC

    There is a music that will melt blood and bone
    there is a flood that will wash away the rock of the mind
    I have heard it hinted as the wind blew through an herbal portal
    I have heard it hissing on the waves of a self-created sea
    I have dreamed it in the chambered mountains of my body’s dreams
    I have imagined it in moments of sorrow and in hours of joy
    I have remembered it in visions of the lost children of the slender air
    it creaks in the hinges of forgotten doorways
    it is played on the harp-haired gods by the fingers of tomorrow
    it is held in the ace flashing hearts of the seemingly silent stones
    it is cradled precious in the water quality of every blue bellied lake
    played always but we hardly hear it
    lost in the pursuit of that which has already snared us
    this music
    it kills the scaly shell it blinds the shadow
    it is to be found in the stretching out of a hand
    or in the opening of an eye.

  8. Ahhh, Wilber’s book was instrumental in my change from blind baptist to blind something else. Ensuring that what I do reaches for truth, goodness, and beauty? Well, that’s up to me. That’s why it’s so good to see blogs like yours, lighting the way for potentially misguided and questioning souls, clamoring over that nested hierarchy of unfolding consciousness.

  9. Quoting LRH from New Slant on Life:
    “There are two ways men ordinarily accept things, neither of them
    very good: One is to accept a statement because Authority says it
    is true and must be accepted. And the other is by preponderance
    of agreement amongst other people.”

    I really like this LRH quote, but there are many others and most have a lot to do with thinking and verfying data for yourself.

    ‘Blind faith’ has nothing to commend it. Religion does not deserve any more ‘respect’ or special status than any other human endeavor.

  10. “God is alive or dead, that there is a trend toward integrating art, religion and science in my view is a very heartening sign”

    +1 from me

  11. There are basically two very different ways of thinking about life and the universe. We know very well that at the beginning had been the Big Bang and fast forward, out of matter life had been created and ultimately consciousness. Or that God existed before everything else and God created life and the universe. Thus life had been there first. What do you think makes more sense?
    Let us not argue about details. If God or us created the physical universe. I consider it as fact that I did not create myself. (I would not say that God himself created me. That I do not know.) I would not say that God created all the laws and regulations we have been told to abide.
    As far as I know the Big Bang theory had originally not been invented to replace God. The physicists had a problem to solve. All matter is attracting itself. Thus the unverse could not exist very long as all matter (galaxies, stars, planets) could not stay separate. Thus the concept of the fleeing universe had been introduced. That way the universe could exist. Then the second step had been made to say that if something is fleeing the cause of it must be an explosion. The Big Bang had been created. We may consider scientists to be very intelligent. But looking on that logic tells us, that scientists can sometimes come up with quite some illogics or very stupid logic.

    • George there is another view: both are true and not mutually exclusive. We are the dream makers, beyond the play of individuation, beyond the mind, beyond the body, beyond the emotions: we are that which is the All and Everything.

      God is evolving forms and the intelligence that guides them. And the Uncreated Absolute beyond all forms.

      Eternal, incorporeal, joyfull, powerful. Circumference nowhere, free. We Are That. All we need to do is improve our knowing.

  12. While I was at Flag studying the basic books (prior to the Basics) I came to the conclusion that there is a relationship in the philosophy of Scientology which hold true for all philosophy:

    RELIGION (THETA)
    ART (aesthetics)
    LOGIC (Analitical Thought)
    ETHICS (emotion)
    TECHNOLOGY (effort)
    ADMINISTRATION (matter)

    This is based on the chapter Wavelenghts from Scientology 8-80.
    The connection of dots is not as explicit but knowing the fundamentals it is easy to make the connections.

    Now that I look at the new book I come to think that may be the last one “Matter” (next to Administration) might not have been there before. Perhaps someone has an old copy of the book to corroborate?

    1: In any event, back then the relation for the first 3 (next to ART, LOGIC and ETHICS) was very plain in this book.

    2: Also very well known was the relation ETHICS, TECH and ADMIN and the overlaping “Ethics” was the one that served as the link between 1 and 2.

    I wrote all of this up for Miscavige (docens and docens of pages of observations) whom I know ultimately just adjudicated all of this as “His own observations” and came up with his Golden Age of Knowledge.

    I was naive and believed he was a good man. So I did not mind him doing that but now I realized that he corrupted completely the intent of what I did for him.

    All of this came up because I posed a question (to myself in one of my my docens and docens of write ups to RTC) which was “Why is THE TRIANGLE OF CERTAINTY not in the book SCIENTOLOGY 0-8″

    The tringle of Certainty is from the book THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY.

    And if you wanted to know where the review on the basics books begun leading to their republising and “correction” as THE BASICS it is from these inquiries and observations I sent to RTC for over more than a 5 year period.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE of these write ups had the title:

    SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 – THE BOOK OF BASICS

    This is all I am going to say for now because the actual story is way too long and it happened over a long period of time. It is factual. Believe it or leave it. I don`t care.

  13. “I think this is incorrect. Atheists and scientists are speaking out more and more, and louder, that religion is toxic to mankind. And it is. It always will be, and the less religious people there are, the happier we all will be.”

    Okay but I think what you might be observing there is a promoted agenda put forth by yet another group seeking to control the masses. I think those are propogandists, not free thinking souls.
    You can’t be dealing with a “scientist” who will not consider the posssible influence of the spirit.

    By the way, this is a great post and great comments! Good ponderable stuff!

  14. Dear Marty,

    ” It was critical in unchaining me mentally and spiritually from an adult life spent in a religion that was Medieval in its super individuation from advances in art and science and morality and the evolution of civilization as a whole”

    This sentence is the best you ever have written. It shows you are freeing yourself and thinking for yourself while moving up a little higher.
    Thank you for expressing your thinking !

    It opens, if enough Scientologist are able to understand it, the possibility for the tech to arrive in the 21st century and from here on to evolve into what it should be and was designed for !

    Wow ! Have a great day ! :)

    • I highlighted that same quote from Marty, but for the purpose of making a completely different observation.

      There are few people I respect as much as I do Marty. But my experience with this “religion” could not have been more liberating intellectually.

      There was nothing in my involvement with the subject that I could characterize as “chaining me” due to its “super individuation from advances in art and science and morality . . . ” etc.

      I think this difference in viewpoint may derive more from where someone is at when they encounter Scientology.

      In my case, I was a graduate student at a major university. I had close to a couple of decades of what might be called “intellectual exploration” under my belt.

      Contrast that with someone who perhaps joined staff or SO at a young age, with none of that educational background. I can see how the pressure of being “on purpose” 24x7x365 would keep one “individuated” from ideas being disseminated within the broader culture and society.

      However, I think perhaps it is too broad a sweep to then conclude that the “religion . . . was Medieval in its super individuation from advances in art and science and morality and the evolution of civilization as a whole”. I have to say – reluctantly, and I hope in error – that statement communicates to me as a huge put-down of much more than David Miscavige and his perversion of the philosophy/religion.

      If true for Marty and others, I must somehow accept and understand that viewpoint, out of respect if for no other reason.

      On the other hand, I feel I must also state, in counterpoint, that ALWAYS in this life having been intellectually curious, having read and studied pretty much anything and everything i could get my hands on regarding especially philosophy, religion and science – encountering Scientology after all that was, for me, the equivalent of discovering Einstein’s long sought-after Unified Field Theory. It allowed me to make sense out of all these disparate observations, theories, facts and viewpoints that I had come across. It dramatically INCREASED my understanding of the wider society, world and universe – it was, for me, the exact OPPOSITE of individuation and has always been so.

      I am speaking only of how the philosophy, study thereof, and practical application of Scientology impacted and continues to impact my life. My viewpoints have NOTHING to do with the institutional Church of Scientology as perverted by David Miscavige. As to that, I could not agree more, it is as medieval and as individuated from the broader world as it is possible to be.

      • Publius,
        Speaking about Einsteins Unified Field Theory. He failed to put it together according to Campbell in “My Big Toe” (MBT) (Theory Of Everything) because he was trying to understand the Consciousness platform from the point of view of the Physical Material instead of starting with the Conssciousness platform which makes sense of the physical. Although I am still making sense of MBT it is real to me that Campbell did put together a Unified Field Theory. The MEST u is only a subset of the Conscious (Theta) universe.

      • That is awesome, Publius. I can really duplicate how that would be.
        I fell into the latter category, myself, with only some years of Catholicism, Cajun version, as a background. Being on staff was super-isolating in so many ways. It’s been quite a joy to learn that so many people have the same or similar beliefs (and questions) to mine, in science and religion. To be able to watch a documentary on the subject and agree or disagree, change my point of view or not…compared to the fixed rigidity of mind I had before. Wow. It blows my mind – literally!

      • Publius,

        Your comment is very interesting and I think you understood what was meant !
        Scientology is very liberating when you are aloud to study it for yourself and reflect on it, and are aloud to apply it on any subject without any interference from others telling you what to think. Then it’s a great adventure and you’ll come up with a better understanding about humanity.
        But what’s about those staffs, recruited at young age with not much of an education and just receiving some policies to study and no experience in our modern world ?
        Just learning verbatim and reciting to a wall (like a Koran school).

        I’ve seen pre Miscavige young people with no education being recruited and learning LRH verbatim (lack of IQ) and just swallowing anything LRH said without thinking one thought about it. When Lrh says it, it must be true ! This resulted in Black/white thinking. And many of those young people became executives.

        I know of many Scientologists that think to send their children to school is wasted time, that to be educated in Scientology is enough to make a living. Those kids are struggling in life. Scientology can not be a substitute for an education and never was intended for it.

        Just today a customer told me that the USA have perhaps 5% of their population with a good education, while the rest of it’s people can’t afford it and those 5% tell the rest what to do.

        The great philosophers of the 18th century which brought about the revolutions and finally the freedoms we are enjoying today; each of them stressed the point that anybody has to go to school and needs an education.

        There are some countries in Europe like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and Finland that have a fantastic schooling system, so that nearly anybody can get an education. Look at those countries, Nearly no unemployment, politically very stable, very high production, not living on debts etc.
        In Switzerland its today almost an impossibility to fall out of this system (except for some Scientologist kids I’ve seen) for a young person. There will always be a new chance and money for them to get an education whatever for crazy ideas they develop in their youth. There will always be an organization that has the solution for exactly their problem.
        It took me 30 years to understand and see how this system is working and to realize all the chances I missed because I had this funny idea “Wog education is nonsense”. I learned it by caring about that my kids get educated and boy are they stable in their life and are telling their dad how to handle life.

        LRH intended Dianetics for common people and about 28 years later he realized they can’t understand it because of lack of an education (HCOB or POL. World eval) and came up with different solutions to it as LOC, false data stripping, crashing MU finding. But he never stressed the point, like the philosophers did 200 years ago; educate everybody on all subjects (not just Scientology).

        That is all it is about. As soon as this basic right, that anybody is aloud to get an real education in his youth (also the american people) for free
        Mankind will have less problems – in fact in Dmsmh LRH states this is also a way of processing people and keying them out -.

        You, Publius had this chance. Many didn’t and are struggling with a black and white thinking in their life. You can cheat those people, you can lye to them, you can use them as slaves without any big problems because they’ll never havee enough data to come to their own conclusions.

        That’s the reason why Marty is reading so many books and is encouraging the independents to read books, not only Scientology.books.

        “Knowledge is freedom and ignorance is slavery”
        ― Miles Davis

        • LO,
          You are so right! Scientologist who are staff and who raise their kids to be on staff do not respect education. I say this with certaintly after working as a staff memeber, and then in a Applied Scholastic school and also as a teacher in non-Aps schools. Their think is that the public schools and private non-applied scholastics schools) are full of “psyche data” (false) and that students do not get mu’s handled (often true in ALL schools) and will therefore become more stupid, and that the only think they need is to get the LRH tech. First, it is true that educational theories have been established by pyschologist who have made discoveries about how people learn and who simply gather tons of data on what is workable. Usually, they have been educators first and know what is being done in the field. Many educational leaders, like John Dewey, wanted schools to have a way to access a students ability to apply data, besides grades given on a subjective basis. He was interested in what a student could do with the data and how the student could show it!. He also wanted students to think for themselves, instead of carrying the ideas of their parents or teachers. These ideas have been perverted into thinking that he was trying to ‘take over for the parents” and to “instiutionalize” the student and treat the student like a ‘subject”. This is not true if you read what the man, himself, wrote. LRH did make a negative comment about him, but I have read nothing which doesn’t align with LRH as a matter of fact, so I don’t know what LRH was referring to. I can only find similarities.

          You would probably be shocked and surprised at the alignment between (as would many Scientologist) the study tech and educational articles (educational dianetics, for example) written by Ron and educational theories which precede him. In fact, I traced the beginning of “outbased education” and discovered that it was simply a proposal of no more that half a page, yet tons of others added their own ideas to it. The same with “whole language”. I have studied it as well, and discovered that CCHR was incorrect in their analysis of whole language being anti-grammar and that the anti-grammar was a pysche plot. Anytime a psychologist has anything to say about education, or anything, they automatically consider it ‘enemy line’ and false. In otherwords, CCHR and other Scientology groups align with whatever pushes their agenda. Truth and workability is not actually the product.

          Actually, with ‘whole language’ there has generally been a misunderstanding about the subject even among educators. I went to a full day seminar/workshop on the subject over twenty years ago, and I have read a lot about it. After the workshop, I was excited because I felt it was the closest thing to study tech and Ron’s ideas about education that I had ever seen. Yet, years later, CCHR sponsered this whole anti whole language/ outbased education crusade. The idea behind whole language is to make the subject real to the student, align the subject to the student’s interest, and do not make each subject as a separate entity having nothing to do with other subjects. Another important point is that writing is not just for English class, but that if students are to be fluent in wrting, they needed to write in all of their core classes. In other words, if you want to improve on writing…you write! Not only should this be obvious, but it is also something Ron talks about in a lecture to a writing class who were not up to snuff on how many words they had been writing.

          Anyway, my point is that Scientologists are correct in wanting their children to embrace the ‘tech’, but are completely foolish in thinking that they don’t need education. The other problem is that the staff kids who don’t finish high school simply work at the org in admin posts, and most do not join the TTC (who does these days!). Just because Ron himself had issues with being in school does not mean that being in school is wrong. Besides, they forget that Ron studied on his own, else he would have never come up with Scientology or Dianetics.

          • Jewel,

            You are totally right !
            I sent my first kid to Scientology School dreaming he’ll become a genius there. I took him out after 9 months , as he himself told me it’s boring and he doesn’t learn a lot had bi’s on it and we had some weird experiences with the school (long story in itself). The school director wanted to handle us by stating that our kid wouldn’t survive in another school !
            I sent him then in a Scientology school near an AO, thinking they are more on source. He didn’t learn anything at all there, it was staffed mainly by Ex-SO wanting to earn money to pay their FL-Bill. He was in protest and was labeled a psychotic (7 years old boy).
            We took him out and sent him to ” Wog Schools”, There they cared a lot about him and they were totally enthusiastic about his intelligence and he became the genious I thought he is and did his master in Computer Science with best marks. The university didn’t want to let him go and made offers.
            Its really a pity. Once I talked to a completion of Delphi school. I thought that she had her student hat, M1 and surely had recieved many hours of auditing like student rehab lists or correction lists, false data stripping, crashing MU findings. The whole tech ! She got none of it just the BSM,, checksheets, word clearing and ethics handlings and meant they were aloud to get those services i I was talking about only in the nearest COS for full price !

            It’s my opinion that there is no school on this planet that can proudly call itself a Scientology school or say its using study tech. BSM, checksheets and wordclearing is perhaps 5 % of that tech !

            I’m dreaming about that one day I’ll have enough Money and found such a school, where when they graduate are OT8, Class 8, have already traveled about the whole world, know their sciences, grammar, languages, history, philosophy and geography for real.

            Such a school would produce Scientists that would be a (r)evolution in any subject !

            • LO,
              wow, that is a big goal for a school! I’m not sure that the entire bridge and education are on the same admin scale, but maybe they could coexist. Still, I see what you mean. The main problem with Scientology and school is that Ron didn’t put schools on the org board. HIs kids had nannies and tutors, but other SO kids basically got the shaft regarding school, although that is not how he wanted it to be. I know that a woman, Yoka, was asked by Ron to take care of the SO kids on the Ship, and then he asked her to create a space for the SO kids on land because he knew that they needed full time care and schooling. She took this seriously, and she set up the Mojave Academy which is now run by her daughter, but in another state. I was not impressed with her school at the time that I saw it, nor with the utter lack of supervision in the afternoons. Still, she had the only school which really applied Educational Dianetics and she made auditing available (one had to pay regular price) but at least it was available. She also took kids to PacBase as needed. So, again, no one is applying full Scientology tech to students in conjunciton with general education because the full tech includes metered auditing which is under the religious cloak of Scientology.

              Applied Scholastics does a good job of keeping the church and the org separated, but it is a total sham that there is no connection. I was trained on the PR on what to say, and I almost believed it. The push is for schools to really push LRH into the community, but that is not thier hat and to blur the lines is not a good idea, especially with the rotten pr of the church.

              I know years ago I asked for the Church to create its own schools, just as the Catholics and other religions have their own schools. I was told no, that could never happen. That is suppose to be done in the public sector. Yet it would be so great for staff and other Scientologists to have a real school which also included all the help needed.

              A big problem is what you pointed out, that the people working in the schools are often not educated themselves, and so they do not know how to really create a subject. Consequently, the schools are boring because they use text books and work books exclusively. Some have extracurricular activities. There was a school in the South Bay (of San Francisco) that had sports, art, drama etc but the founder left because Int started micromanaging her, despite the fact she had the school for twenty years.

              The other problem is Scientology parents who think their kid is going to go clear on word clearing or that when they do something outethics, it is the fault of the school because of not attending to their mu’s. Never mind that the kid lives on tv and video games while the parent is on course or getting auditing! The study tech is simply a study method which has to be applied self determinately, and the classroom is not a course room, which even Ron makes clear. Yet, each Scientology school I have seen (just 5 in all) thinks that it should be run likes a course room.

              Hey, if you or anyone else wants to start a school, let me know. I have this idea of having a school where kids learn core curriculum through the various arts rather than having the arts as ‘extra’.

              • Yeah, as soon as I have enough money to start it, you can become part of the board of directors !

                I don’t understand that the tech is not aloud to be applied in schools and the pupils have to go to church instead of learning it at school.

                And you are totally right about this nonsense of 8 years old kids sitting in a course room. They are alive and love it to learn together !

                ” where kids learn core curriculum through the various arts rather than having the arts as ‘extra’.” agreed

        • Wow, thanks for this. You brought a memory back to me from a long time ago.

          I was a green staff member in Detroit, but I had a cognition in the Ladies Room one day that we were the pioneers. We that were in the trenches, and those that came before us, were the ones that would comprehend fully the value of Scientology in the future when those would be raised with it would not have reality on exactly why it was necessary.

          Of course I was looking far into the future, presupposing the conditions that would exist one day.

          What you say is true although at that time I didn’t regard it in the negative aspect of the controllability of the children that might occur.

          Which only illustrates WHY we might want to keep our attention from fixating into the Scientology world alone. It seems to me that perhaps a person might choose not to notice what’s not working when they’re in the middle of a win, and after they may non-confront by recalling their pleasure moments so they don’t have to see what’s in front of them.

          Hah! I’m having a small cognition now that part of TRs may be being able to say, Yes, this is – good or bad it’s what it IS and nothing else. :-)
          (No, I haven’t studied/done TRs beyond what’s offered on the EPF)

          So yes, I agree that we all must continue to read and understand outside the body of knowledge that is Scientology.

          • Isme, you are quite right. “Back in the day”(the 1970s) Scientologists were very interested in other subjects andthis is welland good. Per LRH, one needs data of comparable magnitude in order to evaluate something.

            So there is no way a person who knows only Scientology can evaluate Scientology’s actual worth in the scheme of things.

        • Really great reply, Lo. And yours too, Tara. I completely duplicate your viewpoints. I observed those same things too (black and white thinking, roteness, “wog education is a waste of time”, etc) and was always thankful I did not come into Scientology that way.

          Over the years, however, I ran into a few people in Scientology who I truly envied, as they seemed to have arrived at a moment in time where they were able to have the best of both worlds: an excellent grasp of basic Scientology (especially study tech, and in some cases auditor training), prior to embarking on a formal education.

          One was a Class 8 C/S at age 15!! This person was the most poised, articulate, intelligent 15 year old I have ever seen. A living, breathing testament to the potential of Scientology, properly applied and fully integrated into the business of living life for real. I remember thinking how much I wish I’d had that platform from which to enter my teens and go from there to adulthood.

          It really is all about the proper application of the subject, from start to finish, just like Ron says in KSW. It is a real shame it has been so mis-applied and harmfully applied to so many. It will take a lot of time and effort to as-is the damage and restore the subject to what it was intended to be, and truly is when properly approached and correctly applied.

          • Your humble servant

            Publius,

            And what has become of that remarkable, 15 year old class VIII that you met, if you happen to know?

            • He/she had a stellar career. I have no idea of such matters as current tone level or ethics level. All I know is, the early training, undertaken in an atmosphere validative of intellectual curiosity about the wider world (as opposed to being undertaken within a “closed” system), produced a rather amazingly capable and mature person who displayed wisdom well beyond the physical years.

              Not the only example I saw up close, either.

          • Publius,

            I dreamt my whole life about finding a real “Scientology school”. I just was dreaming……..and one day when I’ve a lots of money I’ll call you and we will discuss how to organize it and you’ll become part of the board of directors. :) :) :) :)

  15. Welp, I gotta agree with “はいどら”….I think religion is a double edged sword, but it seems to me that our culture is less and less religious and more and more scientific. Religion sorta-kinda = theta, and science sorta-kinda = MEST. I feel in love with Scn early on because it opened my eyes to theta whereas going to church as a youngster it just felt like MASS. Really…the mass felt like MASS.

    Currently, the “leader” of COS is what I would call an “A-THETA-IST”. Ain’t no way that cat has an ounce of theta….lest you count the enturbulated portion.

    • I know better,

      Any tool is a double-edged sword. The result of it’s use depends on the intention of the user. E.G., a shovel can be used to dig foundations but it can also be used to kill someone. There is thus nothing intrinsically bad about religion.

      I see Science as a branch of knowledge which is intended to study MEST, but it is the use of Reason(theta) and analytical thought used towards a better understanding of MEST existence.

      • Well stated Valkov…a shovel can (and in our case–must) be used to clean up the shit created by the SP atop of our food chain. I have a postulate out that those who can put ethics in or justice will occur. Scn will look folly to everyone who might give it a try. If we teach the tech of suppression and the very ruler is one himself–yet others can’t see it…how good is it?

  16. Thanks for posting this, Marty!
    We live in interesting times.

  17. Marina e Umberto

    Good News from Italy:
    WE JUST ATTESTED OT IV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Thanks Eliana and Marty!!!!

    Marina e Umberto

  18. The cutting edge of science (and its meeting point with spirituality) …

    • Margaret,
      Great video!
      thank you for posting it.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Margaret, wonderful contribution, thank you! Of course,
      to a well heeled Scn’gist, this phenomena of ‘fields’ was
      already touched on by LRH…. and a demo of this…..
      ……..was given by him, during his filmed interview with
      Mr. Hitchman, where he uses a ‘demo-kit’ on his desk,
      articulating in his unique, nonchalant, humorous way!

      Are you able to put a date to the scientist’s interview?
      It’s great to see the “comm lag” of LRH’s dscoveries,
      being reduced, in that many are now following in LRH’s
      footsteps and validating, to the world at large, the core
      truths involved in the “simple” act of COMMUNICATION.

      Much ARC,………….Li’ll bit.

  19. Very Good Post Marty.
    I love this Blog

  20. A mystery to some, ridiculous to even ponder for the many and profound to those who can see workability – Zero.
    The proper and correct definition of zero would be; “something which had no mass, which had no wave-length, which had no location in space, which had no position or relationship in time. Something without mass, meaning or mobility. In other words a static capable of consideration and postulates and just oozing potential.
    Just for fun you mathematicians out there – image what would happen to any formula if zero had a value unforseen, in other words, the joker in the deck. It would introduce chaos and an infinity of potential outcomes if the rigidity of the science of matter, energy, space & time was all there was. Science likes it solid, religion likes it’s fellowship of compliance & the free spirit, well… what rules you talking about? Oh yeah, fun!

    • Sherb,
      You are right. (meaning I agree with you): The Zero is the joker.
      Anyway, you had a very, very nice way of saying this.
      Thanks for you thoughts! Very nice indeed.

    • I love this concept.
      One day they’ll start to think with that definition and there’ll be one discovery after the other !

      LOL

  21. Interesting.

  22. Marty,
    I see you are determined to destroy any of the stable datums I still have left :)

  23. Something to consider, especially what we are doing with the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology:

    “What gods?
    You prophets and priests made the gods, that you may prey upon the fears of men.”
    – Rameses “The Ten Commandmentsts” (Paramount Pctures, 1956)

    “God? Where is God, or the child of God, except in man’s most dangerous imagination.”
    – Herod “The Greatest Story Ever Told” (United Artists, 1965)

    “A thetan is good. He invented a bank to keep others good.
    That mechanism went wrong. And that’s why we’re here.”
    – L. Ron Hubbard “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”

    “The picture of the R6 god used is the “Old Man”
    symbol as used on the covers of various Dianetics and Scientology Publications.”
    – L. Ron Hubbard “HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1969 (Reissued and corrected 26 May 1970)”

    Tapes:

    631230-1 Summary of R6 – Part 1

    631230-2 Summary of R6 – Part 2

    640116-1 On R6 – Part 1

    640116-3 On R6 – Part 2

  24. G, do you know where these lectures (audio and/or transcripts) can be found online? The MediaFire SHSBC set is missing all these.

    • Publius,

      I only have these as reel-to-reel tapes. I’m not aware of any of these items being online for listening or download.

      Are you a Class VIII grad from the old days?

      • Almost but not quite!

        But definitely trained/interned in the “old days”. When I did the BC, there were more than 100 lectures that were pulled from the checksheet, “confidential” – I seem to recall you could listen to them if you were on R6EW or CC, which I was not at the time. Always wanted to hear them, though – so if you ever get those open reels digitized to mp3 (a project I would be more than willing to undertake for you), let me know!

  25. It doesn’t surprise me that there’s so much aggravation and irritation related to the contemplation and discussion of “religion.” If there’s Black Scientology and Black Dianetics, there are obviously also Black Christianity and Black Islam and Black Buddhism. Not to mention stupid Christians, stupid Buddhists, etc.

    A huge difficulty when contemplating and discussing any religion is that the religion is (understandably) judged and evaluated by the the behavior and awareness of those who claim to be followers of those religions. For instance, this lifetime I’ve already walked away from two religions because I could not stomach the behaviors and no longer identified with those who claimed to follow those religions.

    I will absolutely admit that my rejection of those religions because of the antics of the followers I knew may not be a fair judgment of those religions. What if, instead, I’d been hanging out with followers of those religions who weren’t nitwits? What if they’d been smarter? More cultured? More discerning? Less determined to make those who didn’t agree with them wrong (a common religious perspective)? Put another way, what if I’d not grown up Baptist, but Episcopalian? :)

    What I’ve decided for myself is that joining religious groups does not work out well for me. Eventually, it just becomes too confining, too expensive and irritating as all get-out. Perhaps this is why so many people say loudly and proudly: “I don’t belong to any organized religious group and never will.”

    Having said all that, I find the contemplation of religious ideals and all the fascinating existential questions evoked by such contemplation very, very interesting. These days, much more so than when I was a child, these issues, ideals and questions are explored in interesting ways by “science” and “philosophy” and “technology” and sometimes, yes, even “politics.”

    A further complication is that there is major disagreement and great confusion about what people even mean when they use words like religion, creation, God, reality, existence, awareness, truth, etc. Some people are so angry about religion that they won’t even listen when you try to explain that what you mean by one of those terms is not the same thing that others mean by those terms.

    This is why we don’t discuss religion and politics at amiable social gatherings. They are extremely restimulative subjects and don’t aid digestion.

    JM

    • Just Me,
      Ditto on the time and place to discuss religion and politics, but, having a truely intelligent conversation on politics is difficult at any time. Religion is easier for me just because I don’t have a must have on being right…I know I’m right (JUST KIDDING).
      I use to think that judging a group by evaluating the behaviors of individuals of the group was “not fair” also, but I have come to realize that it is, in fact, essential. One just needs to take a broad look, not just one or two people out of 1000, as that would be unfair to the group. It’s kind of like taking a survey- after awhile you get a repeating pattern. When you think about it, if a group proposes to represent high ARC and the granting of beingness to all, for example, and yet the individuals that you observe behave by breaking ARC and making others wrong , then the group is not what it proposes to be. In the case of religion, you can read the scriptures to gain understanding. The proof of workability has to be directly experienced by yourself, but the ARC and granting of beingness, as the mission statement needs to be expressed by the behavior of the individuals of the group, else the group is in enemy or treason toward its goals. Hmmm, know any religions that fit that scenario???

  26. “No good can come out of any religion” – Bob

  27. Path of Buddha

    Marty wrote,
    “It was critical in unchaining me mentally and spiritually from an adult life spent in a religion that was Medieval in its super individuation from advances in art and science”

    I was very fortunate to attend a Catholic College in 1964. My philosophy teacher, who was a Jesuit , encouraged us to read Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit who was under censure by the Vatican. Teilhard wrote a book called “The Phenomenon of Man” which outlined a theory of Scientific evolution contrary to the Bible. Teilhard was a paleontologist who worked in the discovery of the “Piltdown Man”. In the early 1960’s the Jesuits were
    the intellectual elite in the Church. In fact, under them we studied not only Catholicism but we were oriented and tested on Buddhism.
    Let me make a public statement in regard to the Society of Jesus.
    These are truly great beings. As I told my wife, the Jesuits helped me to see right through miscavige on the very first meeting.

    May all beings be well and happy!

    George M. White

    • Teilhard de Chardin was a rare individual, and with the internet today, and especially the ‘Cloud’ stuff going on, his prediction of a Nous-sphere, as an actual shere surrounding the earth much like the atmosphere, etc., the Nous-sphere was a shere of the ‘mind’ surrounding the earth.

      His worshipping of the Sun, or at least his poem of worshiping the Sun, and his concept of the physical evolution of Christ, was really very much ‘disliked’ by the Vatican.

      He was one of those rare, very rare, independent thinkers withing a closed society.

      • bg,
        Very interesting that the Vatican did not like Teilhard’s worshiping of the Sun.
        One of my favorites is from St Francis who also wrote a poem about the Sun:

        “Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures,
        especially through my lord Brother Sun,
        who brings the day; and you give light through him.
        And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendor!
        Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.”
        St Francis of Assisi

        May all beings be well and happy!
        George M. White

      • Dia – nous: through mind or through soul.

        nous (ns, nous)
        n.
        1. Philosophy
        a. Reason and knowledge as opposed to sense perception.
        b. The rational part of the individual human soul.
        c. The principle of the cosmic mind or soul responsible for the rational order of the cosmos.
        d. In Stoicism, the equivalent of Logos.
        e. In Neo-Platonism, the image of the absolute good, containing the cosmos of intelligible beings.
        2. Chiefly British: Good sense; shrewdness

      • bg,
        I find his “Omega point” to be interesting:

        “Thus Teilhard postulates the Omega Point as this supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which in his view is the actual cause for the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. In other words, the Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, transcendent and independent of the evolving universe.”

        This has some very slight alignment with OTVIII material – but not enough to take seriously.

        May all beings be well and happy!
        GMW

    • There is a great movie re the Jesuits staring Robert De Niro with the title “Mission”.
      http://www.imdb.de/title/tt0091530/
      (one of the very very good movies with a clear distinction of the core religion and religious systems)

      • SKM,
        Thanks for the tip SKM. I like the idea of De Niro as a Jesuit.
        May all beings be well and happy!
        George M. White

        • Actualy he is not a Jesuit in this movie himself.
          He is picked up by some Jesuits on a mission, they saved his soul, he makes his peace and restores his dignity and honor.
          The Jesuits have a mission in south america (probalby Bolivia or Brazil, I don’t remember) and they do very well to the native population.
          Then the Vatican comes to the place…

          Wow, what a movie. I think I’ll watch it again today.

          Kind regards,
          SKM

  28. Science and religion have been traditionally at odds when discussing the creation of the universe because each has a different postulate or premise. Likewise, each has a an omitted datum. A physicist will argue that the god idea is simply a creation in the mind of humans to explain what has not been explained through tangible scientific evidence. In some cases, this is true. Yet, science can not explain the first particle.Religion offers stories and writngs as proof, and then it is left up to the individual to embrace the writings as the ultimate explanation for creation. Although, it usually is adopted as part of the cultural think and then it is enforced without much examination. Still,neither group can answer the chicken and egg paradox. Ron was smart in this way because he concentrated on the individual as a creator and on workability of philosophy to increase awareness. Even as a small child I asked, ‘if god made the universe, then who made god?

    The ultimate answer for the how and why of creation is not handed over by either science or religion, and I don’t see how this would be possible. Science can get as close to religion as the “God Particle” and has discovered that theta does infact inpinge and create the direction and formation of mest (just heard a interesting lecture on the subject). in this manner, it has the biological and physiological proof of what Ron already stated from book one and in the OTdoc course.

    In my biased opinion, Scientology is the only religion that will give someone the method by which to discover the ultimate truth if one keeps auditing, and if the basic tech is further studied beyond what Ron left us. Unfortunately, the ‘answer’ is not given and I know that ot8’s are not running around with the answer to this paradox as an EP of their state. This doesn’t meant that individuals haven’t cogged. However, I think that anyone has the capablity for knowing for ones self. Yet, continual study and creation with what Ron started at least gives one the opportunity to see and experience truth. I don’t see other religions having the workable prodcedures even though the ideas,axioms, and allegories are there. AFterall, Scientology is knowing how to know, not necessarily a package of everything we should or could know.

    There is a softening toward relgious views these days, and I think one reason is because relgion, as a social function, has always served to take human beings outside their immediate problems, and offer a perspective of hope and the idea that there is more to life than meets the eye. We now live in an era of escapism and nostalgia …just look at mainstream tv and movies, coupled with a drug society. People want to suck in pleasure and avoid pain, and so the attitude of “whatever” is prevelant. It stands to reason that this applies to relgious beliefs as well. There has also been a huge push for ‘tolerance’ which was started with civil rights laws, and has grown into a theme for gay acceptance and marriage etc. Personally, I think this has been too long in coming. Besides, people are too tired, frustrated, or stoned (one way or another) to fight against much of anything.

    Also, since science now acknowldeges the fact that emotion affects the physical, it solidifies what many people’ already know to be true about the intangible thing called self or mind (and what we in Scientology call thetan and theta). Furthermore, in times of great social duress, relgion is embraced for the idea that change can happen…even if it is in the afterlife, if there is no solution present. Even if religion is an uncomfortable or unpopular topic, God, as a topic, is embraced by many and even though I don’t track with the idea of a God per se, I think it can be uplifting as it aligns with infinity and creation which are the elements of theta. Yet, if you consider Natzi Germany, Hitler was able to create better economic conditions for awhile, and while doing so, bash the God concept and blame the jews and people of color for the ills of humanity. This was accepted as a package deal. If A is true (better economy) then B and C could be true as well..In the United States, no political or social order is offering a solution to the problems we suffer. I don’t think I’m overly generalizing when I say that people are angry or resentful of the condition of the country, yet apathetic about taking action: in essence, who cares what someone else wants to believe is the attidude I hear all the time. Lastly, God is a magnificent idea and people who don’t adhere to religion will adhere to the idea of God and /or spirit.

    • There’s a lot of inaccuracies here. I recommend you read about what the “god particle” actually is. It isn’t what it sounds like.

      More than that you’re idea that somehow knowing that your physical body effects your emotions and thus there is a soul/thetan/whatever is plain wrong. Your mental state is a process in the brain, your brain is in the physical body. If the physical body is effected, your brain is effected, your emotional state is effected. If you have evidence of something else you could revolutionize medicine, philosophy and physics overnight.

      • martyrathbun09

        Read DMSMH: Hubbard did 62 years ago.

      • Noah wrote: “If you have evidence of something else you could revolutionize medicine…”

        Noah, watch that video I posted above (i.e. the Rupert Sheldrake video). There’s plenty of good scientific evidence for a “something else” beyond the dendrites.

        The broad recognition and acceptance of the evidence for a “something else”, has much less to do with the strength of the evidence and much more to do with what scientists consider “socially acceptable” (i.e. very few scientists want to risk their reputation by admitting that there is scientific evidence of a “something else” or a “soul”).

      • Noah, actually things can and do work the other way around, too. Decades of Biofeedback studies have demonstrated and verified that a person can learn to control their body and brain through their mind and emotions – in other words, by the thoughts you think you can control your emotions and then your brain.

        So really, that revolution has come decades ago. Today, for example, many Doctors recommend meditation and visualization to control pain and promote healing, lower blood pressure and things like that.

        That is working from the mind to the body and brain, not the other way around as you have posted.

      • Mr Miller,
        When I said in paragraph one is that science can not find the first particle. The full statement is that scientist have not observed the particle which gives matter its mass. I get the Higgs boson theory etc. known as the God particle. It’s all very interesting. Consequently, the big bang theory has a missing piece, or should I say particle. In essence, the source of all source is unknown. I am simply using a physics statement to show that traditional science has not given all the answers yet, but has given way to quantum and string theory which offer hope to find the missing data.
        I love science, but I am making the point that neither science or religion offers an explanation of the source of creation in full. By the way, have YOU read the God Particle book or have you read the Mind of God??

        I am not aruging that the brain and the body and emotions are not connected. Where do I say that?? What is known by scientist now is that all body cells have memory and that the health of cells (their survival) can be direclty affected by a person on a mental level. This can now be proven. At the time that LRH wrote DMSMH, this was not a proven theory in the medical/scientific community.

        By the way, what’s with the sarcasim?? This is a FRIENDLY blog, and I don’t mind correction or commentary, but “lower your shields laddy”if you want two way communication.

  29. “Convince a man that he is an animal, that his own dignity and self-respect are delusions, that there is no “beyond” to aspire to, no higher potential self to achieve, and you have a slave. Let a man know he is himself, a spiritual being, that he is capable of the power of choice and has the right to aspire to greater wisdom and you have started him up a higher road.

    Of course, such attacks on religion run counter to Man’s traditional aspirations to spiritual fulfillment and an ethical way of life.

    For thousands of years on this planet thinking Man has upheld his own spirituality and considered the Ultimate wisdom to be spiritual enlightenment.

    Religion has also been attacked as primitive. Too much study of primitive cultures may lead one to believe religion is primitive as it is so dominant in them and that “modern” cultures can dispense with it. The truth of the matter is that at no time is religion more necessary as a civilizing force than in the presence of huge forces in the hands of Man, who may have become very lacking in social abilities emphasized in religion.

    The great religious civilizing forces of the past, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and others, have all emphasized differentiation of good from evil and higher ethical values.

    “When religion is not influential in a society or has ceased to be, the state inherits the entire burden of public morality, crime and intolerance. It then must use punishment and police. Yet this is unsuccessful as morality, integrity and self-respect not already inherent in the individual, cannot be enforced with any great success. Only by a spiritual awareness and inculcation of the spiritual value of these attributes can they come about. There must be more reason and more emotional motivation to be moral, etc., than threat of human discipline.

    When a culture has fallen totally away from spiritual pursuits into materialism, one must begin by demonstrating they are each a soul, not a material animal. From this realization of their own religious nature individuals can again come to an awareness of God and become more themselves.

    “Let’s look again at the definition of religion.

    In a few words, religion can be defined as belief in spiritual beings. More broadly, religion can be defined as a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life. The quality of being religious implies two things: first, a belief that evil, pain, bewilderment and injustice are fundamental facts of existence; second, a set of practices and related sanctified beliefs that express a conviction that Man can ultimately be saved from those facts.

    “A society gets what it concentrates upon. By concentrating on spiritual values instead of criminality a new day may yet dawn for Man.

    excerpts from “Religious Influence in Society” – L. Ron Hubbard

  30. Personally, I’ve never had a problem with conflict between science and my sense of spirituality. To me, science is just uncovering how we all did it.

    • A theory is only as good as it is applicable.
      It works for religion and science as well.

      There is a nice artikle on Steve Halls Blog “Scientology-Cult.com” about Scientology and Religion.

      LRH himself wrote some interesting lines in COHA, please see this quote in the overall context of the “religious” subject:

      “Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society.

      Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.

      It could be said that Man exists in a partially hypnotized state. He believes on other-determinism in many things, to his detriment, He will be as well as he is self-determined. The processes of Scientology could be described as methods of ‘unhypnotizing’ men to their own freer choice and better life.”
      – L. Ron Hubbard
      excerpt from Creation of Human Ability (pre GAOK), Chapter “SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT”

      • It’s really great that you quote LRH. This helps a lot to bring back Scientology out of confusion and on Source again.

      • SKM,
        I just checked my ‘Basics’ copy of COHA, and the passage you quoted appears on page 351, as part of SOP 8-C, with only the deletion of “nor a religion”.

        • yepp, I know.
          DM is obsessed making nothing out of Scientology.

          Compare with the first paragraph of the above quote ;-)

  31. Straggling thoughts that seek meandering on Marty’s free wheelin Lalapalooza:
    Unfortunately in the western world, God is a misconception of some outside of self boogie man.
    The existence of a Supreme Being or even the soul, is impossible to convey in words.
    Only directly perceiving a thing and seeing it as it is, as it’s own true nature can we say,”I know” or “I see” or “I understand.”
    Simply because human beings have been idiotic crazy mindless ninnies regarding a thing, doesn’t make the thing wrong or non existent.

    When the first dynamic reaches the eighth dynamic, the experience is so amazing that words are totally impotent to convey even a fleeting glimpse.

    The benevolent power, the joy, the love, the wisdom is so overwhelming at times that all you want to do is serve others. You have enough for self and it spills over into serving the greater Self. All the other dynamics.

    Then we can rightly say: this world is a dream that We have dreamed, and Our existence is totally independent of all externalities. Ever new existence, ever new awareness and ever new joy! Immortal!!
    Having which gained, no other gain is greater. A totally freed being, timeless, deathless and grateful for every moment of existence. Like a salt statue thrown into the ocean, the individual soul expands to commingle with the totality of All. Not loosing individuality, but melting into all and recreating our individuality at will. All knowing, all blissful and happy.

    That has been my experience with the Godhead. Contraversies and arguments will go on forever. But direct perception brings all that to an end because Truth has been found to be True.

  32. I was watching the “Up with Chris Hayes” show a few weeks ago. It’s on Saturday mornings at 8:00 Eastern Time. I like the show because different topics are covered in depth rather than just reduced to sound-bites and
    bumper stickers.

    Anyway, the topic being discussed was “Why people believe what they believe.” Chris offered the idea that what a person believes often boils down to who they trust and why they trust them.

    For example, take human caused climate change, or global warming. I have not personally read the peer reviews concerning whether or not carbon emissions are directly causing the earth to heat up. I don’t have the time or the inclination to obtain the raw data for myself. Nor do have the background in chemistry to analyze that data even after obtaining it. But I tend to believe that it is so, given that science has many times in the past earned my trust.

    Someone else might tend to believe that the earth exists for man to use as he will because they really trust their local preacher who tells him that it is God’s command.

    I believe that Scientology will continue to work for me in the future because it has worked so often in the past. For this belief, I trust my own history with the subject and can attest that I have gained much insite from the practice of it.

    Bottom line is that I think there is something to this trust issue that undelies the acceptence or rejection of ideas. Many of my stable datums have been built on who I am willing to trust.

  33. George Carlin in this except will speak for me regards the NYTimes. Perhaps they’re scared to death of the freedom, we the people (spiritual beings), have because of this internet ‘thingy.’ Anyway, here it is……….

  34. To me, religion and science is almost unrelated. Science is technical, and describes the mechanics of what is happening.

    Science is HOW.

    Religion is WHY.

    Science has NO answer as to WHY. WHY are we conscious? Science calls consciousness an accident of evolution. But, without anyone to SEE and PERCEIVE the universe, the universe may as well not exist.

    Religions are obsessed with WHY, and with MEANING. And sometimes the WHY is wrong, but that does not mean that the question “WHY” should not be asked.

    Science’s answer to WHY is that there is no reason. This is not true. WHY is not in their purview, and Science should stick to its realm.

    Science has nothing to say on morals or what is “right” or “wrong”. It can only address these in evolutionary terms. Something is moral only because it lasted through the natural selection process.

    I read the article, Marty, over the weekend. It is a great article, and I am glad to see that the hard-line Science/”Rationalist”/Atheist view is getting softer. Even scientists want to know why.

    • Erm, science is how and not why? Science seeks to explain why things work they way they do by coming up with the how

      That said, and perhaps the reason why being a scientist does not automatically make one an atheist, science has no and likely will have no answer to the ultimate “why?”.

      As Carl Sagan said, if you can accept the infinite existance of a god as the creator of the universe, why not accept that maybe the universe is infinate in its existance instead? It’s just as likely the universe has always; continually expanded and contracted or string theory or something else. Why create something we cannot see to explain something we can?

      • I don’t mean “why” as in “why does a ball bounce and not just fly into space”. I mean “why” as in “why are we conscious?” “Why is there evil?” “Why are we here?” I am sorry, but the Mediocrity Principal doesn’t work for me, at least when it is applied to human beings.

        As for the finiteness of space – I can’t believe that. When you reach the “end” of space, what is two feet further? If you envision this entire universe inside a basketball, what is outside? Why not another basketball universe a mile away? There may not be another basketball, but then again, there might be.

        And then again, what is our role in the universes? I don’t buy that our role is simply that we are an accidental construct of an accidental combination of carbon and oxygen and nitrogen, following a completely mindless process called natural selection. I may be wrong, but I may be right.

        • I agree science does not and likely will never be able to explain why all that is, is.

          Thank you for the clarification.

  35. Thanks Marty,

    But I ain’t interested in some deep seated conversation at this point in time for me, a new member here if you will. I’m interested in freeing my friends from the mind fuck of the current Church of Scientology being run by a mad man as opposed to the real tech of LRH. And as I have researching your blog from day one. Here is my latest find and I have read all the comments. And in my opinion, needs to be reviewed or pointed out to new comers here.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/ten-gross-technical-errors-from-the-golden-age-of-tech/

  36. I want to put this forward– Just because religion played a role in organizing ingroups and outgroups which at times succeeded in bolstering the ingroup when it grows large enough, thus keeping those groups alive and in charge– That does not mean those religions were real or not deserving of derision and scrutiny.

    For example, the Catholic Church coalesced society after the fall of Rome and in many ways led to the renaissance. HOWEVER, none of the claims made in the Catholic bible have been proven to be true, and that structure led to the inquisition, child rape, and multiple wars including the silent condoning of the Holocaust.

    So do not mistake this article for somehow making the things you believe in real.

  37. A little off topic, but I can’t believe the orgs are sending this kind of email through. This email came through from the NY org:

    Hi, my name is Meredith Lawson and I am an Establishment Executive at the Church of Scientology NY. I am taking this opportunity to write to you because I see come very troubling things that are occurring.

    I was raised Jewish and just came back from celebrating Passover (the holiday celebrating freedom from enslavement in Egypt). While I was sitting there listening to my aunt recant the history of my ancestors I was surprised to hear what she had to say about our current society. She pointed out how many people today are slaves and she had us make a postulate wishing freedom for all. Her awareness is not far from the truth. Here are some actual facts:

    Human trafficking is now the fastest growing criminal industry in the world. It is tied with the illegal arms trade as the second largest criminal activity, second to the trade of drugs.
    There are an estimated 27 million slaves around the world. Despite common belief, slavery is still a global problem today.
    Two million people are trafficked every year. 80-84% of these are women. 79% are trafficked for sexual exploitation (a total of 1.5 million people every year).
    83% of child pornographic material involves children between 6 and 12 years old.
    Poverty is a huge issue – an estimated 80% of this planet is underdeveloped.
    Three billion people – nearly half the world’s population – struggle to live on less than two and a half dollars a day.
    (*Data provided to IAS Administrations by United for Human Rights)

    My purpose here is not to be the bearer of bad news. However sometimes it is not easy to confront facts like that. Non-confront is what led us to the current condition of mankind. While it may just be a nice thought to my aunt, freedom for all does not have to be a wish. We have in Scientology the tools to make freedom a reality.

    LRH says, “An organization such as ours is our best chance to get the most done” (HCO PL Nov 1970II).

    Your help is needed to join org staff so we can make it a reality. So let’s get together and see what we can do. When is good for you? I am here weeknights after 6pm and all day on the weekends. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,

    Meredith Lawson
    HCO Area Secretary

    Church of Scientology NY
    227 West 46th Street
    New York New York 10036
    United States

    • I wish I could join staff at the New York Org. I would love to be on staff at the New York Org. Many of us in the Independent movement would give the shirt off our back to help the people around us. It is our highest desire. Unfortunately the New York Org is owned by David Miscavige. Nobody has any prediction against his tantrums. The last time he did an inspection there it was all about improving and gaining real estate.He personally closed down the two missions in New York and shut off the feeder lines into the Orgs. Blew hundreds of people off lines and shut down the bridge. Put the mission holders out onto the street. He turned the New York Org into a camping ground for CLO, who in fact habitat the Org. Nobody wants to go into the place anymore. Hate to tell you this, but once DM hit New York with the “finance police” (no LRH reference on that), the people moved away. If you think New Yorkers are going to spread their legs for DM you are living in a dream world. In New York, people are curious about everything, except suppression. Ten Orgs could be open in that city right now and booming. The saying goes, “If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere”. He announced he opened a building “In Harlem” that was not even in Harlem. It is on the upper east side!

      New York was DM’s first target to take down Scientology. It was like the grim reaper flew through there with his “finance police”.

      You gotta know New Yorkers. They would rather wait for next messiah than take abuse and suppression from DM INC.

      Meanwhile, Is DM keeping anyone here off the bridge? Please do not permit that to happen. That is the real goal.

      Get higher on the bridge than DM.

      He has not had the L’s. He is blown off of OTVll. He is only trained as a class lV with no internship.

      Rise above the suppression. We still have those tools.

      David, New York City where everything and anything is possible, has closed its doors to you. France has closed its doors to you. So. Cal has closed its doors to you. WHY? You NEVER bother to find out what is wanted and needed and produce it! You are in ” I MUST BE CONTRIBUTED TO”.

      Not your fault, you do not read books. You also are a “know best”,.
      You are also greedy, self important, and unworldly. :” Look at me Look at me Look at me……” Marie Antoinette reincarnate. Not that you would know anything about that.

      GO LOOK IN THE ETHICS BOOK> IT IS A SUPPRESSIVE ACT NOT TO CLEAN UP AN ARCX FIELD you clueless!

      LOOK AT ARCX FIELD! IT IS THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO CLEAN IT UP!

      • DUH!

        • Smarty Smarty NOT!

          • The WHY on why you have not bothered to clean up the ARCX field? Because YOU ARCX them! Too easy!

            • How is the “We make no deals with anybody” DM policy working out for the world of Scientology? “We’re tough, we make no deals”… How does that align with cleaning up the ARCXen field? DM does NOT handle the ARCXen field, a suppressive act. HE ARCXes PEOPLE WITHOUT REGARD! As result he reduces the staff to beg instead of deliver! You selfish little suppressive mother fucker! You fucking OSA spies who contribute! Self destructive M*^&%$#&*^RS on succumb postulates! Go clean up ESMB or you are suppressive! It is black on white in the ethics book! DUH!

              • STUPID!

                • Get off of Marty! He is the only one of you that is thinking with any reason!

                  • Do not imagine the rest of us are living on the same ser facs and succumb postulates you are. We rose above your stupid self important suppressive games. And recreated Scientology without you. The red carpet rolled out for us. The internet fell into out laps. The Gods favor us.
                    You are not in any position to run : “Can’t Haves” on us. Only : “make wrongs” which cause your ARCXen field to grow . It’s all over. Time and intelligence is on our side.

                    • David and entourage, because you intentionally refused to clean up the ARCXen field you have created your own op terms as a suppressive act ,
                      You have invited us to take on you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf1VKu1OteE Game on.

                    • Go Marty we are behind you all the way!

                    • TO, this is probably the best rant ever on this blog!

                      Your anger/fury is palpable and APPROPRIATE to the scene before you.

                      From what I know, during much of the reign of DM’s suppression of Scientology, the NY Org has been a classic example of the Potemkin Village – insolvent on the basis of operations (ie delivery of valuable services like training and auditing) but instead propped up by capital infusions from one or two very wealthy individuals. Does that square with your observations, or am I off base?

                    • Publius, The New York Org is an abandoned building save for a few fixture staff and Sea Org Members right there in the Org working. They look SOOOO out of valence in New York City. The hos and pimps harass them on the street as they travel. I could go find one to slap on my lunch break. They are running through Hell’s Kitchen in Navy uniforms and everybody knows they ain’t no Navy people! Disgusting! They are not even New Yorkers! Flag ain’t helping, they are sending all of the public promo from Flag that boasts the speed of delivery on grades. Hey, I thought the Orgs were supposed to be delivering grades??? No? Is Flag trying to stay open by delivering quickie grades now? Seems like it!
                      Any Org with a CLO sitting on top of it is in the mud, as all of the Sea Org people are connected to DM and pts as hell. When you can’t make an Org fly in New York City where people relocate to because they are experience junkies you have a real situation. New Yorkers do not like police and militia! The biggest anti war demonstration …..thousands of people on the street protesting and there are the Sea Org Members, running for muster in the Navy Uniforms. DM’s little toy soldiers down there in the mix. The New York Org was booming with 300 people on the Dianetics course! Then, Al Bornstien arrived and set up the CLO and it has been going down the tubes ever since. DM shutting down the missions put the final nail in the coffin. Al is now a lady. The Sea Org do not understand New York just like they do not understand Narconon or the streets. They live in communes like hippies, the least liberal people on the society, afraid Jenny Linson will be by to find out if they touched their pee pee. Dress like little militia, take orders like soldiers. And they think the people in New York are out of valence! The transvestites are in better condition! And they are trying to convince the residents they should come into the Org for help! So yes, the Org is empty. And no, the few wealthy are not helping anymore. Come on New Yorkers, can I get a witness here?

                    • The New York Org has been under ARMY occupation! DM’s ARMY! You think New Yorkers don’t notice? Who the hell wants army occupation in New York City? Put your CLO in Alabama!

                • DM took Howard and Mary Rower out of the East Village and closed their mission down. He took Helen Geltman out of the upper west side and closed her mission down. He closed two missions in New York and then stuck Sea Org Members in the middle of Hell’s Kitchen with their pretend navy uniforms.

                • P.S. to Al Bornstein. Al, if you are reading this, I just want to give you a good ack here and say, “Well Done”! Getting out of that uniform and going to get a sex change was a step up! I get it! You evolved! And the community is now REACHING out to you, not scurrying down the street to get away from you!

      • One small correction here: the location of the Harlem Org is NOT the Upper East Side … the Upper East Side is a trendy and expensive area. The Harlem org is north of that and is in the area which actually IS known as “Spanish Harlem.” Yes, Harlem is on the west side, north of the Upper West Side, and Spanish Harlem is its counterpart on the East Side (north of the Upper East Side).

        • It is not in Harlem proper. When you stand in front of that building do you consider yourself in Harlem? Because I don’t know of any New Yorker that would consider themselves to be in Harlem if they were in that building.

        • Please see GEOGRAPHY section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_East_Side

          “Many realtors used the term “Upper East Side” instead of “East Harlem” to define areas that are north of 96th street ………”

          It does communicate rightfully to describe that neighborhood as “upper east side”.

          My point is the ILLUSION that was conveyed by DM when he announced he had opened a mission in Harlem.

          Because when you hear the word Harlem, you think of Harlem. NOT the upper east side or Spanish Harlem.

          He LIED.

          • Look at this web site. Does this communicate Spanish Harlem?

            http://www.scientology-harlem.org/en_US/

            Do you see the NEW address for “Harlem” Mission?

            Well GUESS WHAT????????? Since I announced loudly and clearly for the several years it IS NOT in Harlem, ( the 116th street address) it has NOW been moved to Harlem Proper! The address is an APARTMENT in Harlem.

            “Harlem” MISSION CLOSED! The address listed for the “Harlem Mission” now is someone’s apartment.

            • O.K. Sorry, still plowing through the ILLUSION with the “Harlem” Mission.
              The 116th Street place is closed down. At the TOP of their web site is a Harlem address (which is an apartment). Church of Scientology of Harlem
              2423 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Blvd.
              New York, NY 10030
              United States

              At THE BOTTOM of the web site though is smaller letters it says:

              We are located at 2250 3rd Avenue. (That is at 122 Street approx.)

              So, they borrow a Harlem address of some apartment to put at the top of the site. The actual location at the bottom is SPANISH HARLEM former ITALIAN Harlem. They have a mission in Spanish Harlem.

              Their web site should read:

              Bienvenido a Harlem Español Scientology! Por favor que venga para averiguar acerca de su mente reactiva y cómo se puede controlar.

  38. Boy! This thread got some diverse juices flowing. I love it!!! Vive la Difference!

    • The N.Y. Org had a group managing it that was for the Birds before.
      Deep in Debt they sent the FBO on a Mission to West Coast. When he returned Mgmt had sold the Org ,paid the Debt and bought a CAR.
      The FBO was Com Eved ,head on pike off loaded from resulting mega Flap
      and he wasnt even there or part of any of it except it was his post ( in the hands of a conspiritor) and that took the blame.
      The more things change the more they stay the same.
      something like that

  39. Marty
    Let me just quickly say two things, before this post is covered by the next. First I don’t know how you do all the things you do AND read up on stuff like this!
    Second I find the comments I read so far so bright and well written, that it makes me proud to be part of this group or movement, or whatever you want to call it.

  40. Here’s and interesting link to an article tangentially having to do with this post.

    There is a god. And he is you:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/11/epigenetic-vs-determinism.aspx?e_cid=20120411_DNL_art_1

  41. This quote is for はいどら.
    (This bulletin was written 5 month after the release of Book One.)

    Dianetics and Religion

    Those engaged in dianetic processes are often interested in the effect of Dianetics upon religion. They generally desire to know whether dianetic processing will influence faith or atheism.

    Dianetics is a science; as such, it has no opinion about religion, for sciences are based on natural laws, not on opinions.

    Self-determinism is always to some degree circumscribed by the environment of the individuate and the forces he faces. An individual without faith in something is lost and goalless. Faith is a necessary part of man. If that faith is given to a religion it can be observed that once given, it is steadfast and predictable.

    When any disordered mind grasps the fundamentals of a thing, one cannot predict the way that mind will use the information. Zealotism has many times made religion odious to a people and zealotism is definitely undesirable to a religious group since it too often masks sadism and paranoia. Churches have long been troubled with this problem. It is not a problem of faith. An orderly faith alone can promote religion.

    Zealotism is a problem in aberration; it is generally caused by a manic engram and, quite unlike faith, is as likely to flash back against religion as it is to carry it forward.

    The action is unpredictable and the zealot alters his faith easily.

    On the other hand atheism, which religion has found highly obstructive, has for its origin, according to our case histories, engrams. No “atheist” to date has remained an atheist after the engrams causing his objections have been removed. The atheist is activated by engrams as thoroughly as the zealot.

    There are several cases on record of atheism having been altered to tolerance by dianetic processes and one case which joined a church after a release was effected.

    There are two cases of zealotism having abated to a sincere faith.

    Insanity has long constituted a considerable threat to religion. Religious terminology, when permitted to creep into the engram bank, particularly as blasphemy, causes various disturbances in the psyche, and the various religions have, throughout the duration of man as a rational being, been posed a difficult problem which can now be resolved. Dianetics not only pronounces but executes sentence upon insanity. It makes man sane.

    What the world of man decrees about religion or what religion decrees about the world of man is well outside the regulation of Dianetics even though it is well within the province of dianetic studies of the activities of man.

    L. Ron Hubbard
    (THE DIANETIC AUDITOR’S BULLETIN Volume 1, No. 4 October, 1950)

    • Excellent Post, SKM.

      “Zealotism has many times made religion odious to a people and zealotism is definitely undesirable to a religious group since it too often masks sadism and paranoia.” – LRH

      Sound familiar, Dave?

    • I love this post, SKM.

      May I add: “No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical, and less valuable to themselves and society.” Science of Survival, Book 1, Chapter 15 (Agreement/Level of Mind Alert) 1951

      Furthermore, my own observation is that some of the world’s greatest music, art, literature, philosophical tomes, and political advances (ie. towards freedom) have issued from men (and women) of great faith – whether within the confines of a particular religion or simply inspired by religious & spiritual contemplation.

      Bach, Beethoven, the Enlightenment, sacred geometry, the Pièta, Notre Dame, Sisine Chapel come to mind.

      Speaking of Bach in context of the Oracle’s rant above, nice cello, Don Larson.

      Leonore

      • I agree, Science of Survival is full of theta.
        And also all arts and philosophies become worthless without the spark of spirituality.

  42. I have to disagree Marty. The very idea of “spirit” or “spiritual” is a man-made concept with no connection to reality. Religion is changing because science is showing, at an ever quickening pace, the flaws of religious doctrine and is revealing a reality far more amazing than the limited imagination of man.

    • :-P
      Science only tries to explain the products of the spirit.
      Now, try to prove I am wrong.

    • Dan,
      There is a something beyond what we understand of the brain … and that something (whatever you choose to call it), is indeed far more revealing and amazing than the “religion” that has been created by mainstream science and their afraid-to-rock-the-boat membership.

      Research Rupert Sheldrake and Ian Stevenson for some examples (be sure to leave the “religious preconceptions” taught to you by mainstream science behind).

    • Dan, I’m not sure you haven’t been paying attention to modern science, or we have been reading different info. I have found that physics professors can be very open to the idea of spirit as existing. Some simply want
      measurable evidence, which is the scientific view. This doesn’t mean that they are ‘proving’ the ‘flaws of religious doctrine” and in fact, I have seen that science is doing just the opposite by proving what has already been known. Have you ever listened to Coast to Coast radio? It is a mix of topics,but it has cutting edge scientist as guest, and you would be amazed about the views and the experiments regarding ‘spirit’ and ‘mind’. The best way to understand is of course to be completely outside your body looking at it from a birds eye view. That can give you subject reality on the idea.

  43. The very idea of “spirit” or “spiritual” is a man-made concept with no connection to reality.

    Prove it.

  44. L Ron Hubbard was a philosopher among many other things, say what you like he inspired a lot of people with what he said and neither I and nor anyone else can take that from him as a real, tangible achievement; one that many aspire to but few achieve. He certainly thought out side the box before it became popular.

    There is a quote which I was not the originator of but I’ve mentioned before.

    Religions are fossilised philosophies

    I believe that were L Ron Hubbard still here scientology would be dynamic and evolving with the times, it would be a philosophy although accountants may claim otherwise. Since he died it’s been treated as an immutable religion.

    There have been many great philosophers that inspire people but you don’t hear of churches in their name. That I feel is because their ideas sought to make one think, question and inspire rather than be a text to follow doggedly, often interpreted by others who dictate the meaning to the masses, as typically occurs in churches.

    Scientology as a belief system, religion or philosophy, is unique in that we know who the author of all the texts was. I don’t believe this is true of any religions; obviously we usually know the authors of philosophical works.

    Scientology is also at an interesting phase where the dictatorial church of scientology is falling our of favour with practitioners of scientology. Some have likened this to the reformation and the Catholic Church. I think there is perhaps more happening this time. The church of scientology has had a kind of attempted reformation and that’s when the Freezone came in to being..

    The Indies are different, perhaps because of the Internet facilitating global instant sharing of ideas. The indies are far more independent as individuals. They help each other out, inspire each other but there’s is an anarchy, resistant to dogma, dictation and “organisation”. I believe this is also a first for a philosophy that became a religion.

    Having followed Anonymous from early chan boards, through operation: chanology and beyond to Arab Spring and Operation Occupy Wall Street with numerous off shoots, I’ve come to marvel at what groups of people with good intent and excellent communication can achieve without formal leadership or organisation.

  45. I love this thread. I feel like a 17 years old boy having endless discussions about the meaning of life.
    The independents are alive and not just quoting LRH but developing their own opinions and discussing them.
    How beautiful ! I love it !
    That is real Scientology ! It’s fun !

    • You might like this: Did you ever think about the fact that you go OT via the ethics book? You look at the doubt formula and decide whether or not you want to be OT / Immortal. Just use the conditions and come on up to normal if you decide to join the group of immortals. Once I decided to be part of the group of immortals, I realized I had been part of that group once before. I went backwards then and started in lowers an an immortal. When I got up to “Find out who you really are” step , I put myself on the L’s. Whew!
      It has been a great way for me to really become OT!

    • LO
      Can’t agree more!
      Very nice comment and sentiment.

  46. I don’t believe the physical brain has room for our memories.

    Just recall everything you did to prepare breakfast this morning, including the feel of the cold kitchen floor on bare feet, the chirping of birds outside the window, the steam rising from our coffee cup, the noise of the garbage truck outside, a little stiffness in our lower back, and on and on and on.

    Now, recall yesterday’s breakfast, picking up as many details as you possibly can.

    Multiply this by thirty-thousand or so such breakfast-related memories throughout your life. Then another thirty-thousand if you add lunch. Then add dinner. Every time you drive a car. Every shower or bath you’ve ever taken. Every job you’ve had. Your last sexual experience. Listening to music. Smelling flowers. Every movie you’ve seen, book you’ve read, word you’ve cleared, beer you’ve enjoyed. Feeling happy, sad, etc, etc, etc….

    It probably gets into the quadrillions of bits of data, or perhaps even more.

    I believe all that data is stored in the mind, in full color 3D visual, with audio, temperature, relevant emotion, creative imaginings, etc.

    I’m quite certain there’s more than meets the eye with regard to who or what we really are, all religion aside.

  47. God is not dead as long as people believe in the God. God first comes into being as a human thought. Then the God announces his name through the mouth of a human and is known to his worshippers by that name. He grows in mass and power according to the increase of the number who believe in him as a God and praise him and pour out their thought to him. In this manner came into existence Maloch,Baal,Jehovah,Thor and various Christian Gods, also such trinites as Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, and Osiris,Isis and Horus. The Greek Gods do not belong in this class, they were race types of people who had lives and then been personified as Gods through pariase and worship. The Christian and jewish Gods are nature gods.
    A God lasts as long as there are any who nourish and support him. His life may last for decades, thousands of years, or ages. But it is not immortal. He ceases to be when there are no more human bodies who pray to and worship him, voice his name and let him live in their blood and nerves. A God lives through the bodies of his worshippers.
    While a God has no youth or old age but comes into existence fully created, he changes during his existence as his worshippers change.
    Mystery about a God is essential to him. If the mystery is gone, the God is gone.
    There is no one Christian God, though most Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God. The Gods of the various Christian countries are different entitles. Thinking which varies by locality, language and sect make these variations in their Gods.
    A god is created by the thinking of men. He is a thought, differing from other thoughts in that a God-thought is one to which many persons contribute; in that a God-thought is a living being superior to any one of its creators, which an ordinary thought is not; in that a God- thought is in constant touch with the unmanifested physical world and can draw on it, which an ordinary thought cannot.
    Above Gods there are higher intelligences. And mans idea of God comes from these. Though man is not aware of these higher intelligences in his current state. And the Gods we are speaking of can assist and punish their worshippers. They can cause prayers to be answered. But not selfish prayers. No God created the world or created man. God is not dead. Almost any God is better than no God. Belief and worship in Gods serve a higher purpose. Great topic.
    Thats enough plagiarism for one day. Thank you Harold Waldwin Percival.

  48. SKM, Scott, Margaret and Ronnie: You are making a couple of common logical errors. First, you can’t prove a negative. Look up Russell’s teapot. Second, you’re making the argument from ignorance. That is “if you can’t explain it, then it must be ‘spiritual’, ‘god’, ‘supernatural'”….take your pick. Finally, if you want to debunk the spiritual nonsense that has grown up around the misunderstanding of quantum physics, try reading Victor Stenger. There’s nothing ‘spiritual’ about it. You didn’t mention Wave/particle duality. Isn’t that one of Deepak Chopra’s things?

    • Dan,

      I guess you’ve never seen someone else change because you got audited.

    • “if you can’t explain it, then it must be ‘spiritual’, ‘god’, ‘supernatural’”
      No, in this case, if I cant explain it, I just can’t explain it.
      Spirituality is far away from being unexplainable for me. You just won’t listen.

    • Dan, One logical error you might be making, is assuming all people are the same. And if you can’t see it or experience it, nobody else can either. Another logical error: “If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”. People are very, very different. In fact, the total bog on Science right now is the stable datum that all atoms are the same. But whatever you think, it becomes a truth for you. Plenty of people have had “out of body experiences”. Even non religious people. It is socially acceptable now to have an “out of body” experience. You cannot see music either. But you know it is there when you hear it. It exists without being seen. Such things happen.

    • …you can’t prove a negative.

      Dan, when I said, “prove it”, I was pushing a huge red button you stuck out there. Obviously, it’s almost impossible to prove a negative, but seriously, you didn’t really think that you could say, “The very idea of “spirit” or “spiritual” is a man-made concept with no connection to reality.”, and not get some grief for it on a religious forum, did you?

      In case you hadn’t noticed, on this particular forum, the concept of spirit is quite real to most participants. We know it to be fact, because we’ve directly experienced the truth of it. I’m sorry that you’ve never made that observation for yourself, but the fact that you haven’t, doesn’t mean the phenomena isn’t real. I assure you that it’s quite real. It simply isn’t real for you.

      Now, you could sit down with any number of the regulars here, and within a short span of time, they could help you to make that observation for yourself. You’d never need another moment’s convincing, once you saw if for yourself.

    • Dan, try allowing some room for the other viewpoints that do not march lock step with what you have determined so far. No need to fear anything which is described as spiritual or religious. It does not make you wrong. And these people here are not ingnorant. Far from it. If there is a realm beyond the “spiritual” which is a reality, that does not make spiritual realms or acts of religious miracles not a reality as well. As a pretender to the throne of ultimate knowledge you should know that.

    • Dan,
      I’m afraid you’re making the fallacy of not even looking at the evidence, and instead just seeing it all as one big blur. When/if you do ever get around to looking at the specifics I provided, let’s discuss.

  49. BTW “spirituality and religion”:
    anyone know something about the CST Logo:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg
    When it was designed, who designed it, what its meaning is.
    Is it LRH who designed the Logo and has it any meaning?
    Any data from those who were around is mostly appreciated.

  50. All,

    This is one of the most fascinating blogs I have ever read.

    It was great fun observing the labyrinthine structure of so many viewpoints, considerations and what is agreed upon or disagreed upon concerning a divine source and the ritualistic action, old and new, taken to untangled the
    various aspects and go free.

    What I wrote, up yonder, is enough data to assist anyone to break through some very heavy barriers.

    But then, again, it depends on the awareness level of the individual and their position on the Grade Chart.

    KRC

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