A Scientologist’s Take on The Master

I watched Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master this evening.

My first thought while walking out of the theater was a one sentence sum up as follows:

Given the behavior, product and the likely resultant public perception for the past twenty six years of David Miscavige’s Scientology Inc.,  Anderson’s film is probably the best possible healing salve imaginable for Scientology.

On August 28th, I made a prediction about the movie in a comment on this blog  that went against the grain of the plethora of ‘doomsday’ predictions for Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.  I noted:

I have a different (and possibly wildly inaccurate) take on the likely content and impact of the movie. That is, based on the involvement of an actor of Hoffman’s skill and a director of Anderson’s, I bet while they paint the Master as a con, they also make him human and the audience will have some level of sympathy (ala Bush at least looking likeable when Stone hammered him, and the same with Clinton in Primary Colors).  To do a one dimensional slam job would be way below the pay grade of this calibre of artist.  One lone viewpont.  We’ll see.

My prediction turns out to be a fairly accurate sum up of what I saw on the screen tonight.  However, there was not even any attempt to paint L. Ron Hubbard as a con.

While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured.  They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.

If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on.  That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow.  But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology.  For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.

What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated.

Though I never met L. Ron Hubbard in the flesh, I probably had more access to and have studied more of his own words, and all of the available histories about him, from his cradle till his death.   Philip Seymour Hoffman, in my opinion, captured Hubbard’s beingness  (personality) perfectly.  One dear friend and person who was personally trained by Hubbard to the highest levels of Scientology and who spent years in his company made precisely the same assessment of Hoffman’s performance.

I probably spent more years interacting with, and had more access to more detailed information about, those who throughout Scientology’s history devoted themselves to it and Hubbard to the point of violently defending him, to ultimately becoming disappointed, than anyone in the history of Scientology. I cannot imagine a more accurate and effective combining of those hundreds of people into a single character than the performance of Joaquin Phoenix.

Corporate Scientologists, to the degree they are even permitted to watch the movie, will likely chafe at the finale when Phoenix is confronted by Dodd with a tough dilemna:  remain in the group and be loved and cared for, with the caveat that he will always remain subservient and obedient to the master, or freely pursue his own path, with the caveat that he will be considered an enemy in the future and will be treated with no mercy as such.

It is understood that the truth sometimes initially hurts.  I witness and deal with the reality of the painful truth of The Master’s finale each and every day of my life.   It has become my calling to heal that pain.  I can attest that is painful.  But, I cannot deny that it is the truth.

For those interested in the mechanics of how that is so in modern-day Scientology, I cover it rather thoroughly in What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding (Amazon books).

At the end of the day, The Master is a must-see, most particularly for Scientologists of any stripe (corporate, independent or otherwise).

474 responses to “A Scientologist’s Take on The Master

  1. Pingback: A Scientologist’s Take on The Master | Martyrathbun09's Blog

  2. I made a prediction about the movie in a comment on this blog that went against the grain…

    Marty, I remember when you made that prediction and I didn’t quite know what to make of it. I had hoped you were right … but at the time, the VV and other media were quite sure the movie was going to be a total thrashing of Ron and Scientology.

    I haven’t seen the movie yet, but based on reviews over the last week … and now yours … it does indeed seem that you were right on the mark. Nicely done!

  3. Good writeup. Over the years (38) I have read every negative book I could get my hands on about Scientology. I never listened to the cos when they said not to. I got my validation while I was in the SO on the Data Series Evaluators Course. I learned how to “sort out data and become skilled int it” Data Seires 2 Logic. I also studied the PRseries and how to handle Black PR. This helped to “fill the vaccum” with the truth whenever I was confronted by anyone who tried to trash the subject. So, I am off to this this movie and addit to my knowledge so that I may better handle any negatives from anyone now and in the future! Thank you for the writeup Marty.

  4. What a mindful, articulate, and compelling blog. I actually think this is my favorite post in the history of Movin’ On Up.

  5. Was going to see it anyway, but you have whetted my appetite, Marty.

  6. I am certainly interested in seeing this movie, but whatever it is, it is still just a movie. Public perception is a remarkable if not fickle thing but I have never been in doubt concerning the workability & of the actual subject of Scientology. The CofS is not worthy of serious consideration as to their value to humanity, they are a suppressive organisation and should be treated as such. With that said I am optimistic and have faith that the social personailty which composes approx 80% of humanity are susceptible to changing their minds (the anti-social personality has the greatest difficulty doing that).
    Now that Scientology has had so much worldwide coverage, albeit most of it negative I have come to realise the social personality is very susceptible to eventually accepting the truth – the reverse flow is as reliable as the tide. Didn’t LRH mention somewhere, something like there is a 30 year comm lag on this planet. There may be a communication lag but the stage is set now that Scientology is a household word.
    This blog plus a number of others have done remarkably well in driving a wedge between the actual practice & philosophy and the antics and criminal practices of the Church. The stable datum I hang on to is the fact that all you need to do with Scientology is practice it standardly and people win and lives improve.
    Doing the usual will win out in the end. I think we are in a lot better position than we realise. It’s still a dangerous playing field, but when hasn’t it been.

    • I agree with everything you say, Sherb, great!
      Except: „it’s just a movie“.
      I haven’t seen it yet, but from Martys great description, it’s art.
      And the purpose of Art is the discovery of truth. So much so, actually
      that Marty, just by the kind of artists involved, was able to make a prediction, that it now seems, checked out…
      And remember how fond Ron is of artists!

  7. Thanks. I enjoy reading your writings. You write very well!

    ________________________________

  8. Marty ~~
    What a great review.
    Oh how we resonate with each other.
    Phillip Seymour Hoffman did a magnificent portrayal of LRH.
    He did in fact capture the identity and beingness.
    I just could not agree with you more.
    Including the inducement at the end, all or nothing and then we will show you
    no mercy……
    Brilliant review.

    • Karen, since you knew LRH, your statement that his identity and beingness were captured makes a compelling case to go and see it. Lots of others here knew LRH too, I would like to hear if they agree with your assesment. I Hope Mike Rinder pays the Cinema prices so we do not have to wait until the rental comes out for his review.

    • I agree with Hoffman capturing the identity and beingness of LRH. In my view LRH was quite compassionate and his intention was to help mankind, but he also had his blind spots. It was interesting to note how LRH character got upset when his theories were challenged. Also, he condoned and did not severely admonish Freddie for beating up the challenger.

      .

      • Hello and Greetings Vinaire
        From the Flagship Apollo ! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
        I did feel that Phoenix (Freddie) beautifully portrayed David Miscavige in his
        beating slugging sequences. Did the film makers know that kind of violence
        replicated Miscavige ?

        • Hello and Greetings back to you, sweet friend from Apollo! :)

          .

          • Vinaire ~
            I hope you stay around and post a lot on this blog. You have the richness of the time track ~~ we need old Apollo crew posting here !
            AND you think outside the box.

            • Meeee too! :) Stay around! :)

            • I guess my different viewpoint comes from the fact that Dianetics was one of the first things that I encountered in USA after arriving from India in 1969. The first lecture that I attended in Cambridge was on Thetan, Mind and Body. It was very exciting for me because it resonated with ideas that I grew up with in India.

              I think I have applied the tech of Dianetics and Scientology with a good understanding of its background in Eastern philosophy. I probably look at the tech a bit differently from most of the people here. One may get a flavor of that from the materials I am currently researching on my blog under “KHTK Looking”. I am basically researching Buddhism but with a good understanding from Scientology.

              .

      • Vinaire, How nice to see you here! XXOO

  9. Can’t wait to see it. In my opinion, this is probably a movie that we should have made ourselves. (Op-Pro by Dup)

  10. Thank you, Marty, for this very thoughtful post – which is not only a review of the film, but of a cultural event which can have some meaning for Scientologists, or for any students of life, for that matter – if they will just experience it without bias.

    Your thoughts resonate with me a lot, as a 42 year Scientologist, now practicing outside the Church, as you are. I left a bit over a year ago, knowing I would be leaving many friends behind – but personal integrity demanded it – so I know what you are referring to in the Joaquin Phoenix character.

    My wife and I just did our own PT Anderson “festival” in preparation for seeing The Master, viewing some of his earlier films such as Hard Eight, Punch Drunk Love, and Magnolia- a masterpiece (with one of the last great dramatic performances by Tom Cruise, – in ’99, while he was not so “under the influence”, if you take my meaning).

    In my opinion most of Anderson’s films are true works of art, and enormously entertaining and thought-provoking. And a number of actors follow him from film to film, like the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Phillip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Julianne Moore, and others. It is usually a good sign when that happens.

    I look forward to viewing The Master more than ever, now, because of your thoughts on it.

  11. Marty, I fully agree both with your prediction and your view after you watched it.

    The aesthetic of the movie and the quality of artists involved is such a big, big plus that it can only do good. Besides it’s full of colours of that Era and from all trailers that I have watched it conveys the atmosphere and Hoffman, even his voice, is so convincing as a Master.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/

  12. miscavigeisscaredofsam

    Wow! The film hasn’t been released here yet but I’m loving the sound of it. Thanks for the critique Marty. Looking forward to seeing it.

  13. Just saw the movie THE MASTER. It is very artistically done. Did Freddie get in the end what he wanted?

    .

  14. After being involved from lesser to greater extent (even as a teenager, before becoming a Scientologist), with some good wins and insights, from what have often been vilified in the media as weird ‘cults’ and whose founders have been ridiculed. I really look forward, from what you have written, to seeing this external viewpoint. Especially, as the greatest efforts at destroying the workability and success of the subject have come from within; our own C of $ upper management.

  15. A thought provoking blog. The Master has just gone from probably to must see.

  16. Saw it, loved it. One critique: I am a non-Scientologist with a keen interest in the subject. i have been reading and watching the subject closely for several years, after making a pass at actually trying it in the 90s. My wife, and many others in the theatre, chafed and squirmed during the film. Some got up and walked out. I, on the other hand, “got it”, including things like the various TRs and Objectives. My fear is many won’t, and will be bored. I also agree with your take on the portrayal of Ron Hubbard: it “”de-demonized” him. I look forward to seeing it again.

    • Well in the theatre I saw it in, it was SOLD out for the 10pm show on a Sunday night and the audience applauded at the end.

    • It wouldn’t surprise me if staff and public were sent out, to walk out squirm and chafed during the show.

      • It is preposterous that staff are ‘not allowed’ to go see critical films like this. It is in my opinion an indicator of a huge out-Tech situation. The Church should be producing Clears who are absolutely impervious to the ‘negatives’ of this sort of “entheta” (as if!) .. not whimpering milque-toasts with zero confront for so-called “evil”.

        Should the Program not be something like “Mission: ‘The Master’, Org PR Program: “I am a Scientologist, anyone want to talk about it?”, Personnel: All Clears front and center. Location: Anywhere there is interest, whatever the tone level, in the subject of Scientology. Order: Auditors/Clears should demonstrate Scientology in Public. Example: At the end of films such as ‘The Master’ and so on, Scientologists wearing individually, the Auditor Hat, present themselves to the public to answer questions, engage, communicate. Product: Public Communication about the subject: Scientology.”

        What is it instead? Terrified “dedicates” hiding in the Orgs. All the interest in Scientology, but alas .. “its the ‘wrong’ tone for us” ..

        Meh. As a long-time Scientologist, over 30 years of it now, I still want to see and hear ‘the other side’. I know it works, I used it. I still use it. I’m using it, right now. So I’m safe. If someone wants to question me about it, great! Question themselves about it, also great! Lets talk about the *subject*, at whatever tone level you (they) are at, on it. “This is the Session, what is it you hate about Scientology?”

        For one to be ignorant of the position of the very humans one is attempting to be responsible for, case-wise, is .. well .. its not very “Auditors Hat”, now, is it .. ? Auditors, audit.

        During the Anonymous Protests, what the F— happened? Man, that was Bodies In The Shoppe: Highest Ever, just waiting to happen. Hottest body routers in the world, front and center: anyone interested in the subject of Scientology =>Into->the->Org, come and Protest: Inside. Here is your Auditor, tell her why you hate Scientology.

        Or, stay outside, and enjoy the protest session in the sunshine. Big Acks. Orgs, also coming to mingle, having tea, doing sea org voice drills outside, having fun in funny masks: also.

        What did we get instead of good, standard, body routing processes, PR confront for audience, and Auditors Hats Being Worn?

        Terrified ‘security staff’ nervously guarding the orgs bizaaro-world idea that it would be good somehow to somehow drape TV sets, into the street, guard the front door with thugs while blaring DM’s squirrel parade, and actually terrifying everyone.

        Me, personally: I want LRH’s ORG back. It ought to be fun as hell to be on staff.

        • Part of the reasons why the church of scientology orgs couldn’t respond to the Anonymous protests in the way you suggest is part of the reasons for the protests. Namely that the church of scientology institutionalised an extraordinarily aggressive response to criticism and critical questions.

          Critics of the church of scientology are automatically dubbed bigots, haters, criminals and so on. Sure some certainly criticised and lampooned the more esoteric beliefs but that was as much because of the secrecy surrounding them as anything else. Most were more concerned with the abuses.

    • The haters are going to be sorely dissapointed.

  17. I think any one thats been in the church or is excommuncated from the Church will get it thats its about Scientology, but some one thats not been in or is not a scientologist will not have the same reality Good write up from Marthy

  18. WOW beautifully written! Core and precise. It resonated with my own pain experience and recovery. 

    I guess Flag has already issued an Flag Order forbidding this movie. Like they did a couple a years ago with The Secret. People had to hide the film so no Scientologist could see that they had it. Or else they would be reported to Ethics immediately. 

    I tend to get rebellious when people tell me what to do and not to to. So I imported The Secret to my phone and watched it in the AO HGC while waiting for sessions. 

    I also sat in the CMO office a couple of years ago reading THIS blog! 
    I still laugh thinking about that… ;-)

    • “I imported The Secret to my phone and watched it in the AO HGC while waiting for sessions.”
      “I also sat in the CMO office a couple of years ago reading THIS blog!” :-)

    • They actually banned ‘The Secret’? Any explanation as to why? I haven’t seen it yet so sorry if the answer is obvious. Guess I’ll have to check it out soon.

      • I would like to know it too, first hand.
        I heard about it, but I never really understood the reason.

      • My guess is that it promotes the idea that you can get or understand anything on your own just by focusing on the desired result / understanding. Now that certainly cuts across the cult message that the ONLY way to get anywhere or understand anything is to spend every penny you ever make on auditing and classes, doesn’t it?

        • Interesting. Maybe they were worried about low attendance at those postulate seminars that they’re so fond of running?

        • I’d be great if it was truly for auditing and classes. Now you spend money on some upgraded status in the tiered system of IAS donations – the bottom line you spend your money to perpetrate the con to have more people spend their money to perpetrate the con even further.

    • Dear OT22, if you know me, would you contact me, yschick (at) aol.com. I’m hoping this is who I think it is.

  19. I saw the movie last week and agree with you about Philip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal.

  20. This is now a must see movie for me.
    The ending sounds similar to my decision in 1989 when
    I left LRH.

    May all masters be well and happy!

    • My wife and I saw the movie and we agree that it showed
      LRH and the movement in a mostly positive light. Can’t see why
      corporate scientology would object. The movie actually
      brought tears to our four eyes. It is a far better treatment
      of the subject than I could ever have expected from HOLLYWOOD.
      I think that the key scene in the movie is when Dodd writes
      Book II and he is confronted by the lady who says that ‘recall’
      is changed to ‘imagine’. This opens the lane to the
      MASTER PART 2 which covers scientology.

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

  21. How about a spoiler alert? You gave away the ending?!

  22. Thanks Marty,
    I was not going to see it because the VV said it was going to be a trashing of LRH and the subject of Scientology.. will go see it today…

    • I had little enthusiasm for seeing it, also because I suspected it would either just be a trashing of LRH, or otherwise not measure up.

      Now I want to see it!

      Thanks for your review Marty. You should get a little percentage of the gate, I think, because you have increased the attendance already!

  23. Thanks Marty for your review of this film. One of the great things about this movie and other books and works of art, is that they encourage reflection and discussion afterwards. It’s nice to know that we can freely discuss this film here in the outside world, as opposed to those still trapped in Corp Scn world.

    I agree with you on Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s performance. It was outstanding. He really showed LRH as a “Man” like he says. He had his faults but he also had a deep sense of decency and believed he could help people – even Freddie with his problems in life.

    I don’t think that Scientology looks bad in this film either and while the processing techniques were not exactly the same, the processing scenes in the movie I found compelling. Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman’s Character) was always trying to help.

    This story and film however in my opinion was more about Man’s search for answers and help after World War II and the horrors that war brings. Freddie was trying to handle it his way. When he saw the compassion shown to him by Lancaster Dodd and experienced some of the processing, I think he saw some hope there for himself.

    However Freddie ultimately has to choose his own “Master”.

    The production values on this film are first rate and will take you back to the early 1950s. Definitely worth the price of admission.

    • Dear Mark,
      Very nicely written.
      I believe there is a major LIE in the thought that one can only achieve spiritual advancement through a Master, a Guru or, a “Church” that has complete DOMINANCE on whether you are ELIGIBLE for your own advancing spirituality.
      One can need a coach, some guidance, but the thought that someone ELSE holds total control over your own advancing spirituality is a trap.

      • Karen, I agree with you whole-heartedly that one does not need to submit totally to a master to advance spiritually. The master or guru serves only as a guide.

        One can advance spiritually totally on one’s own. The submission that is required in many religions is that of the ego.

        .

        .

      • I agree Karen. Bondage is not necessary for freedom.

      • Karen: You (and Marty in his review) have identified THE point which ultimately got LRH “into trouble” as well as “set the table” for Miscavige. There is “X” amount of vital data about life in Scientology. I think Ron has given the world a tremendous amount of truth to study and use. Along with that, eventually he felt that he had to be recognized as “source” and that EVERYTHING he said or wrote had to be recognized as complete truth by anyone who wanted to be an active follower of his and that to be a member of the church of Scientology, one had to “obey” and decide to be a large amount of “effect” while pursuing the goal of “cause” (?????????). I think it will take a while,( and actually is ALREADY happening in the Indpendant Movement) for people interested in Scientology to take a nuanced and a more exterior view of LRH’s work. Might take one to two hundred years to really get going, but eventually I think the useful and vital parts of Scientology will be studied and used by many people. All of the personal stuff and the “fealty” owed “the founder” and “source” will eventually go by the wayside (except for a small cult of personality which will no doubt continue as a tiny group).

        • Joe ~~
          LRH did write “What is true for you, is true for you” etc. except that you try telling that to an Ethics Officer and see how far you go …..:-)
          The words sound great, but the thuggery and enforcement within is off the charts going so far as to morph
          The “Church” of Scientology into the #1 “church” in Human Rights abuses,
          #1 “Church” in penalties and “religious” discipline (that is sadism) and
          #1 in the world to target whistle blowers with malicious retaliation, Private Investigators, hate pages, disconnection even in death…..

          Read more on why I emphasize these issues ~~
          http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/

          • Thanks Karen. Just re-read it and as usual it really got my blood boiling. I hate bullies so much. I usually have the same reaction each time I read one of these accounts and that is that it is probably a good thing I wasn’t one of the execs there if there was anything resembling a lead pipe lying around. Because “something would have happened” and I will be discreet here not to be more specific as I’m sure I don’t have to be. No doubt a plea of temporary insanity would have been successful as it would have been the truth. Or maybe “temporary SANITY” would have been the truth.

      • Bless you, Karen, for saying this. I knew I was really free when I realized that my spiritual future was totally in my own hands – not LRH’s, not the C/S’s, not RTC or DM’s – I am the master of my fate – I AM. Other may guide or point a way for me, but they neither give nor take from my freedom or understanding.

        • Thank you Yvonne.
          Well spoken. Only you are sovereign to your own domain so to speak.
          The “Church” in their arrogance use denial of “spiritual immortality” as one of their biggest weapons !
          No one ever became more enlightened, more spiritual, more advanced as a result of THREATS, THUGGERY, HEAVY ETHICS, PUNISHMENTS AND BULLYING.
          That is why the Internet explodes with the fact that Scientology Inc is Masquerading as a Church.
          The movie “The Master” resonated with me on so many levels.
          First of all LRH did have a thing on handling psychos. He felt if he unlocked the key to INSANITY, then the levels upward would be easier.
          I have told the story before on this blog….
          It had a profound effect on me.
          There was an engineer on the ship called Bruce Welch and he went TYPE III. (Mental Breakdown) He had the power of madman crunching and bending metal with his own hands. He threatened to grab a carving knife from the Galley of the ship and stab LRH 133 times. He also wanted badly to stab Stuart Moreau the MAA, a popular Ethics officer !
          My dear friend Mike Rinder at the tender age of 17 years or so, had to bodyguard Bruce Welch from running down corridors stabbing others.
          He stood watch outside Bruce Welch’s cabin.
          Bruce was extremely explosive, screaming his threats in a rage and was put in a cabin for the safety of others. The only thing you can do on a ship is lock down someone intending to kill others. It is for protection of the crew. The execs of the ship wanted him immediately offloaded at the next port. (we were on the ocean at the time)
          But LRH said “NO NO NO! If we claim we have tools to the mind, then we can at least bring him back to sanity.”
          So LRH and Bruce Welch became penfriends ! They wrote to each multiple times a day. LRH found out in the comm cycles what precipitated his mental breakdown.
          We had to carefully study each nook and cranny of this Case History. This was the original “Introspection Rundown.” It electrified the Class XIIs. We had to study it, page by page and understand why, what who, where and the mind and the mechanics.

          There was no chloral hydrate and no drugs. Bruce flipped right back to sanity with the 1st version of this rundown within 2 weeks. I do not agree that this Rundown should ever have been exported and “sold” as a Rundown given the result of subsequent results. It came into existence because of an emergency on the high seas.
          But the point is that LRH who was the target of a loudly proclaimed and intended death threat, did not react as any human being might have. He was determined to HELP the pc.

          It was intensely emotional and highly educational for me to see how a potential assassin could be not only forgiven but so nurtured and cared for that he turned around and was made sane by the very target of his hatred and evil intentions.
          It gave me a private in-depth look at LRH, the man.
          There were similarities in how Lancaster Dodd pursued Freddie in the movie to try to get at the “abberrations.”
          Nowhere in the story above did LRH have any intention to become the Lifetime GURU. He put out a helping hand as a coach in time of need. Bruce lasted years more in the Sea Org and then moved on.
          I saw the Bruce Welch episode all over again in the movie…

          • Wow. What a story! Amazing!
            Karen, thank you for sharing this.

          • Nicely put! I remember that incident. I took my turn as a guard.

            .

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Karen, what an incredibly sobering, life changing experience. Another absolutely superb example of
            the genuine compassion and depth of understanding
            that LRH had, into the woof & warp of cases. His self
            belief and certainty, gained from years of direct
            observation and experience in testing and applying
            his hard won technology, were evident in the severe
            example you related above. Most remarkable of all,
            though, was the end result of his handling—the return
            to sanity of Bruce, a huge relief to everyone involved,
            no doubt.
            For anyone who has/had any misgivings on the actual
            application of the tech, in a dire situation such as the
            above, they need to read your first hand experience.
            It has the potential of turning scoffers into believers,
            with you as a credible witness!
            Can’t wait to see the movie, when released in our
            country! (South Africa.)
            ML, Calvin.

          • What a great story! I would love to have that knowledge to help those people, too. And amazing that he did write with that person. I am very curious. What was the point? The person tried to stop something or someone that kicked in and change him completely?

          • Thank you for that amazing story Karen. What I got from the movie was LRH’s compassion and desire to help his fellow man. THAT is what got me into Scientology. This movie reminded me of the man and his desire to help.
            Please post more stories of LRH.
            They are wonderful to hear.
            love
            Kat

  24. Somewhat off topic for this story, but generally of interest.

    See tony Ortega article in Dallas Morning News this morning. For some reason this article and others on this subject are not showing up on Google News.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20120923-texas-lawsuit-scientology-leader-paid-private-investigators-millions-to-monitor-former-rival.ece

  25. I saw the Master and enjoyed it. I actually lined charged through parts of it. It was funny having someone bring up such interesting points for the world to view and examine. It didn’t come across as “entheta” but more like a menu of ideas that you should look at and think about.
    I liked the movie a lot.

    • Throw the Pipsqueak overboard.

    • Yes Tony, and it’s a big tribute to Scientology and LRH that Anderson picked up this as the subject matter of a movie which is rather difficult for many to digest.

    • I like your comment “menu of ideas” to look at and think about.

    • I will piggyback on my friend Tony here. Marty, there were 16 or so of us that sat together to see “The Master” and afterwards congregated at a local restaurant. Most people I heard, as I was, were impressed by Hoffman and viewed the movie as entertaining and interesting — if not a tad off the wall here and there. But I had an even more interesting time. I was informed by another friend there that word had been “passed down through back channels via an under-the-radar type who did not want to be named” that I had been officially declared. Welcome to the group!!! Later, I was sitting in the restaurant next to my old friend Matt Pesch — who I had not chatted with since we were both FSO staff back in 1994. The guy still looks like an NFL linebacker. Then to top it off, I finally got to meet Amy Scobee. Aside from enjoying her book, I had seen pictures on the internet of her back when she was in the S.O. in uniform — totally stunning. So I must admit that I did not expect her to be as stunning so many years later. My mistake. Meeting her in person topped my evening — once I finally got Matt to introduce her to me. What an elegant lady — a total class act. My thought was “how the hell did Matt pull this off?” However he did it, well done to Matt. And Marty, good review of the movie. I really do enjoy your insight. I’m sorry that I never had the opportunity to meet you even though once while as a public at the Sandcastle (on a break from OT VI) I did see you — when one of my classmates had said “who the hell is that” and I turned to see you — in Class A uniform — I must say you looked like a living Poster for the Marines.

  26. What a timely occurence: The very beingness of Scientology is survival. Now after Miscaviage has tried his very best to make Scientology into a mockery and a useless subject the very postulate of Scientology causes a movie to be made of the actual master so that the essence of what Scientology actually is (L Ron Hubbard) is shown in the best possible medium in best possible light. And if anything will drive the midget mad, it will be this movie because he will not be able to takeall the adoration that will come of LRH like this. He will wonder why this movie wasn’t about him (it would be called “The Golden Age of Con Artist”). The more that people will love the “Master” the more it will kill him. Love it.
    Thanks for the review Marty.

    ML Tom

  27. Excellent review. I prefer to watch movies at home so if might be a while but it’s on the list now.

    Not to change the subject but YOU brought Tony Ortega back with your last post!
    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20120923-texas-lawsuit-scientology-leader-paid-private-investigators-millions-to-monitor-former-rival.ece

  28. Bryan | August 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Reply

    Amy Adams is great.

    Curiously, she immediately begins to fumble upon Letterman initially asking about Scientology. She squirms and becomes tongue-tied, and then quickly gives a pat answer of denial, almost as if she was groomed by either her agent, her publicist or the movie studio. It looked rehearsed.

    I know very little actual data about this movie, but I did see the trailer. In my view, there is no doubt it’s brushing very closely against LRH and his philosophy-turned-religion.

    The very unfortunate part in all of this, is that the wrong target is apparently being attacked. (I’ve not seen said movie but the trailer wasn’t exactly LRH-friendly).

    After over three decades of being in charge, THIS is where COB has taken things.

    If actual Scientology had been occurring all along, from the very highest levels, no movie studio would have any slightest interest in attacking. For to do so would be suicide.

    Sigh…

    martyrathbun09 | August 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Reply

    Bryan,
    I have a different (and possibly wildly inaccurate) take on the likely content and impact of the movie. That is, based on the involvement of an actor of Hoffman’s skill and a director of Anderson’s, I bet while they paint the Master as a con, they also make him human and the audience will have some level of sympathy (ala Bush at least looking likeable when Stone hammered him, and the same with Clinton in Primary Colors). To do a one dimensional slam job would be way below the pay grade of this calibre of artist. One lone viewpont. We’ll see.

    Bryan | August 30, 2012 at 1:23 am | Reply

    Marty,

    Your take could, perhaps, prove itself out here. After all, the trailer’s job is to create controversy to hook the viewer.

    Hoffman is a three dimensional actor (although, unlike much of his work, he seemed bored and quite one-dimensional in Mission Impossible 3, in my humble opinion), as is Anderson as a director.

    Whatever this movie turns out to be, I’m sure it will be rich in content.

    The popcorn awaits…

    • …”If actual Scientology had been occurring all along, from the very highest levels, no movie studio would have any slightest interest in attacking. For to do so would be suicide.

      Sigh…”

      Indeed Bryan, the operative word being “If”. Sigh

      The dismantling and annihilation of the most important mental and spiritual discovery of mankind in recorded history. Far more detrimental to mankind than even the dark ages, truth be told. This is and will forever be the David Miscavige Legend.

  29. Marty,

    Having now seen The Master I can say you were spot on in your prediction.

    I can add that indeed the “auditing” they performed in the movie was quite cliche and boiler plate for the discerning Scientologist. But with Tony DePhillips on one side of me and Kay Rowe on the other during the film, we wondered how the public at large would view the entirety of the production.

    The notion of past lives is pretty common amongst many religions. The notion of the soul is extremely common. The film showed Dodd (LRH), helping people (or at least attempting to), with “auditing”. And it showed Freddie (DM?), as the unpredictable, violent, massive alcoholic (Scotch?) with all sorts of physical ailments.

    Dodd was by far the bigger thetan, to use Scn jargon. Freddie was quite fucked-up, to use common english.

    In other words……The supposed cult leader was a much saner, more enjoyable character in the movie than the supposed normal citizen.

    I like how Anderson was able to accomplish that.

    • Bryan,
      Responding to the first part of your post here, that if it wasn’t for what DM has done, there wouldn’t have been such a film, I don’t know about that.

      L. Ron Hubbard, as Dan Koon pointed out on this blog re: The Master film, is again, and still, and now directly, the topic of conversation. Who was he? What IS Scientology?

      Of course, if the film duplicated either, by theory, both would disappear.

      Speaking of that theory, the other day I studied a tape from the 9th ACC, the last one of that series, Axioms – Laws of Consideration – What is an Axiom, from Jan 55. In it, LRH applies R2-31 from COHA, ( whatever a thetan is doing compulsively, have him do on a self-determined basis) to several Axioms. Amazing, that. Scientology being applied to “run out” Scientology (the Axioms) and in fact, bring the being to cause over considerations that are life, the universe, the Dynamics.

      I’m sure this is a wonderful film, artistically, and for its targetted public of thoughtful movie goers. Magnolia was a real feast, and that’s my only other film by this nice fella.

      I think it’s wonderful, rather than an “outpoint” that a film such as this is now produced. It will undoubtedly engender considerations, and agreements that are bound to keep this “racketing up the line”, as a subject, parked in the consciousness, via facsimile, of many, many more beings, waiting the day when it reads BIG, on a meter and those beings themselves can find out, themselves, just what Ultimate Truth really is with “poof” it’s gone.

      • I agree with Jim that it IS wonderful that this film was made.
        I thinkAnderson did a fairly objective job at communicating things based on all the data he had to hand.
        Maybe the culties don’t like it because they are fanatics and have to protest . But from an objective viewpoint it was a masterpeice.
        It obviously was an “echo” of Scientology, but it brought up important points to think about, like where Dod said if you get to the point where you don’t have to follow any Master come back and let us all know…
        The movie was friggin brilliant.
        At the theatre we went to they actually did a before and after survey about how we heard about the movie, what made us want to see it, whether or not the Scientology angle made us want to come, etc. This was interesting to me as I have never seen this done before.

        If yo have never seen ~ There will be Blood~ by Anderson you should rent it. I thought that was amazing also.

        • Here is some free association going in my mind: “fanatics and have to protest” = “worldwide protest on the Muhammad video” = “aftermath of Arab Spring” = “Human nature on a flash trigger.” What kind of mindset will protest such a brilliant movie?

          .

          • I can see that correlation Vinaire. I thought it was very crazy that the Muslims did all that violence over a movie. It is like people who cannot confront ideas and have to use force to scare people away from communicating their ideas. They are fanatics and very dangerous people, little people.

        • Tony,
          I did see There Will Be Blood, but I didn’t know it was the same guy making this film. Blood is an amazing piece of work. True art. Poignant and engaging. What a great ride. When I watch movies I’m really an “audience”, suspending disbelief and really enjoying whatever it is up there on the screen. There Will Be Blood had the epic quality, the long view of the life and times that I just go away into and get totally engrossed. Wonderful movie making. Incredible character portrayals.

          I’ll see The Master at some point. Up here in the Highlands the venues for screening this are…well, unless it’s put up on the Milky Way or the spruce trees, I’ll have to wait to see it. In the meantime, fall is arriving and it is incomparable here at this time of year.

    • Bryan: “The notion of past lives is pretty common amongst many religions” — actually when LRH started talking about past lives in 1950′s – the notion of past lives in America or Europe wasn’t common at all.

      LRH was way ahead of his time — or perhaps better stated and more in LRH’s words — there has been a cultural lag and now everybody seems comfortable with past lives. At least the notion. People often say, in jest, “in my next life I’m going to be …”

      I felt the processing was quite interesting and I am pretty sure that people will be interested in finding out more.

      Now the task becomes letting the inquiring and seeking public FIND an independent scientologist —- god forbid they wander into an Cof$ org.

      Christine

      • And god forbid they run into some of the Independent Scientologists as well. Tread carefully is my advice. Just saying.

        “The further one goes, the less one knows.”
        ― Lao Tzu

        • That’s a bullsihit reply until and unless you have the balls to name names, and sound reason.

          • Nice fish! That thing is huge! Sweet!

            Tread carefully is not terrible advice. Kool-aid is powerful stuff and a tough habit to break. Think of it this way, you might give up smoking three packs a day, but does that one cigarette still make you a smoker?

            Hmmm. I dunno. I think it could. I’d be looking for ashtrays.

            But you are right about one thing for sure. I have no balls.

            Just saying.

        • “The further one goes, the less one knows”. Wow, that’s true for me. “Not Know” is the First Postulate (that’s covered in the Scn Axioms J.S., you can read them, it won’t turn you into a “cultie”). The Lies fall away when one As-ises the First Postulate.

          Lao Tzu – talk about smart.

      • Windhorse,

        What I meant is that in present time, movie-goers won’t have too much struggle with the notion of past lives. In other words, the acceptance level of the Master’s philosophy about a whole track probably won’t seem too outlandish to movie audiences, reality-wise. And if LRH contributed to past life awareness in this country and much of Europe (which I have no way of knowing whether he did or not), more kudos to him.

        • Bryan: Thanks for the clarification … as for LRH contributing — you must by a youngster :) — not many talked about past lives until sometime in the late 60′s — Madame Blavansky and the Theosophists perhaps …

          Earlier dianeticists were upset that LRH would mention past lives and there was an initial schism over this … (it’s covered in Book 1)

          At least that is my take on things … being the oldster than I am :)

          Christine

        • What I meant is that in present time, movie-goers won’t have too much struggle with the notion of past lives.

          Yes, that’s right.
          See the upcoming Movie “Cloud Atlas”.
          It’s all about the time track.

    • Yes, Bryan, Dodd (The Master) really showed the caring that LRH had for people–he put his attention completely on even the scoundrel Freddy Quell and gave his help freely.

      Unfortunately, what I have come away from as the message of the movie is that there are some people who can never really be helped. The focus was on the loser, Freddy, and his choice to go back into his “comfort zone?” even though he’d had that massive result from the processing (when he “could touch anything he wanted”–i.e. exteriorization?)

      I admit he found his “reason” for backsliding–the thwarted reach when he did expand–but still he sort of “proves” that it’s all for naught, when many of us know otherwise.

  30. I will see it on DVD, since I, like Mike, have a child who would rather see other movies ;). Thanks for the review, Marty.

    My take on it, sight unseen but having read some reviews, is that the movie is not about Scientology at all. I can see the Phoenix / Hoffman relationship as the relationship of any student/master or apprentice/master relationship. The ’50s were a great period to cover what with post WW II vets looking for answers and all, but this could have been set in the ’70s with Vietnam vets and Werner Erhardt or Sun Myung Moon or Timothy Leary.

    Only a maroon would expect that the movie would portray Scientology accurately, since it is NOT about Scientology, and in any event, the subject of the movie as nothing to do with the validity of the religion.

    But, hey, that’s my ignorant take. I am glad Hoffman, Phoenix, and Anderson did such create work! I look forward to seeing it.

    Mark

    • Except that the movie is ALL about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. He is paraphrased and, quite nearly, quoted throughout.

      • :) Just goes to show one should always see a movie before reviewing it. Would you say the “moral of the story” is to beware of Scientology? Or of strong leaders of any group? Or religion in general? Or perhaps is the message that the truth is in you and you must follow your own path? I have heard stories similar to ours from followers of Eckankar, Ramtha, est, and Rajneesh.

        • I think the message comes from the viewer. I think Anderson chronicled an important type of figure in American history much like he did in There Will Be Blood: with the raw intensity of how he saw him. I don’t think there was a judgment or a message conveyed. That is the power Anderson.

          • I agree Marty. It was like he was presenting data to the viewer and left it up to the viewer to decide. I talked to many people and they all had different takes on the movie. To me that is a good sign.

        • The only message I received from this beautiful movie is, “This was the life of many after World war II, and it presents one of the colorful movements to remove those scars.”

          The movie is non-judgmental. It simply shows life in one of its colorful facets of 1950s.

          .

        • Mark,

          I have been turned off a bit by commentator’s, posting comments on this blog . You have to watch and experience the movie before you make some comment about it. I encourage others to see it. I made it a point to watch “the Master” before I commented on Marty’s blog.

      • BTW, the “maroon” statement above was about the fact that no movie gets any technology right – except movie making. I speak as a computer pro. The “movie” user interfaces of movies like “Johnny Mnemonic” were really cool – but nowhere near real. And the whole premise of “Tron” is ridiculous. And the little girl in “Jurassic Park” saying “Unix! I know this!” is just as ridiculous. But, they make for good movies. So I never expect accuracy from a movie on anything.

        Mark

      • I finally saw The Master this evening and the funny thing is that my take on it is exactly as Grasshopper said. While Anderson drew from LRH’s life and Scn for the movie, they’re completely incidental and really irrelevant to the movie. It could have been any unconventional philosophy or religion with a charismatic leader. I thought the story was really all about Freddie and his journey. It starts and ends with him. I would even say the movie is mis-named, because it isn’t about The Master at all. It should be called The Disciple something like that.

        • Yes, the movie was not about Scientology. Scientology was simply used as a prop. You are right that the movie is about Freddie, and it beautifully captures the period following WWII, when a sort of new era was starting in America.

          I like the name THE MASTER,, which seems to describe a dominant stabilizing social factor that emerged out of the confusion of WWII period. I don’t think that the movie is trying to portray some specific personality as THE MASTER for some specific reason.

          .

    • Mark: There is a shot of LRH (Hoffman) from behind that is STRAIGHT out of one of the old black and white photos of LRH.

      It’s so about LRH that you can read the reviews and see who has an inkling of LRH and who doesn’t.

      Those that say it isn’t about scientology are looking at it from the lens of the present celeb-heavy scientology. Not real scientology.

      You’ll be very happy with the movie is my guess. It brings LRH back to life -by an actor who portrays The Master as bigger than life. Just like LRH.

      Christine

    • Grasshopper, I agree that the figure could have been drawn differently to represent Sun Myung Moon without changing the real plot. It was just a hoot though to see the Scio references.

  31. My take on “The Master”? Brilliant! 

    There is so much material in the film to work with and use in healing the current Corporate Scientology created mess.

    I believe, once again,  ‘Tao Te Ching’ best sums it up with the following excerpt: 

    “Scholars of the highest class, when they hear about the Tao, earnestly carry it into practice. 

    Scholars of the middle class, when they have heard about it, seeing now to keep it and now to lose it.

    Scholars of the lowest class, when they have heard about it, laugh greatly at it. If it were not (thus)  laughed at, it would not be fit to be the Tao. 

    ….

    “The Tao is hidden, and has no name; but it is the Tao which is skillful at imparting (to all things what they need) and making them complete.”

  32. Pingback: A Scientologist’s Take on The Master « 31 Factors

  33. Marty: Thanks for this wonderful review which as we can see from the comments, several who had no intention of seeing the movie are now inspired to do so.

    They won’t be disappointed.

    A friend, who has yet to see the movie but did view several trailers told me that he almost wept anew to see his “old friend” LRH on the screen.

    Hoffman was masterful. I’ve been wondering all day if he watched some of the early Clearing Congress Videos or other clips …

    But, I think that will never be divulged. Anderson was wise in not making this a “scientology expose” film or mentioning scientology and LRH very much at all.

    I also agree with Guy — this film could do much to heal those who through the years felt estranged from LRH.

    Christine

  34. I saw the movie but didn’t understand why the C of $ was so upset about it. It wasn’t like an expose the likes we have seen on television and the internet. The acting was extremely good. Freddie Qwell played his part so perfectly that if I saw him in true life I would be afraid of him.

    I did not understand the nudity in the seen at the house where all the women were undressed and just carrying on in a normal fashion. What was that about? If anyone saw the movie I would appreciate an answer.

    • My view was that it was Freddie’s pov seeing the women without their clothes.

    • I believe that scene was how Freddie seemed to be viewing it, being very suppressed on second dynamic.

      .

    • The nude scene exemplified the difference in the two personalities–the only thing Freddie was looking for was booze and sex, so he saw the world that way. However, it was a scene that could have been deleted and it would have made no difference to the movie–in other words, it was a bit “gratuitous,” Also, it somehow kicked in the scenes from “Eyes Wide Shut,” which was completely gratuitous, LOL. As a member of the audience, I felt it was manipulating me a bit, and I don’t like to be manipulated that way.

      • Oh! That’s judgmental. I didn’t feel any reaction other than amusement.

        .

        • Hey, Vinaire, what else do I have to do but be judgmental! LOL

          • Good grief. This kinda reminds me of having an honest reaction to something and someone telling me, “Don’t be so sensitive!” Um. I’m allowed. Bite me.

            In other words, Lynne, if you felt you were being manipulated, you were being manipulated. That’s cool. Don’t ever apologize for being you. You don’t need to minimize your power with LOLs. But if you love LOLs, don’t pay me no nevermind.

            I can’t say what I thought of the scene. I was kinda distracted by the older naked ladies. They were interesting to me. The huge cesarean scar on one, the oddly perky breasts on another bottom heavy one. Fascinating. I don’t usually get to see naked older ladies. Except at the gym. I love how they own it. Soon, I will join them.

            Just saying.

          • I have no idea. Maybe non-judgmental looking, as in obnosis!

            .

      • I haven’t seen the movie. But I like seeing beautiful natural scenes, like landscapes, waterfalls, flowers, butterflies, birds, cats, nude women, etc. If you don’t like seeing something naturally beautiful or if you perceive it as non beautiful, then, I guess it’s called aberration. (It’s only a particular aberration, because other areas probably are non aberrated). Of course, this is not to mean that I don’t have aberrated areas, probably I not even aware of, for which I invent justifications.

        • What is natural, and what is aberrated, is essentially a judgment call. Remember the story LRH told about the missionary going to Africa and preaching them the shamefulness of being naked. He got them to wear clothes which cut off of their immunity.

          Best is to see things as they are until you do have to make a judgment. But until then, see things for what they are without assuming anything.

          The parallel of this I learned in mathematics. You set up the whole problem with all relationships among variables and given values, before you attempt to solve it.

          The final solution would be an as-isness of the problem.

    • Dean Blair asked :

      I did not understand the nudity in the seen at the house where all the women were undressed and just carrying on in a normal fashion. What was that about? If anyone saw the movie I would appreciate an answer.

      Dean ~~ that was a fantasy sequence through the eyes of Freddie (Phoenix). That was not an actual scene in real life, but Freddie WANTING it that way in his fantasy.

    • I enjoyed that scene. I think it added a nice dimension to the whole movie.
      I kind of see Freddie as a metaphor for all the lost and lonely people in life looking for answers. Also Freddie started to look more and more bedraggled and it made me think of some Sea Org members who would shuffle around ASHO or Flag looking emmaciated and degraded. I tell you, this movie was fascinating on many levels.

  35. The public will see that the 1950′s movement as portrayed in THE MASTER was very different from how Scientology is being played out today in the media. Today’s Scientology (the Church verson) is very wealthy, secretive, paranoid, power hungry and aggressive. It was not that way in the 50s. The roots od Scientology seem to lie in a desire to help people out of their misery.

    The movie hints at the science fiction element of Scientology, as well as Sec Check questions in an innocent way, which have become associated with abuse in recent years. But I don’t think any such connection would be made by the general public. Those who would make such connection may simply wonder about the development and direction that Scientology took over the years. Nothing much of that is in general view.

    But the nice thing about the movie is that it shows the potential of Scientology that was so attractive at the beginning, and the simplicity of it. Maybe we can go back to that simplicity and fun again.

    .

  36. From the interviews of the director, my impression is that the movie is about Freddie and not about the self-help guru, who simply played a very influential role in Freddie’s life that was typical of the times.

    .

  37. This film is about the origins of scientology and LRH and does not reflect the current Cof$.
    I look forward to seeing a film on the current deranged leader and how he is destroying it.

  38. I will go see it, Hoffman as LRH.

  39. quell/kwel/
    Verb:
    Put an end to (a rebellion or other disorder), typically by the use of force: “extra police were called to quell the disturbance”.
    Subdue or silence (someone): “Connor quelled him with a look”.

    Scientology could not quell Freddie Quell.

    Tooky

  40. Did anyone notice the first scene in which Hubbard…ooops Dodd audits Feddie, and he is recalling his old girlfriend Doris singing him a song?

    Did you see that the song she was singing in the incident was a different song than Dodd and Freddie were singing in the auditing session?

    What do you think the Writer/Director was trying to say with that?

  41. In the scene when Freddie comes to visit Dodd in England and Mary Sue tells Freddie that “he just doesn’t want to get better”, did anyone wonder what the definition of “better” was that she was using?

    “Better” as defined by whom, Mary Sue?

    Better as defined by jealous cult members?

  42. I believe that “The Master” was a direct and devastating criticism which went to the very core of Scientology belief and practice, and dramatically displayed that it does not work.

    • I haven’t seen the movie yet, so can only respond to a limited degree.

      But Tooky, based on your earlier comments, have you ever read The Auditor’s Code? It’s a code of conduct at the core of “Scientology practice”, yet your comments above seem to show an ignorance of it.

      Here’s an article on the Auditors Code that might help: http://www.freezoneearth.org/clearbird/guide2004/book/15Code.htm

    • That was your opinion before you saw the movie. You need to do some Obnosis drilling.

    • I saw it tonight and didn’t see that at all. It touches on just a few basic ideas and shows processing in a completely altered fashion. Hardly the very core of Scn belief and practice. Like I wrote above, the Cause or Scn aspect is completely irrelevant to the story. It could be any philosophy or religion, any charismatic leader. The story is about Freddie’s journey, it’s not about Scn at all. It just happens to use LRH and Scn FOR the story.

  43. Thank you for the in-depth review. I hadn’t planned to see it till now.

  44. Interesting the various points of view about the movie, its “moral” etc. — that’s what makes this blog so fantastic. It’s very “inter active”

    Personally I did not feel that Freddie’s continued debauchery “proved” some people cannot be helped OR proved that processing doesn’t work.

    LRH said often — “Any auditing is better than no auditing” and because Freddie did experience gains during his auditing … he therefore changed as a being. The whole toothpaste-out-of-tube thing.

    As for proving Scientology doesn’t work — no. I feel the movie proved it does. Freddie changed in front of us. He reverted yes — at least for some frames but how can we possibly know what his future might hold.

    Which – after all – is true for each of us.

    Christine

  45. Tooky, put a cork in it.

  46. http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/history.html

    You have to check this out!! A bit off topic, but maybe not…

  47. scholars of the lowest class…….

  48. Here is an interesting analysis of Dodd from ‘An Intimate Epic of Irrational Need’

    “Dodd has the gift of sucking up everyone’s energy and playing it back to them as if it were his own, all the while visibly delighting in the process, surprising himself with his own capacity to enchant and control. He is mischievous, buoyed up by the powers of improvisation that enable him, for example (in a scene that may be a visualization of the dynamics that lie just under the surface), to persuade a roomful of women of all ages to strip for him, in an atmosphere of singalong merriment. Dodd’s delight, of course, has as its mirror image his behind-the-scenes aspect of sexual misery and paranoid mistrust, kept in check by his wife Peggy (the Master’s secret master, wonderfully realized by Amy Adams) and occasionally—increasingly, one can assume—finding expression in unscheduled explosions of rage.”

    .

  49. I did a search through the Phily Doc Tapes with “master” as the term. Of course there is the one where LRH cautions against Scn mastering one’s thinking, which it has every potential to do, but there is another one that hit home with me today with a new understanding.

    In a 2 Dec 52 lecture on Locks, Secondaries and Engrams – How to Handle Them is a description of a “circuit”, an “automaticity”. This is something a being creates “out there” and imbues with life, grants beingness to it, and then puts it on “auto”, and eventually or purposel, tries to block out that they did that. It makes for a better effect if it’s “over there” and you aren’t pulling the strings (or so one convinces themselves). Then, with this little or large thing, say a “thinking machine” set up, one feeds it energy, it goes to it, the thing enlivens with this life force, and feeds back at the originator of the whole thing. It goes on that “circuit”, a feedback loop to the being. With “not knowing” they create it, and energize it, the being becomes effect of their own cause, they are “mastered” by something.

    Scientology, effectively done, should help to bring one to realization, they are their own master. Always were, always will be.

  50. What I love is this; DM likes to present himself as LRH’s protegee. We of course know this is not true, but that’s how he presents himself. In the movie, LRH’s protegee is Freddie, an alcoholic, sex pervert who can’t control his violent and abusive urges. In other words, a 100% perfect portrayal of David Miscavige who just happens to be a violent, abusive, sexually perverted alcoholic. Coincidence? I think PTA did a lot more research for that movie than he is letting on. Really the movie needed a better plot, but David Miscavige was portrayed perfectly. “Freddie” Miscavige.

  51. Just got back from watching the movie and my favorite part was the feeling that I was watching LRH, Phlip did such a great job in capturing his larger than life character. It inspired to want to watch and listen to more LRH. The Op Pro Dup had me LingOL.

  52. Thank you all for your reviews of this movie. I look forward to seeing it myself in the theater.

    I’m already anticipating the juxtaposition between the current madman in- charge and the caring and kind, yet intent and intense, man I came to know in those early years during the evolution and development of both subjects, Dianetics and Scientology.

    The Independent Movement today mirrors and in fact enhances those early formative days and thus assures the continuation and success that was laid out those many years ago.

    Take pride in all you are doing. Otherwise it would all be gone. I’m glad to be here with good folks.

  53. Just came back from seeing the movie, I was quite intrigued by it. My definition of a good movie is “am I still thinking about it after seeing it?” It’s been nearly 2 hours since I walked out of the theater, and I sure am still thinking about it. I disagree Freddie portrayed David Miscavige, DM is far more smarter than Freddie.

    One has to realize this is a fiction not a documentary, so there are inaccuracies. I went into the movie with a viewpoint of taking it is for what it is and came out feeling satisfied.

    The problem with a lot of Kool Aid drinkers is they cannot handle “entheta”, well this is one movie they certainly will not be able to “confront” this picture.. Joaquin Phoenix pulled off the performance of his life. As did Phillip S Hoffman.

  54. Well, I see it as a “love story” with a Scientology “hook”. How else to explain LDodds “Slow boat to China” rendition? Freddy progressed from a “drunk loser,” back to some semblance of “humanity”. At the end he was invited to live his own life, without a “Master”. Just as “the phone call” in the movie theater was a ‘dream sequence”, the hand to his crotch in the Philly sequence and the nudity in the earlier scene was “dub in”, from Freddie’s POV, highlighting a central “theme” of his current life, ie: inability to have meaningful relationships with women, inability to create and being “lost”.

    Since it was shot in 65mm film, seeing it in a theater with a 70mm projector gives the best experience. It is a sensitive treatment of a much maligned and understood subject, so I give kudos to PTA and all involved.
    \

    • I didn’t catch that the phone call or hand on the crotch were dream sequences, but that makes sense considering what happens after those them.

  55. This afternoon I looked up the lyrics to “Slow Boat to China.” As I digested the words, it changed the whole ending of the movie for me. One reviewer had suggested it had a “homoerotic” nuance. That sounded plausible at first, and I don’t mind that interpretation. However, the words to the song, to me, mean that he was telling Freddie, “I could even handle you, if I had enough time, but I don’t.” It was a beautiful shift in the meaning of the movie. I guess only Paul Thomas Anderson could say yea or nay on this interpretation.

    • Thanks Lynne, perfect you solved that problem for me.

    • I dubbed in some past life acquaintance due to the fact he told him to come to England and he would tell him where he knew him before and I was thinking it has been a string of befores but I like your take better.

    • THANK YOU. My husband turned to me during that scene and whispered, “that’s a bit homoerotic.”

      I actually wouldn’t mind if the film was intended that way, I’m sure there are plenty of critics of LRH that would love that train of thought, however, nothing up to that point in the movie gave me that feeling – that the affinity that Lancaster Dodd felt for Freddie was sexual. So homoerotic didn’t ring true and then I read your post and DING DING DING, we have a winner.

      Kinda ties in to the earlier scene when Amy Adams was explaining to Freddie that Lancaster got most of his work done at sea, where distractions were at a minimum. Slow boat indeed.

      I give your interpretation a yea. For what it’s worth.

      Just saying.

  56. Marty wrote:

    “…Corporate Scientologists, to the degree they are even permitted to watch the movie, will likely chafe at the finale when Phoenix is confronted by Dodd with a tough dilemna: remain in the group and be loved and cared for, with the caveat that he will always remain subservient and obedient to the master, or freely pursue his own path, with the caveat that he will be considered an enemy in the future and will be treated with no mercy as such.’

    “It is understood that the truth sometimes initially hurts. I witness and deal with the reality of the painful truth of The Master’s finale each and every day of my life. It has become my calling to heal that pain. I can attest that is painful. But, I cannot deny that it is the truth.

    These are two very strong paragraphs, Marty.

    Why do you think Hubbard demanded Total Loyalty, or if he didn’t get it, considered Scientologists – even dedicated friends like Freddie – as Total Enemies?

    • Tooky,
      Lancaster Dodd is NOT L. Ron Hubbard. You’ve mistaken a symbol for another symbol.

      The film may be “about” LRH, a viewpoint of a person from other persons. But that “about” doesn’t mean IS, or in this case WAS.

      C’mon now, get a grip on this. It’s a MOVIE. Seymour Hoffman is an ACTOR. He isn’t LRH either.

      (But Sean Connery IS James Bond.)

      • Thanks, Jim.

        My question was for Marty within the context of what he wrote, as you can read from my quote of his above.

        Tooky

        • Hi Tooky. Are you Alanzo?

        • Tooky,
          I’m not answering for Marty. I’m addressing the collapsed “logic” where horses ARE bananas. Maybe you should read up on General Semantics, or something. Or go out and do some yardwork and see if you can pull apart from all that symbolism, below effort think-think. (Effort being above that level of thinkingness.)

          Go for a long run and move that body around despite its protestations. Get some natural high going, and notice things in the environment for a while, see the differences in locations.

          Cause these comments are appearing ridiculous, and as such, I doubt there is going to be much of an argument coming up as it falls under the purview of tossing it around with the clearly “uninformed”.

          Just my take, not speaking for anybody else here. And I’m not LRH either, or Seymour, or Dodd or Kwell, or Anderson or Lucifer (well, that last is just flat out false, but nevermind that one.)

    • I think Hubbard talked about no gray areas. Everything in black and white. I recall reading something about that and getting that impression. I can’t speak for Hubbard, except I agree there are no absolutes. There are harmonics of existence where everything is back and white with no in between for me. I have lines people can not cross with my children, family and yes, dogs. Some friends. Some very valuable people to others whos worth transcends my own wants and needs. The “with me or against me” is a call to arms. Put yourself on the line. Come up and out of the doubt. There are areas that inspire that kind of passion with me. There are people that inspire that kind of passion in me. I do have all or nothing relationships with some people that transcend matter energy space and time. Hubbard was/is, not one of them. Scientology as an activity is not one of them. These are very personal matters. I do not see fault with Hubbard’s thinking about this because I did not fit in to this category. He found people that did. That does not make me a liability. Being willing to take bullet for someone is a person choice that must come from every corner of the heart, not the mind. Because a perfectly rational being would never come to that as the optimum solution, and would hopefully have a volume of theta necessary to shift forces and conditions in a way that everyone on the stage could come out winning, and there would be no losers in the game. Hubbard promised Scientology would be the game where everyone would win. Some people think the world has come to an end shortly so he was wrong. I still think we are in cradle and Scientology is too. It is possible he was right. We are still in chapter one. He also said to watch stats, not hope. Whatever he said, however this goes, there is one thing every can do. Make it up the bridge just in case Hubbard was wrong, you can be right.

      • Either way, you are not wrong in your curiosity. You bring up a valid point. Why people pledge complete allegiance and then deny the truth about it, is a mystery to me. If you can’t own it step aside. Don’t come off like a fanatic willing to defend every particle and then, challenged to translate, make less of the curious far above the those in the enforce band. That is straight up injustice.

        • I understand what you are saying here. But circumstances change, and new knowledge comes to light. What you once pledged full allegiance to may never have existed in reality.

          In that case, one must be allowed to question and even challenge the direction of command one has pledged allegiance to – if it was always a legitimate pledge.

          For instance, the Laura Dern character asks Dodd at the Phoenix Congress why he changed the word “recall” to “imagine” in a command in his 2nd book if the target of all aberration was memory. If the Laura Dern character had pledged her “allegiance” to the removal of aberration by targeting memories, and the leader changed the direction, then it is a vital question to be asked if one has truly pledged allegiance to the cause.

          Yet Dodd could not tolerate the questioning.

          So who was the one who betrayed their pledge, really?

          • This ties in with the observation that Dodd was making up his stuff as he went along. I won’t say that Dodd was making his stuff out of the whole cloth. He did have good ideas. But he did not work on them diligently enough to come up with a theory that could be defended with acuity and grace.

            .

          • None of your “reasoning” is actually reasoning. It’s all to support your fixed idea that Scientology is bullshit. But you’re unlikely to convince anyone here to join you in that opinion. So, it would seem that your being on this blog is a big waste of your time.

      • You wrote “I think Hubbard talked about no gray areas. Everything in black and white. I recall reading something about that and getting that impression.” Huh?! Infinity valued logic is a Dianetic Axiom! 1 valued logic = God caused it all, 2 valued logic = black & white. Multi-valued logic = engineering logic. Then there’s infinity valued logic, which is the way things really are, infinite shades of grey. This is covered in numerous early books and tapes. But there is a later ref I remember where LRH talks about the Black Hats & White Hats and basically says you can classify people as either good or bad, constructive or destructive. To me it is a deviation from the basic truth of infinity valued logic.

    • It is easy to feel fine when one is sheltered, but it is quite difficult to be on one’s own in a hostile environment.

      Dodd portrayed as not only being on his own but also providing shelter to others. But, in truth, he got his shelter from a loyal following. In a way Dodd was seeking his own shelter by proposing a shelter to Freddie by becoming a follower. .

      Dodd seemed to have found the environment quite hostile, in which he had been struggling on his own for some time. He had that insight that everyone needed a shelter, and that he could find his own shelter by providing a shelter to others through a movement..

      He spoke truth to Freddie.

      .

      • I think that the “tough dilemma” that Marty describes is an effort to dominate and subjugate people.

        I think that anyone who presents another with this type of dilemma is inherently weak and fearful, and can not stand the strength of others and so must attempt to subjugate them, and to dominate them, and to dictate what they think, do, and say – or else they are an “enemy” if the person refuses to be treated this way..

        I think that only cults and cult leaders who know that they are living in a house of cards present people with this kind of dilemma.

        And I agree with what Marty wrote: the movie presented this human truth very well.

        Tooky

        • I have never seen a person who is spiritually strong, and established within oneself, ever having the need to dominate and subjugate people. Nor do I think that an spiritually advanced person will have such a need. As I said earlier, Dodd did have that need as that was a form of shelter for him. This does imply that Dodd was not spiritually strong or well established within himself.

          I believe that Dodd came up with the therapy / religion of CAUSE while seeking a resolution to his own case. He needed others to confirm his therapy procedures, and to further experiement on them to come up with more advanced procedures, which he could then apply to himself.

          This is just an opinion derived from my observations.
          .

        • We find efforts to control all through society. That is what happens when you stop at the red light, go at the green light. When you pay your rent or mortgage. When you put gas in your car. When your alarm clock goes off. I personally don’t problems with people who want to control or control itself. I think good control is a talent/skill. It is up to every person how much they care to be controlled and by whom. What I have a problem with is people who no matter how they pretend they are under control, are totally out of control and not sharing that information with you, the client /employer/employee. I actually had a contract put in front of me this morning and clause (c) said:

          (c) Employee recognizes that someday He/She might learn that some or all of the facts He/She currently believes to be true, are untrue, and even though He/She might then regret might having signed this agreement……….

          This was from a huge corporation “worth billions” on the stock exchange.

          Did I sign it? No.

          • Public Relations representation contract. Clause (d) Employee agrees He/She will not solicit or otherwise encourage any person or entity to seek this agreement or the terms of this agreement in any proceedings, agency investigation, litigation or arbitration.

            (In other words, you are not going to tell anyone about the agreement.)

            Yes, this happens. It was up to me to sign or not.

            • All very good points, Oracle.

              What happens when you agree to one thing and it gets changed, like in the example I gave?

              Should you really be considered an enemy to the cause you originally pledged your allegiance to if it was changed?

              See, it’s not the CONTROL that is the problem here. It is getting people to AGREE and making that AGREEMENT etched in concrete, and then changing the agreement on the person, not letting them question or get to the bottom of the change so they can reassess their allegiance based on new information. Then accusing that person of “betrayal” to the agreement, even though it was changed on them. Then you treat this person – who was only staying true to their own integrity – as an enemy?

              This is cultic tyranny. And it is not anything anyone ever swore their allegiance to – in the movie or in Scientology.

              • That is called “bait and switch”. I saw this a lot in Scientology towards my end there. All of these people were in the Sea Org and many had kids. The rest were never told they could not ever have children. One day a new law came down, no kids, no more parent time! Not that I myself would have ever had a kid in those conditions. Just financially, I did not see how people could afford them! But my friend from New York who was classXll and Scientology ROYALTY, complained and got sent to ethics. The ethics officer was her own child and she put her in a lower condition. That was Minty Alexander. That really steamed me up. Group control is always bad control from where I view. And the reason the cult like atmosphere was fostered. Good control comes from an individual. Look at military forces trained and totally controlled about every aspect of their existence including where they live and who they should kill. Sure they can be used as a force. To harm, attack and suppress. You can’t tell someone not to think for themselves and expect a positive result. What you are talking about in agreement VS control, is actually agreement VS enforcement. From where I view, Scientology does not work when it is in the enforcement band. A person curious, or desirable about the Scientology, does not have problems with it. Anything below that and it flies off the rails like magic that will not be owned by the person trying to harness it.

                What has been your experience with Scientology?

          • Wow, sounds like you were swimming with the sharks and nearly got bit. The clause C sounds like it’s saying one day you may discover that we got you to sign this contract under false pretenses but you accept that this is olay in advance and so won’t be able to get out of it. Devious.

            Would you enlighten us to the circumstances? (Won’t be offended if you say no but I’m intrigued).

    • Tooky, I preface this by saying I am not a scientologist. I saw The Master this past weekend. The last scene between Dodd and Freddie had other possible layers of meaning **for me**.

      1) Freddie goes to visit Dodd in this now huge building (school). Gone are the days of small meetings in the homes of followers…and “The Cause” was growing into a more “corporate-esque” organization…like the corporate COS now…where disconnection is enforced and those that are against it, are considered total enemies….

      2) it could also be Dodd telling him, you either continue your destructive ways or come with us and be open to the process…you can’t do both (something you do for a billion years or not at all)….

      3) or maybe it was (in part) what Freddie heard in his madness…

      I guess it is up to the viewer to decide….

      Dodd and Freddie are symbols, of humanity, spirit, brokeness, perseverance, passion…they are symbols of individuals and also of organizations…

      and then there is this line from Dodd, which was my favorite:

      —-

      “If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know, for you would be the first in the history of the world.”

      ~ Lancaster Dodd, The Master

      —-

      it was a very interesting movie. I was a bit disturbed by all of the sexual content and alcohol use. I didn’t understand the reason for it…were the sexual addiction / alcohol use, in a way, Freddie’s “masters” and the filters through which he experienced the world?

  57. Marty, I have to comment on the disparity between Paul Thomas Anderson’s portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard vs. David Miscavige’s portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard. The stark difference is REALITY vs. no reality. I haven’t even seen the movie yet, and I get that Paul Thomas Anderson’s version is real. Whereas the insanity that bestial Miscavige has been spinning regarding LRH is so utterly delusional it would outrage a stone. Miscavige’s entire skill is lying to social personalities whom regards as so gullible. Fuck truth. Truth is something sociopaths mold like clay. They mold it to manipulate people.

    I tell you what. For the rest of eternity, I’m going to be watching for that mother fucker. And every time I find him, he’s going to get exposed, de-powered and destroyed. There is no other cure for sociopaths. They ARE the problem. And it’s not even “psychs” — LRH was off and that was a stupid A = A = A by him. Psychs are an attractive career choice for sociopaths.

    On my website, I had been calling them “criminals” for lack of a better word. But only 20% of criminals in prisons are sociopaths. In the US, in the rest of the population, it’s currently estimated to be 4%. In other countries it’s apparently less, down to less than a percentage in some places… which probably averages out to 2.5% which was LRH’s own figure.

    About a year ago, a known sociopath (known to me) tried to get into my house. My god that person got the shock of their life. I have no mercy on them. NONE. And I never will. Because they have no mercy for anyone. Thank you so much for this beautiful review on a very worthy film.

    Incredible that Paul Thomas Anderson ALSO grasped David Miscavige and put him into the film. How amazing is that? That man will forever be on my friend list. And I will be very pleased to have his back as well as all the actors who contributed such great performances to this work.

    • Steve,
      I hope you get a chance to see it before we talk later this week – would love to hear your perspective.

    • Seeing evil is the root of all evil.

      • Tooky,
        If you mean by seeing, mocking it up, well damn right!

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Tooky, you need work on your equilibrium, old chap!

        • What value does that response add to the discussion?

          .

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            As in – balanced state of mind, vinaire. You appear to
            have missed some earlier ‘off the wall’ bloopers, that
            have elicited similar responses to my own above.

            Welcome to the party! Incidentally, going by your
            highly intellectual inputs thus far, really looking forward
            to some stimulating contributions, particularly in terms
            of “the 31 Factors,” a primary handling to MOUALH.

            Calvin B. Duffield. Durban (South Africa)
            Indie 5OO list # 301
            Declaration 12 May (Mothers Day) 2O12

            • On discussions to be profitable, my take is as follows:
              Discussions and what needs to be avoided

              You may disagree with it, and it is not being offered as any advice. This is just my take.

              By the way, I shall be visiting South Africa for the first time next month. I have heard that it is very pretty.

              .

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                All good to hear, vinaire! The views expressed here
                are not necessarily all evaluated in terms of profit,
                sometimes accepted purely from their issuing of that
                priceless commodity we know as “theta” something
                rather to be “shared.” I wonder how you view that
                awe – inspiring masterpiece– “The Prophet” – created
                by the visionary genius–Kahlil Gibran. A man whom
                I believe exemplified LRH’s term; “having the humility
                of vast wisdom…”

                Good to see you coming out to South Africa. Where
                will you be visiting ? Perhaps we can arrange an entourage to meet up. BTW, I turned 65 on 15July ’12
                and share your love of philosophy & clear thinking.

                Although, as an artist, my strengths lie in the visual
                creation, rather than in the academic / analytic realm
                of your profession, perhaps we can agree on three cheers for the ARC triangle! Especially the “C” corner. (The cornerstone of how all worthwhile relationships are built and maintained, non?) Marty’s Indie blog
                contains this element in healthy supply, IMHO.

                Incidentally, it may interest you to know that I have a
                very long history and relationship with the Indian
                community here, and count some among my very best friends. (Another story for another time.)

                Calvin.

                • Calvin, we just have to clear up a few misunderstoods here and then we’ll be fine. Discussions have to do with gaining knowledge. Discussions are profitable when knowledge is gained. I was not talking about profit in terms of money.

                  “Theta” is not just feel good type of commodity to me. As I see, “theta” is increased knowledge and ability, and less ignorance and aberration.

                  Funny you mention “The Prophet” by Khalil Gibran. I carried that book with me to Belize during my recent vacation, and studied it from cover to cover. The main cognition I got out of it was as follows: “Granting beingness is being totally non-judgmental about other people, and seeing them just as they are. It is a viewpoint that looks without any filters, assumptions, bias or additive.” In the movie THE MASTERS, Dodd treated Freddie just that way.

                  In South Africa, we shall be spending time in Capetown and the Cougar National Park. We shall then be flying out of Johannesburg. Write to me at vinaire@yahoo.com.

                  .

      • A person who has no evil in his heart won’t see any evil. He will simply see an occurrence or phenomenon. If interested, he will look at that phenomenon more closely to understand it. Will full understanding there would be as-isness.

        Calling something evil is merely judgmental. It is relative to one’s morals. It is not something absolute.

        .

    • Steve,
      This whole “psychs” thing is a controversial item for many. It has never meant anything else to me than a persona, a valence, and has never been taken by me as literally every persuasion of psych- (fill in the rest).

      I don’t get it as an A=A. It’s a valence. Dave is in it. It’s any “high priest” who knows best. It’s the same character in countless novels, films and our culture. It’s Mengele. It’s that condescending prick who has authority over the lives and minds of others and who seeks to dominate them to their detriment and his “survival”.

      It’s the Anti Social Personality, and on the whole track, they have created false notions of “normal”, of “citizens”, of “now we’re supposed to be” such and such. It’s 1984′s Big Brother.

      I dunno. But I think I understand what LRH was getting at. And that has never led me to hate of a particular person who may have “psych-(fill in the rest) as a profession or to A=A any other.

      It is real to me, that on the track, and in this culture, there are those who would determine who is and who isn’t “normal” and who needs to be “normalized”, and that arbitrary bunch of bullshit, is used to suppress others, and “psychs” as well as “priests” (those with a line to the unknowable by the common man) religous or otherwise, sure seem to have been the driving force behind that operation.

      It is also real to me that literalness with which remarks are taken is a valid column on the Chart of Human Evaluation, and this whole “psych” thing has been taken literally as a justification to hate a whole class of people, in an A=A.

      In any case, any of these valances are nothing more than a selected out randomity to have in a game. A thetan has a right to leave a game.

      • And, I may add, DM’s group is in the valence of “psych”, as I understand it, with Black Scientology being as nasty as any sort of mental technology that has ever come down the chute. DM IS a “psych”, without any question.

    • Hi Steve,
      I always enjoy your passion and comments. You are going to blown away by this movie. I’m not sure if it was you I was talking to about the tech films, maybe it was Mat Pesch? Anyways, they spend all this money on tech films and try to get them so natural and they always seem SO phoney. This movie was true reality and comedy and LIFE all mixed together with beautiful photography. I would love to hear your reaction to it after you see it. If you could imagine Scientology being promoted with this king of intelligence and reality, I think things could be so different.

      • Well, it has now been a few days since Marty’s review and I just saw The Master. Spectacular acting, casting and photography. Oddly disjointed dialogue, almost as if Scientology was being remembered through the random firings of a dream where disparate elements are freely and randomly mixed. The whole film did have a dream-like quality to it.

        In places, the nonsensical dialog was almost like what we call “Greeking” in advertising — dummy text intentionally used in place of the real thing, before the real text has been inserted into the design, e.g. “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.” Perhaps the director handled the dialogue that way intentionally, to take attention off the significance of Scientology so that we may focus instead on something else.

        Rarely has a film captured the utter remorselessness of a sociopath as well as Freddie Quill. Those who know Miscavige will have no trouble connecting the black dots.

        Scientologists of course put great stock into the logic of Scientology. The director moved the film in a different direction. The lectures given by Philip Seymour Hoffman had little significance — I found that uncomfortable because to me it suggested Scientology is devoid of reason, which is not the case. But this was a movie, intended for entertainment, and was not intended as promotion for Scientology.

        I saw the charming Amy Adams interviewed on David Letterman. She is a favorite actor in my home. Letterman asked her about the Scientology connection and she was troubled, as if she knew the film communicated something about Scientology, but she was reluctant to say what… more like she wanted people to see the film and figure it out. There was clearly something she was not saying.

        Snatches of Scientological phrases and concepts were lifted out of context and used to ornament the scenes, more from a decorative standpoint rather than having any logical continuity. In a 2 1/2 hour film, the avoidance of logical continuity can not have been accidental.

        On the whole, the film was kinder to Scientology than David Miscavige has ever been, because it portrayed the affection LRH held for people, even broken ones like Freddie Quill, despite being rotten and enslaved to inner demons. It also portrayed the smoldering blackness of Freddie Quill as a source of violence as opposed to LRH.

        Freddie was quite the broken piece. Stooped, facially paralytic, tired, and utterly without conscience… the film was really about him. He was the only person who changed in the film. In scriptwriting, we call that the “arc of the character” — the character starts off one way and is transformed for better or worse by the events that unfold in the plot. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character did not change from beginning to end. He was steadfast, sincere, loyal to his friends… and a man. He was well intentioned. He looked people in the eye, saw what was there and was unafraid to ask penetrating questions in order to help them discover greater truth.

        Amy Adams character did not change either. She was a bit of a terror at times, but she was a loyal soldier and loyal to their friends. But there was no arc to her character.

        Freddie changed. He was helped and definitely he improved. But even a Cleared leopard is not someone you’d want to babysit your kids. Freddie lived in a world devoid of love. He loved no one. No one loved him. He harmed people for kicks and never felt the slightest twinge of guilt.

        So when all the cards are dealt, I’d say this was the story of the total absence of love crashing into “unconditional” love.

        Freddie Quill was improved by the encounter, just as David Miscavige was improved no doubt.

        But in the end, though improved, Freddie was still a rather scaly beast.
        So too is David Miscavige. Perhaps that was the message Amy Adams was reluctant to voice in her interview with Letterman.

        Just because one man had the charisma and ability to live amongst the wolves, doesn’t mean the same beast is safe for the rest of us.

        At the very end, when Freddie Quill is running a little “coffee shop processing” of his own design on a floozy (the finishing touch on an outstanding, if artistic, interpretation on whom I would take to represent David Miscavige) my wife started to laugh. I asked her what she was laughing about and she giggled, “I was just thinking of how angry this film will make David Miscavige.”

        Priceless.

        And likewise, when I consider that insight I can envision Amy Adams also giggling for the same reason. And Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Paul Thomas Anderson… until Joaquin Phoenix bursts out in a belly laugh that gets the entire cast roaring.

        So I give The Master two sharp sticks up. One for each eye of David Miscavige.

        To me, the film was not so much about LRH or Scientology.

        It’s about Freddie Quill a.k.a., Miscavige.

        And if Joaquin Phoenix doesn’t win an Oscar for best actor of the year, I will be a monkey’s uncle.

        • Steve –

          Why do you think the song that Doris was singing in the incident was different than the song that Freddie and Dodd were singing in the auditing session?

          Tooky

          • I am glad you didn’t vanish.

            .

          • Like I said, many parts were disjointed and even nonsensical. But there’s no way anything in that movie was accidental. At the time, I assumed it was because Freddie was intentionally lying about what happened because it was too sensitive. What do you think?

            • I saw it again last night.

              All the singing everyone was doing in the movie was kind of baffling to me. Last night I spotted that each song is about demanding total loyalty, including “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree With Anyone Else But Me” and “On a Slow Boat to China”.

              That’s when I realized what this movie was all about.

              When I first saw that scene, I thought it was PTA saying that an auditing session created an environment that is different, an alteration from the original environment of the incident itself.

              But now I think it had more to do with Dodd being jealous of Freddie’s love for Doris, and demanding that he “sit under the apple tree with [no one else but him].

              I now think that The Master is about the paradoxic need in each of us to have one person in your life be loyal only to you, vs. our need to have many people in our lives, and trying to make each one loyal only to you.

              The Master is about jealousy and our need for love and loyalty from others. I think this is the theme which ties all the characters and their scenes together.

              Beautiful movie. And now I can even understand why he went around saying that it wasn’t about Scientology, after saying that it was about Scientology.

              Tooky

              • Yes, I that makes complete sense and I can see that as an important theme in the movie. But historically and realistically, the “need for loyalty” is far more applicable to DM than to LRH. DM factually commands total allegiance to the point of self destruction. LRH was nothing like that. From his writings, he wanted people to be loyal to mankind and loyal to the mission of helping others. In thousands of places he defined the role of Scientology and our role as Scientologists. Scientology doesn’t exist for people to worship LRH. It exists to deliver training and processing to others to help them.

                Elsewhere LRH makes clear that the real heroes are those who are loyal to the human race and work for their benefit. This is not confidential data: In RJ-67 he talked about the 4th dynamic engram and mentions a 6-year war fought against the renegades by “Loyal Officers — loyal to the people.”

                “Doing Scientology” is not about following LRH though many people on the outside might assume that based on the garbage that DM has put out.

                DM plainly wants people to worship LRH. Because by being LRH’s gatekeeper, he too is worshiped. That’s why he puts out all the syrupy Ron Mags and videos glorifying a saint-like LRH. What happened to the real LRH? LRH the man?

                I can’t blame people for seeing that stuff and for talking to modern day Scientologists who have been indoctrinated with that kind of Kool Aid syrup and draw any other conclusion but that a Scientologist is someone who pledges total loyalty to LRH.

                I’ve heard many people identify themselves as a Scientologist with an expression of loyalty to LRH. I go, “LRH?!? He’s not the point! The point is the human race — for Christ sake, the human race was who LRH was loyal to.”

                In my opinion, a “Scientologist” who thinks being a Scientologist is about being loyal to LRH is not a Scientologist, but a worshiper. A Scientologist is about rolling up your sleeves and helping (improving conditions in) the human race. One doesn’t have to be an auditor, per se, because there are many ways to help. But the whole point of Scientology was predicated on the basis that if we don’t help the human race improve, we may not have a planet to live on for very long. Scientology was an answer to nuclear war. It wasn’t about “worship me, I’m LRH!” It was a call to action and it was one man’s 50-year effort to provide tools needed to do the job.” The film missed that aspect.

                • Excellent points, Thoughtful.

                  When I was in Scientology, I too would look around at all the adoration and worship for LRH and get the feeling that we were all missing the point. In fact, I walked around in Scientology for a long time seeing everyone missing the point.

                  While I understand what you are saying about DM – and you are certainly correct there – I do believe that, as a man – which LRH was, and which this movie portrayed him very well as – he did have a bit of a jealous streak, as we all do.

                  I have struggled for decades to forgive LRH for something, but I never really could put my finger on what, exactly, to forgive him for.

                  This movie has helped me to find out what to forgive L Ron Hubbard for.

                  Tooky

                • I agree with You Thoughtfll 100% . I have never “worshiped” LRH. I understand what he was doing and he did not like it when people glorified him. I remember when he created the Birtday Game. One of the reasons was to get people’s attention ofn clearinG the planet not to keep sending him gifts for his birthday, I also remmber staff on Flag would try and gather up money to buy LRH presents for his birthday. I never gave them my money. I would always sendhim my best wishes for his birthday and celebrate it by reporting to him that my stats were up. He loved to get those stats more than anything as we were attaining the goals for clearing the planet. I still have all of the communications he sent me as well.

            • Now that is a great insight, Tooky. A Master cannot be a master without followers who are totally loyal to him.

              So, somebody, who obsessively wants to be a Master, will insist on total loyalty from his followers. That makes sense to me.

              Compare this with Buddha, who said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Buddha was enlightened, indeed.

              THE EIGHT-FOLD PATH TO NIRVANA

              From my understanding of the basics of Scientology, I see Nirvana as follows:

              NIRVANA

              .

  58. The power of the Sea Org has been powerful, since 1967, Sorry, you do not get this message Tooky. On 2nd thought I think you do.

  59. I am feeling a bit lost as of late…. should i turn to Scientology? What can it do for me? What can it make me do for myself?
    jpp (jonpaulprime on youtube)

    • Hey jpp,
      Give some of the exercises in “Self Analysis” a try. I think the book might be online, but if not, you can probably pick up a copy on ebay pretty cheaply.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Good advice, Margaret! And jpp, here’s another REALLY
        quick fix you can try—with almost immediate results——;
        In essence, it’s just putting you BACK in communication
        with yourself / environment.( courtesy of L.Ron Hubbard )

        Okay, here’s the procedure; (simplified)

        1) Right now, look around your present space, noticing
        things; — objects, colours, surfaces, textures, shapes.
        2) Move around and touch those things, one at a time,
        that you noticed, really becoming aware of each as you
        do so.
        3) Compare where you are now, to where you were at
        any earlier period. Try to get a clear mental picture.
        4) Repeat step 1 – 3.
        5) Continue to do this, until you feel brighter / better!

        Within 5 minutes, you should feel marked improvement.
        Let us know how it went, jjp.

        (By the way, the tool, (simplified here ) has a name;it’s
        called—the “confusion formula”)

        Calvin.

        • Thanks for the tip, but I don’t immediately understand the point of the procedure you described. I’ve picked up a pen three different times and tbh, it hasn’t helped clarify anything I’m immediately aware of. I’ve avoided Scientology all my life and have only just now begun looking into it with the release of “The Master”. I’ve been watching old interviews with LRH on youtube (and hopefully this isn’t where I get written off as a hater or sp) and some of what I’ve heard him say is very disheartening. In one of those old, grainy black and white videos, he stated that anyone with anything remotely morally questionable in their past was not welcome in Scientology. That’s a pretty devastating thing to hear for those people like myself with a less than perfect past.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Thanks for the update, jonpaul. It is far better if you can
            find an experienced Scientologist in your vicinity, who
            can actually take you through these steps, one at a
            time, in order for you to get the immediate benefits.
            You can leave your contact details, on this blog, for
            someone, hopefully nearby, to link up to assist you.
            All the best,
            Calvin.

          • If you wish I can guide you via Skype. My email is: vinaire@yahoo.com.

            .

      • I find that “Self Analysis” works best with mindfulness

        .

    • should i turn to Scientology? YES.

      What can it do for me? Helps one to make sense of it all by knowing their own mind.

      What can it make me do for myself? Find out who you really are, who you have really been, what you really know and what you have forgotten. Every piece of you, you thought you lost or left somewhere, you can find it and take it back. It is like putting a video of an explosion in reverse and watching it all come back to a peaceful whole. The truth is every person builds their own bridge according to their own mind.

      You are still curious. That is reason enough.

      • I will change the motivation to: Find out what is there. It may be discovered that even self (I, you, he, she) is impermanent as Buddha found.

        This is where Scientology seem to have diverged from Buddhism, but maybe not. ;)

        .

        • I think “Find out what is there” falls under awareness of conditions, up at clear in the awareness characteristics. And, good point Vinaire! True enough!

        • I believe that in an auditing session or in life one should look attentively at what is right there in front of you. Here I am using “you” in a general sense.

          If there are many things in front of you, then start with the first thing that your attention goes to. Then look at the next thing, to which the attention goes naturally, and so on. If there are many issues you are concerned with, then start with the issue uppermost in your mind, then the next issue uppermost in your mind, and so on. Do not speculate. Do not go digging into the mind. Keep looking patiently at what comes up naturally to be scrutinized. Then observe it carefully.

          .

          • I like it best when I get pushed into places I never dreamed existed. I like it when the auditing session feels like I suddenly got pushed off a roof. Or yanked into a parallel dimension. I like it when a door I did not know was there, flings open and it scares the hell out of me! I like it when the auditor asks me a question and I find myself flying across dimensions. I have found it is never what I can I see right in front of me that is the real problem. It is what I have not looked at before, or for a long time, that really gives me the greatest adventures in exploring the supernatural. I like it when I leave the auditing room and feel I have traveled here and back to other universes and parallel dimensions. I like it when I know I have stepped into some place nobody else has ever stood in, and never will again. That is never something that is right in front of me. That is never something that comes up naturally. That is always the question I hoped someone would ask me, that puts me into the supernatural.

            • Very welll written Oracle.

            • I prefer mind to be un-stacked in the natural order in which it got stacked up. This allows greater self-determinism and less dependence on processes. It also protects one against dub-ins and false highs. It keeps one grounded in reality.

              .

              • Vinaire, this conversation could be the greatest poem since the lliad.

                I like it when I feel I’m dragged by horses.
                I like it when I am thrown by forces.
                I don’t want to be protected at all
                I want to be pushed and feel the fall.
                I like it when I flow like water
                out from the lamp rubbed by the auditor.
                I like it when it gets unreal
                cause someone spun the magic wheel.
                I like it when the Earth’s behind
                and I rise above the analytical mind.

              • Certainly! And it is lovely. Here is one of my short poems:

                Life can be very
                turbulent…
                But it is just
                a game.
                So play it to win,
                my friend!
                For the reward is
                discovering yourself.

                .

        • “This is where Scientology seem to have diverged from Buddhism, but maybe not”.
          In Scientology the self is timeless.
          Considerations are impermanent – even those of oneself, this is obvious.
          I don’t think this differes too much from Buddhist teachings.
          Maybe it is communicated differently, but as far as I was concerned (in my time when I practiced Buddhism), when they speak of “self”, they speak of “considerations of oneself”.
          The awareness unit is etarnal.
          Listen to the lectures “Route to Infinity”.
          You’ll love them.
          There is a question LRH asks the audience (paraphrased):
          “Find the point from where you decide where you are.”

          Have fun!

        • SKM, it may be just words that seem to be obscuring the true understanding here. If there is something like a true self then it would be beyond all dichotomies. Saying.”Self is timeless” would be a misdirection as it may give the impression that self persists for all times. It makes self subject to the concept of time, or, at least, attempts to define self in terms of time.

          The following passage from Scientology 8-8008 has always turned me off:

          “Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. ” ~ LRH

          This argument provides an analogy for thetans in terms of mest. It is an erroneous argument.

          Some people may gasp at what I am writing here and would like to jump at my throat. To me no belief or consideration is so sacrosanct that it cannot be looked at closely and discussed. I hope you don’t mind that I follow mindfulness as explained here:

          MINDFULNESS

          .

          • I got you.

            Listen, I don’t know where LRH got his definition (or evidences) for Nirvana from.
            But I understand that a being is an individual and won’t become less himself and “merge” with other beings while going up the tone scale.
            His differentiation will become better and better and his ability to grant beingness and to BE (whatever he wishes) will increase, but it doesn’t mean that he will “meld with all” automaticly.
            You see, his freedom of choice is rehabilitated. He may do this (meld) but it’s up to him.

            Don’t stuck in literalism.
            You can also disagree with a datum if it’s not true for you ;-)

            • I think that there is an inconsistency here. The moment a beingness is considered to be individual, it is being considered to have a boundary. This is like reducing infinite to a finite form.
              ;)

              • The moment a beingness is considered to be individual, it is being considered to have a boundary
                Really?
                Is that from a text book?
                Or did you apply your own lookingness to get there?

                The “self” you referre to is only possible where you have space. Having space, means, you have a game.
                The self I am referring to is the beingness before it started the game of creation.

                See LRHs “The Factors” to learn more about the game of life.

                • Aha! Now this discussion is warming up a bit. In my studied opinion there cannot be self without space. I’ll explain it as this discussion develops. OK, let’s take a look at Factor #1.

                  Factor 1. “Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”

                  Please consider the following questions:
                  (1) How did the Cause appear, begin or come about in the first place?
                  (2) Can there be a Cause without there being a simultaneous effect?
                  (3) What was there before the Cause appeared, began or came about?

                  Please take your time in responding to the above. There is no rush. I shall then give you my response to the same questions.

                  .

  60. I’ve got to say the film is a true piece of art -a true rarity in today’s world of blockbuster crap. I’m so glad Marty posted his point of view on the film.

    I’m also a bit disturbed by the amount of posters stating they will see it now based on Marty’s stamp approval. You guys are independents right? Were you not going to see it unless some one vetted it for you first?those days should be in your past now.

    • Well said, Sunny. I was thinking the same.

      .

    • Well, I’ve seen some bad reviews by independent Scientologists as well.

      I’m going to do my usual – see it when it comes out on Redbox. It makes no difference to me how LRH is depicted in this movie.

    • Sunny, as I posted before, I was originally not interested in seeing the movie. Movies are a dime a dozen, and I had no reason to think this one would be particularly worth seeing. Now, having read Marty’s and some other reviews that indicate this movie is well done, I am more interested in seeing, but probably not first -run in the theater.

      What the heck does this have to do with being “independent” or not? Independent does not mean allergic to accepting communications from others and including such in one’s own decisions at times.

      It would be knee-jerk indeed to always refuse to consider the opinions of others in making one’s own decisions.

      Evidently, I do not accept your standard of what constitutes politically correct “independence”.

      • I guess I’m just floored you couldn’t see the trailers for this movie and discern it was miles above the “dime a dozen” movies in the theaters.

        • I haven’t seen any trailers because I haven’t really watched any TV for several weeks, other than parts of a couple of football games, I guess.

          • Valkov – You really deserve to see them. Youtube + The Master trailers and you can see them. I never saw any of them on TV but then I don’t watch much TV.

          • There is nothing wrong with you that warrants this interrogation. I thought the trailer sucked. In fact, one reason why I was not too interested in seeing the film when it first came out.

        • I thought the trailer sucked. It did not make me want to see the movie at all. Karen’s comments about the movie made me interested in it. Because I know, she knew Hubbard. If you want to see people more Independent, acknowledge their rightness and give them half a chance. Don’t come on slapping people around, flailing on the floor, and giving them wrong indications and wrong items. This would indicate a different purpose.

    • There is such a thing called “enlighten”.

      en·light·en/enˈlītn/
      Verb:
      Give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation.

      Maybe people didn’t know anything about the Movie until Marty and others started telling about it here and then they got more interested. Nothing wrong with that.

      Does not mean people are not Independent thinkers.

      Enlighten up why not?

  61. I have not seen the film yet, and I am really looking forward to it. As a hybrid ex/non/not-anti/indie not-really scientologist (small case “s”) I really appreciate the verifiability of an accurate presentation of Hubbard as a flawed human with a ground-breaking set of ideas. The more I learned about this film, the more I felt there was nothing to oppose, as the OSA arm fears.

    Miscavology fears any comment about Scientology not made by him or his Chinese Schooled Kool-Aid drinkers. Scientology as a subject developed and presented by a well-intentioned, flawed, and perhaps megalomaniac visionary stands on its own track record. The presenter is essentially irrelevent.

    Nancy

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      The amazing thing, Nance, is that the man in question,
      developed and wrote “the Code of Honor” which permits
      one to write exactly what you have here, without any
      fear of consequences, in this new, enlightened and open
      atmosphere…. embracing the spirit of the man’s genius!

      Calvin B. Duffield.
      proudly, an emancipated Independent Scientologist! (wink!)

  62. Regarding the Texas suit, wouldn’t this be the time for some
    “angel” to step forward (if there should happen to be any who fit that bill, who also follow this blog)? All these two investigators seem to want
    is money. That is very easy for Miscavige to handle; he does it all
    the time. I am surprised this suit even got as far as being filed.
    It may settle soon, leaving us in the lurch like with Debbie Cook,
    unless we can somehow reasonably “match” DM’s offer in exchange for
    the two investigators hanging in there. If they did hang in there
    (not settle), this could be the beginning of the end for Miscavige
    considering how explosive these allegations are at exposing
    Miscavige’s illegitimacy!

    • ” leaving us in the lurch”? Dude, you are in a lurch of your own creation.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        If by that, he means D.Cook’s continued open communication here, Marty,then he’s correct. Same goes for the others —(Broeker,Mayo, etc)whose
        silences were bought. Nauseating, for sure, but while
        the Ponzi-gotten loot is still available, midget will continue
        to hold down the lid (truth) as long as he is able to buy
        time to protect his sorry little ass from roasting.
        Not for much longer, though, and he knows it!

        • Debbie Cook stepped up to the bat. Her contribution is still coming in with people sliding in to the Independent movement. She spent almost three decades in the Sea Org. She was tortured at the Int Base. Her testimony in court was a challenge for her I am sure. She used her power to do the right thing in the end. Her New Years Eve address affected countless. O.K. at some point she had to decide if she was going to keep on losing . She decided to cut her losses. That does not take away from all that she did to help and enlighten others. She hardly left any one in the lurch. I am glad she was able to cut her losses. I am glad she thought about her self. I think she has suffered enough. She contributed to our motion. She is in good standing with me. I wish her the best. Someone else is right around the corner to make the next big shift. It is a landslide at this point. This is a condition. Like a sailor who falls from grace with Sea. The ocean becomes an enemy. The elements turn to opposition. David is out of favor with the Gods. It is not going to suddenly get all sunny over the Int Base.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            I concur fully with you,Cat. Debbie is still receiving accolades, and recognition, a full nine months since
            she took a deep breath and threw open that heavily
            guarded, mind-prison door of the church of mi$cav-
            ology. The field thus saw exposed, for the first time, an elaborate, if carefully concealed, ‘milking operation,’ and it suddenly dawned on many of them, that the
            promises of moving them rapidly up to clear & OT, were in fact, a hollow sham. The shocking truth hit
            home—THEY were in fact the cash COWS for the
            CO$ (translates to miscavige and ONLY miscavige!)
            extortion! Mixed responses aside, many woke up to
            see for the first time, that they had been conned all
            along, and responded accordingly! They then left in
            droves, with many more turning up on this very blog.
            Debbie’s exhaustion from being put through the
            wringer via miscavige’s legal vultures, despite having
            the resolute rock of Marty & Mike to fall back on, was
            finally ameliorated by the pit-bull himself, Ray Jeffrey,
            who negotiated an undisclosed settlement with the
            miscavige legal team. So for now (her) lips remain
            sealed. But her actions still reverberate today.
            Like You, Cat, I’m very happy for her. But with the
            imminent collapse of the miscavige Ponzi empire,
            it’s only a question of time before we see Debbie
            Cook’s smiling face as she takes up ‘the cause’ once
            again.
            Calvin.

            • “it’s only a question of time before we see Debbie Cook’s smiling face as she takes up ‘the cause’ once again.”

              Shudder.

              Not as a comment on Debbie, but more so on the wash, rinse, repeat cycle your comment invoked in me. I like Debbie. I don’t like repeat cycles.

              Just saying.

              “When the Master governs, the people
              are hardly aware that he exists.
              Next best is a leader who is loved.
              Next, one who is feared.
              The worst is one who is despised.

              If you don’t trust people,
              you make them untrustworthy.

              The Master doesn’t talk, he acts.
              When his work is done,
              the people say, “Amazing:
              we did it, all by ourselves!”
              ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                Okay.
                “wash,rinse,repeat??????”
                Did you remember the fabric softner, quick wash program,
                and fuzzy logic button scrub cycle you seem to be intent
                on setting into “spin”????
                TR-3 for you….Would you like to see Debbie’s smiling
                face as she takes up ‘the cause’ once again? Or not?
                BTW, TR-O is a good antidote to having to “shudder.”
                Maybe a little “fabric lightener” added to the sombreness
                you seem to be experiencing, may “brighten up” the view?

                ” JUST SUGGESTING “

                • Yes indeed. “The World Begins with TR-0!

                • I have to apologize, as I might not fully get what you are trying to say to me, but I love your use of analogy. I, obviously, like that mode of description as well. Nicely done (even if, I think, you are slamming me, if ever so gently – no worries, apparently I have a vagina and can take quite a pounding. – see Tony’s comment above as a call back.)

                  I would like to see Debbie’s smiling face.
                  I would like to see Debbie taking up a cause of her *own*.
                  I would not like to see Debbie taking up the cause once again.

                  Is that more clear?

                  Thank you for your suggestion.

                  Just saying.

  63. I would have to agree with you Marty on your assessment of the movie.
    Those two actors performed, what I consider, to be some of the finest acting I’ve ever seen.
    Phoenix…… OMG………… Astonishing brilliant!

  64. I have just seen “The Master” and agree that Hubbard must have had the qualities that Hoffman presented in his absolutely brilliant portrayal. Men and women throughout history who have gathered devoted followers have instilled in those followers the feeling that they are loved, cared for and will be helped. I believe that holds true for Hitler as well and Ghandi. Lancaster Dodd is a man who genuinely loves and genuinely wants to help as I believe LRH did. He is also as he states “a man”, as LRH did. And with that comes a lot of territory – temper, having to be right at times, ego, and all the foibles that are human. The measure of the man is revealed by the overall effect his life has and after his passing, has had. Hitler did not fare so well in this regard. Ghandi’s effects were far reaching and positive — freedom from English rule and oppression.

    We know what the effects of Hubbard’s teachings, his pure unadulterated teachings, have been and continue to be. What can we see of the effects of Dodd? Freddie Quell in one of the most deeply original and dynamic performances I have ever seen, comes to him totally other determined – an alcoholic, obsessed by sex, who communicates by violence – a man in extraordinary pain. A man who is on a journey to love and cannot get there, a man who wants to be loved but cannot find someone to love him.

    Through what is called a cult by some, made up BS by others, Dodd, through what he has discovered, helps Quell banish or at least control many of his demons. In the end he is given a choice – to stay with Dodd, or to leave and never again be accepted by him. In my view he has gained, through the Master’s teaching, the self-determinism to leave and live his life with a degree of rationality and much less pain. Quell’s final sexual encounter is poignant and sweet. He even uses the first process he’d learned to relax and help his partner become more intimate. I think that Quell understands that to stay with Dodd will see the relationship eventually become one of master and slave.

    I believe we are all guided by various “masters’ throughout our lives – our parents, a loved teacher, friend, politician, philosopher, religious leader. They are masters that teach us and show us the many paths we can travel. I believe it is when those teachings are taken as our own without question, without critique, and without deciding from ones own self that they are the paths we truly want to take, and they and they alone hold the only truths, it is then we become slaves to those masters and their ideas.

    I think Anderson takes a brilliant look at this. It is at the core of all of us. How each of us may be seduced by the love of a leader, a man or woman, an idea or an ideology to give up one’s self and therefore one’s freedom

    I believe Anderson’s use of Scientology is as a metaphor. It doesn’t matter that he got the “processes” absolutely correct. It’s the idea that is relevant, and how that idea permeates the two men and their ensuing relationship.

    Interesting that the critic Roger Ebert didn’t understand the motorcycle sequence. I thought it was a major lesson that Dodd teaches Quell – to put himself causatively in danger so that he feels alive – another step towards self-determinism ( and didn’t LRH have something to say about that)

    It is a magnificently wrought and acted film.

    • Brilliant Michael. Thanks.

      • You are very welcome

      • Joy and have been discussing the ending of “The Master” and her take was very interesting , one which I find compelling. Quell has been helped/taught by Dodd a series of processes which have had a positive effect on him. He is perhaps more in control, more rational but not markedly so. His demons are too powerful. But he has found a purpose. I suggested in my earlier post that this purpose had to do with moving on with salvaging his life away from Dodd. But what if he has learned all to well from the power that Dodd wields over others? At the end of the film, he uses that power in the form of the first process that was so effective on him, on the woman he is having sex with. He sees how it changes her. Perhaps he now self-determined to the degree that sees his own path to becoming a “Master”; and being the recipient of the the love and adulation that Dodd experiences — but a Master with a much darker side. And perhaps that is why Dodd knows that they will be enemies in their next lives.

        Given the darkness of the ending of “There Will Be Blood” – the corrupt oilman Plainview destroys everyone in his path including the hypocrtical preacher Sunday (predatory capitalism and religious hypocrisy does not serve man well). In “The Master” perhaps what Anderson is also saying is that there is a continuing danger that the good which may come from any idea can be, and usually is, corrupted by power and evil purpose.

        What I see now as an ambiguity in the ending continues the discussion of the film and makes me go down its different roads which is really cool!

        • I wish WordPress had a “Like” button!

        • That is a very good observation. I noted elsewhere: “Dodd portrayed as not only being on his own but also providing shelter to others. But, in truth, he got his shelter from a loyal following. “ I think this is what Freddie could have cognited on. Even if he separates from the master, he could find his own shelter by influencing others just as the master did.

          Now I am looking at “independent Scientology” in a different way. :)

          .

    • Masterful post.

      Tooky

    • That is an insightful analysis. The truth is that evan masters are still looking and investigating, because it is a never ending investigation. An enlightened follower will soon arrive at the point where the master is, and may even surpass him. An enlightened master will be proud of such an achievement. This reminds me of Plato and Aristotle.

      .

    • Maybe I didn’t understand the motorcycle sequence myself. I thought the guy rode off on the motorcycle and kept on going. Like, he stole it. Left them behind him in the desert. Went to see his girl. Got tracked down at the Theater and was asked, “Who got a hold of you?” Didn’t he steal Hubbard’s bike?

  65. I had to run out to see the film. My take was that Freddie boy had some issues that are considered handicaps by society. But by the end of the movie, you figure out he is only one that is sane.

    • Ha! That is an awesome view on this movie.

      When I first got involved in Scientology, it was about freedom and being free, and about breaking middle class rules and seeking your own destiny as your own true self. Then, in the 60′s, Hubbard said “If we are going to have Total Freedom, then we will need Total Discipline.” And he started the Sea Org and the “too gruesomes” and all the other stuff which came with it and which eventually became David Miscavige.

      That was the switcheroo. That was the main bait and switch which Hubbard built into to Scientology.

      I think Freddie was quite unapologetic about his life and how he wanted to live it. And in the end, that kind of freedom could never fit into Scientology. There were a lot of people in Dianetics in the 50′s like Freddie who found a home in Scientology. They found others who were as free as they were. That ended in the 1960′s with the Sea Org run Total Discipline Cult that Hubbard put in place so he could make more money for himself.

      Great view on Freddie, Oracle! It makes me think in new directions about this.

      I love this movie!

      Tooky

      • Only discipline required is in being mindful about one’s body, feelings, consciousness and mental objects as covered in Buddhism. Such a discipline needs to be maintained by oneself, and not enforced on oneself by somebody else.

        Tooky, you seem to have some personal issues with Scientology. In your view, how can such issues be best addressed?

        If I am misreading you and you don’t have any issues, then that is fine.

        .

        • My “personal issues” with Scientology will be handled when each person who gets attracted to Scientology by Hubbard’s writings is given a card, right at the beginning, which says:

          “You can never reach Total Freedom by giving up more and more of your Freedom.”

          Until then, I write.

          Tooky

          • Tooky, thanks for your response. The outness you pointed out is correct. It is the outpoint of CONTRARY DATA. However, making people aware of that outpoint may not suffice, and it may be very impractical to execute.

            If we look at Scientology as a subset of knowledge, then the first natural action would be to identify the harmful bits, before we decide upon any solution. To recommend a solution before the problem is properly sketched out and fully identified is the outpoint of ALTERED SEQUENCE. So, let’s focus on sketching the problem as best as we can.

            My personal approach is to inoculate people against developing a cultic mindset as has happened in Scientology. We should also work on people who are infected with the cultic mindset. My dream is to get a grass roots movement going where people are helping each other through simple and effective processes. The processes should be such that they inoculate a person against developing a cultic mindset, and cure any such infection. OK, so the first action should be to work out a detailed ideal scene for such a grass roots movement.

            The current Scientology processes requiring e-meter won’t do. The processes have to be much simpler… At this point I shall let others to contribute to this ideal scene.

            .

            • The prpoer way to help someone is to find their individual Ruin. Handle it fully at their first entrance to the Bridge. It is called Life Repair, which was dropped off the cos’s Grade Chart as the first major action. If you do not find and handle their ruin and insist they do something else they begin to see that for them Scientology does not work, I work with new people all the time and I always tell them and demonstrate the Meter to them. The 1971 Grade Chart with a few add ons of the Tech that LRH developed is the one we use.. Vinaire, you sound like you have never had your particular ruin addressed and a lot of “Enforced Overt Haves” have been pushed on you. Get into session and clean it up. Then you can begin to do real Scientology.

              • You are being judgmental. You are not applying Scientology here.

                Bad boy! :)

                .

                • Oh yes I am applying Scientology. I stated an observation based upon the data you wrote. Did you finish your Bridge?

                  • Jay -

                    There is no “standard” way to help someone.

                    Each of us is complete and unique, and so are our spiritual paths.

                    “The Bridge” and “Standard Tech” was just a way for Ron to make “franchises” and more money.

                    Stop it.

                    Tooky

                    • That is a childish statement.. Yiou did not obviously do the Bridge. It is like a person develops a standard way to climb a mountain that save lives and somone like you comes along and says there is no standard and spews out a falsehood. You do not know what you are talking about. “Stop it”.? You are indeed a legend……..in your own mind! LOL!

                    • I like Tooky’s take here. “The Bridge” and “Standard Tech” are not the only way to bring sanity and enlightenment to a person. Factually, there are more enlightened people outside Scientology than inside.

                      Scientology is a workable way. It is not THE way.

                      The concept of “this is the only way” has been used by fanatics in Christianity and Islam. It is a concept that is an insane version of ‘loyalty’. We saw that concept in action when Freddie beat up critics of Dodd.

                      .

                      .

                • I believe that as a person learns to confront life, he becomes less confrontational, not more.

                  Some people seem to interpret the concept of not altering Scientology in a way as to simply freeze the subject to the level of their own “understanding.” They become confrontational toward any person, who, they feel, has departed from that “understanding” of Scientology, which they possess.

                  But, if Scientology has to remain a dynamic subject that is capable of growing, it cannot be limited to a person’s, or even a group’s level of understanding. Scientology started with Hubbard’s insights, but it does not have to die with death of Hubbard. Should Scientology be frozen to the state when Hubbard stopped contributing to it? I don’t think so. I think Scientology should continue being a dynamic subject.

                  But how does one make sure Scientology is not being squirreled? That is easy. Just look at the results. Drop those processes that do not produce results. That is what Hubbard did. He was experimenting with different processes all the time. He dropped those processes, which did not produce the results he was looking for. He documented those processes, which did produce results, into HCOBs. The caution of “squirelling” applies to not altering those processes and techniques that have emerged as workable after a long process of trial and error. So, the concept of squirreling can be used constructively as just described, or as destructively to blunt any progress in the subject of Scientology.

                  Hubbard claimed Scientology to be an extension of Buddhism. Buddhism has been the most successful grass roots movement of the ancient times. We can reinstate that wonderful success with the understanding and insights we now have from Scientology. That is exactly what I am doing with KHTK Looking as it is being documented on my blog. I have a lot of help in making this project a success. Anybody can join me in this project. I am not the source. I regard Buddha and Hubbard to be the source of this effort.

                  I see this project as furthering of Scientology. A positive forward motion can be made if we stop being confrontational, and discuss in a civil manner as laid out in the following document:

                  Discussions and what needs to be avoided.

                  Hope you understand where I am coming from.

                  .

      • I am just saying that is how the movie came across to me. It was just a movie. Freddie had his cards on the table. He did not have much of a comm lag. He was sincere. He was able to decide. He was aware of CONDITIONS. He knew when to take a hike. He knew when to hold em, knew when to fold em. Wasn’t to be bullied. Was willing to fight back. O.K. so he was nipping at the bottle and women were his religion. I don’t think that’s all that bad. He was having fun. I also thought it was cool that he stole the master’s motorcycle, even if I took that wrong.

        • Oracle –

          I love your viewpoint on this.

          And maybe even Ron would too, in one of his less greedy and insecure moods.

          Tooky

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Tooky,
            Come here! Give up those overts,man!
            They’re quite noticeable, you know? Since
            they’re dangling there with red flags
            attached to practically every communication
            you put out on L.Ron Hubbard!
            Get yourself cleaned up, so at least you may
            feel a little less guilty! Capiche?

            • I hope you are kidding, because what you are otherwise doing is C/Sing in chair. That is gross out-tech.

              .

            • These are the actions (evaluating and C/sing in chair) which make Scientology look bad or weird, and scientologists appear very naive.

              Please look at what effect you are trying to create? I don’t think you are trying to help Tooky.

              .

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                vinaire, are you okay with stabbing a host in the back?
                in particular a host who is not present to defend himself?
                This blog exists for the primary reason of preserving the
                workability of LRH’s standard or “real” Scientology, used for it’s original stated purpose. and freeing it from
                the control of the subversive/s trying to destroy that.
                A code, such as the code of honour, points out that
                one may “counter or utter upon the opinions of others”
                Tooky, IMHO, is not here to seek help, other than that
                to further his own purposes. This blog is, and let’s be
                quite clear on this, a predominantly pro Ron Hubbard
                site. LRH bashers are simply not welcome here, and
                meet with the appropriate response. “Moving On Up A Little Higher” does not happen when
                one engages those whose game goes in the opposite
                direction. There are perhaps other pursuit’s that better
                satisfy the need to prove that one “knows best.”

              • Calvin, I am not trying to be offensive here. My effort is to provide a non-judgmental viewpoint, which is a big part of granting beingness.

                To me it is an inconsistency when I see a “scientologist” violate the basic principles of Scientology in order to “defend” Scientology. I simply wonder what kind of Scientology is he defending!

                I expect a Scientologist to apply Scientology at all times. Otherwise, he is simply being a wog. This is the kind of kooky sentiment that underlies such phenomenon as disconnection and declaring people SPs and PTSs,

                I apologize if this comes as harsh to you.

                .

                • Li'll bit of stuff

                  vinaire! Really? Non judge-mental ? Take another
                  squizz at what you have just written…….!

                  The learning curve of what this blog is actually for,
                  takes some time. Perhaps then, digesting what I
                  had actually written above, may shorten the process
                  for you?

                  Lighten up man

                • Well, one is always seeing for oneself what is there. And that may involve some basic interpretation of the MEST universe.

                  To me, being judgmental means to add one’s own filters, bias, opinions, etc. to what is actually there.

                  All I am saying is that I see Scientology principles being violated in an effort to “defend” Scientology. That is an inconsistency, which is plain to me as daylight. I understand that such an inconsistency may be justified.

                  I shall be happy if someone can point out the filter, bias, or opinion that I may be using in spotting this inconsistency.

                  .

          • Tooky, look at me. There is a grade called willingness to experience CHANGE. Was a long time ago I did it, I forget which one it was. Oh when I ran that grade I was all worked up about something. My mother had me doped on a drug called paregoric for the first three years of my life. It was a narcotic. She did not like kids, did not want kids, got stuck with a kid, she doped me up on paregoric. I slept a lot, and frankly, quite comfortably. She ran out, I had seizures. I was moved across country while my great grandmother tried to keep me alive. Because my great grandmother’s son was behind the Kennedy’s in the White House, and had already been groomed to throw the election. Had I died, I would have been flushed down a toilet. When we come into the world needy, as we all are, but when the stakes are high, we have to learn how to roll with a punch. Sure, Hubbard changed things suddenly. Why did I forgive him? He offered a way for people to tolerate the charge involved with change. Willingness to experience change. Once you get through that you should be able to roll with any punch. Hubbard had great mercies to extend to all that traveled with him into the supernatural. People align Scientology with Buddhism and there is a truth in that. But there are differences too. There is no violence in Buddhism. Scientology can be a very violent matter. If you do not confront the violence in your own past, you will not have a peace in your present or your future. Peace peace God love turn the other cheek blah blah blah. I had to face my own arena of violence before I found peace. Scientology is not for the light hearted. Hubbard made it as easy as he could but hey, he could not hold everyone’s hand.

            I can only love him, forgive him, and speak on his behalf, because so far it has all been a winning matter for me.

            If it was for me, it can be for anyone. You just have to meet him all the way. He was a fucking genius with the magic, dealing with a planet of handicaps, and he took it on. Having handicaps of his own.

            I see you are somewhat disappointed, but still a little curious.

            You are right in your curiosity, roll with it.

            • The Oracle -

              I don’t know if you can understand this, but for me, Scientology only begets more Scientology. It is not a way out. It is the Hamster Wheel to Total Freedom.

              Just look at how unimaginative some of the people are here on this very thread. That is the way it is the world over, wherever Scientologists are. They can only see what Ron told them to see. They can only dramatize Scientology.

              I have graduated from that. Scientology was like kindergarten. Very nice for when I needed it, but you can’t keep retreading kindergarten. After a while, you can’t even fit into the desks any more!

              But I still love your freedom, and your ability to express it.

              Tooky

              • Well, you can not judge Scientology by the people in it would be my response. When you go to see a movie at the theater, do you judge the movie by the people coming to watch it? Although I myself, have found the most amazing people gravitating towards Scientology, I would not judge the Scientology by the people in it. I finished HQS early in 1973. Just a few weeks past 16 years old. I walked up to the course supervisor and said, “You guys are just selling the books, where can I find Hubbard? ” The sent me upstairs to the new Flag Liaison Office. I walked in. “Where can I find Hubbard?”

                “It ain’t gonna happen.” The guy said back to me. “Hubbard lives on the ocean and ain’t no way they are gonna let someone like you on that ship.”

                That guy was Al Bornstein. Now Alice Bornstein I think. I can’t remember her name name now. Flipped from a guy to a gal. I don’t have a problem with that at all. But I should not have believed Al, when Al did not believe Al.

                Beyond that, you must have grown a lot on your own to have outgrown the need for Scientology. I can believe that. But only if I know you have done L12. If you have not done L12, and this is just my own math, but if a person has not done L12, it was all for naught. L12 is where the revolving door to Scientology stopped for me, and I was able to walk out of the lobby.

                Satisfied.

    • Sane in what respect? Do you mean he can now cope with his environment better?

      .

      • Sane in that he consulted himself . Let’s face it, when you turn to others for advice instead of yourself, you have a big fucking problem. I don’t care whether people turn to “Buddha” or “God’ or “attorneys” ..when you have to go to someone else you have to admit you are a fucking handicap. Doubt on the first dynamic. “I don’t know, let me go some where else to know”. Funny thing is, NOT KNOW is high on one chart, doubt is LOW on another. What is the current ruin? NOT KNOW. Yes, to get to NOT KNOW, ONE MUST GET TO DOUBT! DOUBT can be a POSITIVE thing! Yet is it considered a very negative by Scientology standards. So, You have to think, who gives a fuck what others think about my condition? Before you come out of doubt. But once you get into “who gives a fuck”….you are free falling in that group. Because every step you take revolves very much around who gives a fuck and it aint you anymore. Frankly, you have to be in doubt or lower on the first dynamic to fit any more. The people still there are in very, very low conditions.

          • You must know Vinaire, the “Earth” thing is some fantastic illusion. You think you are ahead when you are light years thrown behind. I attested to keyed out clear and walked out of the Org in Manhattan, someone was shooting someone and I watched the bullet go by me in slow motion, in a way that I could reach out and grab it, and I did. I saw it in a slow motion. Maybe the Scientology was meant for the Gods, and the Gods already came and drank from the trough, and the trough has run dry. I am O.K. with that, and not O.K. with that. So I have a problem. I can see the reality of that, and the not reality of that, because there are still people here that I love. And I just can not accept the idea that they have to be left behind. And it is not who the Church decides, it is who I decide. Hubbard said any big game requires sacrifice. I disagree. Any big game for me, means never sacrifice and never take a step backwards. Otherwise it isn’t a big game, it is a very ordinary game. But I could never have come to that viewpoint with out Hubbard. I did it because of him, not in spite of him. You did not even care enough about Joaquin Phoenix to find out he was born and raised in another cult and that is why he played this part. I did. If you can’t care about the guy in front of you, none of it matters.

        • So, all those who still feel depenedent on Scientology after OT VIII still have a ‘big fucking problem’ according to your logic.

          I would agree to that.

          .

          • Well, when I got posted as a clear, to debug the OTVll’s and get them to the ship for OTVlll, that was a wake up call for me. WTF?

            “I can’t go because my four year old son advised me not to.” “I can’t go with out my husband because it will effect our marriage if I move ahead of him.” blah blah blah. “I’ll go when there is a hot single chick going at the same time.” blah blah blah. “I’m not doing it because my brother finished OT3 and then became a rabbi.” blah blah

          • OH! That’s so funny!

            I think that it is the result, or the state of a person, that matters, and not going through the motions of doing the Bridge. Some people on this board think that if one has not done the Bridge then one can simply be dismissed. That is quite an outpoint in thinking.

            .

        • Oracle, I loved that! Thanks.

  66. In one of his interviews, PTA says that he doesn’t know much about how Scientology exists today, but that he knows a lot about the beginnings of the movement.

    How does PTA know a lot about the beginnings of the movement?

    • Last life time.

      • Heh. Something I wrote earlier for here, but decided not to post:

        I have an eerie story about this movie which I believe only Scientologists can appreciate. And maybe a few people who were involved in making “The Master”.

        I had a series of sessions in Scientology which dealt with my most recent past life, in which it appeared that I was involved in Scientology in Phoenix in the early 1950′s. In one session, I described a room in which I was being audited. The floor had red and white tiles, and there were pipes in the ceiling. And there were printing press/mimieograph type machines with tables next to them. In my auditing sessions I identified this room as being part of the HASI in Phoenix in 1953. I “uncovered” that I had received research auditing there from Ron and from other students. I also took the Professional Course there and gave auditing as well.

        This was all electrifying to me when I ran these sessions in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, since I was born this lifetime in 1960.

        Since getting out of Scientology, I have reviewed the past life incidents I ran while in Scientology and have concluded that 98% were pure wishful imagination and false memories. But some of the past life incidents I ran simply did not seem to be bullshit no matter how hard I tried to make them so. These last lifetime incidents from Phoenix in the 1950′s were among the ones which seemed most real to me from my auditing in Scientology.

        Here’s my question: Who did the set design and location scouting for this movie?

        Because the room I described where I received auditing last lifetime is in it!

        And yes, I know. This is the very definition of crazy.

        But, as always, I gotta say what I gotta say.

        Tooky

        • Thanks for sharing! Really fascinating!

        • I believe that there may be past life for memory, but there is no past life for the self. The self ends with the body.

          To me, a SELF is a weighted average location of all physical and mental energies and forces related to a person, much like the “center of mass.”

          If we look at soul as something left after the body dies then we may describe it in a similar manner as a weighted average location of the mental energies and forces, remaining after the death of the physical body, much like the “center of mass.”

          As it is obvious from the above interpretation, a soul is what remains of the self after the removal of physical energies and forces. The soul does not have the same characteristics as the self. Soul does not behave the same way as the self did.

          A soul is pretty much frozen until it creates a new self by becoming part of a new born baby. The last thought of the old self is the first thought of the new self. There are no “in-between life” after death and before birth. Ideas about ”in-between lives” seems to be projections of live self.

          The new self of the baby has only certain elements of the old self. This may explain the inexplicable talents and memories from some other life. But there is no “self” that continues from one body to the next.

          So, Tooky, I don’t think that you were in Phoenix in the early 1950′s. But some of the mental energies that you now possess were there.

          .

          • Thank you, Doctor.

            I will go out and shoot myself now.

            • I think your view of anatta could use some slight expansion: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html.

              Or not.

              Up to you, Doctor.

              • Could you summarize that for me please, so that I can understand what you are getting at. Please speak for yourself.

                .

                • It is my understanding that a concept of a “self” is made up of what I say it is, not what you say it is. If I identify with various bric a brac and carry it around with me like a blankie and call that my “self”, then that’s what my “self” is.

                  In addition, the concept of dependent co-arising and, identifying with the 5 skandhas, and the concept of anatta, are all way more complex than your conclusion would allow.

                  But, if that’s how you see my story, then that’s how you see my story.

                  Cue the Gong.

                  I must disappear into a wispy puff of smoke now.

                  • LOL! Tooky. I am sorry that I touched a raw nerve there.

                    In my opinion, whatever one says or thinks can be placed under the category of CONSIDERATION. So, ‘self’ may be treated as a consideration. A consideration is something created, so it may also be uncreated. A consideration is impermanent, and so is ‘self’. But it may be considered to be permanent.

                    All reality, which springs from considerations, is impermanent. That is how I see it.

                  • “I must disappear into a wispy puff of smoke now.”

                    Too F funny!

            • Sorry, I didn’t get your logic here. Why do you want to shoot yourself?

              .

              • It was a Scientology joke. It’s what a Scientologist says when someone invalidates their “case” with their own opinion, like a psych would do.

                • I am sorry, I didn’t mean to invalidate your case. If you consider your SELF to have been there in Phoenix in the early 1950′s then, by all means, hold on to that consideration. It makes no difference to me.

                  I just wanted to present my observation that SELF is different from mental forces and energies.

                  .

    • Internet? The Information Age? Contacts through Internet?

      .

    • I think PTA says here that his father was involved in Dianetics in the early 1950′s.

  67. While in-between sessions on my Grade 1 with my auditor Chris Black In Toronto (class IX) I saw this movie twice.

    I loved it and there are 5-6 places where everyone laughs out loud. Great moments. I also never met LRH having only been introduced to SCN in 1991.

    Go see it. You forget it’s hoffman, it’s simply LRH. Reading his books, watching videos, listening to tapes you can tell how he was. Hoffman researched well!!

    Go see it! And then buy the movie when it comes out. It reeards the viewer if you see it often. :)

    Grade 1 is awesome. Lol

  68. I saw “The Master” again last night.

    It is about jealousy and greed and wanting a person for only oneself vs. wanting a multitude of people, each one loyal only to you. This paradox is in each one of us as social animals.

    I’ve always struggled with how to write about Scientology. I think PTA has just demonstrated for me how it is done.

    Tooky

  69. And by the way, when I first saw the sequence in the 2nd Act of the movie where Mary Sue and Ron decide to audit Freddie, and put him through Op Pro By Dup, Creative Processing and Bullbaiting, I could not help but notice how much it looked like breaking a wild horse.

    Exactly.

    • Actually it is Dodd and not Ron…

      The purpose of OP PRO BY DUP is to get a person to see things as they are without any filters. I believe this can be done much more easily and without force by letting the mind un-stack itself naturally as in mindfulness taught by Buddha

      This is just my opinion.

      .

  70. This blog has to do with moving on up a little higher. I guess that the intention here is to improve the application of Scientology in the world.

    We see the misapplication of this subject that we love so much, in the current Church of Scientology. We want to reform the Church of Scientology.

    We see David Miscavige as the primary perpetrator of this misapplication in the Church of Scientology. We think by removing him we shall be well on our way in reforming Scientology. That may be so.

    But unless each one of us knows the principles of Scientology and applies them correctly in our day-to-day behavior, no such reform is going to come about. The same tragedy is going to repeat itself.

    If the people on this blog care about Scientology, they have to express the principles of Scientology in their behavior as best as they can. I do understand that gradients are necessary, and that is OK. The effort should be toward better application of Scientology principles in our daily encounter with others.

    Granting beingness by being as non-judgmental as possible is one of the key principles.

    I am trying to do so in my life, and I know I am not perfect, but I know I am getting better at it.

    .

    • So you implicate we shouldn’t practice Scientology until the day we can apply it perfectly?
      Where comes this principle from? GAT 2 checksheets?
      Grow up.
      I can’t see the purpose here to reform the church.
      We remove Miscavige (junior) because he violates human rights, not because we need the church reformed.
      He is causing problems at the fourth dynamic, that’s why he is hiding.
      He knows he can’t bring ethics in on himself, that’s why he is inviting the fourth dynamic to do so.
      Once Miscavige is gone, the church will need to confront what happened.
      They will need a stable datum and if they choose LRH as the new stable datum, chances are likley that they’ll reform eventually.
      Every single person will need to go up the conditions, from confusion (caused by the false stable datum = Miscavige == Scientology), trough treason ( I didn’t wear the hat Ron wanted me to wear), enemy (I wasn’t able to be protect who I really am), doubt (I didn’t apply the doubt formula correctly because the environment was not conducive to let me do it by myself)… and on and on.

      If you want to move on up a little higher, start.

      “A person hangs up at doubt for 2 reasons-p.t.s. and/or false data.”

      That’s how Miscavige (junior) managed to push people down the conditions.
      False Data (false stats or no stats, false reports on international expansion).
      Supression (don’t allow anybody to look for the correct stats; force anyone to accept the propaganda/party-line or else…).

      The way up is by first recognizing the condition you are in.

      Please don’t assign conditions by saying “But unless each one of us knows the principles of Scientology and applies them correctly in our day-to-day behavior, no such reform is going to come about.
      Ethics is a personal business.
      Trust me, Scientology will be here for eons.
      The church has no monopoly for the truth contained in Scientology.
      That’s why it is suffering.

      If you’re really concerned about Scientology, help individuals to recognize the condition and apply (independently) the correct formula.
      Don’t engage in morals.

      Am I judgmental?
      So are you. By saying “we should grant more beingness…” you implicate we do not.
      Why shouldn’t I?
      I am not hang up by doubt.

    • SKM, thank you for your insights.

      As I said in my previous post, Scientology principles may be applied on a gradient in our daily encounter with others.

      “If the people on this blog care about Scientology, they have to express the principles of Scientology in their behavior as best as they can. I do understand that gradients are necessary, and that is OK. The effort should be toward better application of Scientology principles in our daily encounter with others.”

      .

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Wow! That means there may be a glimmer of hope
      for us judgmental ones, once we’ve worked through
      our respective karma/s!

  71. There are many people with eyes tightly shut in the Church of Scientology. Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum, there are people with eyes tightly shut in places like ESMB. These are two extremes.

    This reminds me of the two extremes that Buddha spoke against when he formulated his Middle Path.

    I hope this blog will highlight the “middle path” that is most needed in today’s ‘Age of Information’ and of ‘Knowing How to Know’.

    .

  72. Questions for Independents inspired by “The Master”:

    Is criticizing Hubbard for his faults showing disloyalty to L Ron Hubbard?

    Is criticizing Scientology for its faults showing disloyalty to Scientology?

    Tooky

    • I believe that criticism (looking closely) is necessary for any improvement to occur in any field of knowledge and its application. Criticism has nothing to do with being “disloyal”. However, in my opinion, the best criticism will come from following the rules of LOOKING.

      Scientology basically put forths a theoretical foundation in the form of AXIOMS and LOGICS. This is where the heart of Scientology is. Scientology Processes, and their application, must hew as close to these AXIOMS and LOGICS as possible, to be part of Scientology.

      The task that lies before us, is to improve the application of current Scientology processes, and devise new ones, to be as close to these AXIOMS and LOGICS as possible. This is the tool LRH has given us to keep Scientology a dynamic subject that is true to its core.

      .

  73. Thanks for a great blog, Marty.

  74. The root meaning of the word VEDA is ‘to look.’ The root meaning of the word RELIGION is ‘to bind’. From looking we derive conclusions, beliefs, and faith. This faith thus generated then bind us. This is religion.

    Individually, we defend our experiences and the ideas derived from them. For fanatics these become fixed ideas.

    Fanatics do not defend any religion as such. They defend their fixed ideas. This is happening with those in Scientology who become belligerent at the drop of a hat.

    .

    .

  75. Li’ll bit of stuff – you said above (in back and forth conversation with vinaire):
    “vinaire, are you okay with stabbing a host in the back?
    in particular a host who is not present to defend himself?
    This blog exists for the primary reason of preserving the
    workability of LRH’s standard or “real” Scientology, used for it’s original stated purpose. and freeing it from
    the control of the subversive/s trying to destroy that”.

    I am not on the same page as you, LBOS. I don’t see this blog the way you see it, or perhaps I just don’t have the same HOPES for this blog as you state here.

    My hopes are simply that people learn to treat one another better, that respect is held high in spite of differences of opinion, and that dogmatic evaluation of others is not held in high esteem – as fanatics do. It’s not so much that I want everybody here to be somebody I would take a bullet for, but I hope that people here would become less inclined to kill or hurt others who do not believe or practice like themselves.

    Also, a gentle criticism – you sometimes speak as though you have some kind of mandate to defend Marty, – the “host who is not present to defend himself”, by this it seems you are acting like a loyal soldier, creating the orders his boss gave him, when his boss gave him no such orders. I’m not trying to speak for Marty. I would kindly state, that you do not have any mandate to do so either, and it really rubs me wrong when you do it.

  76. Just saw The Master, I thought it was much kinder to Scientology than many were expecting. Not necessarily forgiving, but kinder.

    If PSH was as close in his portrayal of LRH as has been indicated, the devotion of those who knew him makes a great deal of sense. I am curious though. Since Amy Adams character spoke many of the more aggressive positions, was this a splitting of LRH’s persona between two separate characters or reflecting the protectiveness of those closest to him?

    I’m not a scientologist, but genuinely curious.

    • Mary Sue was a tough woman.

      • Sounds very much like it. Thanks for the response. I’ve been following the discussions of your community with interest for a while. The mutual support you provide each other is admirable :)

    • Mary Sue was aggressively protective of LRH. She was a very intelligent woman on her own right. She also contributed greatly to Scientology. In my opinion, she helped LRH put together the Data series policy letters.

      .

  77. Just saw The Master, I thought it was much kinder to Scientology than many were expecting. Not necessarily forgiving, but kinder.

    If PSH was as close in his portrayal of LRH as has been indicated, the devotion of those who knew him makes a great deal of sense. I am curious though. Since Amy Adams character spoke many of the more aggressive positions, was this a splitting of LRH’s persona between two separate characters or reflecting the protectiveness of those closest to him?

    I’m not a scientologist, but genuinely curious.

  78. I have met and interacted with Ron through several years, the last time in the very early 80s. Having experienced him both in and out of session, and yes – seeing his very human side, and also the essence of his spirit including his extraordinary recovered abilities, my viewpoint seems to differ with some of the others above. Contrary to what others have mentioned, I really did not see the essence of LRH captured in this movie. Anderson is a favorite of mine in the film industry, but from my own experience, this film just didn’t get it done, and in my eyes short sited for Andersons film abilities. I was surprised that his research did not attract in data of better quality of Ron’s true essence both on a human side and his OT viewpoint.

    • MAK, I worked for LRH for 2 years and was in comm with him an average of once a week during that time. I still have all of the written comm from that time. I feel the movie did not capture his essence either. It had some valid points but as far as my comm with the man it missed the target.

  79. The primary criticism that I have for Scientology is that it tends to be narcissistic, as i have explained here:

    Identity versus Individuality

    .

  80. Here is my critique of

    Scientology Factor # 1

    I would love to have a discussion on this point.

    .

    • Hello Vinaire,
      you write:

      “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as a manifestation.

      I think your confusion starts with the word “beginning”:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beginning+?s=t

      There is nothing about the universe as manifestation in the first Factors.
      Universe(s) itself is not a manifestation starting at the beginning.
      The actions of the beingness is what creates the Universe (his own) and then, trough communication and exchange via particles.
      Even factors 6,7,8 have nothing to do with the so-called MEST-Universe.
      Please read “This is Scientology”, subchapter “Reach and Withdraw” in COHA, for more clarity about it.
      The agreed-upon-universe, the MEST Universe, is NOT the beginning.
      It’s rather the end :-) (JOKE).

      Have fun meditating.
      So long, SKM

      • Very well written SKM an certainly true!

      • “… trough communication and exchange via particles.”
        This sentence wasn’t finished.
        I was about to say: trough communication and exchange via particles the agreed-upon-universe (MEST-Universe) then comes into place.

      • A being (noun) is being (verb), which means manifesting.

        Being-ness is manifesting-ness. That is how I understand English. English is not my native tongue. I am from India.

        .

        .

      • be·ing = the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).

        man·i·fest = readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.

        To me, anything existing must be manifested in some way otherwise, one wouldn’t know that it exists.

        .

      • Whether physical or spiritual, if the phenomenon exists then it must be manifested, and there would be a beginning to that manifestation.

        If Cause exists then it has to be manifested, and that manifestation shall have a beginning.

        I am writing in plain English and not in Scientologese.

        .

      • If one looks for oneself then one can see that if the universe exists then it must be manifested, and that manifestation must have a beginning.

        A universe, by definition would include both physical and spiritual aspects.

        .

      • Thus, any beingness is a part of the universe. The universe is changing from moment to moment, and so is the beingness changing from moment to moment.

        Cause and effect occur together in pair and they define each other.

        This is how I see it.

        .

        • It’s your good right to have your own mind and refuse a datum.
          I can’t give any more verbal data as advice. It’s all written there in The Factors and there are good online dictionaries if you need wordclear some terms.
          The Factors work for me and are key in understanding life and extoriorization.
          There are some additional lectures from Ron on this subject.

          Have fun,
          SKM

        • I have done a detailed study of Factors. It is a false datum to think that LRH is perfect. LRH’s system is workable to a certain point. KSW was designed to keep that system working. That is all. I have no argument with that.

          However I do disagree with the notion that LRH is flawless and perfect. I believe that LRH’s research may be continued by others and improvements made.

          The proper method to follow would be the Scientific method. The proper criterion to judge would be peer review and actual results.

          .

          .

          • I can’t remember when I stated LRH was perfect.

            Wanting to change a working system has to do with miunderstood words.
            I had a debate with someone from the freezone, he tried to convince me that people have a right to continue the work of LRH.
            I told him, yes, you could, if you were a trained class XII auditor and you knew everything about the technologies of dianetics and scientology, worked with the tech for a while and created some results and if you then still think there is space for improvement… I wouldn’t argue with that.
            But some of them read a book or some references and know it better.
            No way.

            I think you do
            1) have some MUs in The Factors
            2) try to compare data you learned before with The Factors (some other philosophy)

            You need to study Scientology as-is. Don’t try to compare it with some other teachings unless you got the concept.

          • I don’t think one needs to be a Class XII auditor to be mindful and to critique Factor #1. If you can find any flaw in my critique please let me know. I am fully willing to look at any inconsistency in my critique.

            .

  81. Scientology Axiom #1 simply approximates the ultimate reality.

    It does not define the ultimate reality.

    The ultimate reality is unknowable from the reference point of this universe, which we all use.Static is beyond consideration. Static is unknowable.

    Any consideration applied to Static is our own consideration. It does not define Static.

    Static is simply the placeholder for whatever might be the ultimate reality.

    .

  82. Yes, images and idols are not God. Similarly, our considerations and thoughts about God are not God.

    This applies to Static too.

    .

    • I like the Rig Veda.

      But listen, there is no metion in the entire Factors about the “static”.
      You really should study The Factors by itself. Don’t try to compare it’s content with Rig Veda.
      The Factors have to do with the “3 universes” and how the “Viewpoints” (Gods?) create a common playoground (down to the point of dependency, concourse and even death).
      Unlike the Rig Veda, there is a purpose stated in The factors, which goes like this:

      ” The resolution of any problem posed here by is the establishment of view-points and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect, start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge. “

      So you see, The Factors are not only a philosophical concept but data for use in the day-to-day life.
      This is The Route to a better beingness trough understanding.
      If you merely look at The Factors to decide if you like how they sound, or if they match with things you learned before, there will be no benefit for you in them.

      There are diffrent other stories of creation, including the 7 days of creation cycle. I like all of them and some of them sound better than others. Some are contain more usefull data then others.
      Absolute truth can’t be comunicated – that is impossible.
      Even the sentence: “That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
      Other than that there was nothing beyond.” from the Rig Veda.
      Was “That One” located in space?
      If not, what kind of “impulse” was it? (An impulse is always going from some point to another, which in its action demonstrates space).
      Was it an impulse or rather an “potential”, like a “potential cause”?
      You see. If you just try to find an inconsistency I can take any datum and make it look ridiculous.
      But it’s not part of my game. If I study something, I clear my words, I make demos if needed, sketches. Somethimes I look if I am applying a wrong gradient in this specific body of knowledge.
      As an artist I do like to change techniques I learned to express my self in an original way. That’s fine and it hurts no one (I hope :-P). But if it comes to Auditing, I want to achive the EP of the process. I need to know the tools, the theory behind the process and have a good understanding of the basics of Scientology. I don’t need to like the data or the words LRH used to describe the context. If I understand it, I have the ARC needed to run the process and I am equipped enough to get the results.
      I have a high ARC for the data from The Factors. I use it in my life. This is the basic basic core of the applied religious philosophy Scientology. Together with the SCN Axioms there is hardly something in Scientology which is not derrived from this concepts in some way.
      So if you’re a Ex-Scientologist, I strongly recommend you restudy some of its concept and raise your understanding of the data.

      • SKM,

        Nice to know that you are an artist. I am an engineer. It is natural that the engineering viewpoint is going to be different from artistic viewpoint.

        I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your viewpoint here. The only thing that is a bit inconsistent is that you think your viewpoint is right and my viewpoint is wrong. You then recommend that I need to do some study simply because I am disagreeing with you.

        Why don’t we isolate the disagreement and look at it together instead of outright assuming that I am wrong. What makes you reach that conclusion anyway?

        .

  83. Marty said in comment-236331:
    “THere are infinite ‘inconsistencies’ in Scientology to the spectator. There are no paradoxes when you understand the entire body of work and can apply it to result. Bon Voyage.”

    Hi Marty. The important inconsistencies in any subject lie among the fundamentals of that subject. Such inconsistencies are few and far between. These inconsistencies are important because they then color the rest of the subject.

    It is the resolution of those fundamental inconsistencies that leads to further advance in that subject.

    .

  84. I find that Scientologists refuse to engage in discussion of the subject matter presented. Instead they start evaluating the person who is presenting the subject to be discussed.

    The reason for this distraction is covered in the following article:

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided.

    Let’s discuss the subject.

    .

  85. All knowledge must be consistent to make sense. Scientology Factor #1 must be consistent with Scientology Axiom #1. They should not be treated in isolation.

    How does the concept of Cause relates to the concept of Static? This is an interesting topic to discuss.

    .
    .

  86. Is there any Scientologist willing to discuss anything here?

    .

  87. The Master is very much alive on this thread… hehehe.

  88. The THETA-MEST Theory is correct in stating:

    “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

    It also says correctly,

    “In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST.

    “Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”

    But, then it includes this assumption, which is arbitrary and inconsistent,

    “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

    The hunt for the most fundamental inconsistency in Scientology is now over. We now need to investigate how this inconsistency has propagated itself through rest of the subject of Scientology.

    .

  89. Here is axiom that seem to be missing in Scientology.

    AXIOM ZERO

    .

  90. nice take on the movie. fyi, as of today, early tuesday, 1-22-13, the amazon link to the book fails

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