How To Study Scientology

The circumstances I was afforded in my training in Scientology technology were auspicious.

I summarized them in an earlier post,   Training Outside the Walls.                     .

There is more context to the story that I believe sheds light on the thoughts behind recent posts here that have apparently created consternation, strife, chaos, and even declared enemies.

First, before engaging in my Scientology training, I had had the opportunity to work directly for L. Ron Hubbard during the last six years of his life.  I witnessed the ultimate result of unvarying adherence to much of the policy and technology he had issued.  It was not pretty.  Really a tragedy on the order of the example LRH used in the Policy Letter The Responsibilities of Leaders, the story of Simon Bolivar. Incidentally,  it looks as though I’ll be able to share that in the detail and context it deserves sometime late this Spring.

By the time I arrived on the ship for tech training – after fifteen years of Sea Org service –  I had not had much technical training.   I had blown the Sea Org and in my mind had forsaken Scientology forever more.  The only reason I returned was the promise of doing tech training.  Obviously I had zero faith in anybody in the hierarchy of Scientology since I had overtly committed the most treasonable act imaginable in that culture against its supreme leader by blowing.  I had nothing to lose.  I blew once and if the deal was reneged on I would blow again (that is ultimately what happened in 2004 in some respects).   But, I was particularly focused to fully understand and apply what it was that I had already sacrificed the best years of my adult life to protecting and defending.

As noted in the previous post cited above, I had free rein to study with no intervening arbitraries, opinion leaders, ruthless supervisors, Class VIII and XII priests’ attempts to make it otherwise be damned.   It was between LRH’s written and recorded words and me.  If it added up and worked so be it, if it didn’t so be it.

Early on in my training I read again a bulletin from LRH that helped draw me into Scientology in the first place.  It was called How To Study A Science.   It was later retitled How To Study Scientology and can found by that title in the technical bulletin volumes.   Some stable datums had struck me when I first read it and I wanted to reorient myself to them for my own intensive training:

The first thing that a student has to find out for himself, and then recognize, is that he is dealing with precision tools here in the courses.  It isn’t up to someone else to force this piece of information on him.  The whole subject of Scientology as far as the student is concerned is as good or bad in direct ratio to his knowledge of it.  It is up to a student to find out how precise these tools are.  He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated, and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.  He should make up his own mind about each thing that is taught in the school – the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory.  He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist?  Is it true?  Does it work?  And will it produce the best possible result in the shortest time?  There are two ways to answer these questions to his own satisfaction: Find them in a preclear or find them in himself.  These are fundamentals, and every auditor should undertake to discover them himself, thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category…

…A man by the name of Galen at one time dominated the field of medicine.  Another man by the name of Harvey upset Galen’s cozy position with a new theory of blood circulation.  Galen had been agreeing with the people of his day concerning the ‘tides’ of the blood. They knew nothing of heart action. They accepted everything they had been taught and did little observing of their own.  Harvey worked at the Royal Medical Academy and found by animal vivisection the actual function of the heart.

He had the good sense to keep his findings absolutely quiet for a while.  Leonardo da Vinci had somehow discovered or postulated the same thing, but he was a ‘crazy artist’ and no one would believe an artist.  Harvey was a member of the audience of a play by Shakespeare in which the playwright made the same observation, but again the feeling that artists never contribute anything to society blocked anyone but Harvey from considering the statement as anything more than fiction.

Finally, Harvey made his announcement.  Immediately dead cats, rotten fruit and pieces of wine jugs were hurled his direction.  He raised quite a commotion in medical and social circles until finally, in desperation, one doctor made the historical statement that ‘I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey!’…

…Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve.  Is the theory correct or isn’t it correct?  Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you…

…You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis – a very critical basis.

It was with that spirit that I studied and practiced everything from TR’s, to Metering, to every aspect of delivery of Scientology technology.    I noted contradictions while I studied.    But, that did not deter me.  I took LRH at his word – from the Axioms, to the Student Hat Course to the bulletin above to the repeated injunction that what matters are those fundamentals that create results.   Though clearly through the history of Scientology sacred cows were being constructed of an overwhelming and contradictory nature, when it came to tech study I stuck with retaining in my own mind and in practice what works to result.

I did not study under threat of eternal damnation, being given nightmares if I strayed from what priests – no matter how decorated or anointed they might be – told me was ‘standard tech’, or any other duress.   I learned to play the Scientology piano.  I cannot imagine – nor could have LRH during the heart of his Scientology discovery track – learning to play any other way.

I noticed something along the way.  The most vehement, zealous, pedantic,  holier-than-thou Keeping Scientology Working preachers (inside and outside the church) had the least natural, effortless ability to play the piano themselves.   The more strained and haughty, the less ability to competently attain results.  The more accusative, and dramatic at the righteous indignation play, the less able to deliver results.  The more ‘unreasonable’ and high-and-mighty about points One through Ten of Keeping Scientology Working the less able to move someone up the Grade Chart.

As a result I firmly believe that people ought to be trained by having their reason appealed to and their wisdom shining.  That is simple to do, given you are working with someone of a reasonably high intelligence quotient and an above average world-centric motivation.   I believe that  the necessity to appeal to fear, to frighten them into compliance with rules and regulations only arises if they don’t come in with the above two qualities.  If they don’t come into it with those qualities they are usually found to not be there on their own full self-determinism.   By that reason alone they don’t qualify to audit, case supervise and train others in the first place.

I wouldn’t let those trained under threat or fear audit the earthworms in my back yard.  Those trained by appeal to fear that they would wind up a charred ember floating in space with every man,  woman and child on the planet if they failed to understand and failed to walk around with a fixed, dedicated glare.  Those trained by fear of continuing education outside of Scientology even after demonstrating complete understanding and ability with the subject of Scientology.  Those trained only after they have demonstrated an unalterable conviction that what they were studying was the ‘only’ thing that had any worth (and therefore violated hundreds of references by the author of what it is they are studying – such as the wonderful LAW that the only way to truly understand the worth of anything is by comparison to data of comparable magnitude), and the firm, religious belief that they must rid themselves of even the possibility of entering a thought to the process that was not already written and provided to them from a single source.  Those that agree to organize their life so that their minds cannot be potentially polluted by the entrance of a datum contrary to what they have been given to study.  Those methods do not result in understanding (by Scientology definition or any other) and they certainly do not result in ability to apply competently.  They result in slaves attempting to remember so as to avoid punishment.

It is no different than Pavlovian training.   It is purely stimulus-response.

Or as L. Ron Hubbard noted in How To Study A Science:

Authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypnotism.  Learning is forced under some sort of threat of punishment.

Those who have learned – and enforce Scientology – by such means are not in the business of freeing people mentally and spiritually.  They have their own issues.

Or as L. Ron Hubbard noted in How To Study A Science:

Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it.  It is your data by authority or it is your data.  If it is your data by authority, somebody forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration.

I can already hear the outraged chorus, “this is heresy !  It is squirrel!   It is an attack upon L. Ron Hubbard because surely you are referring to the Policy Letter Keeping Scientology Working.”

I got news for you.  If you were industrious you could find dozens  of references by L. Ron Hubbard to support my view.  I have studied them myself.

“Then cite them!”, I am sure I will hear (and have), by the not-quite-bright who don’t dig L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology and never did, but who are the first to scream ‘bloody murder’ to anyone expressing views such that I have expressed here.   My response is, why?   So we can play the ‘divine who is really with Ron game’?   It is a game that has no end.  Because fact of the matter is, if you look you’ll find my references and you’ll find some supporting your view that Pavlovian training must be followed with unvarying adherence.  But, just as importantly, what does  quoting Ron have to do with obtaining a result on a preclear?

It is as if Scientology has degenerated into precisely what LRH criticized psychoanalysis  of becoming (again from How To Study a Science):

…All these years in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors, the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject.  Within them is found, interminably, ‘Freud said…’  The truly important thing is not that ‘Freud said’ a thing, but ‘Is the data valuable?  If it is valuable, how valuable is it?’  You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated…

Whoever wants to play the stone, paper and scissors game with L. Ron Hubbard references in the comments section, by my guest.  I can’t play myself.  I have to get back to auditing and training folks  – appealing to their reason with the result of their wisdom shining.

460 responses to “How To Study Scientology

    • Bring a gun to a knife fight. It’s a situation that is real.

      • We are all here on the edge of the night. Anyone pretending otherwise is fucking tripping. The good news is, some of us can see in the dark. That is a fact.

        • Cool article, Oracle. My dad was in the South Pacific during WWII, in the Marines, and one night on guard duty on a jungle-y island, knowing there were hostile Japanese about, it was pitch dark and he could see very little, but he was on high alert, responsible to protect not only himself but all his buddies.
          All of a sudden, he heard a noise like a twig snapping, and he could see EVERYTHING for just a few seconds, clear as a bell – until he had established that there was no danger, then it all went back to “normal” darkness.
          He could not explain it, but was always fascinated by it, and what it implied.

          So, sharpen up those latent abilities, kiddies! Who knows when you might need them?

          Personally, I think with the RESTORED bridge of the TRs, the Grades, NED or Power and the Clearing Course, the Original OT II (it had also been butchered down by the Cof$), OT III, then NOTS + the L’s + Original OT levels, as is being delivered in the Indie field. without all the bullshit, it will be one Crowning combination of Knowingness and restored ability. NOT as a destination one arrives at – but the opening of even more “wide, unbounded ways”.
          Take it on faith? Nooooo. just be the best auditor you can be, and then try it – I feel sure you are going to Like it. A lot. (I have been on a floating TA for several days as I do my Solo NOTS in the Indie field, which will give you a clue to my enthusiasm)

  1. How to study SC:
    1. Grab a book, transcript, video or audio from LRH.
    2. Read, watch and listen. (whichever applies)
    3. If you didn’t get something (or you just think/feel you didn’t) then clear/look it up. All of it. Don’t just look one issue up and then move on. ALL should be understood and looked up. Ask questions, be a problem to those who pose to know if you have to.
    4. Most importantly; do all the above with the attitude that you actually want to know what and why was written, shown, said.
    5. If you are all cool with the first cycle through 1..4, then go back to Step 1 and replace “Grab a” with “Grab another”.

  2. Still_On_Your_Side

    Marty, it appears that you have created a “virtual university” using the Socratic method. I expect this will become more evident as time passes, which I see as a good thing. Unfortunately, many, if not most, people don’t understand the Socratic method of teaching where the student learns because the teacher guides by questioning, not by forcing rote memorization. Nonetheless, I think you should expect a tidal wave of resistance to your method of teaching as the Church of Scientology continues to self-destruct and fleeing members seek help. These members are not going to remember how to think for themselves after years of “sec checked” forced thinking. As opposed to members who left because they had the courage of integrity (most of the ex-members posting here, I believe), this new wave will be people who left because Miscavige succeeded in destroying the church through criminal activities such as insurance fraud. What I am getting at is, expect more bewildered, antagonistic postings as people worry about leaving, or actually leave, the imploding CoS.

    Still_On_Your_Side (formerly Anononyourside)

  3. Hey Marty, Great post. I’ve been pretty busy with my business, auditing 3 pcs on the side and doing OT III, so haven’t spent much time here lately. I still try to catch up when I get the time, as this blog and the various posters are a part of my continuing life experience that I enjoy.So many different backgrounds and experiences leading to so many differing viewpoints. Thanks again for being there and communicating Marty and everyone else here.

  4. Hi Marty,
    This is a beautiful post. I too share the experience of training on my own.

    I study most of the available LRH OT Lectures from the 50s on my own; I took me about 3 years and hundreds of hours. I did them at my own pace and leisure, I study them because that was the reason I remained in Scientology for all this years.

    I felt LRH was there with me, step by step auditing me through the Matrix that is this universe. The lectures challenged every dear assumption that I’ve made throughout the eons.

    These “simplicities”, as LRH called them, slowly turned my viewpoint from being covertly stuck in MEST into the full acknowledgment of Theta.

    It was just LRH and me. No suppressive Supervisors or meddling idiots from the Church.

    I tried to 2way comm my wins and share some of the data with a few so called OTs that I personally knew, and to my surprise, I found every one of them incapable of maintaining an honest discussion on the subject. A few had blown from the PDC, and some of them would actually get into weird face contortions when confronted with the simplicities of these lectures.

    It was through these Lectures that I became more and more enraged with the now overwhelming fact, that Scientology had become a total sham, a mockery of its own philosophy, and that I was just simply looking at the lifeless shell of what once was an incredible idea. All form and no substance.

    So from there on, it was just inevitable that I would find Steve Hall and you.

    Thank you for all you are doing.

  5. One tech point that strikes me, Marty, is your in session use of the auditor questionL “What’s up?” is left, today, standardly, to the D of P to ask in the D of P interview, and that was clearly put into the HCOB or Policy, around 1982. And the D of P doesn’t use that exact phrase, but other questions phrased so as not to cause the pc to list answers.

    I trained on the old HSDC Intership at the FSO in 1976, and Maude Castillo was one of the all time best Flag D of P interviewers, she’d get what was up with the pc, and then David Mayo or whoever else did the case cracking C/Sing, of the FCCIs who came to get fixed, at Flag, in those days, would C/S the case per C/S tech.

    “What’s up?” in session is covered in references a good cramming officer ought lay out, there are reasons, that asking “What’s up?” is a borderline listing question, and it’s almost a process by itself, and to interject it into a botched up session, and put the auditor plus pc equation out of balance, because it’s all up to the pc to find the “what?” that is “up?”.

    It’s like doing a D of P question in the middle of a session. Normally if your C/S instruction for the session isn’t working, you stop and end session, turn the folder into the C/S, get a D of P, get more info to the C/S and get a repair program, or new C/S!

    That you do it all, great, if you ensure, which I’m sure you do, that the pc doesn’t go into self listing, which I presume you’ve never had that problem, so fine.

    Technically, as a field auditor, and you know not to go Q and Aing all over the place mid session, you limiit your “C/Sing in the chair”, and I presume also, you never C/S in the chair, so you’re a disciplined field auditor, good for you.

    But others less disciplined, using “Wha’t’s up?” are not so fortunate as you in the results, meaning their pc’s might self list, and not tell all their answers, and go into a case decline as a result.

    I recall at Flag, 1976-77 when I was in and around the Flag Case Cracking HGC and the L’s HGC, at that time all in the Garden Room down next to the pool, under the auditorium at the Fort Harrison, that the D of P was used to the max by the Flag C/Ses, to ensure the Flag FCCI pcs were totally happy with their auditors and how their auditing was going.

    The D of P, in a larger auditing setup, is the person charged with the “What’s up?” type of questions, and the D of P questions are specifically worded so as NOT to be listing questions. On Academy Levels, I forget which one, you study the Two Way Comm HCOB that cautions how Two Way Comm questions, which are a process, and not something asked lightly of pcs, that TWC questions can act as listing quesitons.

    Those are the cautions, and that is the reason why in a session, interjecting with “What’s up?”, in lesser skilled and lesser disciplined auditor hands, pcs can have a whole process start running in their cases, and a process that might not end in an EP, but then stack up charge, etc, etc.

    One of the greatest Flag D of P interviewers, did get a lot of charge, and any excellent D of P interview will get charge off, because the person now has a auditor/person willing to hear the pc’s complaints about their case and what’s going on.

    As a field auditor, and as the special VIP auditor, you’re out there, and if Miscavige, who ordered you to do a training lineup that is not standard per the red volumes, you were doing your internship basically on celebs, but you got away with it, because you had huge altitude, the cases you dealt with knew they were getting the “best” most trusted person to attend to their cases.

    And you as an individual, you were doing what you loved to do, which is deliver the tech.

    You had a lot of the right reasons, and I’ve always thought that, since I kind think like a “Spock” type person about LRH’s tech and policy, I try to see how it is that any person involved in Scientology is getting good results or bad, depending on how closely they follow the Hubbard rules and procedures, and why they “get away” with handling tough situations.

    I mean, some people, just show up, and seem to magically things go better.

    That happens all over in the movement’s history, it’s sometimes a lot of factors.

    Having Flag as the “Safest Place in the World” has at times, itself, all the lower staff opening doors for the new public who come to Flag for the first time, the smiling, the cautious helpfulness, having an “LRH Host” having a spot on D of P interview when one arrives, all those things help.

    I’d say there is so much more to say, that’s it’s ridiculous to even begin to try to say why things have gone sour, over the decades.

    LRH’s ealry 1970s “Command Intention” Flag Ship Org, I paraphrase, says the top execs have to be Class 8s as well as OEC/FEBC trained.

    The Class 8 part is important.

    But today, in light of the new arrangement, I’d just say, be sure to read your C/S Series!!!!

    You’re a very disciplined field auditor, with steller auditor altitude and great auditor intention and to your clients who I’ve not heard anything but steller reviews. And you run this blog and communicate a lot, which is tricky.

    The indepdent movement is kind of an additional route, a route off the main official Scientology movement, back to people who want to still do auditing and get auditing, to carry on doing it, minus all the blocks and distractions of the officiial churches.

    Which is why study by media and academics, from time to time ,of the Freezone and independents, I think needs to be looked into more.

    The tech core of Scientology, the stripped down core of the Hubbard legacy of the tech, goes on in the freezone and independent practices of Scientology.

    I by the way, liked and still like Mitoff, I know he’s got excellent auditor presence and him falling asleep on you, sheesh, sorry to hear it.

    I don’t even want to get into criticising your tech rise, the factors in why you became such a gordian knot cutting tech repair auditor for the VIP celebs, is a horror story condemnation of tech in Scientology history, way beyond what anyone’s written in a concise chapter, it too in a nutshell all traces to Miscavige’s “executive C/Sing” of tech, bottom line you can’t have such a low toned person dominating the movement’s bread and butter spiritual therapy procedure. You were a breath of fresh air, I’m sure to the VIP cases you handled, good for you, I’m not criticising the good you did and still do.

    To me, the way to solve nitpicking each other’s tech, is restudy the C/S Series, and the Basic Auditor Series, and get good cramming that finds the right tech why for whatever helps that auditor or C/S do a good job for the pc’s case progress.

    I loved Ray Mitoff’s auditor beingness. He’s a sincere tech person, my god, who would put up with all he’s put up with, who didn’t trust in LRH’s tech. (I have so much wrath, more for the RTC clique and CMO Int cliques who formed that whole group opinion internally that followed like lemmings, Miscavige’s opinions about Ray, shame or worse, on all who didn’t compare Ray to the full C/S Series and other auditting series, no one ex Int Base tech person who really knows the tech, has correctly given Ray his deserved acknowledgement, he’s just been jumped on and gang piled for decades in and out of the movement by the “in the know” people, who themselves I don’t consider wide minded enough, or else they’d really write more detailed about his pluses, of which there are many),; anyways Ray did a metered Method 4 word clearing on me, right in the middle of the anal 1997-1999 “Floating Needle” scrutiny horror fad period, and due to Ray’s auditor beingness alone, my Floating Needle carried on long enough that it floated at the then anal Examiners who applied the Waiting for the Needle to Play Dixie tech issue. Back when red tagging was routine, Ray’s auditor beingness, and knowing what he was going through, all those years, under Miscavige’s tryant executive C/Sing like not other executive C/Sing ever done in Scientology history, I really have huge respect for Ray Mitoff.

    Miscavige needs to go. The people both in and out of the movement, directly and indirectly influenced to act badly as a result of Miscavige’s low toned behavior, they have their share of responsibility for any niche messes and wrongs they did.

    Field auditors in the independent and Freezone probably will always have a life’s career, if they choose to be a lifelong career field auditor, because the tech is out here, and interested people, can train up, pretty much solo, like you did Marty.

    I do understand from your thread, that you pretty much did the training yourself, and you are successful, and have a lifelong career ahead of you, now that there is so many ex member clients coming your way.

    I noticed in the Free Zone yearly convention discussions, the best Freezone field auditors who are just really good auditors, all seem to have plenty of clients to keep them going.

    Because of the materials on the internet, though, I’ve thought, and I’ve thought this 1983ish, back when LRH was paranoid all was going to be lost to the IRS, I thought then, and I think now, that just having the materials, if people want to re-create the orgs in a milder fashion, like the Mayo org in Santa Barbara was a milder version more like Missions; then the tech and policy to build up more safe and friendly HGC and Academy setups is always there.

    Or have yearly 2-4 week get togethers like the EU Freezone people did for years.

    There’s all sorts of possibilities. (Joke: evan Paul Adams’ computer robot auditor delivers the commands to online preclears!) .

  6. In 1971 & 1972, as a pretty new Scientologist, I got a lot of student auditing – Method 1 and life repair and Dianetics. I either loved or liked most of the Scientology auditing but just did not like Dianetics; I had many intensives of it. Then in late 1972, a family member (Class IV auditor & c/s) started auditing me. He audited me on ARC S/W, which was quite beneficial & fun. After I completed that, he audited me on Dianetics; we did many intensives. There was always something about getting audited on Dianetics that made me not like the experience. The auditor tried a number of remedies for my condition. Nothing worked. I thought I had some kind of weird, unique, hopeless case. I despaired of ever becoming a Dianetic Case Completion. My Bridge progress seemed blocked.

    At that time, per the Grade Chart, the prerequisite for Grade 0 was Dianetic Case Completion.

    My auditor then waived the requirement of Dianetic Case Completion in my case and audited me on Grade 0. I had major, life-changing wins on that grade. If he hadn’t done that, I might very well have given up on Scientology instead of making it through OT 3.

    I think he was applying KSW, but just not robotically.

    • And LRH then changed the placement of Standard Dianetics (the 1 to 9, A to D command Dianetics) to being after the preclear completes Grade 4 explanded.

      I too, did Standard Dianetics (1-9, A – D) before doing the Grades, but actually didn’t mind it that way.

      But, LRH eventually sided with the research that showed more preclears were like you, and he put the Expanded Grades before Dianetics (New Era Dianetics today being a beefed up and in some ways simpler form of the old 1-9, A-D dianetics, but I’d venture to say that even the old 1-9, A-D Dianetics did produce “Clears” even a bit better than Book 1 ever did by a long shot).

  7. One other thought, relating to one of Joe Howard’s excellent points in his all time important essay, Joe Howard/Dan Koon’s essays should all be read by academics wishing to get a grip on this new wave of indpendent Scientologists, in reading this 2009 essay by Dan/Joe, I think of how splinter Scientologists seem to behave simimlary and parallel to how Quakers behave compared to slavish church going Christians.

    Dan’s essay makes me think more of how Quakers hold religious ceremonies more on fhe spur of the moment, in whichever home or house they happen to be in, when the desire strikes them to hold a religious service. Quakers strike me like freezone Christians.

  8. My hindsight thoughts on who succeeds and gets good results with Scientology tech, is that person’s intentions.

    Some people on their own, stayed late, after course time, continuing to study, on their own.

    I’ve so often thought about who I trained over the years, who succeeded, and keeps on with Scientology, and I think it comes down to those people’s good intentions and strong intentions to stick with the subject.

    That can’t be beaten or even word cleared into someone, it comes from within them. It’s their intention for even studying the subject, they want to become good auditors and help people, etc, etc.

    Auditor’s Day ought to be a much bigger celebration, compared to the IAS anniversary, for starters.

    Auditor’s Day ought to have become the biggest celebration, of the year, factually.

    Again, with a leader who’s too low toned to be safely allowed anywhere near the church’s hierarchy of tech people, to fix official Scientology, the anti tech pope needs to go.

  9. LRH lectured about religious philosophy versus religious practice. I agree with most of the Scientology philosophy that is available to the general public. There is, however, much of Scientology practice, whether in writing or simply ingrained in the organization, that I do not agree with and I believe to be destructive.

  10. It just occurred to me that the challenge for Independent Scientologists as regards the “schism” that has come about and continues to exist is actually a TEST of their ability to apply Scientology itself. And by that I mainly mean application of its most fundamental principle – ARC. There was a bulletin (I don’t remember the title) on the Pro TRs course where LRH talked about the fact that Communication can be pegged at a certain level because the other two parts of the triangle, Affinity and Reality (agreement), aren’t high enough in the attempt to communicate.

    • I don’t really see a “schism”. I think that has been overstated. I see individuals following their own integrity and forming their own associations. The only real “schism” is with an overbearing totalitarian “church”. And that one was inevitable.

      From St.Luke:

      10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

      10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

      10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

      10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

  11. I can’t argue with a single point of that Chuck, well put.

  12. Thank you for this great insight on training.
    The most obvious out point I have witnessed as far as quality of training is the inability or unwillingness to recognize glibness on the part of supervisors, therefore neglecting point 7 of the supervisor code.not because it refers to glibness directly but because there is no attempt to correlate the data with anything in life.So I have seen students “swallowing lectures after lectures” in an effort to finish before thursday 2 o’clock , and a complete inability to apply in life so how can they relate to a pc?.What a waste!

    I do not want to make a generality,I am only refering to those many instances I have witnessed and I certainly agree that it all starts with the student’s intention to study for understanding and application..
    But I do get very annoyed…

  13. Here is a Russian translation of this article:

    Made by me.
    I wish there were more comm lines between our countries.

  14. Pingback: Wie man Scientology studiert | Der Treffpunkt

  15. Marty, on a personal note, you look great clean shaven. I think you are a good looking man and look 10 years younger without the facial growth. Just sayin’. But even so that is such a cute picture of you and Mosey. Happy Valentine’s Day to you both.

  16. Hi Dear, are you genuinely visiting this web page on a regular basis, if so then
    you will definitely take good experience.

  17. You’ve impressive thing here.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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