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

  1. Wonderful post. Brought back to mind my training on the Full Pro Word Clearer Course (equivalent to Class 0 and more) just BEFORE the Golden Age sups came home. Then I did a whole lot of my training Sunday nights, where I had an empty Academy, a relaxed sup and just me and my materials. My basic training wasn’t suppressive and I never really forgot it. That served me well.

    • Study at night? tststs…Marty don`t get it yet: It`s impossible to get any real case gain if you are located yourself in complete critisism and hostility to MANAGMENT of the Scientology Church. That`s a matter of Group – Dynamic which is destroyed then, for yourself. All the other Dynamics went weaker too, followed by, or along with overts and witholds, which Marty isn`t pulling, and the tendence to run constantly away, and stay away. You did it to avoid harm to your former church. What a horrible chaos it would be with you still inside…you seem to be confused, and Marty trys to find stable Data, without succsess.

      • “Agreement to management” was never required by LRH, nor by the spiritual laws that he had formulated..

        And the current management is actually a case of mismanagement – agreement with that will send you down the tone scale.

        Obvious for anyone who has understood some Scientology. Beyond reach for zealots and fanatics … just as Marty has stated above so eloquently.

        • Thanks, Hans

          Sounds like Amadeo is in full agreement with the post-2002 Miscavige Flag-exported courseroom where as a sup you are required to harass every student who is doing well but not sitting up robotically with perfect posture (in other words, absorbed in his/her materials!) by making them do yet another demo – constantly! All protests to be handled with “clear your MU, then!”

          Oh, and Amadeo – I passed my Golden Age of Tech courseroom “No-end to Endless Metering Course” with my arbitrarily assigned “perfect video.” So I have the best of both worlds: “Ability to think with the data even in suppressive environments.”

        • I can understand WHY you’ve gone “solo”! :) Who wouldn’t agree with that fact *excluding of course RCS*? That is what i boils down to when a person in the church says that he or she is “In mamagement”. IN MANAGEMENT? The person means MIS-MANAGEMENT and even that is too pure of term because the church is not trying to deal in bean spread sandwiches here. The church is tampering with the outcome of other people’s eternity. That is indeed a dangerous game to play.

      • “Amadeo”, is this supposed to be some sort of parody ?

        Because, if it is not, then you clearly demonstrate the typical shallow comprehension of Scientology theory I’d expect to see from a staff member.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

        • “Shallow”, Michael? – “Simple” is a better word for it. Keep it simple, for God`s sake! The more complicated it gets, the less understanding there is. Study the Basics!!

          • Theo Sismanides

            Oh, yes Amadeo! Really? Basics? The church gives you the irreducible minimum and call it “basics”. Your basics, the real ones, start here. If you dare have some real basic comm cycles. Put your TRs in and jump in though, buddy, because you are on a hit or miss proposition here! Let’s see applying the basics of Communication then and real Understanding!

          • Amadeo – Are you promoting GAT (“The Basics”) on this blog? If so, are ye daft, man?

          • “Amadeo” – If you *really* knew the Basics of Scientology and took them to heart until you lived and breathed them, you would not be here fronting for Darth Midget, hiding behind fake names and sniping at those of us who do.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist
            Indie 500 #99

        • Michael,
          Sniff, sniff, sniff…. I smell an Amadeo-Troll.
          Reading alter-ised “Basics” (remember that davey changed the materials in those basic books. Compare them to the originals (at least pre-dwarfian).

          Hopefully, Amadeo with find the originals and discern for himself as to why davey’s versions are so different.

          ΘTater/GaryLerner :)

      • Amadeo , Snowhite, you are still trolling tststs…. love Anna

      • Haaa! I love these posts! DM and his minions are getting stupider and stupider, while the Indies are moving up higher. These posts really are signs about how well we really are doing.

        DM running his reverse Thetan tech seems to be going quite well. How is that working out for you?

        However, don’t worry, when you get to the ‘need of change’, we’ll still be here and you are welcome to jump on board.

      • It seems you have a crashing MU on the concept of “dynamic”.

      • Amadeo, if there was not Scientology MisManagement, Scientology would be ok now. I have the proof on it. They wouldn’t have the guts even to apply HCOBs much less protect those staff who would stand for Standard Tech. So, your MANAGEMENT (put an E there, you are making typos again) thing doesn’t work here. We’ve gone through that long ago.

        We are talking about MisManagement or to put it better Miscavigement. Stay tuned buddy as we are moving on here. How does it feel for you now that there is many who agree on Miscavigement being the sole reason Scientology fails today. You are gonna see more of this failure not because I say so but because that’s the Condition you guys are in: Treason!

      • Ah ha.. looks like another poor soul has disaffection with management = disaffection with LRH all mixed up. Too bad.

      • We in RTC quite agree with Amadeo that it is impossible to achieve case gain when one is in in complete criticism and hostility to MANAGEMENT of the Church of Scientology.

        COB is only attacked because he has bad PR caused by the internet. We in RTC hired a wog PR firm to improve COB’s PR so that the very few people who attack him will stop their criticism and hostility:

        http://otviiiisgrrr8.com/2013/01/29/sitrick-company-steps-in-to-help-cob-rtc-david-miscavige/

        We in RTC hereby order everyone here back on course and to increase their IAS Patron status. If you donate $500,000 to the IAS you will get a free pass in Ethics.

        We in RTC are also suspending Eligibility sec checks for those who donate $5,000,000 or more to the Super Power Building.

        PS: The Super Power Building will be opened within two years.

        ML,

        RTC

      • Is there some new process that turns CoolAid into crack? Amadeo? Care to comment?

      • What the fuck are you talking about? Say you are joking so I can laugh it up, or say that you are serious…so I can roll my eyes and then laugh it up!
        Well, which is it Amadeo?

      • It`s impossible to get any real case gain if you are located yourself in complete critisism and hostility to MANAGMENT of the Scientology Church. – Well, I can understand that people who have O/Ws have lowered their ability to as is, but technically what a governing body of a group you are not even part of has to do with it – it is irrelevant and arbitrary to prove one’s point (of course using incorrect words like “complete criticism and hostility”). In this fashion you cannot have a real case gain because you use gasoline in your car and thus damage the environment, your 4D, 5D and 6D. It is “you have to be clean before you become clean” sort of logic with added – only certain authorities determine what is clean and what not and these are sacred. Good luck with that.

        That`s a matter of Group – Dynamic which is destroyed then, for yourself. – Aside from ommiting the point that Marty is not a member of the group in concern, following that logic you would have to take care of other dynamics, too, it is 1D and 2D and others. 1D is considered unimportant in the CoS and the group feels entitled to destroy and suppress it in any way necessary to achieve “spiritual freedom”. 2D – do I have to comment?

        Perhaps, I am being too suppressive with these comments and having too much ethics-out :)

      • Amadeo,

        You’ve got it EXACTLY backwards.

        “It`s impossible to get any real case gain if you are located yourself in complete critisism and hostility to MANAGMENT of the Scientology Church.”

        Where does that idea come from?

        Hostility towards Managment is HEALTHY and PRO SURVIVAL when that managment is a suppressive failure. Step outside and LOOK. Your 3rd Dynamic is still there, absent SCN MGMT. And ALL Dynamics EXCELL when suppression on one is handled.

        Q. Can you live without your church?

        I belive you can. In time you may come to see this, but I’m not losing any sleep if you don’t.

        Let go.

      • I wish people would have the balls to post under their own names and state clearly their reasons for OSA affiliation and present actual facts. Then we could have a real discussion and use Scientology to help each other because actually we are all a 3D, the Scientologists, regarding which side of the barbed fence our bodies are located physically. Otherwise, such post is just an agitation or at best an anonymous KR.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Good point, Misha! But you know how the rules go on the other side! I guess they can’t even look over the fence, lol!

        • Michael,

          I just search and read the comments of people whose views I value to help understand this new wave of Scientology splintering.

          Other blogs sometimes there’ll be a poster who lists out the trolls and gives pretty accurate speculation about the list of trolls.

          Is there a troll list for Marty’s blog?

      • xenu's right hand man

        osa much, amadeo?

  2. Brilliant post marty..in some ways perhaps the most important you have ever made.

    What really drew me into scientology and made me trust LRH was the “not true unless true for you” and such datums as you quote regarding the datum evaluated.

    One of the biggest wins i ever had in SCN was doing M4 word clearing on a hopelessly bogged student. In reviewing the material i found an MU on some mathamatical terms and cleared each one to a F/N per the M4 tech. I dont know what it was, but something told me there was something else there. The training i had didnt cover this that i can recall, but i asked him to tell me the diffrence between two of the words that we had just cleared and F/N’d.

    When the guy actually compared the two words in his mind, consulting his recently aquired understanding of each, he had the most incredible LFBD i had or have ever seen. The needle just kept going and going and finally ened up in a dial wide F/N.

    It turns out that by not just applying the M4 tech in a totally rote manner, i found a crashing MU for this guy. The thing was, i did this thing while at the same time feeling rather nervous that any senior tech terminal had seen me do this. It was the hieght of GAT at Flag and i was a bit terrified that my “out tech” was seen, despite getting a fantastic result.

    Not that i really think it was “out tech”…maybe there is another HCOB or LRH datum somewhere that backs up what i did…but for what i had studied and drilled for M4 up to that point, that wasnt a defined step in the process.

    Anyway Marty, thank you for your post…i agree wholeheartedly with everything you said there.

    • “All auditing is for the benefit of the preclear.”

      Wordclearing *is* auditing. Great job, man!!

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • Thank you Micheal…you are so right, it is for the pc. But i can tell you, After getting that massive LFBD on that guy (and man just thinking about how blown out he was rehibilitates my desire to get back to my auditor training) i was literally floating for several days afterward, even with all the duress going on in the courseroom as RTC slammed in “100% standard tech.”
        I’ve had some pretty blow-out wins from my own auditing, but i think helping that pc get his win was bigger for me than any of my own auditing wins.

    • I didn’t have training on the Crashing MU but I knew what it was. While coaching on Solo 2, I had a student who could not get the size of the reads right. Finally I asked him what the decimal point was and it turned out he had a crashing MU on that. One other thing came up with a crashing MU found. As to “Crashing MU” I was going by the definition that it was something that made it completely impossible for him to get what the drill was teaching. Anyway, I was proud of myself and marked the points on my stat sheet, only to be told that I couldn’t take them because I hadn’t been trained on how to do it! ROFL

      • ha ha ha, yes, since you didnt pay the cult first for that ability, it couldnt count for stats. As you did, in the face of absurdity, lauph if u can!

    • Excellent! And I believe that you actually did do exactly as the tech does say. The end phenomena of word clearing is not simply an f/n, very good indicators, cognition and pc feels that he now understands the word. The AUDITOR ALSO must be certain that the PC has understood the word. Check it out. So you OBSERVED your PC, listened to him with all of your perceptics, and then, digesting what you had observed, made sure that YOU were certain that he had a full conceptual understanding of what you were word clearing.
      And, when you had meticulously finished your job, the result was what you got!
      In case nobody ever bothered to say so at Flag, may I say…..
      Very Very Well Done!!

      • Thank you Espiritu, i also believe i did the right thing per tech, however, at that time students where getting slammed left and right for not doing things exactly per the GAT Drills, and that was definately not exactly per those drills. I’m certain that if a sup or RTC nazi had seen me, i would have been slammed for it. Marty has the right of it 100%, the tech and tech training is worthless if the trainee cant apply his own understanding to the tech without fear of fanatical censure for “deviation.”

    • Moonshot, after reading Marty’s post, I thought that it summed up what LRH has said over and over and here it is on your post, the ‘what is true for you…” quote by Ron. He says it many different ways and goes over the importance of mauling stuff around, so to speak, to see if it is valuable and workable. We have to give ourselves the freedom to USE the tech as we see it, and to think with it for God’s sake. You did what made sense: what your observation and knowingness told you. I Like your post.

    • Moonshot, as a long-time word clearer myself, I had many similar experiences to what you describe, including the same worry about being faulted for not following the procedures rotely. However, I ultimately came to the conclusion that where some action got the product, there was indeed an LRH reference for it as he really didn’t miss anything when it came to study and learning.

      Regarding what you described above, I think there is a reference for doing what you did. In WORD CLEARING METHOD 4, HCOB 22 Feb 1972RA – the last revision was on 8 Jul 74, which had changes in script including the following:

      “All the tools of Study Tech and Word Clearing are at the Word Clearer’s disposal to take the word to F/N. The Word Clearer does not stop at one misunderstood but makes sure all are cleared.”

      To my mind, that’s exactly what you did. I would say that the question you asked was directed at the student’s ability to APPLY the data, which is essential to study tech. And I would have been ready for the Cram Off with that reference to point to. :)

    • Speaking of MUs, as time relentlessly marches on, there is an additional step that has to be done with the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology and that is making sure that one is using a dictionary that reflects the meanings in use at the time the materials were written. After all, DMSMH was published in 1950, now nearly 63 years ago. LRH himself likely cut his teeth on a dictionary commonly available in the 1920s, and the earliest possible current dictionary for DMSMH would have been before 1950.

      Consider the title of DMSMH: Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health

      Modern = 1950. NOT 2013!

      Science: The philosophy of science and its commonly held meaning has shifted drastically in the last 100 years. Very drastically. The same is true of the definitions of mental and health.

      If you compare the words above in a 1913 dictionary, to a 2013 dictionary, you will see immediately that there has been tremendous shift in meaning and the shifts themselves can result in non-comprehension and misunderstanding.

      Try it yourself — look up the word science in these online dictionaries:

      1828 Dictionary: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,science
      1913 Dictionary: http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/search/_words.word,science
      2013 Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/

      I personally own a 1953 dictionary, and you can see quite a shift from 1913 to 1953.

      And these days, you can quickly and easily look up the etymology online:

      http://www.etymonline.com/

      I expect the shift in language will become more and more of a barrier to study of the original materials of Dianetics and Scientology over time. I think it already is — for example, DMSMH as a science bears little resemblance to the commonly held idea of science in labs with experiments and hypothesis etc. LRH did say that it was heuristic in the book Original Thesis, and if you are not aware of that and its meaning and you are not aware of the shift of the meaning of science, it is very likely that you will conclude that LRH was an charlatan who just claimed it was a science!! i

      • Maria – Right. Oxford’s 1,000+ page English Grammar (which I got for the Superlit course) opens with an explanation that rules of grammar are relevant only over a given time period. In words, the thought and intent are what matter. Once a word is understood by an individual, what happens to it? Where do words originate? How about sight reading sheet music? Once a sentence is grasped, where does it go? Is a rabbit different in Finnish than in Southern Californian? Is a clay demo in pink different from one in blue? Only “COB” would insist that a seashell in a demo kit be imported Italian (oops, I went and gave him a new idea).

  3. For the record, let it here be known that the…

    ‘divine who is really with Ron game’

    …recently knocked out Independent Scientology training successfully started up in both Houston and Dallas areas by my co-audit twin and I.

    Yet nowhere in this were my twin and I giving any less than spectacular results and service. (He selflessly traveling on his own dime with only partial compensation.)

    So this is not a minor concern.

    • - 20 duality is a hard one to deal with. The entity crossed my lines too and left a burn notice. Sorry for your loss. Have you read “The Sociopath Next Door?” Read the book, consider yourself immunized after that. You will never let it happen again. They can’t drive you crazy if you don’t give them the keys.

  4. DM put this reference in his latest HQS course (How to Study Scn). Before it wasn’t there. It seems you both agree it should be studied. I personally think every scientologist should know it and apply it at all times while studying Scn. I actually know so. Any other method, simply doesn’t result in a really educated individual able to apply what is studied, and that’s an evidence borne by observation.

  5. In 2005 as my Flag auditor overran me on nearly every OT V process for weeks on end (I never had a lick of problems as a PC before this) I noticed that during and particularly at the end of session that he was terrified. Not concerned. Not worried. Just cold sweat terrified. At first I thought it had something to do with me. Maybe I would get him into trouble because I was not F/Ning when I should be F/Ning and he was worried about that… but no, that was not it. The truth of the matter was, he was terrified because HE might might have called an F/N in the session when it was not 3 swing F/N and he would get punished for calling that F/N. Who cares about the PC being overrun!

    You said: “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.”

    So, in my personal experience, I want to point out that you are so right; my robot, 3 swing F/N auditor had his OWN issues. It was not about me that he was terrified. It was about his own survival… how upside down can the auditor PC relationship get?

  6. Marty,

    Your post is almost as if I wrote it.
    “How to study a science” is my theme song.
    I have been preaching pretty well the same message as you posted, for many yrs.
    And I either get shot or it goes over the reader’s heads.

    Parrots and robots really drive me crazy.

    BTW: Are there more than one version of the article “how to study a science”?

    It seems to me that there are.

    The main point is that scientology can not be understood unless you compare it to all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe.

    Someone said to me that there is no other subject of comparable magnitude to scn.

    Yes, that is true.

    But you can break scn down into it’s separate sub subjects and find subjects of comparable magnitude to evaluate and compare to.

    Then you can read and evaluate books such as the Bible, the Oahspe, the Urantia, Alien Interview, and numerous others.

    There are many personal, spiritual and professional development subjects out there today, too, that can be evaluated and gleaned for useful data, to compare to.

    If you don’t evaluate other subjects of comparable magnitude to scn, than it is not possible to understand scn. That is based on logic 8.

    Hubbard devoured as many books as he could to gather bits of data here and there to make up scn.

    And he surely wasn’t alone in developing scn either.

    Read Nibs transcript and the Penthouse interview.

    Then read the “Alien Interview” to find more uncanny clues as to who might have assisted Ron with scn.

    Furthermore:

    In fact, if you have done scn and can’t build a better bridge and do it in your own words, you have flunked scn.

    Knowledge is not static.

    The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.

    I do think the orginal standard bridge should be preserved for posterity and reference, but a new and better bridge surely can be easily built.

    Dio

    • Dio, what is the Alien Interview and where can one find it? Thanks

      • Alien Interview is a book the contains transcripts of an interview at UFO pilot that survived the crash near Roswell Air Force base in 1947. Here’s a link to the website for the book: http://www.alieninterview.org/

      • I remember reading about Lawrence Spencer’s book, Alien Interview, a while back, which supposedly was a compilation of the edited letters of a certain Army nurse who had been in telepathic communication with an alien, who had survived a crash of his spaceship and was in the custody of the Army. I was completely electrified by how many things were explained to her by the alien that were right out of LRH’s writings and lectures – things like this being a “prison planet”, beings having been “dumped” here and planetary “empires”, etc. I got very interested and started googling, only to find out that the author of the book (Spencer) had been a long-time Scientologist and that the editors cautiously described the book as possible fiction. Here is another Scientolgist’s take on it: http://projectcamelot.org/Alien_Interview_review.pdf

  7. This has to be one of the most insightful things I’ve ever read on this subject. Thanks for that.

  8. I agree and support this. I will say again, in a new unit of time, what I said in response to the prior post. If Scientology is to be accepted, survive, flourish and prosper as a meaningful, effective and helpful religious movement and applied religious philosophy, it can be only on this basis.

  9. I would take it as a personal favor if you would start using quotation marks for quotes. Or brackets, or “BEGIN QUOTE” and “END QUOTE” or something. Maybe WordPress is stripping out your formatting. All I know is that the way it displays at my end, it can be hard to tell the Hubbard from a hole in the ground.

  10. This is a pure Gem! ;)

    “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.”

    Awesome article Marty and a breath of fresh air! Better than the stale stuff pouring out of that “church”

    Phil de Fontenay

  11. This is beautiful, poetic logic.

  12. Bravo!!! THIS is why LRH said to train. An untrained “OT” would quite possibly not get this!

  13. Cheers! If Hubbard would have abided by his own teachings of prior, he too may have been helped by his own developments and would have collected friends instead of capricious sheep and mounting enemies. Nice piece- thank you.

    • Journey Continued

      Thats a bit rough. How do you know that in the end that Hubbard had no friends? How do you know he was not helped? Did you know the man? Do you know his family, colleagues and friends? What position are you in to judge him?

      Love him or loath him, he will stand as a giant among men because of all that he did. He was no God and he made mistakes but whether he was evil incarnate or a man of the highest order, who are you to sit in judgement?

      I do not believe in him, idolise him or worship him, but I can recognise the value of his work because I have studied it, tried it out to see how workable it is ( and it is very workable in most cases), and applied it to success in my own life.

      • Mother of Grendel

        JC (hmmm – interesting initials) – yes, I can see how you would react this way. You neatly embody what occurs when you follow instead of learn, copy instead of look, and give up to others the responsibility of thinking for yourself.
        Look around – of course Hubbard failed to follow his own teachings. He was a brilliant, insightful yet deeply flawed man who gave us invaluable tools that he imperfectly applied to himself. He died alone and in fear, having lived a life of lies. Does that the tools that he left us? No – not if we acknowledge that he was imperfect and did not always do as he guided (or ordered) us to do.

        • Journey Continued

          What an inane response. You made some very clear assertions about Hubbard and I questioned you on the validity of those assertions to ascertain whether or not you were just regurgitating someone else’s spin or basing your statements on actual facts. So why not do the simple thing and just answer the questions?

          How do you know that in the end that Hubbard had no friends?

          How do you know he was not helped?

          Did you know the man?

          Do you know his family, colleagues and friends?

          What position are you in to judge him?

          Thanks for the twisted personal evaluation. If your reasoning is so shallow as to be able to sum me up so succinctly without having any knowledge of who I am, then it is no surprise that you can do this so easily with Hubbard.

        • MoG,
          I have come to the same conclusions as you re LRH.

          I also agree with the indirect message of your post : live an honest life and apply the tech responsibly and in a caring way.

    • From everything I have heard from people who were with him, LRH did live by the principles he taught.
      And he actually collected a hell of a lot of friends, too.
      Of course, sheep and the vultures who feed on them seem to be always wandering around, also.

  14. Marty wrote: “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…less able to deliver results.”

    I’ve noticed a similar kind of correlation as regards critics – not meaning critics of the CoS version of Scn but critics of the core philosophy and tech. What I’ve observed is that the majority of those critics have not trained and/or have not had much if any experience in its application. On the other hand, those who have done training and had a fair amount of experience have a favorable view of it.

    • Weaker minds grasp at straws. Michaelangelo and Leonardo … you’d figure two guys of their stature would be friends, or at least civil to each other. But, oh, no! Two of the greatest artists and independent thinkers in history fighting over a block of marble. “It’s MY marble!” “No, it’s not! It’s MY marble!” Any brave soul who wanted a tatse of their intellects could jump up and propose, “Hey, I have an idea! Why don;t you both work on the same sculpture?”

      • Thanks for the reply, Carcha. I’m not really familiar with the rivalry between Michelangelo and da Vinci, so I wasn’t sure how it relates to my comment. But were you basically saying that the proponents and the critics of the subject of Scientology (the basic subject, that is) should continue having a dialogue? If so, that might tie in with what LRH said in the PL “Purpose and Targets”:

        “In Scientology we use (quite correctly) FREEDOM. While not the most basic purpose, TO BE FREE is a common purpose to all thetans.

        “This tends to key in (restimulate) in some persons the stop of being free. They themselves wanted to be free. They were stopped, they dramatize the STOP of being free and try then to stop us. We restimulated (keyed in) their own purpose to be free or free others and where we are opposed the person or persons dramatize the stop or disagreement.

        “Also where we not only restimulate the stop but oppose and deny him AS WELL [I've substituted caps for the italics], we get an enemy.”

        That last part about “oppose and deny him AS WELL” was never totally clear to me, but may you have some thoughts about it.

        • correction: Last line should read “…MAYBE you have some thoughts about it”.

          • If you use “freedom” the stops will be restimulated.
            That’s not the issue. (LRH speaks about it thouroughly in the lecture 5407c16 7ACC-22A “Training of Auditors“).
            Charge comes up.
            But when you restimulate and then oppose and deny the guy (after “their own purpose to be free and free others”, its stops, were restimulated) you have a enemy.
            And that’s very much the case today.
            You have lots of people coming into Scientology. They were restimulated (their stops from the past). They were promised they could be free again (overcome the stops). And then they were denied, opposed. Not only their own freedom, but their willingness to help aswell. (I HELP, anyone?)

            • SKM, what you say makes total sense. It reminded me of something much the same, which is what LRH said somewhere about how dangerous it is to offer to help people, because if you don’t then do so, what will happen is that hell hath no fury (paraphrasing LRH with that line) like what you will produce in those people. Thank you for that! I have the good feeling of having just cleared up an MU.

              To be more exact, though, I would say it was the type of misunderstanding LRH calls a “misunderstood status”, which is distinct from a misunderstood word. The data about this is in HCOB, “The Misunderstood Word Defined”, which gives the 10 different ways a word or symbol can be misunderstood but also gives 4 different types of misunderstandings, i.e. besides those of the misunderstood word or symbol, there can also be a misunderstood concept or a misunderstood status.

              • Yes, got you. See also Remedy A in “Book of Case Remedies”.
                (Have only a German copy here, hence no quote ;-))

                L,
                SKM

              • And yes, if you have the feeling you can’t really, honestly help, you should tell the guy. It’s part of the Code of a Scientologist.

                • Good point, and a good thing to be kept in mind for applicable circumstances. However, I was referring to the fact that Scientology in general, as a subject, offers – both explicitly and implicitly – to help individuals. And per LRH in that PL I quoted, when it fails to do so, they are restimulated by us – and when we oppose and deny them as well, we get enemies.

                  In a new unit of time, I think I did have an MU – on “deny”. The definition “to disclaim connection with or responsibility for” seems to fit the context in that LRH states the thing to do is to basically rekindle their purpose for freedom – i.e. take responsibility for them..

        • Marildi,

          Thanks for your reply. My post was unclear – I was laughing thinking about the story of Michaelangelo and DaVinci, each of whom wanted a block of marble, the same block of marble, quarreling and shouting at each other. I meant to offer strong minds capable of making distinctions and standing up for themselves against ALL odds, as a contrast to weak minds which (who) agree with each other readily to dismiss Scn offhand without reading, and even if reading, without thinking about what they read (glossing over it with unshakeable predisposition). Weaker individuals tend to cluster together around lower emotions and awarenesses, whether with each other in real time, or alone with their reactive minds – grasping at straws.

          What I’m realizing slowly with a mix of dread and respect, is the huge amount of trouble we’re in. It is not just the reactive mind, which LRH diffused for us, but the positive gain of setting goals and purposes into the future. I looked for the PL “Purpose and Targets” to read it in full together with related material, but missed finding it somehow – which green vol is it in, please? Wish my mind were a bit better so I could refer to something someone said here recently about those who left the Co$ and feel denied, becoming its harshest critics.

          The big question of “freedom” (imho) goes back to our never knowing how to resolve ethics (what we do, from brushing teeth to dreaming of a better world, or of Heaven). LRH apparently had goals and purposes very firmly in his hands, and the discovery of the reactive mind provided the key to unleashing the soul. Us mortals, I think, ironically, can now dispense with large portions of our reactive minds almost mechanically, but have yet to establish firm goals and purposes. Without those, I’m not sure “freedom” has any meaning. Freedom to what? To meekly submit like a goldfish and run around a pole in the desert? Look at the Classed Auditors in the Co$. To audit is a very worthy purpose, but Scn opens up the lid on a very big Creation. We have Eternity … imagine market saturation of auditors. What do we do when it’s hard to find someone who wants more auditing? Auditing is just a sub-purpose.

          There must be tech in Scn to enable an individual to locate, orient, define, and establish his or her own goals and purposes (their own ethics). We should be using this tech like crazy, or we end up with cleared cannibals (regging the faithful in the name of their freedom then discarding them like candy-wrapper at the slightest protest is not a purpose worthy of the word). The pat quick-and-ready “greatest good” is a rule-of-thumb substitute for ethics. It does not penetrate to the core of one’s own being and volition. I’m guilty of what I’m warning about: I think my own thoughts are more important than anybody else’s (most of the time), I do not practice an auditor’s regard for each and every thought another has, and I still get a kick out of making someone wrong instead of being saddened by their plight and doing the labor-intensive why finding for them (if that’s even the right action, to begin with). But I am realizing that I would be better off with a plan – not just an “Oh, well, one day I’ll die and go find another body … I hope they have a bicycle for me!” Morals are easy. The art of a put-down, the faster car, more money, s/he – these are all acceptable morals today. Ethics is a completely different story. Every great mind in history has enveloped itself in Ethics. I sincerely doubt 10% of those posting here can even say what Ethics means (there’s an example of how bad mine are – what I say may be true, but there must be a nicer way to say it!). We have a huge problem with freedom TO. And we live in a consumer society, wanting things done for us. Ethics no one can do but oneself. It is do-able, but it’s as big as from here to twenty glactic clusters over.

          Based on the above, is the derivation that those who are opposed to the Co$ simply see the Co$ as the source of their ethics, and not themselves. The origin and life of ethics in the individual alone is perhaps illustrated in the principle of a fair exchange with others, but there are far deeper roots in the individual. Were they more ethical, more self-sustaining, these people could immediately place demands upon auditors outside the Co$ – and actually accomplish their goals and purposes.

          Wikipedia has an article on Ethics, useful as a cursory, partial, overview –

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

          Reading original authors in translations. There is more to be gained towards definition of one’s own ethics in the reading of the logic, and the approaches, than there is in any pat definition. E.g. Thought motivates behavior, and to describe all behavior and all thought in a mere few definitional sentences, one must be very good. It is the course of thought, imo, which has more value than the formulated conclusion, for the course itself offers a pattern, and is, in itself, the practice of ethics. The practice of ethics, would be, I presume, the point of discussing ethics at all. I don’t disagree with the approach to ethics as behavioral (Linda Elder – defining ethics) – I (ahem) see largely the same thing – but I believe there is some depth missing there, illustrated by the inclusion of “religion” as something people normally confuse “ethics” with. That demonstrates a misconception of “religion”, which, unfortunately, limits explorations. Creation is not chaos. Leaving the speculation about God’s purpose aside for the moment, we can observe the order of Creation. Conformity to that order, logically, would be advisable. It not entirely in behavior that we seek definition, but in being.

          LRH offered a means by which the individual could free his thought from the chains of the reactive mind. He never pretended to tell anyone what their ethics are or should be, recognizing that these are individual.

          Carcha

          • PS – “those who oppose the Co$ …” I meant those who are it’s harshest critics, those former Scns who criticize not just the Co$, but all of Scn, LRH, religion, philosophy, etc. – e.g. the ESMB crowd.

            • Carcha: The exes at ESMB are fairly diverse. For example, I am critical of CoS, critical of Hubbard and particularly critical of Green on White. In fact, I’ll own up to being critical of organized religion in general. But I have a great love of philosophy and psychology. Terril Parks, who posts here and at ESMB, is not critical of Hubbard or Scn but critical of CoS. Commander Birdsong at ESMB is a Universalist Christian Scientologist and the only thing I know him to be critical of is CoS.

              My point is that while there may well be a few (very loud) posters at ESMB who fit the description that you gave, there is no consensus as we are not a group, per se. I know it’s easier to lump people under an umbrella – I’ve done it to the Indies before in dismissive comments, and recent events on this blog have proven that there are various schools of thought among you. It may be easier or more convenient to consider ESMB a bunch of “low toned haters”, but it’s an error.

              • This is true. I like to compare ESMB to a city – especially maybe a rust belt city down on it’s luck. It has it’s good neighborhoods, but also it’s ghettos., burnt out buildings, and burnt out people, too. You can find all kinds there, including a few genuine bodhisattvas. But also some “nomads” like in the Pierce Brosnan movie of the same name.

                There are some loud and persistent voices there who are on a mission to make sure anyone who ventures there knows how bad LRH and Scientology are, but they are not even a majority. They just want to be seen as such. There is no doubt the CoS used up many people.

                There are a lot of very informative threads there, for instance different first-hand viewpoints on what it was like on the Apollo.

          • Carcha,

            Wow, what a thoughtful (and thought provoking) comment you wrote, and I resonated with all of it. First let me say thanks for completely clarifying the point you were making in the post before. I really got it. And sorry I didn’t post the specifics of the PL I quoted. It’s part of the Target Series and is in Management Series 1 – HCOPL 24 Jan 69 II, Target Series 5, “Purpose and Targets”.

            You made so many insightful observations, and with a willingness to honestly and candidly look as closely at yourself as you do at others. I totally get your focus on ethics as an ultimate question. (I guess it aligns with Shakespeare’s “To be, or not to be”.) Now that you got me thinking about it, I guess my own answer is pretty much what LRH said in the Aims of Scientology and especially in the Goal of Scientology – to play a better game. Looking at “the big picture” of that and the fact that beings are basically Creators, having as their essence the of capability to postulate and create, I envision that once this planet gets handled (as very possibly the first giant step in that big picture game), there’s a whole universe left and no end to creating and playing better games.

            I would say too that, as per The Factors thetans are capable of opinion, and any *constructive* purpose or game of a personal choice (personal ethics) is going to contribute to the motion of the bigger Universal Game of reversing the overall dwindling spiral. And I trust that the tech of Scientology is what does, to quote you, “enable an individual to locate, orient, define, and establish his or her own goals and purposes (their own ethics)” – simply by stripping away the barriers to that knowingness, through auditing; and by delivering the tools for livingness in this universe, through the basic philosophy and in training, thus precluding a cleared cannibal.

            Well, as you can see, you got me waxing philosophical, at least as philosophical as I can wax from the current point from which I view. :)

            • Marildi – Thank you for your reply, the HCOPL, and for considering, I’m afraid I imposed on your patience, but for me to say “People in the Co$ have gone nuts” is too shallow – there’s a real problem connecting self-to-boots. Ulf posted an excellent perspective which gives an orientation within Scn. I’m trying to look at one step beyond Scn (or one step undercutting it). – Carcha.

              • Carcha, I assume that by “a real problem connecting self-to-boots”, you are alluding to LRH’s “boots in the sky” metaphor. In your earlier post, you also said this:

                “There must be tech in Scn to enable an individual to locate, orient, define, and establish his or her own goals and purposes (their own ethics).”

                It suddenly dawned on me – that specific tech does exist! It’s the Life Orientation Course! MInd you, the C of S has put a spin on how the student is to determine his/her hat in life, but it so happens that I did that course and it is clear to me that apart from any arbitraries added to it, the course itself would achieve just what you expressed above.

                • Marildi, I’ll see if I can get my hands on the course, but I think there is something much deeper, or people in the Co$ would not be there. Thetans like to cluster (I swear, I’m not trying to be too funny, saying that), but OT is not a cluster – it’s more at independent “coincidence” and cooperation. You got exactly what I’m saying. Love, Carcha.

  15. …and I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.

    I know of a devout Scientologist minister who someone arranged to get declared because he was going to show as part of Sunday Service a video called FEED YOUR HEAD, and then was going to run it through How to Study Scientology to use the precepts in that write-up to evaluate the data in the video. He was never allowed to do the Sunday Service he wanted to do because of (gasp) the showing of a video done to illustrate how the psycho-pharma industry has failed mankind and how a simple vitamin (niacin) regimen can eliminate what psychiatrists insist must be treated by psychotropic drugs (without a cure, I’ll add). The point was he wanted to show was that LRH’s write-up in How to Study Scientology was workable and could help one pull the facts out of a horde of confusion and conflict. Yet a die-hard “LRH is the only one that data can come from” fundamentalist used the opportunity of a instruction to get a good Scientologist declared. When he realized that the church’s eagerness to declare him for trying to do something right was a prime reason to leave the church anyway, he was relieved and is a much happier person now that he’s out from under the suppressive thumb of those who want to use Scientology to harm others.

    And so I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed…

    • @plainoldthetan…Did the person actually get declared only for suggesting to use that video? What was the charge? I’m not naive, but that is the strangest thing I’ve heard . I’ve given study tech lectures using various materials so that people get stumped on words to show what an mu is, and how to clear up. I don’t see the difference between that and what this guy wanted to do.

      • The church doesn’t give a declared person a bill of particulars these days. They hold a kangaroo court and declare the person in secret (he’s never sent docs) *but* his friends and associates in the church are informed so they can disconnect. From the few declare notices I’ve seen in the past two years, the church is inflating and fabricating evidence to vilify people they want to declare. As a result, widely distributing the Declare orders open the church to being sued for libel. The whole situation with this person is that the Mission he was doing Sunday Services at was undergoing a hostile takeover by someone who wanted to get rid of him so he couldn’t block the takeover. He found out later there had been dozens of false reports on him that he’d never received copies of.

        See my write-up about “double-secret declares” at http://www.scientology-cult.com/dms-double-secret-declares.html

  16. A masterpiece Marty.
    If that one reference doesn’t convince them I guess nothing will. I would say it is time to move on.
    I totally get you and I’m sure there are a lot of others that do. And if some don ‘t get it and feel repelled then I guess they can start thier own blog and create another denomination of Scientology. Maybe that branch could be called the Independent Authoritarian Branch or IAB. (just having some fun, don’t take it too seriously.)

    • Well here’s a couple of different thoughts:
      “Convincing” is pretty much the opposite of what this post is about, so,
      Perhaps “they” don’t need convincing. Just communication.
      Perhaps the “new denomination” will actually be an affiliation bound by …appreciation! I observe that this is already happening.

      • You looking for trouble?? :-)

        • Always! :-)

        • If you’re looking for trouble
          You came to the right place
          If you’re looking for trouble
          Just look right in my face
          I was born standing up
          And talking back
          My daddy was a green-eyed mountain jack
          Because I’m evil, my middle name is misery
          Well I’m evil, so don’t you mess around with me

          I’ve never looked for trouble
          But I’ve never ran
          I don’t take no orders
          From no kind of man
          I’m only made out
          Of flesh, blood and bone
          But if you’re gonna start a rumble
          Don’t you try it on alone
          Because I’m evil, my middle name is misery
          Well I’m evil, so don’t you mess around with me
          I’m evil, evil, evil, as can be
          I’m evil, evil, evil, as can be
          So don’t mess around don’t mess around don’t mess around with me
          I’m evil, I’m evil, evil, evil
          So don’t mess around, don’t mess around with me
          I’m evil, I tell you I’m evil
          So don’t mess around with m
          Yeah!

          • Valkov, I prefer this rendition – much more evil! ;)

            • Valkov & marildi, FYI: http://tinyurl.com/Goth1213

              • Hi, Observer 1776 (great moniker :)). I looked over that link but I don’t think Elvis fits in with Goth, even though some people have tried to portray him that way. In the video I posted I got that he was expressing a certain beingness, not actually an evil one, and that he nailed that beingness. In that sense, to me his singing was art.

            • marildi, you are so particular!

              Yes, that is a great one – I might have posted it but didn’t come across it.

              It’s odd to me that the song has apparently not been covered by a female artist.

              • Well, you made me laugh with “you are so particular!”. But seriously, in that movie version, Elvis is utterly constrained! I actually got the image of his white jacket being a straightjacket – on his spirit and his artistic expression. Whereas, in the other video, he comes across completely free and really captures the essence of the tough guy – the kind who isn’t really looking for trouble but at the same time is going to fight, if needed, to be his own man – his own orientation point.

                I’ve never looked for trouble
                But I’ve never ran
                I don’t take no orders
                From no kind of man

          • Good one Valkov! :-)
            Elvis is the MAN!!

    • Mother of Grendel

      Here here!

  17. Absolutely. Using reasoning and intelligence is very different than “being reasonable.” Using critical thinking is right in line with LRH’s teachings as noted in the post.

    “Being reasonable,” in contrast, for me boils down to justifications — not doing something one should or doing something one shouldn’t. (“Yeah, he kicked his dog, but he had a rough day at work” — that’s being reasonable.) I mention this because I think some people get them tangled up. So, reason is good. Being reasonable in the sense of observing, being rational, etc. is good. Being reasonable in the sense of justifying, rationalizing, or otherwise not confronting what needs to be confronted is not good.

    One line reminded me of something from history. The line was “Those trained only after they have demonstrated an unalterable conviction that what they were studying was the ‘only’ thing that had any worth …”

    One version of how the ancient library of Alexandria was destroyed was this. The Muslim conqueror of the area had it destroyed, exclaiming something like “If the knowledge is in the Q’uran, we don’t need the library; if it is not in the Q’uran, it is blasphemy.” Who knows what knowledge and history was lost forever? (And to be fair, some scholars claim Christian’s destroyed it.)

    As LRH said himself, the first barrier to study is believing one knows it all already.

    • Absolutely Plus. Reason is sanity. The burning of Alexandria library was insanity. It was pure supression of knowledge. And the woman who was a leading mathmatician and scientist of the time of the first burning was tortured by a mob. I’ll stop there.
      You hit it on the head anyway.

  18. one of those who see

    Tears in my eyes. The beauty of full conceptual understanding. The wonderful feeling of freedom. My opinion – this is the right road, Marty. What an amazing journey it is. Thank you for sharing with us.

  19. Great Marty,
    couldn’t agree with you more.

    As long as you still can think conceptually with KSW#1 everything goes in the right direction.
    Problem with “The most vehement, zealous, pedantic, holier-than-thou Keeping Scientology Working preachers (inside and outside the church)…” is, they didn’t.

    LRHs tone-level in this HCOPL is not the concept.
    The tone-volume neither.

    I share the viewpoint that Scientology works best in a circuit-free athmosphere.

    Unfortunatley – although I like your opening post – it does not answer my questions from yesterday.
    They are more sorts of: now that it is clear that Miscavige corrupted/reconstructed the bridge and materials, how to find the right path. I’ve seen there are new (Miscavige free) checksheets from Dan Koon and his friend (I forgot his name), which is great.
    Claudio Lugli gave a lecture in the Haifa Org about the upper levels which was interesting (saw it on yt).
    The havy duty e-metering course isn’t used in the indie field.
    Have you any insight or can you share your thoughts on that point some day (Materials and Bridge)?

    Wish you lots of wins, Marty.

    ARC,
    SKM

    • You can’t go very wrong with most pre-GAT checksheets. I think Dan’s work used those as stable data – but you’d have to check with him.

      • Jimmy Rebel and I are mainly using the checksheets from 1987 which were pre-GAT and especially pre-Pro Metering Course. These were good, reliable checksheets that made auditors in checksheet time. What more can you ask for? Jimmy Rebel (aka John Aaron Williams) has them up on a site for free download. We have done from Student Hat through Grad V with Word Clearer and PTS/SP next up.

        • Thank you Dan.
          Yes, I saw those checksheets and read some of your articles re: checksheets. This is owesome. I also read your Article regarding RTRCs work in a FZ mag (PDF) which also gave some insight how you people worked there.
          But is there a kind of bridge correction, recommendations for the auditors route planed?
          The other question: Was you part of the compilation of the EXPANDED GRADES REFERENCE PACK [picture].
          Do you think they’re fine to study along with those checksheets?
          What about the 1991 Red Vols?

          You know, I am a little confused because of the different viewpoints in the independent field (incl. FZ).

          If you can’t or don’t want to answer here (what I would understand), please would you drop me a line to SKM@hushmail.me ?

          I only want to sort out my confusion regarding this questions.
          Maybe you also know people in central europe who already is using your checksheets (germany would be great). I have had no formal training in the church. I am living some 350km away from Berlin now. No Independent Scientologists in a radius of 350km I would now of. (I moved since I left the church last year.)

          Kind regards,
          SKM

        • The Student Hat, in the early 80s, had the tape ‘How to Study’ AND ‘Adjudication,’ of the data one is studying, on it.

  20. A fine essay, sir, and I know there are many years of experience behind it.

    That stone/paper/scissors game of duelling with scriptural quotes was popular in the Buddhist monasteries, among the mediaeval Scholastics, and no doubt among their equivalents all down the track. But someone has to break out of the circle of monotone evaluation of importance, and the scientologists’ way to do this is by appeal to the practical value of a datum. ‘How well does it work?’ is not the same thing as saying ‘Auditing is anything you can get away with.’

    The inability to judge importances is characteristic of a priestly, or academic, mentality. Yet practical experience and application may be the only way to correctly assign importances.

  21. Marty, I agree with you 100%!

    Though my background is VERY different from yours, I did have a similar training experience and it did indeed start with “How to Study a Science”.

    3 1/2 years on the RPF with very little authoritarian supervision in essence made me a Grad V. In this time period I studied all the books, all the Congresses and read the HCOBs in chronological order. I did all the RDD (Read it, Drill it, Do it) check sheets up to Grad V.

    In so doing it became very apparent that:

    1. LRH could always get results when he was the auditor.
    2. He developed numerous methods and routes to make a Clear and beyond.
    3. He could make a Clear and beyond using any and all of these routes.
    4. His prime goal for the first 15 years or so was rather to make others being able to apply and get results with auditing.
    5. Initially he focused on the more intelligent, college-and-beyond audience to try to make auditors.
    6. Initially and up to the mid-60’s he stressed reason, evaluation of data and relative importance and understanding the basic axioms and laws and from this being able to apply those to get results with each PC.
    7. Initially he appealed to using sense and understanding to make an auditor.
    He created the SHSBC to give every auditing field in the world a “master” who could control the quality of results.
    8. By the mid-60’s he had experienced many “masters” using “sense and understanding” to alter or squirrel the technology.
    9. He wrote KSW and an entire set of ethics and Justice PLs.
    10. There were still problems with application, despite heavy ethics and justice.
    11. He developed more training levels to try to have authoritarian and robotic application at the beginning levels, hoping that just executing correct commands will give most PCs results, while developing Cl VIII as a final recourse when robotic application couldn’t handle a case.
    12. Even with Class VIII there were still problems so he set out to develop special rundowns to address specific case phenomena which apparently were necessary despite the presence of Class VIII.
    13. Whenever he looked into staff he always found numerous outnesses and went back to his goals of the late 50’s to make better staff members so as to up the auditing quality and service and so developed L’s, the Primary Rundown and later KTL, Super Power and even FPRD – all initially developed with staff in mind.
    14. Despite all of this in existence, piloting or being developed, Scientology was having more and more difficulty in legal issues and with government agencies which was further exasperated by false reports from those reporting directly to him while he was in isolation.
    15. LRH concluded that much of the problems must be involving external enemies and as can be concluded from PL’s of the early 80’s as well as the Battlefield Earth and Mision Earth series, LRH must have decided that all basic evil and problems lie with the psychs.
    16. LRH died and left us in that air and attitude of the early and mid-80’s – a world full of enemies.

    In short terms, that’s what I saw happened to Scientology and whether a correct observation or not, it made sense why certain policies were written the way they were, and why they seemed completely contradictory in many cases.

    I decided to focus on the first datum I encountered in studying Scientology, which was “How To Study a Science” and decided to observe for myself each and every new piece of tech I learned. As long as I always stuck with the basic anatomy of the mind and how and why auditing worked, I got results – every time. As soon as I was crammed in the direction of rules, justice, regulations and robotism (as advocated by GAT) I didn’t get results.

    Many a time I would handle an out-ruds PC who didn’t resolve with running three ruds by simply asking what was going on. A keen eye at the needle usually gave me either the right charge to simply indicate to FN, or at the very least steer me in the direction of where to find the exact charge to later be resolved to FN.

    Each time I did this I would get crammed because I was not a Cl VIII and therefore strayed from “procedure”. I always argued that if it is right for a Class VIII how could it be “wrong” for me? I was always shown various HCOBs about how a C/S flunks procedure errors even if the PC was happy.

    Experiencing for myself that I got results whenever I would stick to my understanding of the tech while also observing that it apparently went against all established tech and agreement as applied within the Church all the way up to the head of RTC made me decide to leave.

    I left having an unshakable certainty of the workability of the tech while also having an unshakable certainty that the Church has become authoritarian and robotic and by basic axioms this would inevitably result in the full denigration of the technology I dedicated my better years to.

    As far as studying and training in Scientology it became very apparent that the true first barrier to study was thinking that you already knew all about the tech. Though this may not be the mindset of a new student, while studying GAT style under Hitlerian RTC reps I realized that “certainties” were the basis and impetus from the very beginning – “certainties” that always ended up in doubts. I started with doubts and ended up with certainties.

    Truth to me, especially after addressing this subject heavily in the Truth Rundown and FPRD became unshakable. It may not have been absolute, but it was mine. For many staff around me “truth” was dictated and in most cases something people preferred to be true or rather hoped to be true.

    Through my 3 1/2 years I turned the preferred and hoped for truth into what was simply true for me – one of the first axioms of Scientology, and by leaving the Church for good I could again start from scratch but now possessing a simplicity and personal truth stronger than all my previous years combined.

    Your last several blog postings have made a very strong impression on me. There have also been some very intelligent comments by some people. There has also been a fascinating amount of literalness.

    Marty, you’re running into the same thing LRH ran into. As long as you don’t grow desperate due to this, your current route of Moving On Up a Little Higher seems un-straying and working thus far.

    It has strengthened my existing ideas, broadened my knowledge and confirmed my own path.

    Thank you!

    Ulf

    • Thanks for sharing that Ulf. A remarkable experience.

    • Hey Ulf from Sweden, I get more and more on you as you write on this blog. I didn’t know you spent 3 1/2 years on the RPF.

      By the way, guys, Ulf, went uplines and he was one of the most gentle and good staff I met in LA.

      Greeting Ulf, from Theo from Greece.

      • Thanks Theo. I didn’t realize we met. When and under what circumstances?

      • I think you’re referring to Ulf Samuelsson who worked at TU Int in the 90’s as the Swedish I/C. He was certainly gentle, which is a quality not many have ascribed to me :) I was at Int but seldom interfaced with LA crew unless we were putting on an LA event and local guys helped out.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Ulf, sorry, hahaha… yes I was thinking it was Ulf Samuelson! He was certainly a gentle guy… but you know what… where is he now? I see just one Ulf here, You… gentle or no gentle it does not matter…. hahaha. You are here like the rest of us. This is no little thing. Thanks for clarifying.

          • Ulf Samuelsson lives with his family in Mexico. He occasionally posts here under his full name. He’s on Facebook if you want to contact him.

          • Hi, Theo,
            Thank you for remembering… I haven’t been posting very much lately. Been too busy working. Also, I haven’t had much to add to the discussion as it has all been very well stated.
            As for being gentle, well, I found that yelling and threatening with ethics conditions wasn’t my style, and counter-productive as well. I got better results from my juniors by reasoning (two-way comm) and giving advice rather than by using force and threats.

    • A great write-up Ulf.
      It is obvious that you got what you came for.

    • Ulf – Thanks for the confirming perspective. I especially liked “I always argued that if it is right for a Class VIII how could it be “wrong” for me?” That I arrived at the same conclusions is interesting. By analogy, the Bessemer steel process was arrived at independently in the 1800’s in the U.S. and in Germany. It was one process, is the point. Natural law. As more individual understand what you have understood, and pick up the tech, Scn will progress. You filled in a couple of missing pieces for me, data I didn;t have. Thanks, guy, I appreciate it and will put it to good use. – Carcha.

      • P.S. Just for grins of the analogy (the Wikipedia article isn’t quiote as good as the Britannica article):

        http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/63067/Bessemer-process

        I have it that Someone in Germany hit on it, but this is what Britannica says:
        “Bessemer process, the first method discovered for mass-producing steel. Though named after Sir Henry Bessemer of England, the process evolved from the contributions of many investigators before it could be used on a broad commercial basis. It was apparently conceived independently and almost concurrently by Bessemer and by William Kelly of the United States. [more ...]“

        • P.P.S. Scientology is NOT “steel”. To say it is “love” is closer to the truth. But isn’t it interesting that for all the hockey we play, and all the variations of “love” we each have, the basic process seems to be the same? I think I’ll apply for a trademark on “Love” … I’m sure that with the right legal team and enough billions I could get it locked up. Wow, the money …!

  22. Funny that you should reference this, Marty. It is on our list of absolutely required reading for new students.

    On March 13, 2007 my wife and I requested a return of our unused donations and requested a refund of the last 100 thousand dollars of auditing that Anita got at Flag. There was no longer any doubt in my mind that Flag was a squirrel group, they were using the tech destuctively and they had absolutely no intention of correcting their unbelievable gross auditing errors and C/Sing errors. RTC basically told me to screw off when I sent my KR in, so they had to be equally f’d up.

    I had no idea that the “freezone” existed. I had no idea that others felt the same way I did. I didn’t know anything about anything. I figured I was done with the bridge. I lamented that my wife would not get to experience the incredible gains that I had gotten from NOTs. I thought, when we dared to ask for a refund that this would shake them into actually handling her case properly. Yea…right! They basically just told us to screw off.

    I took four months off and worked a wog job. Got my real estate license and was working on my mortgage broker license when word got out that I was “out.” People started calling and asking if I would please audit them. They had left the church and needed some help.

    Mostly they were ARC Xen, needed lists corrected, needed their Clear Uncertainty Rundown fixed. I connected up with an experienced Class VIII C/S and started to audit. People were happy. People were winning. In all, we helped over 40 people while still living in Tampa. All of these people had been butchered by Flag, the “Mecca of Technical Perfection.”

    During this time, I sat down in an easy chair and restudied everything I’d learned on the Academy levels. Every single word of every bulletin. My guiding principle was that article, How to Study a Science and step three of KSW 1, Knowing it is Correct (by really looking at whether or not it actually worked that way when I applied that piece of tech. I looked at everything very critically.

    As an auditor I found no real disagreements with what I was doing. I found nothing that I myself couldn’t apply and use and help people with. I found that there was a lot of data I didn’t know, that I was being crammed on and that I consequently agreed with. My respect for LRH and what he’d achieved was intact.

    An interesting fact rolled through my brain as I was doing this. We’ve been around for sixty years. We have had literally millions of people cross our doorstep. Yet, if you add them up, there are probably no more than 1,500 active auditors on the entire planet. Probably less now. That is about .02% of the people who have come in contact with the subject in a meaningful way.

    We’ve got to be pretty stupid to assume that we haven’t made some mistakes. The mistakes have obviously been exaserbated by the miscavige regime.

    Do I agree with using standard tech in my practice? Yes, but only because it works for me and works for my PCs. Not because someone is ramming it down my throat or using the policy KSW 1 to prove their point.

    We’ve made some serious errors in judgement which have made the subject repulsive to people. We need to man up and bite the bullet and really do some good hard confronting of exactly what those errors are, and do our best to fix them.

    Since we’re on the subject of KSW 1, I am going to state my opinion on few points. It’s an opinion that some will agree with, and some will villify. I have been accused of being a KSW-bot on some websites and of being “loose with thech,” on others. I am actually neither.

    Whether or not it is a fact, the statement, “the whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it and your your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.” is a lousy dissemination line. Don’t believe me? Go try it on 20 or 30 non-scientologists and see thier reaction.

    At what point do you introduce this “datam” into your training program?
    How many people quietly walked out the door when it was hammered into them? How many people “quit fast,” because of the attitude of that quote and the way angry, ignorant, over-zealous people have used it?

    I use standard tech because it works for me and my PCs. I coax my students into using tech standardly while “Maintaining Friendly Relations With the Environment and the Public. And while practicing, “We of the church believe that all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely and to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinons of others.”

    Ron lost a lot of time and was very seriously injured in a motorcycle accident. Why the heck was he out riding a motorcycle and having some fun?
    Chasing butterflies, going bowling, drinking a beer, having a kareoke night, watching the game next sunday…DEV T. GET the Fuck to Work you slack ass little mother F…..er. We’ve got a Fuc…ing planet to save you dilettante. We’re all going to die if you take an hour off.

    We’re totally out of ARC with the environment. The environment is totally out of ARC with us. We have not in any way effected the positive changes we’ve been postulating making on society because we have not been creating any kind of culture that 99.999% of the people on this planet want to be a part of. We’ve been out of ARC because we’ve been, as a group, dramatizing that WE are the ONLY ONES. Even if it were true…there’s no need to use it as a service facsimile. It doesn’t make friends or influence people. And it doesn’t get the job done.

    Please, please, please…find a good center, learn how to audit and help some people. To me there is no joy like the joy of clearing and releasing others. And if you really don’t want to audit, then use what you know, that is true for you, to up the ARC in your own little town. And try to do it without needing any Praise or Approval for it. Just Do It.

    • Beautiful Les. You know you are on the sweet spot path when you are getting hammered by both extremes.

      • Marty, Les, thank you very much. Beautifully said. There just is no way to successfully apply the Tech but as you describe it. With total self-determinism, one’s own integrity in, knowing what you know, applying only what you have observed to work. And have fun while doing it. And the joy of serving others and making the World a little better. There is no other way to do it, Dani

    • Les,
      That is a superb post! I’m going to print it out for use with some local Kool-aid victims! Thanks for your thoughts.

    • Yes yes yes…

    • great points les…jeez, let people get some wins with SCN before you lay that trillion year must-have on them…i always found it so ez to get people interested in SCN by just consulting their interest, needs, and wants and then helping get what served THEIR interst. But when DM forced the Orientation film on the dissem line with that “fry in hell if you dont do SCN, sorry, but thats the way it is” nonesense getting people in the door was no longer fun for me.

      It almost seemed like there was some group agreement that everything had to be a freaking battle. Lets not do that.

      • PreferToBeAnon2

        Moonshot, it sounds like you are saying ‘let’s spring it on them later’ and just get their buy-in first. As a wog here, that sounds a bit deceptive. How big of a role is “saving the planet” for the Indies? I thought it was just about getting personal wins–not a crusade.

        • If I am not mistaken, what she means is the following:
          Once you made some wins using Scientology (for example you gained some abilities or restored some you thought where lost for ever, or you made some spiritual gains) you will happily be willing to spread the word (i.e. giving Scientology to others).
          Your compassion for others may be stronger and you are willing to take responsibility for the well being of your environment.
          As someone who never tried Scientology (or tried it in a abusive athmosphere) you may not have a grasp of the concept that it is possible to change the world around you with the tools at hand.

          Kind regards,
          SKM

        • Sorry if you got that impression, but “spring it on them later” is not at all what i’m saying.

          What i am saying is that Scietology has wonderful tools for an individual to help improve their condition in life and that of their family. Especially the beginning/basic stuff and that the crusaders should just let people get what they want out of it without pressuring them to join any crusade right off the bat.

          Not everyone wants to be a crusader. Some do. After you get a bunch of people in, and they do what they do, and have what wins they will have, some of those folks will naturally be interested in taking a more active role, taking on more responsibility.

          Every movement needs its foot soldiers and leaders. But if you pressure everyone who comes within a foot of your organisation to become a crusader right off the bat, you do everyone a dis-service.

          Annon2, if never having seen or handled one, i hand you and iPhone, tell you its the greatest thing since slice bread and then pressure you to sell iPhones to all your friends and family as a iPhone crusader, your probably gone run the other direction and never give that iPhone a chance.

          However, if i just give you the thing and let you play with it, use it, explore it and find all the ways it helps you and gives you pleasure, then very naturally you are gonna tell people about it and sell the thing. After a bit of time, where you take ownership of that iPhone and love it, then you will educated regarding the thing and maybe be both qualified and receptive to whatever i have to say about the iPhone.

          That is not being deceptive. In fact, its the opposite. Think about it.

          • Furthermore Annon2, not being a scientologist you are probably missing a vital part of the subtext of my comment “jeez, let people get some wins with SCN before you lay that trillion year must-have on them.”

            A “must-have” in scientology is always a bad thing. One of the things Scientology is suposed to create is free beings who never MUST do anything.

            So my sarcastic use of this term here indicates that i NEVER think this crap should be layed on people.

            Recruiting the educated and interested, sure. But not laying into new students/practitioners to join in the crusade or doom themselves and everyone to everlasting hell.

            • Yes, I agree. I was a div 6er and I can tell you that back in the day some people came in and were ready to ‘start’ the game immediately. It happens, but most people need to be given time to actually read a book or two (just as LRH says in Books Make Booms). Funny, but he said that it can take YEARS for someone to become a Scientologist, yet on the other hand, the org board and the programs/targets are written to get people moving like they are on an assembly line. Geeze, another contradiction.

    • Marty and Les —

      Great words from both of you. No robots here.

    • Brilliant. Well said.

    • Fantastic Les. :D

    • Good call Les. Thanks for keeping it real! That’s the way to do it! Every action counts toward a better world or not. No matter where you are or what you are doing. It is not difficult to see who is making the world a better place. And who is not. Thanks for all that you are and do!

    • Nicely said. I have an even better understanding of where you and Anita are at now and I like you both even more than I already did!
      You are an inspiration!

    • “we have not been creating any kind of culture that 99.999% of the people on this planet want to be a part of”

      So true. Although orgs, Flag, and the Freewinds are promoted as safe, friendly islands of sanity, and SO members are supposed to be the elite of the planet, they most certainly are not. Staff and SO members sacrifice their dynamics with the idea that they are saving the dynamics. They set a terrible example of what an ideal culture would be. “War is hell” is no excuse.

    • Wonderful post Les!

    • excellent points

  23. Nailed it, Marty.

  24. Dangerous thinking that somebody can really know something, understand, apply and achieve results.

  25. I just don’t know what to say. As it is, despthat LRH personal flaws he is the actual and factual absolute authority on the subjects of Scientology and Dianetics. Even if you want to assist in helping these subjects evolve you will still need to learn them first from LRH. Althought there has alwasy been interest in subjects along these lines there has not been a lot of real knowledge available prior to Scientloody. At least not that I have seen and I think am well traveld on those subjects. Or if there ever was most of the data left over from those subjects has been corrupted by others who came after and were less talented. To show LRH’s stature in these subjects you just have to realize that prior to LRH no one had the slightest clue aobut mental image pictures or the possiblitly that they coudl be erased without disturbing the actual memory and that is just one of the many early and very basic groundbreaking discoveries of LRH. In a more enlightened society that discovery alone should have gotten him an international science award.

    The first thing a student needs to have to study these subjects is the view that there are things in these subjects worth learning and that he or she is there to learn them. As it is I have taught several people to play music professionally including several people who were absolutely stopped in their own growth in the subject so I have seen with my own eyes what some students will do to keep from learning a subject they otherwise seem to care about deeply. All of this without any authoritarian teachers present. Most people to differing degress entertain themselves with their own aberations. If you are going to teach them anyhting you are going to have to work around that.

    For the most part I respect and admire everythign you are doing Marty but since we’ve already screwed this subject up once I am on my guard. This time I want to get it right and I do not want to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  26. http://youtu.be/IxAKFlpdcfc. Amazing! Right on! I’ve never heard the concepts you wrote about articulated so well. Thank you… :) :) :)

  27. Thank you Marty for denouncing the dangers of unvarying adherence. Every spiritual or religious movement starts with unbounded enlightenment, great freedom and euphoria. Then, with time, habits emerge, and soon rigidity settles in. Yesterday’s insights become today’s dogma. Soon, students become followers, they skip thinking for themselves and come to rely solely on following to the letter the words of the founder, rather than his spirit. More tragically, followers come disregard or even condescend upon all other exceptional beings who, throughout centuries, have contributed so much to the betterment and spiritual progress of many generations.
    I hope you soon share your views about the heritage of other exceptional beings like Gautama can be helpful today. You mentioned in a recent post about “letting go” as being in your view a unique contribution made by Buddhism and about it being in your view a natural complement to Scientology. I would be keenly interested in hearing more about this.
    Thank you for keeping your postings inspiring.

    • I think it was somewhere on that thread that a poster described “letting go” as being the same idea as “not ridging”. Myself, I wonder if it isn’t the same thing as having your OT TR 0 in.

      • I get that, marildi. I recall that perception and experience of all worldly phenomena as simply passing through me without causing so much as a ripple, after I got my Major Stable Win on OT TR0.

        • Thanks, Val. I truthfully don’t know what differences there are between OT TR 0 and meditation, other than that (at least in the early phases of the practice) meditation may use a mantra or some other focus, such as on the breath. For that matter, neither do I know the difference between a true and full OT TR 0 – simply and solely being there – and achieving what some people refer to as joining Consciousness/Oneness or as achieving an Awakening or Enlightenment, and maybe even Nirvana could be included. But there are probably differences that I am simply ignorant about.

          • marildi

            Perhaps some things are “unknowable”, as Vinnie likes to say. I don’t bother to figure-figure about them. If you don’t directly perceive something, well then you have not directly perceived it. A person would have to perceive very well indeed in all 3 universes, to be able to compare the EPs of different practices. And even then, it might be very difficult to say “for sure”.

            • Valkov, thanks for that. On the one hand, it does seem that a person would have to follow each of various paths all the way in order to be able to compare their ultimate “EP’s”. On the other hand, he might just be able to arrive at the EP on one path or another, where he would be able to directly perceive the universes of others who have arrived at the EP’s of other paths – and thus KNOW if they differ or not. In any case, I don’t do a lot of figure-figure on it either, but I appreciated hearing your viewpoint since I know you’ve studied a good bit of the different practices.

              • My thought is actually along the lines of a flaw I see in the whole idea of the much touted “double-blind studies” similar to what the pharma do with new drugs, and that kind of thing, that some “scientistically” oriented folks like to push for testing Scientology methods.

                The method is flawed even for testing chemicals on bodies, because of what is essentially a Heisenberg type principle: In order to get a 100% true result, a drug or any procedure and the placebo would have to be tested on the same body at the same time, an obvious impossibility.

                What they actually do is test the drug on many different bodies and the problem is, these studies are hardly “controlled” at all for a whole lot of variables as the bodies are all different one from another in many ways. And that’s not even considering the personality and the individuality of each test subject being unique.

                So, having set the stage: How can the same person “test” the EPs of 2 different methods, such as OT-TR0 vs. some kind of meditation?

                It is not possible because:

                If you get the TR0 EP first, you will go into the other method already having the EP of the TR, so it will not be the same “you” that went into doing the TR0. And vice-versa.

                Or, let’s say you go Clear by Scientology procedure then someone announces that some other method can achieve the same result. Someone who is not Clear could be a test subject for this, but not you as you are already Clear. You could only test this by going “unClear” first, somehow returning yourself to the state you were in before you went Clear….

                I guess that gives some idea of my thinking and you can think of your own applications of the principle, a variation of “You can never step in the same river twice”.

                • I understand just what you mean, which was why in my last comment I was looking at the “non-scientific” approach of direct perception of the universes of others in order to “know” and thus be able to compare.

      • For me, “let go” is the absence of “must have” / “can’t have”.
        Theoretically, on a pan-determined level you wouldn’t ridge with others. You could “let go” or assume high enough K-R-C in order to perform the smoothest solution possible. Without any introversion at all. Theoretically.

        • SKM, I can see that too! This is one of those times when I have gotten the distinct idea that LRH is simply saying the same thing in yet another way – another view of the same actuality, just from a different angle – and that at least one reason he has for doing so is that expressing the same idea in different ways will give a greater chance of it actually communicating.

          • Yes.
            One big issue with organizations was do it now or else…
            People were “forced” (so to say) to do things against their natural acceptance level of randomity. In production, study. Everywhere you have statistics. Enforced. And since “low” stats were penalized, a culture of unnatural randomity evolved.

  28. Reason: that was my first comunication on this blog months ago. There is a wide open highway for others to walk with reason and spiritiul practice hand in hand.

    And it is in the nurturing and developing reason, that allows others to know what they know with confidence fearlessly.

    There is no true knowing without true reason. For to truly know, one must feel safe to stand up for learned principles that may cause others to condemn.

    This is the essence of freedom. That is the spirit Scientology hast lost. Lost to a tyranny of mind a tyranny of greed and power. For whatever reason.

    Destroy whatever seed thoughts germinated these weeds. I have given my two cents over these emotionally charged controversies.

    But if freedom and reason, love and kindness rules this camp, there will be a future.

    If those weeds are not removed, they may sprout to see a new day of tyranny, when the right mentality sees justification to save the world yet again.

  29. i concur completely, Marty. This was the way I studied Scientology in the early 1970s. I became a Cl IV when I was 21, so I had the benefit of becoming a successful auditor near the start of my staff career, which I felt at the time gave me a certain perspective on everything that was going on; that is, to say, the perspective of someone who KNEW how to successfuly apply the procedures of Scientology. I will also add that as an experienced auditor, one also treated one’s fellow staff members with much more compassion and understanding than one saw generally around the org, even then.

    *note, if anyone DID want to see how Ron agreed with Marty as to his stated method of studying, LRH expresses this in his study lectures of the early 1950s.

  30. Zing! Oh, man, I wonder whether any lurkers got the “I would rather err with Miscavige than be right with LRH” line from bulletin. Tremendous post, Marty.

    • Yes, that was a real zinger! Very spot on. Could be modifies a tad to:
      I would rather drink Kool-Aide with Miscaviage than have a beer with LRH!

  31. Journey Continued

    Great post Marty and from my point of view the best of your work. It is not about being on the Scientology side or any other side. It is simply about learning the truth and being able to apply what works to better conditions.

    Zealots in all forms create barriers to knowledge, achievement, advancement, healing, health and happiness – amongst many other things.

    Bravo and well stated.

  32. Totally best post ever, Marty!

  33. Marty, if you wouldn’t mind saying, I was curious about something that I would really be interested to know: If you weren’t already a trained auditor and that wasn’t your livelihood, would you choose again to train for that profession, knowing what you know now, or would you choose some other field to invest years of your life studying? This is highly hypothetical, I know, but I wondered if in hindsight and with the wider knowledge you now have you would pursue some other purpose line or philosophy and what that would be.

    • I would do it again without hesitation.

      • Thank you for the explicit answer to my question! Not that I was surprised by it, but I wanted to know for sure as, for me, the answer would say a lot. In fact, from my point of view those brief words speak volumes.

  34. Marty,
    This is a beautiful post.
    After reading this I feel that I now have a better understand where you are at regarding KSW. . You really study honestly and are encouraging others to do so. I greatly appreciate that.
    I particularly appreciate the following observation of yours:

    “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.”

    …..So true. I too have observed this. Those who seek to impose their “high and mighty authority” instead of gently moving the understanding of others on up a little higher, do so because they themselves have a lack of understanding of the Tech. And they are to that degree pretenders. They try to hide their actual ignorance with blasts of arrogance. Your observation of this phenomenon occurring up lines is quite telling.
    I have always felt that the learning tech and the study tech comprise the most important tech in Scientology because they are the key that opens the door to all of he rest of the Tech.
    Thank you for this.

  35. I’ve said this several times but each time it’s true! THIS is your most important / best post ever! It is PRECISELY the sentiments expressed in How to Study Scientology that appealed and made it a subject worth investing in for me back in 1981. Bravo!

    As far as references go to support your rationale – they are all pretty much in the Student Hat – one of the first courses most folk study.

  36. Theo Sismanides

    Marty, as I said I see more and more where you are coming from. And I think that we are all going to agree here that too many vias bring a stop. I think you want to do away with the vias and just get down to business. It is understood and it is a new, fresh viewpoint.

    I am not going to go into the third dynamic aberrations. It would be anathema to this beautiful post.

    All I am going to say is that myself I did study mostly outside of the Academy. On Lebanon Hall at nights I used to study the PDCs, hehehe and other materials. This “study” was the best for me. I was free to read and understand, clear up my words and get the concepts.

    As soon as I would go into the Academy I had a feeling I was pushed to study. That was strange and probably had to do with me. But I felt that way.

    Your post here reminded me of that and the gains I had from the study I chose to do and which fit me best. My own study of the materials. Not for the sake of student points or to be finishing checksheets.

    So, I see where you are coming from. As to who is with L. Ron Hubbard Game I think this can only be shown by results. Nothing else. Thanks.

    • Theo, I know several people who spent a long time in the Sea Org who did not get the opportunity to train who did like you did and listened to PDC and the like. As a result they understand the essence of the philosophy of Scientology better than most.

      • This is why I am here ready to Move On. I got the essence, I put up with Miscavige as I had my certainty like you did. I am here on board as this is also needed, a team, my friend of people who can get the very essence of things. All the rest are there for those who can’t judge and think in a sane way. I believe I can now.

  37. So I wake up at 4:30am today…waaaaay too early. I pull up this site and read it and thought “I am so glad I got up early and read this.”

    On the last post you had, I replied how I held to a stable datum in audting to get my wins, and this was exactly the same thing Marty communicated although his communication is “slightly” better than mine!

    Marty, you are getting better and better. I thought your last post was your best and it was–until I read this one. Stand up and take a bow

  38. It is precisely this view that has stopped me throwing away Scientology altogether. It is only this view that keeps me being a Scientologist since leaving the authoritarian walls of its official organization.

  39. WOW, Marty!
    This, for me, is your best post yet!
    If I’m honest, I always thought the circumstances of your training made it slightly suspect, now you put a totally different angle on it. An angle that I must admit make total sense!
    And none of it contradicts Keeping Scientology Working. To the contrary, having these LRH references in capital letters on the wall of every Academy would be keeping Scientology working!
    Marcel Wenger

  40. This makes perfect sense to me. It’s hard to get into what you are studying when you are worried you might be sent down the rabbit hole with unneeded “handlings” because you aren’t sitting up straight enough or you were caught having realizations about something you just read and no longer had your nose in the book.
    To me, GAT was a “solution” for something out with study. Maybe this was it! Thanks, Marty for the last two posts. :)

  41. “Those things I tell you are true are not true because I tell you they are true. And if anything I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation (be it a good observation), then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter whether I said it was true or not. Do you understand?”
    –L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Effective Knowledge, 15 July 1957 lecture
    Wonderful lecture, has many gems in it!

  42. I can fully agree. What I studied I tried to apply in my life. I tried the Creative Processing to heal my cat AND to win on slot machines. I used the E-Meter to make well a PC with listing and nulling tech and I used listing and nulling to find the next weeks lottery numbers. I use the data series to handle computer defects or electronics that does not work. One can do lots of things with the tech. It is not limited to being inside a church and pay for its application.
    Inside I hated those „you have to apply it word by word“ kind of people.

  43. Shocking to me that there are perhaps some who are now avowed enemies of Marty.

    Obviously dm and his gang but how is it possible that perhaps people who posted here and were known voices here are perhaps now enemies of Marty?

    Anything is possible I suppose but I posit that perhaps what might be missing is simply something this new voice (to me at least) Dio posted:

    “The main point is that scientology can not be understood unless you compare it to all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe.”

    It’s been my experience when speaking to some independents that their knowledge and/or understanding of OTHER philosophies and traditions are lacking. Except for a tiny handful, those who post about buddhism, for example, honestly know less than a cursory glance at wikipedia.

    As a PUBLIC REG for years and basically continuing with that cheerleader-type-beingness my whole life — I know HOW to talk to non-scientologists, non-buddhists …

    Because I can compare a datum IN scientology to their own knowledge of let’s say fixing a car, or playing football, or diapering a baby.

    That said — the above are DATUMS, not a subject of comparable magnitude.

    It is my hope that those who no longer post here just might step back for a few days and or weeks and rather than feel they’ve been abandoned or are doing the abandonment — perhaps see we actually agree more than we disagree.

    Auditors ARE the most valuable beings on the planet. And stretching that just a tiny bit to include those who lessen the sufferings of others by helping a person know himself and reduce his own suffering — I think those adamant about KSW, will agree.

    The difference between someone being alive and someone being dead is one breath. The in-breath doesn’t happen.

    The difference between a living technology and a dying one one is measured by the death of the practitioners (auditors, high lamas etc) who genuinely were/are able to free another. (BTW — as an aside, the high lamas from Tibet are dying off. There are very few capable of standing in their shoes IMHO)

    Why pick sides when with a bit of opening of the heart one can see we stand together. Mankind needs help.

    Not more arguments and enemies.

    Christine

    • Well said, Christine. For me, the beginning of the end was in the late 1970s when the finger pointing and name calling started where I was. Let’s please not go down that road again. We can’t afford it.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Yeah ! This is a major why !

      Lack of education in wordly subjects. No course in Scientology can do that !

      Christine i’m still collecting the different pieces of my thetan. ;)

  44. Marty, once again you have hit the nail on the head. I would just like to add a factor I’ve not seen addressed, having to do with why various people are attracted to Scientology in the first place. Some have a purpose to help others, or solve a personal ‘ruin’. Some are seeking enlightenment, or are just infected with a burning curiosity. And then, there are sociopaths.

    For a sociopath, every personal relationship is a contest, with a winner and a loser. To some extent they are at war with everyone else in the human race. What could be more appealing to such a person than a technology that promises to make them stronger, smarter, more able than their fellows, with unprecedented tools to control others? I think sociopaths are attracted to Scientology in large numbers, for all the wrong reasons.

    Reed Slatkin is not the only Scientologist in the business community with criminal tendencies. I have known dozens. Among staff, such tendencies might manifest by ‘crazy’ applications of policy. Or taking someone eager to learn and enforcing that desire until it dies. These are just two examples. I’m sure most of your readers can come up with more from their own experience. The common denominator will be an ARC break, less reach, or in some other way blocking the effectiveness of the tech. You thought you and the other person shared the same ideals and goals, but in fact it to them it was a contest and because you weren’t aware of that, you lost.

    And I submit that in the current management atmosphere, sociopathic tendencies are actually a requirement to rise through the ranks to any degree.

    • You make a good point here. I am going to expand on that in my book. But, it is interesting that I had similar thoughts this week while training a person on the Upper Indoc TRs course.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      +100000000
      I never understood why criminals (even with records) or crazy people (were ruthkess) were promoted. !

    • Aelolus, I think too that the constant pressure for stats (every. single. week.) makes what starts out as a normally social personality, become sociopathic. And the overts (karma) pile up. Reg’ing people for money they know the person doesn’t have. Recruiting people for staff or the S.O. when they know the environment is destructive. People associated with that constant pressure become more sociopathic, more covert, and more manipulative.

      • Thanks, Margaret. That indicates as a likely aspect of it. A lot of progress has been made in the last decade or so in our understanding of sociopathic behavior, and since reading Martha Stout’s book I’ve been wading in and trying to get a handle on it. For one thing, it appears that sociopathology is a spectrum, and perhaps we all have some of those tendencies, latent or otherwise, that get reinforced in a suppressive environment. The more serious cases though seem to involve some hardwiring, possibly genetic, and the traits start showing up very early in childhood. I suspect Miscavige was quite a handful as a toddler.

      • +1 Margaret

        This said -1 to Aolus’ “I think sociopaths are attracted to Scientology in large numbers, for all the wrong reasons.”
        I think the latter is true of Army, police, psychiatry, even possibly the
        medical field, were you are in a position of controlling others, rather than
        sitting in an auditing chair. l

        • Just for the record, I also don’t think sociopaths are attracted to being auditors, but then most Scientologists are not auditors. In fact, even most staff members are not auditors, and this is more true now than it used to be.

          If someone is auditing and producing winning PCs, that is probably the most reliable indicator you could find that they are not a sociopath.

      • I don’t think I’ve ever seen that put that clearly before.

  45. You all can debate how to study Scientology all you want but the truth is Scientology will never make any real progress as a world religion despite some of the tremendous tech it contains as the subject, at least since the mid 1960s, has been extremely anti family. I won’t list out all the ways this is easily provable but I will give you a pre-DM example of a young couple, namely myself and my former wife, Katie Tighe Paquette, as an example of Scientology’s anti-family slant that has always been prevalent in Orgs at least since I became involved with the subject:

    Katie & I had our first child in 1980. We were both on staff. I was 22, Katie was 21. We made no money as staff and of course had no health insurance. To save money (or because we had no money) we planned to have the birth at home with “Scientology” mid wives. The long & short of that was a near disaster with Katie in labor for nearly 24 hours and our son nearly dying only saved by me rushing Katie to the hospital with minutes to spare. Did I mention Katie was on post until her water broke and was back on post within a day or two?

    Shortly after the birth of our son Katie was sent away for full time training leaving me to handle our baby while doing a full time Org post and a moonlight job. A real family friendly move, wouldn’t you say?

    In 1981 we had a daughter. Again the birth was done at home but at least we somehow managed to pay for a doctor. Within a few months the Org again sent Katie away for full time training. My new daughter was shipped off to Texas to stay with her grandmother. I again somehow cared for my son, held down a full time Org post and moonlighted.

    At times we had to get food stamps just to feed the kids, use free clinics for checkups and when relatives would come to town typically only one of us would be allowed time off post to visit. Katie almost divorced me when her parents and grandparents came to town once I was unable to get off post.

    There are more real horror stories through 1984 regarding my children and dealing with my being a staff member. I won’t bore you with them but I can tell you one for one they are all a result of the family unit being treated as dev-t within the Scientology universe. Anyone who denies this is has there head stuck in the sand. Unfortunately this attitude seems very much reflected in the life of our founder from the mid 1960s on in regards to his own family.

    DM has only made it worse. I remember DM’s twin sister telling me one time, “David’s family is the SO”. But I expect LRH may have had the same view.

    My story is not isolated. We all know It is and always has been SOP. IMHO this almost complete invalidation of the family unit within Scientology is the achilles heal of Scientology. Families are looked up at best as a “recruitment pool”.

    So debate away but society will never accept Scientology, corporate or otherwise, as long as the family unit is treated with such disdain. Scientology will remain a very small, insignificant self help activity until the family unit is treated on equal basis as the 3D within Orgs. And there will need to be Orgs one way or the other.

    LRHs and later DMs big mistake was to fuck with the family unit. If the Indies “win” don’t let history repeat itself.

    • Kevin,
      I don’t think the point here is how to study scientology but rather that we must all learn to evaluate the data and decide for ourselves what is workable, what aligns with creating a better condition and what does not.

      I happen to agree with your comment:
      “society will never accept Scientology, corporate or otherwise, as long as the family unit is treated with such disdain.”

      How this came to pass I could not say other than to speculate. That it exists is true for me. I can also spot this viewpoint in other religious and non religious areas, even down to the workaholic mainstream American corporate mentality. CO$ has perfected that to the extreme and justified it with the “we’re the only ones who can save the planet!” viewpoint.

      In the end this is not about winning or losing. Life can exist and conditions can change for the better but I don’t think that it will depend on whether there will be Orgs. My viewpoint is that we need individuals that can observe, evaluate, decide and provide some level of leadership and to that end, we all get our turn ‘at bat’.

      Glad to be here with you in that process. Hope your family is doing well.

    • Great post Kevin. I agree and am, right now, facing how to have my family (still young and living at home) and be an auditor at the same time. My kids were the reason for my departure from the thing I absolutely loved most – auditing people. I could never have both. And now with a second generation that might want to learn to audit, how the hell do I do that with them?! I’m not blaming anybody and I will work this out.

    • Kevin, what you say about the family life of a staff member is certainly true. When I was on staff, children were simply dev-t to be handled. My local org does have a different attitude now, which I am glad for the staff. Still, disconnection policy and the way teens who work at the org are treated as the org’s children (bypass of parents) makes Scientology 2d unfriendly.

    • Kevin you got that right!

      My wife and I escaped being recruited into the Sea Org by one of the Hare brothers around 1972. What a nightmare that would have been, as we had 2 baby girls at home at the time. He made the S.O. TTC deal sound soooooo good, but virtually ignored the fact of our children. I think we instinctively knew it wouldn’t work.

      Looking at it now, I think the org and especially S.O.attitude towards children is a perfect illustration of the CoS failure to “Integrate”, much less “Evolve”.

      Scientology was supposed to be Integrated into Life, just as Marty posted, not the other way around. Overall, Life consists of optimally surviving along ALL the Dynamics, not just a very specialized 3rd. Sure, some people may on their own determinism decide to dedicate their lives, or at least many years, to an exclusive 3D. But how many people realized at the outset they would be asked or told to sacrifice their 1D and 2D, as well as their other 3Ds like their parents and extended family and other associates, not to mention other Dynamics too, “for the Cause”?

      That is not Integrating Scientology with Life and the world! It is the opposite – trying to somehow squeeze all the other Dynamics down into just the 3D. That’s actually not optimum survival for the greatest number of Dynamics. It’s the direction of the increasing neglect of and overts against most of the Dynamics! It is not “evolution”, it may be called “devolution”.

      So it devolved into an enforced communism which made nothing of other Dynamics AND did not export, apply and Integrate the available tools for enlightenment out into the broader world. Big fail

      No, we definitely don’t want to go there again!

    • Yes – I started a rant against the Sea Org this morning and mid-rant, I realized that it is not just the SO, but any staff experience, that was screwed up in the church and which ended up polluting the subject completely.

      The Sea Org is the cult, not Scientology. There are lots of reasons why. But, as you had the misfortune to experience, life at a Class V org was no picnic either. And, life as mission staff was no picnic – especially when Kingsley Wimbush was your Mission Holder.

      Kevin, you focus on the 2nd dynamic. But really, didn’t being on staff cuss up every dynamic? Did you have any pay? No. Did you have any life outside the org? No. Any time off? Don’t make me laugh. Did you have friends you hung out with who were NOT on staff? No. I can go on. Am I right?

      The “mission” was more important than any mere body. The “mission” was more important than kids, than your parents, than your friends, than your health, than your case level (Training? Auditing? Yeah, right.)

      The ONLY place I found fanaticism, priesthoods, know-best, rigid orthodoxy, unthinking roteness, out-of-valence cruelty, and stupidity in Scientology, was on staff. I never really saw this when I was on course. Only on staff, and primarily in SO orgs.

      Loved the line “David’s family is the SO”. No it isn’t. There is no family in the SO. David has no family – his dad blew. His wife is missing. His niece is writing an anti-Scientology book. And his “family” of SO members hate his guts. Life in the SO is a viper pit. There is no family there.

      You are right. This must be handled. I am hoping we all learned that mindless adherence to a “cause” is incredibly damaging, no matter how “noble” the cause is. Even the best cause is tainted and corrupted by fanaticism.

      Mark

      • Spot on post. Although I did find that as a public student, I was bullied into putting in more and more and more extra time on course that my “other” 3D activities went by the boards. No one actually said, “You’ve got to leave the band,” but the flow definitely was that my membership of it was dev-t and I ended up leaving eventually because I had been overscheduled in the org and missed too many rehearsals. And I was prevented from taking my last opportunity to defend a national youth music championship title because I had no time to practice anymore.

        Once on staff, the insanity spread to my moonlight job being regarded as dev-t. If I had to stay late to handle some flap that had come up at work and was late for post in the evening, no prizes for guessing what would happen. I was expected to be able to come to the org in the daytime for some “all hands” with insufficient time to book the day off at work, or sent to some higher org for training without any notice. It didn’t figure that the income from my moonlight was the only thing that made it possible for me to be on post there in the first place!

        As for the other dynamics – are you kidding me?

    • By the way, Kevin, how is your son?
      My name is Flavio and I am an acquaintance of his back when we were at FLB in the RPF.
      Is he still in the SO?
      If not, is there a way to contact him — maybe Facebook?
      My email is flavp2003@yahoo.com

      • Brendan left the SO about a year after I was declared as he refused to continue to be disconnected. He had to walk away from his wife, mother, sister and friends. Despite that he is doing very well. I will give him your email address and yes he is on Facebook.

  46. Marty,
    Really well done on your recent series of posts, esp today. This process (your blog posts) is the wake-up call that everyone who has ever been associated with LRH and Scientology needs to shake loose those held down 7s and evaluate for themselves what is really true for them.

    Glad you are able to work on completing your book and look forward to it’s publication!

  47. Kevin,
    It has been very obvious that what you say about how families are looked upon within the church has been the case in practice, but I have to say I missed the part of the Scientology materials that would have attempted to get me to think that way. You said you wouldn’t give examples of how the tech is anti-family, but I wish you would so I know where you are coming from in this respect.

    On the other hand, you bring up a good point about the necessity of prioritizing the family in order for Scientology to ever be accepted universally.

    • I never said the tech was anti-family but within the 3D the family is considered dev-t except as an income and recruitment source for the 3D. There seems to a robotic way many look at Scientology tech i.e. if it isn’t written it isn’t true. Well for as long as I’ve been around (1977) the family unit has been considered dev-t when it comes to 3D matters whether it is written or not. It is empirical. It doesn’t need to be in writing. It is an is-ness for any whose eyes are not wide shut. It came from somewhere. It has permeated the organizations since at least the late 1970s. Read what Kima Douglas had to say about children on the Apollo. The things I agreed to in regards to my children now literally make me ill to think about all in the name of the 3D. It went on before DM and it only got way worse under DM. If I went into detail I think you’d get ill too. For those who have experienced what it’s like to have children and be on staff you know what I’m talking about. It is downright criminal and I for one am I ashamed I agreed to it. But I didn’t for long and began to pay the price for it as early as 1984 when I was threatened with declare if I didn’t sign over the rights to my children to my wife so she could go in the SO. I fought back and got my ass kicked for many years as a result.

      • I hear you Kevin and I agree. It hurts to look at what I agreed with while in the cult. I didn’t put myself or my family first and went into agreement with the suppressive atmosphere. This is going back to 1975.

      • I am SO with you, Kevin – your post really hit a button. It’s very hard to understand what having a family under such conditions is like unless you’ve been through the meat grinder of a Class 5 org before OR after LRH was on the scene. We’ve heard all about the hardships of being in the Sea Org, but just try raising a family as a staff member of a small org while keeping the show on the road at the same time. It tore at my heart and sanity – there are volumes that could be written about the heartache and sacrifice of those on the front lines of delivery and contact with the public. I’m so thankful that my three daughters and I have such a loving and lasting relationship despite the insanity – to tell the truth, even though I was the C/S and they were on course, I made SURE my daughters were never recruited.

        What those of you who were never staff members need to understand is that no, disregard and neglect of the families of org staff is NOT part of the tech, but it sure as hell was the standard operating procedure of the orgs I was associated with despite the best efforts of those few staff who were compassionate enough not to be intimidated by upper org management. Best always, Kevin.

        • YEP! to Kevin and Don: I’ve got lots of experience with this and the org will try and control the communication line between parent and child if they think that the parent is intruding on ‘org business’, which in fact, is all scientologist’s business anyway.

      • Kevin,
        If I would have been star-rated on your comment I would have flunked. I thought you had said that the tech contained anti-family sentiments but looking it over again, I see that you did not.

        Also, I did not, and do not, have any disagreements with what you are saying about how the organization regards families. It is very obvious to observe.

        Dave

        • Thank you for yours and everyone else’s comments. As we all know there are similarities, differences and identities. For the life of me I don’t understand why LRH allowed Scientology to be so different than the rest of society in certain important ways. Example: Making some staff stay on post on Thanksgiving and Christmas. All in the name of the almighty stat and of course, saving the planet, as it’s gonna blow up within a few years…not. So short sighted; so destructive. IMHO it these type of idiocies are why Scientology, with tech that is so often wonderfully workable, has and never will be accepted unless those in charge purge the destructive policies from the organization. Start with closing Orgs down on Thanksgiving (at least here in the US). That would certainly send a signal that the Church has made a course correction. A few more: Insists that all SO members take their yearly leave and make the SO fund the vacations; ban abortions in the SO. If a SO member wants to get an abortion than they can route and do it on their own. Simple, common sense policies that aren’t all about how to get the dang GI & WDAH “up”.

  48. Marty,
    Very nice post. It is very true for me and very funny!

    Thanks for bringing life back into the subject.

  49. Thanx Marty, this is truly weighty stable datum!!!
    Can’t wait for your next book. Will your next text focus on the philosophical or the historical?

  50. There are certain topics on the blog where I am reluctant to comment because I am not a trained auditor (other than solo). I came into scn as a spiritual seeker looking for more truth about life and living and as a helper looking for more tools to use to help others. I had studied other practices always with an emphasis on learning the techniques for helping. At the beginning, I assumed I would train as an auditor – it was an “of course” for me. I started right away doing all the courses I could at a mission. We were at a very challenging early stage of building our business and it required I work long hours and many months away from home. There was way more at stake than personal income and many more people affected than me and Ken so I put my spiritual and study goals a bit on the back burner. When I had the time to get back to study, it was post-GAT and I could see how difficult the training was becoming and from what I could see at the local level, potential for more ethics trouble, my interest started to wane. I knew I did not want to become an automated cog in someone else’s auditing delivery machine. Either I could think for myself and help the person as a free being, or I would find another way to contribute. After leaving the church, I sure as heck did not want to invest more of myself in all of that. I would help by preparing a meal or giving encouragement or connecting someone with an auditor.

    This post opens the possibility of actually understanding how auditing works and being able to use that understanding to help someone. That is a possibility that I will at least contemplate.

    • A very experienced high-level auditor said to me, “You know more about auditing than you know.” It is the disposition, the will, the love, of the auditor that makes the difference. The mechanics are, thanks to LRH’s work, easy. He makes sure you get it. That’s the enduring re-re-re-realization I have about LRH, again and again — he served it up like a five-course dinner at a five-star restaurant. Never have I seen such care. Great men are great men.

      • Yes, when you are in high arc with a pc you could say a command backwards and it wouldn’t create any charge— it ain’t the words or the meter as much as it is the BEINGNESS and the TOTAL DUPLICATION.

        • Some would-be student auditors are terrified that their TR 1 isn’t “perfect”, or their TR 0. If an auditor can audit when a mirror held to his lips mists over, then an auditor can audit if he can just see the PC (which is what TR 0 is really about in the first place, seeing the PC, looking at the PC, watching the PC, and not TR 0 “put your TR’s in a service facsimile, screw the lid on real tight, and scare the PC to instant Clear”).

    • Yvonne: Not intending to take away from your perhaps newly contemplating idea to learn how auditing works but because I tend to sometimes state things too emphatically in one direction – forgetting another.

      (what is called a lack of balance :)

      In any case, you and Ken are proven successful entrepreneurs and executives. These qualities are not found in everyone and what you have given to your friends and acquaintances through the years should not and cannot be denied.

      When I was waxing on about auditors — I did so in part because I felt that I had stubbed a few toes recently as well as my own recent realizations.

      That said — I believe there are those (of us) who have qualities, abilities and training from scientology/LRH, university or other education or other means (life experience) that should not be denied.

      Steve Hall, for example, isn’t to my knowledge an auditor (other than solo) BUT he’s spent the better part of his adult life as a designer, marketing guru and sage. This isn’t to be cast out as unimportant.

      If we were all to now drop everything and become auditors — I’m not sure this would ultimately be that helpful. We need people who are able to talk to groups, who can build where there wasn’t anything, who can act competently as quality control.

      Bottom line — it’s important I think to acknowledge HOW have we spent our lives. What are the skill sets we’ve worked with REGARDLESS where we got them.

      We should not chuck our experiences and abilities, rather step back and view that we are HERE because of everything we’ve experienced.

      Nothing should be cut away.

      Love,
      Christine

      • Thank you, Christine. I did not mean this as any self-flagellation. I know that our contributions as executives are extremely valuable and have saved lives as well as enhanced the fortunes of others. I have no regrets now and did not at any time related to my personal path. I suppose I value the ability to audit so highly that I am willing to contemplate the worth of having that exact skill versus the investment of time and attention to develop it. I’m only looking at it right now. Perhaps my life purpose resides more along the line of making things flow smoothly around those who do audit. I so love organizational work that you can’t stop me from poking my fingers into some group someplace. And, yet, could I do that more effectively if I too had the auditing skills whether or not I am “in the chair” on a routine basis? Just an area for looking.

        • Yvonne: Understood.

          For what it’s worth — Yvonne Gillham Jentzsch always said that if she had to chose one — her FEBC training or her Class VIII training, she would always chose her Class VIII training.

          Christine

  51. Marty,

    Definitely, one must know what one has works, and one must know how to use it. So I’m going to take you to task as being a heretic, just as you feared. Haha! Yourself and others “grew up” as it were, within the Co$. I didn’t. I would find it ironic, that those who protest the Co$ 1980’s and forwards (and everything that came with it, the abuses of people and tech which have grown to the point of horrors), adhere to the 1980’s Grade Chart. And not only that, but dismiss the 1970’s Grade Chart.

    Any fool can stand there and tell me THAT I have not seen what I have seen, and THAT I have not experienced what I have experienced. I know the 1970’s Grade Chart worked (works), and produced (produces) exactly what was promised on it. The thing is, each step must be done to an honest and satisfactory EP. Each step. Every step. Unthinkable, huh, that one must have every component of an automobile present and accounted for if one wants it to work as a whole? That’s Aristotle, for you! That includes Life Repair, Objectives, Dianetics, all Grades, ExDn if needed, Power Processing, R6EW, the Clearing Course, and the original OT levels, OT I-III (then NOTs, which was added), then OT IV-VII.

    It’s interesting to find a blog where I may be labelled a heretic for adhering to LRH’s original works. A scholarly gentleman in Switzerland researched materials and concluded he would trust everything up to about 1976. I didn’t do a lot of research, but I have deduced the same. The frustration LRH must have felt in trying to get large numbers of people in such a venture as Dianetics and Scientology to stick to simple instructions and be of goodwill towards each other must have been immense, and I believe adequately explains such recent topics as KSW and KAW. Sometimes one has to SHOUT, apparently, to be heard over the din of the reactive mind. (I read KSW and thought, “Well … du-uh!!” got my super-checkout, and never read it again. I just flipped the pages to get to the red-on-white, and screw the goddamned army.)

    Carcha

    • Interesting comment.

      Who is this guy:“A scholarly gentleman in Switzerland researched materials and concluded he would trust everything up to about 1976.”
      It means he rejects NED&NOTs?

      The above sequence of the bridge-steps. Was it ever laid out this way in writings, somewhere?

      • The Grade Chart, in 1970 and again in 1975, has the steps I outlined. R6EW Routine 6 End Words (in the red vols), deals with dichotomies, and is Grade VI Release (requires solo auditor training). ARC Straightwire is also in there, and there are some other rundowns such as Power Plus (Recovery of Knowledge Grade V-A, follows Power or Grade V), the “Sunshine Rundown”, the Drug Rundown if necessary following LR, and some advocate the Purification and the OT Drug Rundown, if needed. My observation is that those who actually decided or concluded (in practice) that life is better and easier outside a body that in one, did the earlier Bridge. I’ve always disagreed that an auditor is the most valuable person on the planet – to me, a C/S (Case Supervisor, who indicates which processes to run and monitors case progress) is more valuable.

        The Swiss guy is on the web somewhere – I lost the site, and I’m not good with German names, but he’s an “old-timer”. I don’t recall the guy’s position on NOTs, but my take on it is an extension of OT III, to make it easier to clean up the case – it seems a logical extension especially as it includes OT III actions. Both OT III and NOTs are “controversial” to some extent, some people holding different views, even after completion. Given that Scn is itself “controversial” I would assume any controversy over NOTs is sourced in lack of understanding.

        I’m not the world’s leading authority on the Grade Chart – there are a lot of people who are familiar with it and have run it all. The data is all available in the red vols.

        • I now make up my mind on each datum I receive, as to its truth for me based on my own observation of life. Of course I do not close the door on further observation re: any given datum (as my observation might have beeen faulty or incomplete) nor do I reject the idea of changing my mind about any given datum (fixed ideas being not part of my MO). I can decide to accept 50% of Scientology as true or 90% of it as true. No checkouts, no stress or group pressure on any datum.

  52. OK. Here’s an example from my own training: Ron said you needed to pull overts with an attitude of “swinish suspicion”. I never had to and I never will. If the PC is there to be audited, and I am in communication with him, he’ll tell me. If he can’t find it I can help him with the meter.

    This goes back to an early tape in the ’50s. I heard it maybe 15 years ago so it would be impossible to give you the exact tape. But essentially he said that early on he was very worried that his own individual viewpoint would somehow color the tech. Well, I’m afraid that his viewpoint colored the tech when it came to helping people get their overts off. It wasn’t necessary and I didn’t use it and my PCs had the huge wins they should have on getting their overts off. I’m afraid “swinish suspicion” is guaranteed to throw out the comm cycle making getting off overts a torture.

    Now if you are auditing an SP… But wait a minute. What are you doing auditing an SP?

    • Hi WF,

      That “swinish suspicion” reference was for ethics officers, not auditors. I do believe that attitude would be a gross violation of the Auditor’s Code.

    • @A WISE FOOL,
      there is a difference in how one is supposed to conduct confessional auditing as oppossed to presession ruds which I ‘m sure you know. Still, you are right in that if the auditor has ‘an attitude’ toward the pc, then he/she can be made to read false. It is a matter of TRs and being there with the pc making it safe. Obviouslly you did that without additives.

  53. Thanks for laying it out there Marty. More sanity. Nice. Function dictates structure. The church might be circling the drain but the independents have escaped with all the treasures they need to carry on.

  54. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    OH my God Marty….pure aethetics and theta..your essay. LRH would be proud of You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is the way I learned Scientology and always applied it. The result was that I was in constant ethics trouble or case troubles for 40 years as I never could understand the different understanding mostly the important people had about Scientology. I hoped I’ll be able to handle those guys If I become OT 8 but…………

    Universities qualify their students. Org neither did. I haven’t seen a University trying to train people that weren’t qualified. If they would, we never would have landed on the moon and the Internet wouldn’t exist yet.

    You’re speaking out of the heart of 10 000ds and the millions that were disseminated to in the last 62 years.

    A renaissance is en route and it will go up a little bit higher at very fast speed.

    Thank you for speaking my mind !

    I dream about founding an University of Scientology, Psychology and Philosophy and even Sciences or something like that !!!!
    or founding a foundation with this as a purpose. Or how about talking to some Scientists and working out a worldwide database where Auditors report their Sessions and thousands of different evaluations could be done ? and….and…

    What are the dreams of some other people here ?

    • Something like a Panoptic Philosophy Institute? Intriguing.

    • My dream would be a thorough collection of all Materials ever written by LRH, with all later revisions.
      This would be a tresure of data.

      A foundation to lay out the correct bridge steps and the final revision of materials would be great.
      But I see no need to collect stats, reports and such.
      Scientology doesn’t need to proove something to the society either – at least it’s not a mainstream religion. Never was. It’s more something for spiritual seekers, not believers. Hence, why trying to convince anyone of its workability by statistics and evals? For me it’s kind of A-J.

      Scientology is best disseminated by word of mouth. Allways has been.
      In this way you have also no over-expansion and can handle the new people coming in appropriately.

      That’s my thoughts.

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Yes and no to your comment !
        I’m too simple a thetan to reflect more about it.
        But Science always tries to prove things and when it’s done workable technology ensues. A grassroot movement would (could) also be a proof:
        I don’t understand why Scientologists don’t want to prove their assumptions. When I was disseminating I mostly was able to prove what I told !

        More dreams ????
        I think great times are ahead of us !

        • As soon as you start to prove things people will question everything.
          There are always people who will challenge you with questions which are not at all or not so easily to demonstrate (like OT abilities, and something they picked up on the internet).

          You can have a scientific approach on Scientology to test the workability of some processes or its effects. Of course. And LRH did allow and encourage tests in the early stages of Dianetics.

          I never tried to prove anything in dissemination. I gave assists, W/C or gave them something to read. It depends on the audience. Cognitions and insight are best ways to disseminate.
          Or I simply do not get what you mean by “proving”. It’s like in “How to study Scientology” where the one guy forces the others to see how he makes an axe out of stone? :-D

          More dreams?
          Of course: more centers delivering training and processing independently of the RTC.
          In a perfect world we also would have LRH materials free of all the crappy arbitraries and “new ideas” of the RTC.

          Cheers,
          SKM

  55. Mother of Grendel

    “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.”

    In my life as a student of Scn I have had two “Wow – he’s talking to me!” moments.

    One was sitting in the courseroom listening to an academy lecture and hearing LRH say *to me* that I was there because I was one fo the few that was awake. It actually shot me back down the track to a moment when I was walking in a park and looked around me to realize that indeed I was “awake” and “aware” of being exactly in that spot at that time.

    The second was reading these words and finally feeling acknowledged for having the intelligence and ability to study Scn the way I’ve always felt it should be studied.

    So thank you Marty for that.

    And for the rest… please – listen to any of LRH’s auditing sessions, understand what he’s doing and WAKE UP!

  56. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Just read through all the comments here.
    Have some wet eyes !

    The best essay ever written by Marty and the best comments ever written by the Indies !

    Thank you !

  57. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    And to add to it:

    I have disseminated to thousands of people and presented Scientology as described in the essay of Marty. About 80% of the people were always interested ! And I was very successful in it. But what they got then was horrible.

    To disseminate a “pure Scientology” is very fun, easy and simple, and mostly everybody wants it on this Planet !

    So what’s the problem ?

  58. While on the Briefing Course in the eve’s I had a day job with
    plenty of opportunity to test all the wonderful knowledge LRH
    gave me. And I took nothing for granted and sometimes I did
    it to a point it became a bit outrageous. EVERYTHING Ron
    told me in Bulletins, books and tapes checked out exactly as
    he had said. On top of that I also got promoted several times
    in a very short order until the execs wanted me to go to College
    to get the next pay grade. And that was just from applying Tech
    as I had no knowledge in admin.
    Not that I doubted Ron, but for some reason I always wanted to
    verify the data.

    From the previous post I also wanted to say s/g about the very
    long comments about the disconnection/fair game/dangerous
    environment. I have seen nothing good come out of applying
    these. However, I have seen many instances when comm.
    has handled the whole thing. Yes, I have gotten a practicing
    psychiatrist to cognite on axiom 1, another person who had a
    gun and was going to use it to finally hug and thank me and
    one time a gang from East LA was going to attack me and
    they finally did not. When LRH said that communication is the
    universal solvent he meant it.

    Lastly, this posting Marty is just right on. Without you there as
    an individual, you just become a parrot, zombie or robot. You
    are the central point in your universe who must evaluate, learn
    and make the data YOUR own. And that takes experience and
    other data to join it up to and in the end to use it and see it work
    (or not work).

  59. Thanks again for yet again hitting the nail on the head with an awe-inspiring article. From my observation, fanaticism exists just as much in the “Independent Field” as it does in the Church. Quite frankly, I am done with that game. I simply want to peacefully and on my own determinism study and apply what is true for me. Whether it be LRH and/or another author is my choice and mine alone. There is a lot of truth out there to behold as LRH discovered in distilling data from 50,000 years of thinking men. In fact he even said, “Scientology does not teach you. It only reminds you. For the information was yours in the first place.” from the book Fundamentals of Thought – Chapter 4- Knowledge and Causation
    That said, with the help of LRH’s teachings over the past 37 years, I recovered a great deal of what I knew all along but had seemingly forgotten and am getting on with my new life, free of arrogance and the “holier than thou” attitude.
    No folks, Scientologists are not “the best people” as DM announces at nearly every event. There are countless incredible, spiritually minded beings on this planet. They are right on the same track with many of us, they just use different words (which is another subject all in itself- was it really necessary to create an entirely separate language for Scientology).
    I think it is high time they were granted the beingness that is well deserved instead of being snubbed as “wogs” and excluded.
    Really now, how the hell are we to clear a planet when we alienate the very people we are supposed to salvage!

    • ” how the hell are we to clear a planet when we alienate the very people we are supposed to salvage!”

      Or feel disdain for them, or superior to them or remotely think that in our essence we are different from them.

      It’s always made me wonder.

      Thanks for this.

    • Interesting Kay, you chose the perfect moment to make your annoucement:
      “fanaticism exists just as much in the Independent Field as it does in the Church. Quite frankly I am done with this game …”

      I must contratulate you on your timing. But your statement is false.
      It is not possible that fanaticism exists within the church and indie field in equal amounts. You compare the indie field in all its different forms with a stone cold cult?

      • Got it Haydn. Good point here. I stand corrected. A more accurate statement is that fanaticism exists in both, but certainly not in the same vein. Case in point, DM is fanatic on Fundraising- the Indies are clearly not.

        • Thanks, but I think the differences bettween the cult and the indies is much much more than mere fund raising. In the Indie field there are a mutiltude of viewpoints from staunch fundamentalists (lets say) all the way to those who are perhap even anti-LRH. Many many people on their own journey out of the maze that was the cult. The wonderful thing about the Indie field (and we sometimes fail to see it) is that in the Indie field you CAN communicate. Everybody can have their say and so move on up a little higher or move along their journey a little further. In the cult you have no say. There is only one viewpoint and you must accept it. You can’t so much as query an order. That’s no communication equals no solutiont equals death.

          I think that is the important thing. Yes, I wish everyone would get along but if that’s not the case I don’t necessarily see that as a weakness, I see it as a possible strength. Take one of the greatest group achievements in modern history — the American Revolution. Do you think all those various head strong individuals, factions and colonies got along all the time? Think they were all in love with each other? Far from it I’m afraid. Google Thomas Paine’s letters to George Washington where he rips him a new you know what and you will see what I mean. Yet, they had a purpose in common and communicated and, as I said, they pulled off one of the greastest achievments in modern times, FREEDOM.

          We too are working for freedom but in our case it is freedom of the tech and we forget sometimes how much has already been achieved, from Freezoners who kept the flag of freedom flying for all those years to those who came later and seek to end the suppression once and for all while also deliverying the tech I might add. We have all come very far, very fast.Communicationhas been and is the solution. The day we can’t communicate is the day we are done. That’s the day its game over.

          • An excellent point Haydn. I am so happy to have this forum. It is safe to communicate and even have disagreement. I also find that having this freedom gives brings one up the Tone Scale to be able to more freely understand a multitude of viewpoints, not feel the need to assert one’s own rightness; and shift at will if one so chooses to without having to “eat crow”. In the Indie Field, we are “fanatical” in a good sense in freely communicating. It is indeed a good thing. Thanks to you and everyone else for sharing your views- it has moved me on up a little higher!

          • Excellent comment Haydn.

          • Excellent post Haydn.

          • LRH said communication is the universal solvent. I’m glad to have found a place where Scientology is being applied.

    • Kay: ++++1 on your last statement. Being in div 6, along with auditor training, allowed me to see how that view of ‘wogs’ was such an invalidative generality to place on people and so I simply never used the word . But, something does happen to many of us when we join staff. Suddenly, we are ‘the insiders’ and the public are the ‘outsiders’ and we are now cool and all knowing and they are not: even though ‘we’ were only ‘they’ days, months, or weeks ago!

      RE: that concept. I had just had a baby but I was being ordered back to run my division. I didn’t know what to do becasue at that time there were no scientologist who could babysit. I ended up talking to an OT Mission Holder (who got hit by the infamous RTC/Finance Police later) expressing my frustration of trying to go back on post and find a scientology babysitter, while my husband was running the org by night and a book campaign in the day. She asked if I had looked for sitters in the paper. I was shocked at her suggestion. She looked at me and said, ‘well, YOU were raised by non-scientologist.” That straightened out my fixed idea but fast. And, as it was, I was raised with TWTH type morals because my parents were very sane. They didn’t shove religion down my throat, but were more ethical than anyone I have known!

      • Thanks for the ack, Jewel. Yes, we were all “wogs” before we became Scientologists. The “us and them” has seriously crippled the achievement of a brotherhood of man. I am so happy to be cognizant and no longer a party to it.

    • “There are countless incredible, spiritually minded beings on this planet.”

      Nice wording, and the common denominator is Sacred Lore?

      ML/A

  60. Gerhard Waterkamp

    Wonderful write-up. Spot on.

  61. poisonivyherself

    A well written, well thought out musing on what freedom of religion really means. If a person follows this openness of thinking, they can never fall prey to cultism. Kudos, Marty, from a non-Scientologist, very much a wog, but a firm believer in freedom of both speech and religion (which includes speech ABOUT religion…not matter what that religion may be.)

  62. A real gem.

    I remember, as a Course Sup, those students who felt they were forced to read DMSMH and SOS as part of their Auditor training, just didn’t do as well as those who had that “Hot Damn” look in their eye as they turned the pages. There is nothing like studying something because you want to learn it.

  63. The subject Scientology itself to take over the world insinuations alienates others. That isn’t and never was a part of Standard Tech, or put much attention on, although one could site and argue contrary, you would miss the grand concept.

    It is also not a matter of “others” to decide. KSW which became a “PR” of sort was and remains a matter of gaining acceptance within the world religions and philosophy and sciences and evolving publics, which we never achieved, and clearly the PR is headed off the cliff in spite of Head Monkey’s claims his own Godlike status. But that really doesn’t matter.

    Head spinning I’ve refrained from commenting these last 3 topics, even though all of it matters a great deal as do all your opinions fore and contrary and are important to hear (albeit some entirely too long winded…
    :–)… sorta joking.

    Standard Study Tech, part and parcel of KSW, Keeping Standard Tech and applicable Policy working is a matter of understanding conceptual application and applying to a given applicable situation. Not that you have to! No parroting “stable datum” ever need apply. No squirrel ridge need to consider or even matters really. We will continue to deal with KSW because we understood then, and understand now the importance of Standard Tech.

    I can only barely imagine this was no easy task for LRH to sort out over half a lifetime and what he got right, which was a whole lot for mankind, we can damn well use.

    There is no messenger to be killed, and no message that wasn’t worthy in some regard in my opinion from him. We each have a life as we in the end agreed to sort through, no? We can argue and critique contrary and regret this or that and woulda-coulda, but would you completely erase what you got and start over?

    If we could only have known what we now know, and start over! LOL Isn’t that part of the game by the way… ? KRC

    You will never become or remain a scholar or professional if you can’t demonstrate competence of that subject at any moment to others in front of you or your group.

  64. Some months ago I did an eval on study failures, especially as it applies to Scientology study.
    Here is what I have come up with.

    Many students, and often Scientologists generally, are found to be unable to “think with” often even simple Scientology concepts and procedures. There is a prevailing trend toward rote handlings at all levels. Training, auditing and applications of the tech in life have all suffered. It effects the applications of Ethics, Tech, and Admin.

    I looked back at the very basic postulates of Dianetics and Scientlotogy. What I found is that LRH was a dedicated why finder and data evaluator, going right back to the “Why” for people acting strange, (influence by one’s case –the being is being influenced by a “hidden source” of uninspected and/or unevaluated data.) – the reactive mind – and the handling – Auditing Technology , which is designed to allow the person to view the hitherto “hidden data” so as to be able to evaluate it from his own viewpoint.

    I have followed forward from there and what I see is that every new thing that LRH came out with was a handling for some Why, following from that basic Why. The original WHY seems to have held firm. The handlings created by RON seem to all be attempts to get the being into the position where he could accurately view and evaluate all forms of data, including the “hidden data” in the bank. The main operating principles to achieving this are the “Qs” of Scientology, in my opinion.

    So I applied this datum to the area of learning. I extrapolated that accepting (agreeing with) ANY uninspected and/or unevaluated data can potentially “aberrate” the being. Therefore, any and all efforts to assist the being to inspect and evaluate data from his own self-determined viewpoint are valid forms of help.

    If, at any point, a being abandons his willingness to exercise his own viewpoint, we enter into the phenomenon that ultimately created the bank… the willingness to be the effect of uninspected and or unevaluated data. This leads to “belief” replacing “understanding”, rote replacing “reasoned”, and you no longer have a being able to evaluate the data in front of him. Because he has abandoned his responsibility for the data to someone, or something else, (God, Ron, fate, etc) he will not be able to exercise “reason” in any situation involving the data.

    From my observation as a Scientology course supervisor, training has gotten so “single viewpoint”… “Ron and only Ron,” that I fear that the “prime viewpoint” – the student himself – has often been eliminated from the equation. When this occurs the student is no longer able to “make it his own”… He usually ends up not having properly evaluated the data and thereby is out of control of the knowledge. “Making it one’s own” is not simply a catch phrase… It is vital if one is to be able to “think with it” or even properly use it.

    When you have a single source of data, and all other data is disallowed, you greatly inhibit, or prevent, being able to evaluate, because you have “closed the door” to any “data of comparable magnitude”. You have nothing to compare it with in order to make up your own mind about it, and so you tend to end up “believing it” or “accepting it”, without any broader inspection. This is antipathetic to the purpose of assisting beings to becoming more self-determined and pan-determined. I consider that as soon as you start to restrict a being to a single viewpoint source of data, or to a single data set, you have started him down the slippery slope to belief, dogma and robotism, and more aberration. He also will not be able to take responsibility for the data or its use because it is not HIS. And because he is unable to take responsibility for the data and its use, you have also made him quite malleable or even hypnotic.

    If a person is not brought to understandings by consulting his own self determined evaluation of the data, he is being done a great disservice, and since he will not have “made the data his own” he will not be able to make any further accurate evaluations with it. His attempts to use the data (for it will not have become knowledge) will result in rote and robotic “handlings”.

    For myself, I have assigned this “insistence on a single source of data (Ron and only Ron) and the exclusion of all other data” as a “why” for many failures in the training of auditors, and generally in the acquisition of a workable understanding of the philosophy and Technologies of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Eric S

    • The last paragraph was included in error. It belongs to a somewhat different eval.

      Eric S

    • Eric,

      You did an excellent job of evaluating the issue.

      Dio

    • Wow, WindWalker, I can see why you think that way (your last
      paragraph) but I really do not agree. Especially as I have
      trained non-Scientologists in non-Scio tech as well as in Scio-
      Tech. With ARC it is easy. Key-words: nearness (physically,
      mentally and spiritually), being able to be the other person,
      making the student real to you, and you real to him, and the
      subject to him (have him mock up examples how it could be
      that way and how it could not be that way), agreements on
      the subject, yourself, the student (all flows back and forth),
      duplication of viewpoints etc etc and then comm with very
      high tone level or whatever is needed (if he is very low).
      All this is just a bit outside the basic Study Tech but LRH
      has expounded on every little detail above in some part
      of his writings/tapes or another. If you have an average
      sup who is not a robot/zombie but who can think and apply
      and wants to do a good job he/she will have trained auditors
      who will do well. But if you have robots training robots you
      will get a robot. It’s actually funny how the why “the blind is
      leading the blind” is actually really happening now AFTER
      the GAT was issued as with all these drills the student does
      not have to think and come up with the answer to the equation
      himself. The RTRC from the order of DM has just served up
      the whole thing on a silver platter to the aspiring student with
      all the drills. The proof is in the pudding; are we making more
      auditors and better ones now? I don’t think so. In the past you
      had a more natural learning curve. Study, think, integrate,
      study, evolve, drill, do, cram, do etc.
      No, I think the why is in the supervisors not using Scio.
      Now, why is that? Possibly the check sheets should be more
      geared to have the students start to think for themselves.

      • Lars

        Thanks for your viewpoint.

        I actually do not see anything that I disagree with in all, except the part where you say that you do not agree.

        I am a Hubbard Professional Course Supervisor and I can tell you that, from my viewpoint, what you describe IS the way it should be done for sure. What you have presented here IS consulting the student’s viewpoint. It IS finding data of comparable magnitude. It IS encouraging the student to evaluate the data. It IS finding examples of how this applies, or how it doesn’t, in any scenario. In your scenario, Scientology tech is not being crammed down the students throat in such a way as to prevent the student from being able to evaluate the data for himself. You have not suggested the use of force or invalidation to achieve compliance.

        Perhaps you are thinking that I am suggesting that completely different subjects should be introduced into Scientology courses to make it so that students can learn Scientology technologies? That is not what I am saying at all.

        What I am talking about is my observation that, within the church, there has been a definite shift in training away from students being encouraged to have opinions of their own, or look for how any datum presented to them is “true for THEM” based on their experience, knowledge, ability to apply reason or logic, evaluate data, etc.

        Hope that clears it up.

        Eric S

        • Lars

          Your last line..”Possibly the check sheets should be more
          geared to have the students start to think for themselves.” could well be part of the “handling”. I think supervisor training should also put more attention on these factors, and the use of the tools that achieve them.

          I could get into “Why” for “the supervisors not using Scio.”, and although I feel that it somewhat falls under the Why that I forwarded, there are also other factors involved and I would want to evaluate it as the subject of its own “why find”.

          Eric S

          • Thanks Eric for taking the time to clear this up. Yes, I think
            we are on the same page or at least on the same chapter.
            Ulf above has a very good rundown also on what happened
            to LRH and training auditors.
            There was a mission in Burbank, Calif. (70’s) which had a Div 6
            course room with 3 supervisors. Each one had a special hat
            on top of being just a supervisor.
            One was supervising (plain and simple). One was ensuring all
            the course admin was handled and one was called “the
            personal supervisor”. He could whisk away the student whenever
            he wanted and take him into an auditing room, do word clearing,
            check for PTS-ness or PTP’s or any out ruds, make sure the
            student had a purpose for being there etc etc. Really dig in if
            the student was balking in any way on the course and handle
            whatever came up right then and there. Seemed to have worked
            pretty well but have no stats on it. Sue Onorato was the one who
            implemented it in the late 70’s. Would have been interesting to
            compare that Div 6 to a regular Div 6 course room.

  65. miscavigeisscaredofsam

    Marty – been off the lines for a week or two and heard I missed a hullabaloo. No time to go back through all of it but just from reading this one post I wanted to comment:
    I don’t know how I feel about Scientology these days. So many bad times are associated with the subject it’s still distasteful to hear or speak about it. That’s why I sympathise with the ex-Scientologists who rant against the very subject itself.
    I’ve been straddling that fence for sometime unsure of which side I want to come down on as I’ve evolved and moved into a desire to be free to think for myself.
    This post gives me hope that there can be a resolution to the problem of reconciling those differences both for myself and others.
    Thank you.

    • Thank you for the origination Sam, fine enough. If you need a comm line anytime mine is the moniker or whatever you call it – just click on the pic.

      • Don’t worry – all Sam needs is some one to go round preriodically, drink her out of tea and verbally abuse her – I can perform these tasks admirably.

        • I’m trying to understand that Martin………….. Sam?

          • Sam’s doing fine, as are her girls – is all I was saying. Saw her the other night with some other reprobates here in the UK; and she makes a fine cuppa. ‘Nuff said.

            • Here’s someScarlet Begonias for Sam. The video takes about 45 seconds to get started but it was the best audio I could find.

              As I was walkin’ ’round Grosvenor Square
              Not a chill to the winter but a nip to the air,
              From the other direction, she was calling my eye,
              It could be an illusion, but I might as well try, might as well try.

              She had rings on her fingers and bells on her shoes.
              And I knew without askin’ she was into the blues.
              She wore scarlet begonias tucked into her curls,
              I knew right away she was not like other girls, other girls.

              In the thick of the evening when the dealing got rough,
              She was too pat to open and too cool to bluff.
              As I picked up my matches and was closing the door,
              I had one of those flashes I’d been there before, been there before.

              Well, I ain’t always right but I’ve never been wrong.
              Seldom turns out the way it does in a song.
              Once in a while you get shown the light
              In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

              Well there ain’t nothing wrong with the way she moves,
              Or scarlet begonias or a touch of the blues.
              And there’s nothing wrong with the look that’s in her eyes,
              I had to learn the hard way- I had to let her pass by, let her pass by

              Wind in the willow’s playin’ “Tea for Two”;
              The sky was yellow and the sun was blue,
              Strangers stoppin’ strangers just to shake their hand,
              Everybody’s playing in the heart of gold band, heart of gold band.

  66. “But, just as importantly, what does quoting Ron have to do with obtaining a result on a preclear?”
    AMEN!

  67. Thanks Marty and a special kudos to Les and Ulf.

    You’ve summarized the training and bridge line up succinctly and accurately, IMHO.

    There is only one final conclusion with regards to this utterly wrecked institution, the Radical Corporate Scientology (RCS)… It’s simply deader than a hammer.

    The beneficial continuity of LRH’s stuff is in its application in the independent realm. These posts have provoked a profound understanding whereby I realize I should go back to being a well trained and intentioned auditor and CS.

    You folks are the upper one tenth of a percent. Again thanks for straightening out some weird shit.

    Onward and upward.

  68. One day I was talking a fellow who has never been a Scientologist, he had asked what the story was with Scientology and why it was thought to be a cult. I briefly explained to him that there were some members who had become fanatics and their fanaticism led to questionable acts. I lamented that fanaticism had become very entrenched. He asked when the movement had begun and when the fanaticism began, I said it started in the 50s and the fanaticism seemed to take root in the 60s. To my surprise, he said, well, it probably owes its very existence now to those fanatics. Movements who do not have hard core fanatics at the outset likely never live long enough to withstand the pressures of society and the status quo against new ideas and movements. He encouraged me to look at the history of all of the mainstream religions and sure enough, in their opening chapters, there is fanaticism enough to stay alive in the face of great opposition.

    Perhaps this is a very natural evolution of the life of a movement, the growing beyond fanaticism to confident and co-operative participation in the larger world of which they are a part.

    • Wow, Maria, this is a great contribution and addition to all the different aspects of Scientology that should be taken into consideration.

    • Maria, I’m not sure I agree that is takes fanaticism to push an idea along, but rather it takes dedication and persistance, which isn’t quite the same as being fanatical. Either way, your post made me recall the political idea that in order to reach a middle ground with the population, one has to be extreme militant, leftist (or push from the right). So what that guy said may have merit. Although with scientology, it has been around as an organization long enough now to not have to dramatize the fanatical attitude, but it is inherent in the organizational set up and the current church is pushing this big time.

      • Dialectical materialism … LRH spoke of it several times on tapes.

        Haven’t a clue which ones. Sorry. Just remember the term.

      • I brought your point up with him and he commented that it is unfair to evaluate the actions of an individual or group without also examining the actions and behaviors of surrounding individuals or groups and their own fanaticism, which can be expressed as persecution going the other direction — i.e. persecution tends to breed fanaticism and vice versa.

        He also commented that it can take decades and sometimes hundreds of years for a new movement or group to become mainstream enough that they are no longer subjected to persecution. He gave Christianity as an example, which was continually persecuted for at least 300 years. He laughed and said, and then it looks like they turned right around and persecuted others!

        I realized that he was really chastizing me for only focusing on one side of the phenomenon and so I figured I would pass this along.

        I went and read up on this whole topic of fanaticism, just to see if I could gain better insight and found this description of fanaticism from this website: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fanaticism.htm

        ***************************************
        Several things can characterize fanaticism. One is a sense of devotion with minimal critical analysis or thinking, often paired with intolerance for people who challenge or question the topic of interest. This can differentiate fanatics from more casual fans and people who share the interest; a fanatic will hotly resist anything that might besmirch the reputation of her interests. Fanatics can also be very single minded and intense, and it can be difficult to redirect their attentions onto other topics.

        Strong emotions can surround fanaticism; people may feel especially connected to a subject, and can dedicate substantial amounts of time to researching to learn more about it. Their interest is very deep and comprehensive; anything even vaguely related is grist for the fanatic’s mill. This contrasts with people who may be interested in a topic, and can spend time researching and compiling data, but usually have limits on their levels of dedication.
        ******************************************

        It seems to correspond with what Marty has been saying.

        • ahh, ” minimal critical analysis or thinking, often paired with intolerance for people who challenge or question the topic of interest” now that is the definition of a church of scientology member. The members worshiping DM have taken it to a new level.

    • Maria, I’ve been wondering about this for years. Is it possible that LRH created the Sea Org knowing it was necessary to create fanaticism to get Scientology off the ground? On the other hand, was LRH just completely wrong here? I guess the bottom line is that if one day Scientology flourishes, he was right and if it fades away he was wrong. Time will tell.

      • IMO, Ron Hubbard created the Sea Organization to be his club to beat KSW into us all. Had he never fashioned this weapon, Darth Midget would never have had it to wield, either.

        As Scientology is founded upon using ARC to raise Understanding and Force is the antithesis of that principle, Hubbard himself violated KSW by creating the Sea Org – at least as I see it.

        This opinion is likely to offend many. I’m sorry.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

        • “IMO, Ron Hubbard created the Sea Organization to be his club to beat KSW into us all.”

          No, I don’t think so. After his failed project in Rodhesia and the fact that he couldn’t go back to UK, he needed a safe place to be, deliver, research and operate.
          The problems we see come to some degree from the circumstence that he couldn’t oversee all the orgs personally. Then, literarism took over.
          I am also sure LRH wanted to remedy literarism.
          That why the PRD was implemented and later the KTL course.
          Miscavige screwd it up somehow, as it wouldn’t serve his agenda.

          • I must say I think you are both right. A post downstream by “oracle” (http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/how-to-study-scientology/#comment-252755) quite resonates with me, about how the scene changed through the 1970s and 1980s and how it was the Sea Org that was involved. I saw and experienced something similar, even at the Field Auditor level in 1972-73. The Sea Org was coming around obsessed with “ethics”, “slamming in” there of.

            Essentially, they seemed to be heavily involved in a kind of inspection before the fact, approaching every local scene and situation with the fixed idea and viewpoint that “ethics must be out around here somewhere, now cough it up, we’re going to fix it”. It was an inspection before the fact based on a generality, as I see it.

            Now maybe it was based on a somewhat valid estimation of the overall state of the planet (via RJ67), but it was a wrong and invalidative approach to fixing anything because it did not grant beingness to all the folks at every level who were making things go right, down at the local grassroots.

            My impression is, there were good and effective uptone missionaires sent out by the S.O., and then there were the ones who basically went out and gave SRAs as a matter of SOP, tore up Field Auditors, missions and orgs, etc., much as “oraclemysticism” details in her post.

            I think LRH had some noble goals and plans for the Sea Org but in the end it did not work out constructively in practice in some ways. Except possibly to the extent that the CoS did get established in many countries around the world very quickly. But it remains to be seen what the overall outcome of that will be, given how much off the rails it has gone in terms of it’s actual delivery of Scientology training and processing. And it’s current implosion.

    • I find it strange that you blame members for becoming fanatics and then carrying out questionable acts.

      Here we are discussing the tricky issue of the evident strict observance of religious dogma in Scientology, and you seem to hint at members going off the track.

      • SOME members. And yes, I think that SOME members do carry out questionable acts. And SOME members are fanatical! And I do think that their actions and reactions do have a bearing on the evolution of the C of S that we are witnessing.

        Also see my comment to Jewel above – I elaborated more on that comment.

        • Yes, but WHY are some members fanatical, WHY do they carry out questionable acts? Have they completely misunderstood the teachings/instructions of Scientology or have they understood them perfectly well?

          My suggestion to you is that from the moment it was conceived Scientology (and before it Dianetics) has been full to the brim with hyperbole about how only Scientology can save the world, and is the only way to achieve eternal salvation, and if it’s not working it MUST be YOUR problem, and this approach is highly likely, in my humble opinion, to breed fanatics as opposed to people who calmly study the subject, take what they value, and have a varied input into their lives. It’s also an approach which will attract high levels of criticism.

          If Scientology truly has value then it would not be necessary to instill fanaticism.

          To your point, I’m sure fanaticism has helped Scientology survive as long as it has, but in my view that approach was intentional.

          • All good points! Of course, it assumes that LRH himself was was not susceptible to the persecution and fanaticism dichotomy and its inevitable pressures. It seems obvious to me that he was susceptible and it seems obvious that it plagued the very history of the organizations and ultimately the Church. At times he did deliberately instill fanaticism AND at times he did deliberately instill principles such as Marty describes in How to Study Scientology. Pick your time period, and pick your context!

            It is a fact that he did receive auditing, as much and probably more auditing than anyone else, given the number of experimental processes he worked on. He even had a clear certificate issued to him. I believe he was Clear #54. Obviously he had a case – no big surprise that he would not necessarily see it as case — that the essence of case, is it not?

            What I see is that SOME choose to focus only on the fanatical elements in his voluminous writings, even going so far as to ignore any precepts in the Way to Happiness that do not serve to justify the highly questionable behaviors that stem from fanaticism. I think it is worth noting that the Way to Happiness was one of the last of his published materials and he wrote that intentionally too!

            Excerpt from Precept 17 – Be Competent:
            **********************************
            The main process of learning consists of inspecting the available data, selecting the true from the false, the important from the unimportant and arriving thereby at conclusions one makes and can apply. If one does this, one is well on the way to being competent.

            The test of any “truth” is whether it is true for you. If, when one has gotten the body of data, cleared up any misunderstood words in it and looked over the scene, it still doesn’t seem true, then it isn’t true so far as you are concerned. Reject it. And, if you like, carry it further and conclude what the truth is for you. After all, you are the one who is going to have to use it or not use it, think with it or not think with it. If one blindly accepts “facts” or “truths” just because he is told he must, “facts” and “truths” which do not seem true to one, or even false, the end result can be an unhappy one. That is the alley to the trash bin of incompetence.
            *************************************

          • Sid

            My observation is that there are fanatics in just about any venture. This is especially true of the more esoteric pursuits, particularly if they delve into spiritual matters. But even “hard science” has its fanatics.

            That being an observable fact, I do not see that it is in any way something intrinsic in Scientology, or any other specific pursuit.

            I tend to see the problem more to be one of intelligence, emotional tone, and/or aberration.

            Eric S

            • Windwalker/Maria

              From the original edition of Dianetics: MSMH, 1950. First sentence of the book, entitled “Synopsis”. In other words, the first words of the first book:-

              “The creation of dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch.”

              Regardless of whether you agree with such a statement, or why he might have made such a claim, was there any other path, other than fanaticism, for this system of belief to tread, following on from that first sentence?

              If you believe you are a custodian of such technology, then infiltrating the FBI or trying to frame Paulette Cooper is completely justifiable.

              • Sid, aren’t you responsible for your own fanaticism? Isn’t a person basically responsible for whether or not s/he is an independently thinking person or not?

                Isn’t this just the old “nature or nurture” debate? Why bother to go round and round about it once again, without coming to any conclusion?

                The whole book of DMSMH offers one theory about how and why some individuals are susceptible to fanaticism. It is similar to some other theories of psychological dynamics. It offers an explanation of how hypnotism works, for example, that is quite mainstream.

                Read it, read some of the other literature on the dynamics of personality, and make up your own mind.

                • Valkov, that’s not the point I’m making at all.

                  I’m saying that LRH had a choice in the mind-set he wanted to foster in his adherents.

                  • Ok Sid. Yes, LRH had a choice. He was also given to hyperbole and had a Barnum and Bailey kind of approach. There’s no question he wanted people to get excited about Dianetics and give it a try. He wanted people to think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread etc. And in fact it is. No-one would know that, if they didn’t actually apply it, so he hyped it to get their attention. The book was itself the manual and also the promo, all rolled into one. That was after all the very first book published. The reason it spread was because people did get results and spread it by word of mouth, not because they were “true believers” basing their endorsement of it on “faith”.

                    So yes, he wanted to foster a mind-set, but it was in new people so they would try it. Have you driven a Ford lately? On TV I saw a Ford Fusion take off and go flying right up into the sky. Is that trying to create “Ford fanatics”? I think it is trying to get folks to test drive a Ford.

              • Sid, I have to wonder if you have noticed that I am reading and posting on a whistleblower blog that belongs to a person that has been declared an SP by the C of S!

                Yep. If you believe… then it follows… No doubt about it. Yep it certainly is a justification. For SOME. It never worked for me or for anyone I ever personally knew.

                You have picked a phrase that is an opinion and a great example of flowery and grandiose claims. Maybe its true. Maybe its not. I am the one who decides that. But then, I am no fanatic nor do I have any interest in being TOLD what the truth is. For me it is similar to the TV commercials with their marketing puffery and grand pronouncements of the wonders of Dove dishwashing detergent or amazing sex appeal from Crest toothpaste. But I still buy Sunlight detergent and brush my teeth with Colgate. They work just fine. But I just plain well do not feel compelled to buy those either just because they claim to be the latest and greatest and most wondrous of all. And I certainly do not feel compelled to run out and bomb the TV station for airing Dove and Crest commercials.

                But sure, I agree, SOME do read things and just agree and follow right along. Most people do not. I know that I do not. I never did worship L. Ron Hubbard as a demi-god or as my final say in anything. I always felt I had every right to disagree with him. How do you think I ended up on this blog? Well, I will tell you – some felt I did not have the right to disagree and took it upon themselves to try to force that on me.

                The fact is that I do disagree with LRH on many of his statements and opinions, and I find many of the ways he frames his statements offensive and not in keeping at all with my own values. But I have no problem acknowledging truth and what I consider to be valuable information.

                I find it amusing that you think I am some kind of apologist because even very recently I have also been accused of being a scathing critic on this subject.

                You know, my criticism is not reserved solely and only for the C of S, L. Ron Hubbard or the subject of Scientology. It extends to everything I study and learn. That is exactly how I got involved with Scientology. I was very disenchanted with the state of the society I lived in and its many hypocrisies, abuses and atrocities and hoped to find some means of addressing that. I was kicked out of my Christian Church group for wanting to study Scientology. And shunned to boot. Fanatics you know.

                The alternatives are to a) ban this and that subject completely for having cult instilling or offensive statements or b) work to encourage people to become free thinkers and critical thinkers, capable of accepting and rejecting information based on their own evaluation of information. That includes discussion of issues from every point of view, not just scathing criticism or slavish devotion but also taking a wider view as my friend did. What is really funny is that I have you on this blog arguing one direction and my friend is arguing the other direction! He fails to see the difference between Scientology fanaticism and the fanaticism in other religions and belief systems and thinks there is a systemic problem inherent in the society itself and Hubbard is a product of that societal system.

                As I see it, the first option of banning violates free speech and I would be the first to fight such an effort as that is a slippery slope to state approved and safe reading materials only. No thanks.

                The second option is the only way to go as far as I am concerned, and it is what Marty is advocating. I agree with him.

              • Sid

                I could be wrong, but it seems that perhaps you were not really seeking enlightenment but were more intent on simply “making a point”.

                Reading between the lines of what you wrote leaves me thinking that you feel Scientology is simply “a dangerous belief that is followed by fanatics.” and that nothing that anyone here can say is going to get you to see it any other way.

                OK, but you are not likely to get very much agreement on that one on this blog.

                My statement above, unaltered, is pretty much the way I see things.

                Eric S

                • It is possible ,W.W. that Sid has been trying to lead us by the nose to his own “cog” about Dianetics. I did smell some of what you say in your post, too.

                  But it is also possible he has been led to someone’s else’s “cog” and is reality-testing it over here. He sounds like one of those armchair academic “experts” dabbling in neurolinguistic programming literature or something like that. In other words, basically a spectator.

                • I’m ALWAYS seeking enlightenment – I hope we all are, but yes I was making a point, which I shan’t restate. I believe many posts on this blog state a point of view. However, through debate we change/modify our opinions.

                  I don’t believe that all Scientologists are fanatics, but I do believe there is danger in the subject. I don’t see this as being contradictory to many things I’ve read on this blog. Your post is accusatory but I’m struggling to see what I’ve done wrong.

                  • Sid

                    Thanks for your response. My assessment of your purpose seems to have been quite “off the mark”. I apologize for that. As Valkov pointed out, I went a little over-the-top in pushing my own viewpoint in that last response to you as well, exactly what I was accusing you of….

                    But we are still here and I feel that we are getting somewhere with this.

                    Yes, I get your point… The way the organization is structured, or even because it has a religious aspect, seems to attract an inordinate number of fanatics. The way I see it, there seems to be a portion of humanity that are very quick to abandon their responsibility and assign it to another. The next step seems to be that they feel that they need to protect it, at any cost… and fanaticism seems to follow.

                    I was just considering what I would have done, were I in Ron’s shoes, when he chose to make his research public. I have yet to envision a course of action that would avoid the possibility of attracting/enabling fanatics. How to resolve it? I just don’t have any quick and easy answer for that one.

                    But we live, and hopefully, learn.

                    Eric S

                  • Sid,

                    It’s just that this is really old ground, on this blog. I think it';s been abundantly acknowledged that the subject of Scientology can be used for good or ill. It is totally dependent on the intention of the person using it.

                    LRH has been quoted more than once, as saying so himself, as in the PDC quote that has been redacted out by David Miscavige, in which LRH mentions Orwell’s “1984” and states that the world depicted in “1984” would be a “pale shadow” of the supercontrolled slavish society that could be created by someone monopolizing and misusing Scientology to bad ends. As apparently Miscavige has been trying to do…..

                    You may be totally innocent and probably have done nothing wrong, except not having read this blog from start to finish! Obviously a huge task given how long the blog has been running. You are coming in late in a discussion that has been running about 3-4 years now.

                    It would be just the reaction of myself and some others who have been along for the ride for awhile, who react with “OH, this again! Haven’t we dealt with this in abundance before? Maybe we should just shoot this guy?”

                    Unfortunately it’s not that easy to search the blog and post up quick answers like “Here, read these threads from 2009, 2010, and 2011, they address the issues you raise.”

                    So hang in there. I’m glad you spoke up.

    • However, it does not take into account the actual workability
      of the subject. Religions and cults have no real way of cleaning
      out a mind to make it easier to think, do and live, except
      possibly Buddism. Cults has many common denominators, one
      being a robot and fanatic.
      But Scientology is really not a religion nor initially a cult.

  69. bravo!!!

  70. The FreeZone, at least as it exists in my corner of the world, embodies just the independent spirit of knowing that you describe, Marty. I couldn’t agree with your view of what is valuable more! An excellent declaration that what is true to you is what is true.

    That is integrity.

  71. Reading this makes me curious about others’ training experiences. I did my training from Comm Course through HSDC at Scientology Delaware Valley in New Jersey in the ’70s, my Academy Levels in 1976 at ASHO D, and my BC at ASHO F from 1980-85.

    I never felt threatened by any “priesthood.” I had no “ruthless supervisors.” Sometimes I would hit pockets of rote-ness, but they were the rare exception, not the rule. I had great course sups – Chris Stevens at ASHO F was an awesome sup. I had some great twins. The arguments my twin and I had were legendary. I had great qual terminals – Anne Pfanner at ASHO for example. Great C/Ss. No one force-fed me anything – except Mayo TRs, and they were cancelled. Getting trained was a great experience overall. My life is better for it.

    Marty, I read your account of your training in this post and the one cited. It sounds like you were studying on your own for the most part, save for your dozing “mentors.” Did you not have a twin? Sounds like you didn’t. Were you in a courseroom with a course sup during this training? Sounds like you didn’t. Did you have a checksheet?

    I totally understand the approach you took. This is the approach I took as well. I never took Ron on faith, and I know of only one time he asked for something to be taken on faith, at least initially, which is the tech on Missed Withholds. I never took anything on faith, and I tested everything I was taught – either on myself or on my PCs, doing it as Ron asked me to, adding or deleting nothing (on purpose). I spend a week on Level 2 researching GPMs and Routine 3DXX because it came up on a tape and it had to be cleared. I routinely studied the works or people Ron cited, like Schopenhauer and Korzybski, when I came across them on course. No one said I couldn’t.

    So – are my experiences unique? I did not experience the apparent level of authoritarianism that you did. Why do you think that is? Was it because of the years I was being trained? The location? Because I was public and you were SO?

    I ask because I found real value in having great tech terminals around me when I was on course. It is very helpful to have the guidance of great mentors and great sups (both Course and Case). I am glad that there is training opening up in the field, and I am hoping they are rebuilding the standard, excellent experience I was lucky enough to encounter.

    • I would say the same. I experienced authoritarianism only after 1996 with GAT and I just stopped to train and stopped to audit (I was not allowed to) but prior I was a V graduate, and I routinely delivered auditing. I don’t really remember any bad experience with being trained. Lot’s of cognitions and freedom. I would think if the church could fire Miscavige and his arbitraries, maybe things could become nice again. Really there is very little wrong with LRH tech and so many things right. Just David Miscavige.
      You of OSA who may read this blog, why don’t you put him in the hole and see how life seems thereafter?

      • It comes down to the “What is a Course” PL. It is in two-three pages the model for how to run a course. And it works. This crap about people being invalidated and made wrong by their sups these days – WTF is that? The supervisor is not the technical expert, nor should she/he be. The mark of a great sup, at least to me, is the ability to keep the course there, keep students there, guide the students through their difficulties (via word-clearing, obnosis of Barriers to Study phenomena, and occasional cheer-leading), and otherwise shutting the cuss up.
        Paul Koval was great with the BC back in the day. Linda Darlington was great with the Class VI course, back in the day. Neither Paul nor Linda taught anyone – but they knew how to get the student through it. Well, Linda was a great auditor, so she had a handle on the right reference at the right time.

        The point is – it is really great to study when you have a team behind you helping. Marty, it seems, did not have that team. Must have been a rough row to hoe.

    • GREAT post, GH!

      My experiences paralleled yours.

      And, ANNE PFANNER WAS GREAT, I really loved working with that woman.

      The SO had many really caring people in it, people who were dedicated to serving others, just like Ron originally intended it to be. Too bad the Nazis took control and wrecked it so badly.

      • Yes – she was awesome. The picture of Qual. There was another older woman in Qual at ASHO F – chain-smoked like there was no tomorrow, and she was an old timer and awesome as well, but for the life of me I can’t remember her name.

        • Dorothy Broaded, I believe is the person you are referring to.

          I’ve written essays on courses wherein I disagreed with some of LRH’s opinions. Never got in trouble for it. Expressing disagreements with current church management – that’s a different story.

    • Grasshopper,
      I was in the same time period on staff and doing some training. What are/were “Mayo TR’s” ?

      • David Mayo rewrote “TRs Remodernized” and wrote the HCOB (not BTB, mind you) “TRs Basics Resurrected.” At the same time, people studying TRs were put on a regimen to M9 all sorts of references, including these two. The net result was subtle, but it made it impossible to do TRs. I spent weeks trying to get passed on TRs, with these references pounded as if they were written by Ron. Finally, I brought out a couple of LRH demo tapes and told the Sup “I’m doing my TRs like that. If you have a problem with them, take it up with LRH.” I passed.
        Shortly thereafter. Mayo was taken off the line and these bulletins were cancelled.
        Of course, I understand that now it is again impossible to pass TRs – it is amazing what people will do to screw up the tech. First Mayo, now Miscavige.

        Mark

  72. I agree with Marty 100%. What he described here is the only way I could ever study Scientology.

  73. There is a danger in giving someone the tech that is a robot. Or worse. I had someone come here and wave around one P.L. about hard tr’s and put my kids on it as their first action. I forbid it.

    One of them had a psychotic break. Blew them both off the bridge. The seller clung like a dummy to one P.L.saying, “This is the bridge! ” He could not connect any dots and he delivered this covertly with out my knowing. It did not parallel their mind in any way. One kid went psychotic. You get stupid people fall in. How do you fix stupid?

    But anyway, so there I was on the HQS course. 1972. There was a practical where you had to go out and spot tone levels. I could not think with it, because I had not read Dianetics. I thought it was superstitious, like Tarot cards.

    “I can’t think with this shit” I told the sup. He asked. “Have you read Dianetics?” “No”. ” I do not want to be influenced, I have to find out for myself.” I said.

    He said , “O.K., let it go, move on to something that you can think with.”

    I was sent to audit someone. On the objectives. I was about four weeks past 16. I just could not do it.

    “Why?’ Did the course sup ask me?

    “Because I just can’t fuck with someone else’s head unless I know WHY.” I said.

    He let it go. They graduated me on HQS without ever auditing another person. Without understanding certain sections. They set me up for a win. Not a loss.

    You know, it just does not fly unless you have people in front of you that have the ability to care about you.

    They loved me and it made me love them. I felt the CARE.

    Here I go, 40 years later, paying someone 100$ an hour to fuck up my kids as he clings to some policy letter.He did not care about anyone but himself. Drove one kid into a psychotic break.

    I have noticed a person’s care factor is in harmony with their ability with the Scientology. If you can’t care about the guy in front of you, you have no business in this Scientology business.

    Marty, you care now and you have always cared.

    That is your magic power. You CARE about the people in front of you.

    Look at how the Sea Org people operate. They “care”,or not, on command.

    That is when it gets at the sickest point.

    People throwing their own family under the bus on command.

    Who the fuck needs you at that point? When your care factor is determined by politics.

    You all spies are so fragile and useless. Dilettantism in every aspect of the meaning.

    • DAVID, YOUR JEALOUSY OF MARTY AND PUBLIC DISPLAY OF IT IS WITHOUT SHAME OR DIGNITY. YOU HAVE FOLDED INTO A JEALOUS NIGHT. VERY BITCHY, AND WE WILL REMEMBER YOU THAT WAY. AS A LITTLE BITCH.

    • Wow. You of course realize that if a Supervisor graduated a person like that today, he’d get declared.

      On the other hand, I had a similar attitude when I was on the SHSBC, but the sup knew I wasn’t dodging or hedging or HE&Ring when I said I didn’t get something. I remember one Sunday I was on course and didn’t understand something LRH said in a lecture that the cassette glossary didn’t clear up for me. I spent all afternoon sitting in front of the shelf with the encyclopedias on it clearing stuff in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and other religious practices. When I got back to my courseroom about four hours later, the sup asked me where I’d been, and I answered “Clearing stuff in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and other religious practices.” So she let me get back to my taped lecture and never said anything else about it. She didn’t get too many tape lecture minutes points on my student report that day. *BUT* over the next two weeks my student points went up about 10% per day. She knew what I was trying to accomplish and let me accomplish it. She got kicked out of the Sea Org in one of the infamous PAC Purges. But I still respect and admire her for knowing what the PRODUCT was.

      • The last time I trained at Flag as a public the course sup was making the students run everywhere. Training was a punishment by Nestor Vives. I was asked to stay up all night to Get Felipe Gil and Pamela Roberts through their video pass on tr’s , so Flag would have two more completions. Maria Jessup stayed up all night with us and was in tears , literally, as we graduated. On routing out I discovered David Light the reg, had lied to me when he told me the C/S had ordered me to do Pro Tr’s before I could leave the base. He just needed the stat. I was in the non interference zone, not even supposed to be on it.

        Felipe returned to Mexico and lit a joint. Pamela never returned. Nestor went to the RPF and Maria routed out of the Sea org.

        Lotta dead bodies over that training era at the base. The Golden age of Scientology down in the enforcement band.

        The soldiers running the education department, what else could one expect? The purpose of a soldier is to bypass. So here you have the Sea Org bypassing people 24/7 to restore “self determinism” to people.

        It’s a GPM.

      • “Wow. You of course realize that if a Supervisor graduated a person like that today, he’d get declared.”

        You know, they could see my GPM. HQS was supposed to be delivered to people that has already read Dianetics. If you have not read Dianetics, there are things you can not think with. I was saying I refused to read Dianetics because I had to find out if this clearing thing was real on my own, not because someone told me.

        I did go clear. And when I did , I realized all I had done up to that point, the auditing, was the auditor having me do a contact assist with the bank.

        I got the whole thing from my own viewpoint. I have never doubted that I went clear.

        Then , I read Dianetics from the viewpoint of a person who had experienced it.

        But, that course sup, he could see the GPM I set up for myself. He just moved me out of it and let me move on towards an attainable goal.

        THAT was sane.

      • Well, I had the same experience – I went off on tangents because Ron went off on some tangent, and I gots to know!

        As for the HQS course – To my mind, if someone did not do the checksheet requirements, they did not finish the course. So, I have to wonder if they just figured a 16 year old couldn’t cut it.

        • I know nobody there, had any such thoughts. I didn’t know of anyone that was in a condition of doubt, about my competence or ability. My disagreements were understandable , and that was new York. The academy was wall to wall with people on the Dianetics course, close to 30 on H.Q.S.. With that kind of volume people didn’t sweat the small stuff. If someone didn’t show up for course for a few days, nobody even made an issue out of it. Nobody there had ever seen declare order. Or an “S.P.”. Body routers on the streets and new people coming in every day. John Booth got body routed in, bought nothing, stole a book from the bookstore. Went home and got high and read it and came in the next day blown out and signed up for a course. They were so happy they didn’t ask him to pay for the book he stole. Everybody was just having a great time. That was when the posters were hung on the walls of a planet with the phrase, “We just want to make one thing clear”. Making clears and auditors was the only objective. Nobody made an issue out of anything, because there was this idea it would all get resolved with clearing. So it really didn’t matter. EVERYBODY was an auditor. EVERYBODY! In those days you had to go out and find someone new to run a process on to get it signed off your checksheet if you were on the levels. Tons of people there that were not even Scientologists yet getting sessions! Their friend or cousin or brother dragged them in for free auditing. They stayed of course, they wanted more.

          Then the soldiers started to arrive to “put ethics in”. Started with a F.O.L.O. upstairs. By the time I was 21, I was the only p.c. the New York Org had. There were about six people on course. There was one auditor. And if I walked in late nobody said anything then either, because if I got pissed and walked out, they would be fucked. The soldiers had them at total effect with heavy ethics threats on the stats.

          All the great staff had been recruited for the Sea Org. Even my auditor. Then I had to continue my auditing in D.C. with Jeannie Franks C/Sing. I ended up taking two of their staff back to New York with me. My auditor and my reg! , Both fed up with Bill Franks and their contracts were up. One of them is still my friend. They went on staff at CCNY. So I followed my buddies there , and finished everything else there. CCNY was great. It was doing great. No soldiers around there. Until one showed up and recruited me for the Sea Org.

          F.O.L.O. had the bright idea to move the Org uptown to quiet neighborhood and out of it’s central location. Forget about body routing, no bodies. No more body routing. A skeleton crew. Those few got nabbed up by the S.O. too. Only a few with kids remained. The Missions were booming, but the soldiers finally went in there too, as the “finance police”. Shut down the missions, David set a price of 40,000.00 to get a license to disseminate. And that was the end of New York. Last time I was there, there were more Sea Org staff than Org Staff in midtown. (relocated the org back down town again to Hell’s kitchen. ) The Org was in such bad disrepair you could see the rooms below through the floor boards of the E.D.’s office. It was totally empty.

          Well, anyway, it was all going great until a place was made for soldiers. When I was on staff at Flag was the only time in my Scientology life I was parked off the bridge, so was everyone else that was on staff. Everyone was into soldiering. Dominating someone somewhere. That is what soldiers do, they dominate. I think things were going great at one time, and when things are going great, you are not supposed to shift gears. I think the whole “commodore” thing with the soldiers was a total valence shift on the entire culture.
          Nobody voted for that. It was all voluntary up to that point. The purpose was to make clears, not police people. The power is hallucinatory anyway. They are not actual police and they are not actual soldiers.

          “A Scientologist” used to signify cool hip educated literate people taking a walk on the wild side. That was REAL. Dianetics was the best seller list for a reason.

          The soldier valence culture is stuck in a 24/7 Halloween incident.

          The thing that stands out to me most about Marty’s post, is that he flipped back into a Scientologist mode, got trained, and traveled that path, in the Sea Org, on his own terms, with the soldiers laying at his feet. That was FUCKING MAGIC! Biblical! Out created all of it! And there is a fucking truth in there about power and where it really belongs. He might as well have walked on water. If KNOWLEDGE is power, those who train have the REAL power. Not the ones in the uniforms. That is illusion. And the balance of power is shifting right behind Marty as he walks forward! David Mayo shifted the balance of power in this way but did not have a handle on the forces. It has to be a combination of intelligence and force.

          Sometimes when it looks like everything is breaking up, things are only falling in their rightful place.

          • But I think taking the power from the auditors and handing it to the pretend soldiers was a huge organizational misstep. A trained auditor has more tricks up his sleeve than Jesus Christ. What does the Sea Org have? Soldiers and treasure and battlegrounds. The soldiers have nothing but the clothes on their back and a bed provided by that government on a night to night basis. They see themselves as wealthy though because the Church is wealthy. Ever hear Tommy Davis talk to the press about “Our new buildings”? Really? Where is his real estate portfolio?

            They have derogatory names now for people that are interested in the subject of Scientology. “Consumer Scientologists”. When I was on staff in the Sea Org I got put in a lower condition for saying I wanted to get trained.

            This is all the result of making toy soldiers the most glorified player in the game. Now DM has made movie stars “The most dedicated” players in the game. It’s all about the money with special honors and privilages who cast the most coins. While David walks on both sides of the fence and gorges on gourmet food and plays with the toy soldiers in the dark.

            The true power lies in the palms of the auditors. Everyone in the game and everything in the game only has any value at all because there is an auditor in the building auditing. It doesn’t even matter if you train someone to audit, if they aren’t going to audit after they finish the course.

            • Yes. The SO is a cult. There is no other way to put it. It was extremely fun when I was on course and working with the mission, and even ASHO back in the ’70s. Spirit of Play. Games, Aesthetics. Real Tone 40.

              When I was on staff as a child at Flag in 1977, I was Non-SO staff on a special contract for the Archives Project. It was supposed to be 6 months. There was not a day I was there where I didn’t say to myself “Thank God I am not in the SO.” Even then, I looked at it wondering what the cuss this was – I knew one thing, I knew it was not Scientology.

              It really pissed me off that the SO culture supplanted the real Scientology culture. It really, really pisses me off. I used to consider the SO a necessary evil. Now I know it was just evil. The SO culture took really good, good-hearted, smart, energetic, and sincere people and turned them into inmates of The Hole. They agreed to this crap. And Mr. David Miscavige was more than willing to dish it out.

              Mark

  74. I know this is abit off topic but I’m getting ready to resume my auditor training and processing when I can get together with an indie in the Baltimore area. I have my green and red volumes from way back but can anyone tell me what the blue volumes are? Contact me via email if and so you don’t hamper the lines. Thanks ARC Bill Dupree

  75. Marty, Dio writes:
    “…Scientology can not be understood unless you compare it to all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe. …There is no other subject of comparable magnitude to scn….But you can break scn down into it’s separate sub subjects and find subjects of comparable magnitude to evaluate and compare to. Then you can read and evaluate books such as the Bible, the Oahspe, the Urantia, Alien Interview, and numerous others. There are many personal, spiritual and professional development subjects out there today, too, that can be evaluated and gleaned for useful data, to compare to. If you don’t evaluate other subjects of comparable magnitude to scn, than it is not possible to understand scn. That is based on logic 8. Hubbard devoured as many books as he could to gather bits of data here and there to make up scn.”

    Marty, Could you sometimes in this great blog share some insights about how, in your view, other subjects of comparable magnitude mesh with Scientology, about which ones are most beneficial for someone interested in Scientology to explore, and about how they can be integrated into the bridge to accelerate progress? Your insights would be really helpful.
    Thank you

    • I’ve investigated, studied and practiced, over a 44 year span, many paths Paul. I have found my path and practice out of all of my investigations. My two cents is: find the path that you resonate with and practice it with the fervor of a drowning man seeking air. Success is gauranteed when a path is followed with focus, dedication and intense passion.

      ” the validity of a process is determined by the quality of it’s outcome” is a thought that ocurred to me when trying to determine how to evaluate which practice was best for me. That thought helped me to transcend process worship (my technique is better because my technique is best because my teacher is better than your teacher) and rely soley on results.

      My two cents

  76. Nice Post, Marty! REALLY brilliant post.

    Thank you.

  77. Notably absent from the comments on this post are Tom M and Thoughtful. From looking over the last few posts and the comments thereon, it would seem that there is a parting of the ways in some respect. This is an incredible shame, if true.

    I really hope that anyone who’s been pushing the Independent movement forward but has an cognative dissonance at this point, will really persist, communicate, and explore the depths of this.

    There is no monolith here. The finding of truth is a PROCESS, not a product.
    It can’t have a source other than one’s own observation or decision. Therefore, neither LRH or anyone else can EVER be a source of truth for another. They can be a source of information and technique that one finds to be reliable, but they can never be a source of “truth”.

    I have found Mapquest to be an incredibly reliable tool for navigation, but what am I to do when it isn’t right or I don’t get the context of what it’s trying to tell me? Keep driving right on through the washed out bridge or down a road that doesn’t exist, still retaining the certainty that Mapquest can’t be in error?

    Anyway, my point is an appeal to anyone who might be feeling to whatever degree estranged at the moment. In my opinion, this is the make-break point of real living, much less Scientology or any other effort to better embrace “self”.

  78. One of those who see

    Just got this LRH quote emailed to me from The Church. At the end Ron says you can’t classify it all… Thought this fit in.
    ““People get money usually for doing things right. When Russia killed off all of its aristocracy, it got itself into the same mess that France got itself into when it killed its aristocracy off. They killed off all their managers. Boom! All gone now. Now they didn’t have anybody left who could build bridges or mend roads or do anything else from a managerial or executive or planning level. The end product of the French Revolution was to put French capability way, way behind. Why? They’ve made this postulate: ‘Everybody is no good who has money.’ And that is not true and it never will be true, any more than ‘Everyone who doesn’t have money is no good.’ They’re equally foolish.

    “People are people. I’ve met some of the finest people you ever wanted to meet who had so many millions of dollars they forgot how to count them. I’ve met some of the finest people in rags you ever wanted to meet, who had so much poverty they’d forgotten to add it up. You see? I’ve met some of the lousiest bums who had a million dollars you ever wanted to meet. And I’ve met some of the lousiest bums that didn’t have a dime you ever wanted to meet. You got the idea? I mean, we can’t classify it all. The moment we do, we to some degree commit suicide.”

    — L. Ron Hubbard, 16th American ACC, CONTROL, COMMUNICATION & HAVINGNESS, Auditing Techniques: Stiumulus-Response, 28 January 1957

  79. Chris from Germany

    I now can see that I have been very lucky. First of all I have studied a lot of Ron´s materials, before I ever entered an academy. So I first came to know Ron´s ideas, THEN what the church made out of it. So I always had a clue of the ideal szene, to which I could compare what I saw happening in the church.
    Besides this: Some years ago I had no clue that I was especially lucky to have both a real sane and spiritual super. That time I thought that this was typically Scientology.
    Later, myself having become a supervisor, I saw how students (in another org as I had been trained) were in fear of the supervisors. They had been yelled at. They had been blamed for thinking, asking and evaluating the data they studied. The only duty of a super seemed to be to screem ruthlessly at the student: “Find your (fucking) Mis-U!” with a serv-facy attitude that EVERY back-flash would just show even more, that the student was dramatizing even an additional phenomenas of a Mis-U.
    The idea of the super was: The super always being right, the student always being wrong. In case the student doesn´t want to see it, put him/her on the meter for M4. Sooner or later you WILL find a Mis-U (or at least we will get a read on the meter, if a protest-read or not, doesn´t matter) to proof it and do him/her in.
    By now I have heard too many people compare their success of studying in their org to their progress of their understanding which they had while studying in my field group and I am getting proud of it, the longer the more.
    I am happy to never have adapted to the suppressive bullshit – Marty is soooo right.

  80. Eric S. writes in the comments here above something I believe is important: “When you have a single source of data, and all other data is disallowed, you greatly inhibit, or prevent, being able to evaluate, because you have “closed the door” to any “data of comparable magnitude”. You have nothing to compare it with in order to make up your own mind about it, and so you tend to end up “believing it” or “accepting it”, without any broader inspection. This is antipathetic to the purpose of assisting beings to becoming more self-determined and pan-determined. I consider that as soon as you start to restrict a being to a single viewpoint source of data, or to a single data set, you have started him down the slippery slope to belief, dogma and robotism, and more aberration.”

    In light of what Eric S. writes, I now see clearly some key questions that beg for an answer: “Which other sources do you select, and based on what criteria?——-How do you integrate multiple sources? How do you choose where to allocate your focus and allegiance, between the various sources? ” I have struggled with these questions myself. I found that there are no easy answers.I would love to hear what others have to say about this.

    • Good question. I look at what fascinates me. I love, for example, the work of Alan Watts – a Zen practitioner who wrote and gave lectures. I don’t agree with his world view, but he is fascinating and got me to think. I also really studied the New Testament – since I have very good friends who are Christian. Fascinating, and lots of parallels with what I believe and know to be true. For me, I have to be willing to be wrong, and by that I mean, I can’t be afraid to see what is there in case it “proves” what I know is bullshit. Rather, I look at what I find interesting – or what others have found interesting and have recommended – and see how it fits.

      My core is Scientology – I have been involved since I was nine years old, so I have a lot of stable data there. And it is hard to avoid thinking “hey! That’s like O/W!” or “that’s like ARC!”. What is interesting is that in the last 40 years, some hard and fast opinions I have had have reversed due to my looking. The interesting thing is that even though my opinion on these things have changed, my core beliefs have only gotten stronger. An example is the death penalty. I used to be completely for it, and now I am completely against it. I won’t list the reasons why now, except to say that I found that the death penalty violates what I know of Scientology, and more importantly, what I know about what is moral.

      You could do a lot worse than read what Marty has recommended in his recommended reading section here. I would add Alan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, or a modern translation of the Bible. Read especially Apostle Paul’s chapters. Read great novels. And then observe and see how it fits in the world.

      Mark

      • It’s funny, you remaind me of Alan Watts.
        Here comes my favorite quote from him:

        • Thanks, that’s quite the complement.
          This video/quote is awesome and is truth. This is what I mean by reaching out and allowing yourself to experience the wisdom that is out there.
          Another thing I learned from Watts was his talking about how there are very few straight lines in nature, and very few hard edges. If you look at the natural world, you see curves and billows and roundness. If you look at “Man’s” world, it is all about hard edges and straight lines and squares. Man insists on boxes and order, but the natural world just is. I found it an interesting observation.

          • It’s true,
            nature has it’s own aesthetics.
            Uptone people have too.
            There is a kind of natural smoothness in any creature.
            The human race, however, somehow is out of touch with the Tao ;-)

            One of my most favorite bulletins from LRH is OT MAXIMS and particularly the section with definitions of good vs bad control. Quote:

            DEFINITIONS
            GOOD CONTROL: Harmonious alignment.
            BAD CONTROL: Disharmonious alignment.

            And by the way, you have art here, too!

            WAR: Bad control having to be exerted because good control wasn’t exerted.

            And this also defines destruction.

            LRH, HCOB 10 AUG 82, OT MAXIMS

            Look at Miscavige, our anti-OT.

    • Paul

      Hi

      I believe you have misunderstood me in that quote.

      I was not actually suggesting that other subjects should be studied along with Scientology, (though the broader one’s knowledge, the better one is able to evaluate data.) Basically what I am suggesting is that one be allowed to ask questions like you just asked and to get sensible answers, not just parroted phrases that someone has culled from LRH’s writings that you do not find really handle your questions at all. You may personally require more breadth of understanding in order to make a sensible evaluation of the data’s truth or potential use.

      “Which other sources do you select”, and based on what criteria?”
      Well… suppose Ron just stated that “Scientology is the only workable technology of the mind.” I am suggesting that one have a look at that for yourself. I personally go something like “Really? What about Psychiatric practices?” ( something that I may have considered of “comparable magnitude”). I would find it helpful if I were to compare the two and see why Ron would say such a thing. I see no reason why I should be expected to take Ron’s word for it. For a supervisor, or anyone, to insist that I “find my misunderstood word”, as the only “handling”, is simply invalidative in this case. I would be served better by someone who had a good understanding of Scientology, and a broader knowledge that included other mental studies and practices, (things of comparable magnitude) to perhaps direct me to areas that would be helpful in finding my own answer.

      In answer to “How do you choose where to allocate your focus and allegiance, between the various sources? ” This is where mentors come in. Marty has made some excellent recommendations. Start with broad essays and then narrow your search towards what interests you. Keep your own council and go where you choose.

      The broader your data base, and areas of understanding, the better you will be at evaluating a wide range of areas accurately and arriving at workable handlings. (this is partly what IQ supposedly measures) This is something that “education” was supposed to assist you with. Where it ended off. you simply continue exploring.

      And I agree, “there are no easy answers”. But the game is in the discovery.

  81. WOW. This is an exceptional post. Thank you for laying it out.

    You play the piano beautifully as an auditor. The best I’ve ever had. In a totally different league than the robots of the past. Scientology is working right there. What else matters? Not much.

  82. Where did “Lil bit of stuff” go?
    Calvin, you can come back now. I miss your comments. Marty didn’t ban you did he? :-)

  83. The ‘How to study Scientology’ post that Marty expressed is a solid reality in how to study LRH tech. This is mostly what I got from it. Is all of it real to you or not? Perhaps there is only a portion of what you are studying that may be real to you. We all have different takes on the duplication of what we study (LRH tech) and the understanding of such. It breaks down to ‘what is true for you is true for you.’ No two study cases are the same. No two cases are the same period. I personally struggled with duplicating LRH tech for over a quarter of a century. Not because I was against it. Not because I was testing it. I wanted it more than anything else in life. I knew it made people better. I knew the tech worked and gave eternal results. I knew that if I could learn it and then apply it that it would be mine – forever. I also knew that the application of it would greatly improve my present life. From here I knew that I had the chance to help others improve their life and the conditions thereof. This was the biggy for me. This was what kept me moving on what was a painful row to hoe – ahead. The thought of somehow getting the tech to work for me would give me the chance of a life-time to be at cause – again. Knowing that I had a thin chance to walk the path in helping others was what most likely expanded my universe and was the other ‘hope’ that kept me on the attempted path of getting the tech – regardless of how I suffered with the fact of not being able to achieve that. I knew that if I could somehow take it a step further by understanding it with the intention of helping another then that alone would help me get it! And then the fact of actually helping another with it would only reinforce that even more. Who wouldn’t want that – so I thought! Now it was mine to keep. But I never ever really got there – not until recently. I cognited (very recently) that I didn’t have a ‘self belief’ system of study (a truism if you will) to take what was real and disregard what was not real – to me. To be able to freely play and dismantle the tech so that I could make it work for me. Again what is true for you is true for you and nothing else really matters. This alone helped me to begin with making decisions when studying LRH tech. I had no desire to change it or mix it with other means. If anything I also wanted to have the learned ability to protect it for others. I wanted to get it so that I could apply it. I did feel that it was possible for me to touch the surface of the tech while separating myself from the solidity of the subject (I saw study as a solid topic) and make it a little less serious. This did not come easy. My study ‘hang up’ may have been wanting it all, wanting to make it all true – for me, wanting to make it all work – for me. Not willing to leave anything behind. I realized that by taking only bits and pieces of the basics and putting them to test is the only (although sluggish) approach – for me. In other words, how do you eat an elephant (or the study of the subject of Scientology if you will)? One bite at a time. If I did not make this a realism then I would only see the enormous amount of available tech as an overwhelming body of study never to be achieved. I had to win somewhere with the tech – or I would surely lose and maybe for a very long time. I had to create a stable foundation somewhere – or I would never be able to create an anchor point (or two) to serve me. I had to mock up something so to speak, that would be real for me to win with the subject of this study. From here I had to find a way to ‘solve it.’ In other words to solve it like a problem of mathematics. To solve it so as to make it work. To solve it and then put it to use. To solve it and show a result. I needed a conceptual understanding to see it work in my universe so that I could then apply it in other universes. Well I realized that clearing any misunderstood words and making those words mine was one way. This too was not easy. Then I realized that the demonstration of using a ‘demo kit’ was another very useful way. Okay now (so I thought), things are beginning to get a little real for me. This is beginning to make some sense – I would say to myself. I knew that if I could demo what I was studying and then explain it (to myself or to another) and then be acknowledged for it (be it me talking to myself or another coaching me) that I then had it. It would be mine to keep – forever. Please note that an acknowledgment (after understanding what I was studying) was what brought it all to an F/N and final E/P. I did not always get this very critical ingredient in the C of S – especially after the 1980’s. As a result I learned quickly that I had to acknowledge myself or chance losing everything and possibly for a very long time. Things changed greatly (in the 1980’s). Anyway these two study techniques (above) became a very useful stable datum and friend and helped me greatly. Again regarding LRH tech as this was what I was after. This third technique however was what really allowed me to put it all into a three plus dimensional workable aspect to see. Again I used what worked and disregarded what did not. I was able to make that decision now. I used a very powerful application from a book that some of you may be familiar with. A book called ‘How to Solve it’ by G. Polya. The concepts in this little book (copyright 1948) by G.Poyla an engineer, actually helped me greatly with ‘How to Study Scientology’ and how to make what I was studying mine – forever. I hope that anyone reading this topic on Marty’s ‘How to study………..,’ can relate to what I am saying and also find the above useful especially if you feel that your reality on such a topic (and of the tech) may be as it was mine. I actually (to a degree) debugged myself so that I could move forward. As a matter of fact I was forced to do this myself as the C of S never got it. You can just about do it all by yourself and get workable study results to get the tech. It will at least get you moving. I would like to acknowledge Marty for presenting such a vast topic to us all as it opens new doors on the subject of study and certainly gave me the opportunity to share my view of it as above. Guy Vogel

    • Guy

      Hi. A very interesting evolution. Thank you for sharing.

      Something that you may find interesting is a little thing that is in the Study Tapes, I believe. It is a method of getting the student to make his own evaluations of Scientology data (or any data really). It goes something like this….(Disclaimer…This is not a quote.)
      —–
      If a student is having trouble duplicating Scientology you can question him along this line…” What about Scientology do you know for sure?” The guy comes up with something like “I know that Scientology works.” Ron says… “oh, really?. Are you absolutely certain that Scientology works?” The guy says…”well, no, not really.” Ron then says “OK. so tell me something about Scientology that you are absolutely certain of.”, and the guy hems and haws and eventually comes up with something like “Well, I know for certain there is a word “Scientology”. Ron says “Very good. Now what else do you know for certain about Scientology?” … And from there you can build up a student’s certainty on the subject.
      —–

      Eric S

      • Thanks for that data Eric. I’ll have to try that. I imagine that one can use that process on anyone and on any subject to broaden their reach on what they may be studying.

        Guy Vogel

  84. HI Marty. I don’t thing you care in any way of “my little person”, as I don’t remember you ever acknowledge to my communications, but for my own integrity, I just want to assert here that I’m very agree with you, that any of your post is such a pertinent for me and that I am so happy to have you here and to communicate with the level of integrity and intelligence that you have. I’m not really trained nor Clear, but what you express is what I have mostly felt and understood while studying LRH for myself and observing many scientologists. I So Very Wish you will be able to continue and spread your good sense in this time and place. Very sincerely, IdealGoal.

    • I have seen your comments and I acknowledge you !! Marty has tons to do but I am sure he too sees your comments. Keep at it and keep studying too. :)

      • Very Thanks for the ack, greenonwhite :) I wish we could bring
        Truth and Integrity on this planet and that any tendency to selfishness, so any bank, will be faced, as-ised and gotten rid of. Thanks To Be Here And To Communicate As You Do! ML, Sincerely.

  85. Grasshopper, thank you for the comment. First, I agree with you, about the death penalty. If there was only one moral belief to be had, it would be to protect the sanctity of life (im not including abortion in this conversation, just lives of people who are alive in their own body). Sadly some religions approve of killing other people. My sense is that a person should, if they have done some terrible crime, be given their natural lifespan, locked up in some jail, to reflect, repent and hopefully understand and get transformed.

    You mention other sources. Alan Watts—he is great, I used to read him in the 70s. But he is just a theoretician i.e he does not impart a set of tools, a path. He just talks of his path. Eckhart Tolle , I agree with you, has some interesting things to say, and he is articulate., and I like his style: tolerant, kind. The Apostle Paul’s chapters, which you mention, are great. I grew up with those, my mother had me read them before I was 10… But Paul was shown an experience, by Jesus. In other words, he is just describing in his writings what he experienced, but his writings are not able to chart a path for others, or to impart to others the experience imparted to him by HJesus.

    So we come to a fork in the spiritual road: on one side writings/beliefs/ideas with the limit to the extent that they can fulfill an individual, and then the question arises: “how does one find fulfillment, through something more tangible than just ideas, ie is there a transformational, personal experience to be had, and if yes, how does one go about it?
    My sense is that its great to be exposed to new ideas and beliefs, but it’s better to be experience new inner experiences. Prem Rawat’s “Knowledge” for example, is one such avenue., he shows you four practical techniques to connect within. He has this thing called “The Keys” where you watch some videos to get prepared and then there is a live session where some secret techniques for connecting within and experiencing the self, or whatever you call it, are shown. That’s crossing the line from talk and philosophy to direct experience. The sufis have also some kind of initiation that supposedly allows the person to access a new reality, to have a new, enlightened understanding of life and of their own self. Not just intellectually, but wholistically.

    My sense is that humanity, and all of us, are engaged in a race to become clear, find truth, experience within something that transcends or mortal self. There are many paths, Scientology is a great one and, as for you, it can be the core path. But every person is different, and everyone has natural affinities for other paths also and it is good to integrate these. I am grateful for this conversation and look forward to continuing it on this forum.

    • Paul

      (A little hint here… If you wish to attach your communication to a particular person’s post, you can click on the word “reply” that follows that person’s name at the start of the post.)

      But to respond to your comment… It seems that you have looked into other things. Having done so, you seem to have a better understanding or value for some of Scientology’s technologies, and perhaps, because of your Scientology studies and experiences, you may have a better understanding of these other pursuits. Having this added breadth of experience or data should allow you to better evaluate basic concepts and workabilitys amongst the subjects.

      That is partly where I was coming from in my earlier post.

      Eric S

    • Thanks Paul. I’ll have to check out Prem Rawat. There is so much. For me, there is the practical, and Scientology cuts to the chase, almost to a fault. It is very technical. Not a whole lot of “Look at the wonder, the miracle, of existence!”. In the ARC triangle, C is supreme, followed by R, followed by A. So Affinity seems to get short-shrift. It is balancing to read Paul’s and Jesus’s treatises on Love.

      I look at Anthony Robbins and I think about what an amazing man he is and what an amazing career. I remember his ads on late-night TV in the ’80s. Wow. He has valuable data, and when you look at it in relation to Scientology, it is pretty amazing. For me it was easy to discount external wisdom – “look – thats just a rehash of Positive Postulates” for example. But, you know, people have run with things, and have developed them further than Ron did (since he had different goals and moved on to different tech), and there is value there.

      The Meyers/Briggs personality assessment is awesome. There is no parallel to Scientology here, but it is very, very useful, and enlightening. Why not embrace it?

      People are evolving, and there are a lot of people on the path, and it pays to keep one’s eyes open. It is great to be able to be open about it.

      Mark

  86. Marty,

    My name is Jeff and I teach sociology at a small private school in New York City. I have been researching Scientology for about 6 years. During this time I’ve followed your blog almost daily, I’ve read Dianetics and have tried to absorb as much info from as many sources as possible in order to formulate an objective viewpoint on the subject of Scientology. I have read and/or researched every major publication on Scientology during this time, as well as any previous publications that might be pertinent. Its safe to say that me or my students have read everything available to non-Scientologists about Scientology.

    I rarely post questions for fear of ignorance and I discourage my students from posting as they are guilty of reactiing from their emotions most of the time. It’s clear that the commentators on this site dont suffer fools lightly.

    That being said, we had a discussion today about a recurring subject on Scientology that I was hoping you might shed some light on.

    My question is: Is it all worth it?

    From what we can gather, you have spent most, if not all of your adult life as a practicing Scientologist. If you were to imagine yourself as a 90 year old man on your death bed, reflecting on your past, would you say that you would be happy with the decisions you’ve made regarding your faith? Has all the time you’ve spent studying Scientology, practicing it and living by its teachings been worth your time? If you added up every minute of auditing, training, traveling, living in Hemet, working in Scientology management, dealing with your departure from organized Scientology, problems with the current leader and every good time and bad time you’ve had since you started your Scientology life, would it equal the amount of reward and personal satisfaction you get in return?

    It just seems a bit exhausting. Very often I think to myself, “this seems like alot of work”.

    Imagine for a moment that you, Marty Rathbun, were suddenly given the power to create a universe and the universe was just a big computer program. Marty, you can write that program any way you want. You can have green people and purple trees and you can write programs to make the universe any way you desire. Marty, would you write that program so that the people in your universe had to jump through thousands of years of hoops in order to find peace and personal happiness? More imortantly, would you write your program so that only one man in the whole universe has the wherewithal to understand the process and communicate it to the masses? Of course I’m not saying that its as simple as that, but knowing what we DO know about nature and our surroundings, does it seem logical to you that we would need to do all of the steps required in Scientology in order to obtain personal freedom? What if L.Ron had died young, or suffered a brain injury or wasnt born at all for that matter, and wasnt able to complete any writings on Scientology? How would you have obtained the knowledge that he outlined? Would we have just hoped that someone else would “stumble upon” the truth?

    Its a constant topic with my students that Scientology requires too much sacrifice in the here and now to justify the rewards later. The laymans consensus is that the natural course of our universe could not be so complicated for humans that we would need years of studying in order to acheive peice of mind, especially when those years could be used to enjoy the miracle of life. It all seems too technical, pre-conceived and fairytail-ish. Another consensus is that Scientology appeals mainly to people who are desperately seeking answers about life, but will not take “no” for an answer. Do you think a certain number of Scientologists simply need a definition for their existence?

    Please understand Marty that neither me or my students wants to offend you with these questions. Its just that we have done a great deal of research and the are the most recurring.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Any light you can shed is greatly appreciated.

    Not a troll or agent of the church just genuinely interested.
    Thanks again

    Jeff

    • Jeff,
      Thanks for the questions. Have you had a chance to read my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?
      Marty

      • I admit I feel a bit foolish. After proclaiming myself well read, I indeed am not. I’ll put your book before the class and repost my questions afterward. Thanks
        Jeff

    • Messege to Jeff,
      Amazing post. Yes it is worth it, far beyond anything you can imagine.
      I am Clear and OT 3 so I speaketh from having walked the walk.
      Best wishes.

    • I don’t know if this will help, and my experience in Scientology is not the same as Martys. I had many realizations or “cognitions” from studying and auditing in Scientology that I believe have improved my life and helped me become more “me”. One of them, and I think it does relate to your question is that there is no such thing as a bad experience. There just isnt. That may sound nuts, and I dont really know how to explain it further, but it’s true for me.

      • Chris,
        Let me shoot you in the foot and see if that datum still remains true for you. :-)

        • “For anything bad to happen to you, it requires your consent”
          Did Chris tell you that you could shot him in the foot. Well Chris, did you? :)

          • I would go to the hospital and meet a cute nurse.

            Really you are the only one who can shoot yourself in the foot.

            • I think that is a “limited” theory. “There is no such thing as a bad experience” or “For anything bad to happen to you, it requires your consent”. It is like saying you are totally responsible for your own condition. This has a lot of workability but isn’t an absolute in my opinion.
              I have ended cyle on a lot of painful experiences by “seeing how I created it” in an auditing session. And I think there is a lot of validity to that.
              But to say that a baby getting some terminal disease or a woman getting raped that they “allowed it” or “wanted it to happen” doesn’t totally ring true to me. I guess you could say that the thetan agreed to have a baby body and agreed to disease and the woman agreed to being on Earth where things like that can happen? I think that the road to “total freedom” and “total OT” hasn’t been discovered yet so to have the idea that you have to agree to have bad things happen to you is uncertain as of now.
              I think bad things can and do happen. If you are uptone you can turn them to your advantage or you can right the wrong by working to get some justice. You can also mentally confront the situation and try to end cycle on it and out create it. I think the wrong thing to do is to see or look “how you pulled it in”. That is what the cult has you do. You complain in a session how the regg ripped you off and you get: “What have you done to the regg?”, “Did the regg miss a withhold on you?” Always an introversion flow to you when you communicate about how something bad happened to you. The cult and dm do lots of “bad things” to people. To say there is no such things as bad experiences sounds cool, but is pretty unreal.
              I have had times when I was getting ripped off or had some “bad experience” and I went to the right person and corrected the situation and totally felt keyed out (happy) about it. I will have a huge win when dm gets booted of his post and people see him for what he truly is. I’m not losing sleep over it. For me it’s just a game. But I can designate bad experiences that should be corrected and bad experiences that should just be “forgotten” because there isn’t anyone to “handle” anymore. It is all towards the game of putting in order.

        • Tony, what I meant is that how you intrepet and react to an experience is wholly dependent on you. Thats one thing that standard Scientology can do for a person is give them control over their own mind and how it relates to and intrepets the physical universe and life.

      • Thanks Chris….I agree with you and Joe Pendelton, Its hard to understand from the outside.

      • “No such thing as a bad experience”- I see this as a reference to the “Two Rules for Happy Living”.

        Any experience you can fully confront, is no longer a “bad experience”. Because you are no longer the effect of it.

    • Jeff,

      marildi | January 30, 2013 at 3:39 am
      “Marty, if you wouldn’t mind saying, I was curious about something that I would really be interested to know: If you weren’t already a trained auditor and that wasn’t your livelihood, would you choose again to train for that profession, knowing what you know now, or would you choose some other field to invest years of your life studying? This is highly hypothetical, I know, but I wondered if in hindsight and with the wider knowledge you now have you would pursue some other purpose line or philosophy and what that would be.”

      Marty’s reply: martyrathbun09 | January 30, 2013 at 6:53 am
      “I would do it again without hesitation.”

      marildi | January 30, 2013 at 7:58 pm
      “Thank you for the explicit answer to my question! Not that I was surprised by it, but I wanted to know for sure as, for me, the answer would say a lot. In fact, from my point of view those brief words speak volumes.”

    • Jeff, have you seen “The Beginners Guide to L Ron Hubbard”?
      As far as reporting or journalism on Scientology I really wish there was more stuff like this out there. I think he got closer to what it’s really about than anything else I’ve seen. I highly recommend a viewing of the entire documentary if you havent already. I still believe there is much of value as a spiritual practice in Scientology and perhaps as time passes and the dust settles it will be generally be considered a valid practice- like Buddhism or something. http://youtu.be/URg_PDFxnDc

    • Jeff, just by the fact of being an “outsider” looking in at all this, you are missing a huge chunk of the actual EXPERIENCE of it all, when it comes to evaluating the “Scientology world.” Yes, much of what we discuss on this blog makes a lot of that experience seem kind of nuts and not worth the time and effort and “heart” and committment that we all put into it. BUT …. at least two factors you need to consider as to it being worth it for us. 1) there are always “X” amount of folks in the world who have decided it is VERY worth it for them to devote their entire lives to religious committmen and the spiritual side of lifet; of course, various priests and ministers, but also nuns, Buddhist monks, Orthodox Jews who remain in study for much of their waking hours, etc etc etc Many of these folks decide to give up every area of life except for the religious aspect of it and most feel it is worth it.

      And …. 2) though almost all of our individual stories on this blog about our experiences with the Church of Scientology ENDED very badly with us disillusioned about the authoritarianism and the force used all the time in the CoS to control our lives and our thinking (along with the all important continual emphasis on money) …. even with all of these “bad points”, you are missing the reality that for almost all of us, the great percentage of our early years in Scientology, exploring our time track back billions of years and having lots and lots of realizations about life and working together as a team to do what we felt was going to save the universe …. all of this in those early days was EXCITING …. it was a BLAST … it was INTERESTING …. and it was hella FUN FUN FUN. Yeah, with all of the craziness, it was mostly young people involved in a VERY intense spiritual and intellectual activity also having a GREAT TIME (and I cannot emphasize enough that along with the great mission, it was indeed very interesting and exciting, experiences which most people on this planet crave and just dream about experiencing). *and I’ll note that the young people involved in Scientology circa 1971 were not usually self-righteous with sticks up their ass as you would so often see in the CoS at the present time.

      Yeah, it ended very badly, but re-read the above paragraph and you’ll get the answer that most of us would give about whether it was worth it or not. For me it was (and I am completely down on organized religion now)

      • Thanks Joe,

        Point #2 is interesting in that I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone refer to their faith as ” FUN FUN FUN”. So thats something.

        But point #1 is confusing as I would pose the same question about any religion you mentioned.. Its like saying you practice Scientology because everyone else does

        • Jeff, what I meant on point #1 is simply that there are many people who feel “it is worth it’ to put their spiritual committment above all other aspects of life.

          On point #2, believe me, I could tell you stories. It might be a hoot if Marty had a thread one day just on what we enjoyed about being on staff. Not only was the “game” very exciting – we had over 100 staff at my org – we always had these tough projects with time crunches – we called them “Hill 10’s” like a military hill to take – and for a number of years, that was indeed exciting for a group to do as a real team. But the FUN part? Well, always something fun happening. I was 19 when I joined staff in 1970 and almost everyone (only couple of exceptions) was in their early 20s. Lots of good looking girls to fall in love with. Yeah, and lots of parties and pairings. Hardly any one was married. I can only remember one couple having kids. It was kinda like college – big social life – but we were also “clearing the planet.” And I made a ton of friends – we socialized a lot together, went to concerts, ball games, etc. And I got to become an auditor too. The down side was when things started to get heavy, when force and punishment came in, and then things weren’t as much fun, but as the saying goes – that’s another story for another time.

          • Yes, it was fun. But, a point strike me. Most of people had the same story : it was fun on the seventies, a bit on the eighties.
            Actually it was fun till 1982. In 1983/84 it was awful. From 1985 till 1989 was still ok but fucking expensive, and after that it went worse and worse… Of course we grew older, and that is also bad. Spending 30 years under Miscavige yoke, given most of the money who would be needed to have built a confortable life.
            When you « work for eternity », you don’t see 30 years going. Being young and now being old.
            Most of us are born around 1950, and had such an exciting time doing scientology in the seventies. So, in the seventies it was more right than it was wrong. If you do a stat, you’ll find so many people starting in the 70s and less and less thereafter. Now there are no new public.
            Actually, to not waste my life, I should have been not so reasonable with the outpoints I saw from 1983. It was no longer real scientology. It was all about money.
            We have put ourself in a hard life by giving so much money that we were always in a fight for suvival.
            We have put ourself under a totalitarian power. Miscavige was really the bad new which happened. Like putting yourself under Stalin. Lost our freedom, time went by living an unfun life, due to being in a strugle against unsolvency, like an illness, plus feeling you are part of a group persecuted, having the feeling the world oppose you when it opposes the misdeed of Miscavige and co.
            We call that “taking the condition which was not assigned”. And the feeling is wasted energy, failed purpose. An it is not the fault of Hubbard, he did well with his teaching.
            And I don’t believe he empowered Miscavige. He was just getting old, sick and lost the grip.

            I have still some friends who still give a lot of money to ideal org or IAS, they are thinking they help « saving the planet », it’s their belief, one says that we were so fortunate to have « COB » otherwise all would go adrift. It’s the center of their life and if they would consider it’s wrong they wouldn’t confront it. They cannot, unless they fall into a « hole », experience real arbitraries and even so, I saw a movie, it was in a gulag, a woman said she was put their by mistake but she rather exprience that because she was sure actual ennemies of the party were also caught.
            I’m sorry, but talking about that my tone level is griefy. A feeling of waste, but seems that’s the price to pay for not trusting my perceptions.

    • Hi Jeff,
      You commented:
      “Please understand Marty that neither me or my students wants to offend you with these questions. Its just that we have done a great deal of research and the are the most recurring.”

      When you research, what is it you are doing? Are you reading what others say about what they have done or are you doing Scientology say by studying “Self Analysis” and discussing the results? Or perhaps something else?

    • The truth is that many of the people posting on this blog learned how to audit on courses designed to focus on the particular knowledge and skills necessary to audit a group of processes, using the appropriate auditing style. Typical course time lengths would be 4 to 6 weeks consisting of 5 course periods (3 hours).

      In my early days, we would finish a course and then work with another co-auditing until we completed all the processes we learned on that course. It was fun, full of insights and releases, and not at all laborious! Back then (mid-1970s) there were about 10 courses all told that would get you through to Grade 4 and Dianetics completion — many went clear along the way.

      Many people would do a couple of them a year, some more, and some would do several basic courses and then get auditing with a professional auditor. I saw many people take less than a year getting around 5 professional auditing sessions a week. The time involvement really varied, but I can tell you that people REALLY REALLY looked forward to their auditing sessions!

      At our center, people routinely took breaks and we had out of town people who did just one course or series of auditing a year and viewed it as the best possible vacation EVER!

      After that it was doing upper level auditing, which was almost always done out of town, so people would go for a few weeks or months, then come back home and back and forth and so on, some in as little as a year, others over several years and so on. Again, it was fun, fascinating and rewarding.

      Many people chose to go onto advanced training and professional internships. Back then, this would take a couple of years of full time training.

      Think in terms of around the amount of time a college degree would take to get all the way through all the courses and auditing as a professional auditor and completion on the OT sections through to OT 6. OT 7 is solo audited at home anyway and that’s a matter of a session a day until you’re done.

      When I started, it was made very clear on the registration form that the books and lectures were a record of research and contained anything that was found as opposed to the courses and services offered at the center, which were the current techniques and services being offered.

      One of the chief complaints about the current Church of Scientology is that it has made what we did impossible and extended the length of time by adding all kinds of must do before you can audit…

      An interested group could easily work out with an Independent to come and help them started on doing the original Communications Course or sending one of their group members to learn and then pass it on locally. That’s essentially how the center I went to began its existence. People helping other people to learn the techniques. There wasn’t any management breathing down our necks, and we loved what we were doing, we were confident that our group of people were well intended and there was never a fear of being coerced or abused.

      • Could an interested group convince a practicing Scientologist to give a demonstration in front of a class? All expenses paid

        • Send Marty an email asking him for some possible people who would be willing to do that. I have seen a couple of people say that they are willing to travel, but I have not personally kept up on who this might be at present.

        • Jeff, if you are referring to an auditing demonstration, we used to have those in the early 70s – where someone would get auditing (usually Dianetics, as it would be more interesting to a group) in front of an audience. Someone like Marty or Ingrid Smith (and there are others I’m sure) would do a great job – maybe start with a short lecture first.

      • I found an online copy of an enrollment application form of the type that I signed when I started doing courses at our center. This is the clause I mentioned in my earlier post:

        3 ) The writings of LRH are presented as a part of the record of his research and should be construed only as a written report of such research and not as a statement of claims by the Foundation or by LRH. None of the organizations which espouse, present, propagate or practice Dianetics(R) spiritual healing technology makes any claim that the nature or purpose of Dianetics, or the writings of LRH, is contrary to this description or that the application of any of this or any other Dianetics practices will have any particular effect on any particular person. Thus the Foundation makes no claims as to the results which may be forthcoming from the service.

        http://www.helsinki.fi/~huuskone/Scn/form.html

        Note: The clause above refers to the Foundation, as I recall ours said Mission as it was a Scientology Mission and not a Dianetics Foundation. These enrollment forms were boiler-plates that the individual centers could edit with their center information. Our form was a little different than this one but not in any substantial way.

        Based on signing this form, we all assumed that the books and lectures were a record of research and the courses we did at the center were the current offerings and techniques. So that made reading the books and listening to the lectures really fascinating BUT definitely not the gospel truth or scriptures! For example, there used to be a book called Have You Lived Before This Life, which contained accounts of what people had recalled in their auditing. We would read it and discuss it and found it to be a big adventure. We thought it was awesome that we could read the research materials and past materials even if they were not used in our course materials.

        You can now visit websites on the Internet where people recount their NDEs, out of body, past lives, you name it but back then this was the first such material I had ever seen and it was truly amazing to read especially since I was a student of Eastern religions that consider reincarnation to be a perfectly normal process of life and death. I was delighted to see a modern day confirmation of these ancient teachings!

        • Maria,

          Thanks for the info.

          One question: Am I the only person that thinks the enrollment application reads like a non-compete?

          • No you are not! This is most assuredly one of the bones of contention with the organization, Church of Scientology, and its policies — that somehow a religious organization can act to prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs outside of the official Church. Marty and many others are in a full blown protest against that attempted restriction.

            Note: This particular form came into use in the 1990s, and it has served to remind me what was in that clause I referenced. However, some of the other clauses seem to be different than what I read and agreed to in the 1970s, in particular clauses on binding arbitration, non-compete, and refund policies seem to be different.

    • Hey Jeff: read your post and found it interesting. I too am from NYC. If you want to know if it is really worth it and if I can help you, feel free to get in touch with me. If you read my most recent posting within on the concept of study (may be of interest to you as a teacher) you might get an idea of what I went through and yet I’m still pushing along to get LRH tech.

      Guy

    • Hello Jeff,
      I am a teacher also. I just want to say that I was determined to find out more about operating outside my body, and matters of spirit. I knew I was more than a body because of my experiences. I read a book called The Upanishads when I was 15. I kept reading and searching. I had tried church when I was in 5th grade but I didn’t believe what they were telling me. I took philosophy of religions in school. I learned that I aligned with Eastern thought, but I still needed to know more about one obtains the states talked about. When I heard a tape from Ron Hubbard, (it was a really bad reel to reel) in a friends home, it spoke to me. I started reading his books, and I purchased training and auditing. My thought was that Scientology was an example of East meets West. There was (is) so much information to learn and to apply. Despite all the weirdness of the group and or organization as a structure, the awareness I achieved and the usefullness of it is incomparable from my experience. I’m glad you are looking at his subject with your students. How progressive.

  87. Dear Marty,

    Reach and Withdraw is a powerful process.

    ML/A

  88. Marty. This is well reasoned and presented. I thank you sincerely for taking the time to make this available to us.

    We will add this approach and ‘how to’ article to our training line-up.

    In the Independent Field there are auditors delivering the tech. I assume we agree, not enough yet. But a good start for a fledgling movement or association of people.

    I assume no one in this field uses heavy ethics, rigid KWS application, disconnection, fair-game, mishandling of children, crazy weekly stats ‘management’, insane sales pressure, and so on through the litany of current church misapplications or reason-less actions.

    So, I assume in-depth discussion of the wrongness of all these actions is discussing policies and circumstances that do not exist in the Indie Field. This exists in the church, and we all agree with this, with various emphases.

    It seems it is not necessary to disagree with each other about what in the church is very good or a bit good or bad or dangerous or, or, or.

    Of course all of us can say what we like to say, but maybe we can also add some suggestions of what else we can do, day to day, out here in the field.

    Besides auditing others we could work very hard at adding numbers to lurkers, to those not sure any more, to those declaring independence, to talking each day, o sending an email each day to someone who needs to look more and consider the state of the church and to get to the point of leaving.

    We need numbers of us.

    This process of independent thought is an attrition. Not sudden. We will add numbers bit by bit, probably not suddenly.

    It may take a year or three or ten. But if we work at these simple sub-products we will win a bit sooner.

    I am sure we all do this in some way. I am just saying let us reinvigorate ourselves and this effort.

    It is absolutely vital to do so, to add numbers to this process of independence.

    It matters not Steve and Jim whether we agree. It matters that we get more numbers. In this way we add to the potential for collaboration in more and more endeavors.

    It is vital. Vital. Vital.

    A wearing down of official members adds to Indepence power. Independence power CAN change things, however this turns out.

    Once independent, one needs auditors, websites, materials, hope, help, communication.

    My plea for the week.

    Unfortunately still not yet in the open.

  89. Marty,

    I’ve reread your post thrice.

    I am in total agreement, however correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you describing a gross outpoint with the training line-up? Even all the way through Class XII?

    Somewhere along the line, didn’t LRH stated that “time” is the ultimate aberration? Sorry, but I don’t have the reference only the recollection.

    Hence though , there was the creation of the speed-ed-up training program with regards to forward co-audits. Doesn’t that go back to the origins and DMSMH?

    My point is this. Did LRH overlook scholars and scholarly examination of his body of work? Or was he seeking to just undercut all the way to the lowest rung of humanity?

    Maybe he tried to accomplish too much in too short a time.

    Thus ‘time’ really is the ultimate FUBAR regards training. Shouldn’t it have perhaps been presented in a little less hectic and stressful fashion? In other words, less cult-like?

    • I think the Academy Level line up attempted to do that. The comprehensible compilation of it never occured – and in fact is an impossibility within the church now that LRH is gone given their literalness.

      • Marty: read your book and about to begin the other. With all that you have been involved with in Scientology over the years I did not read where you had mentioned anything about your training level. Did I just not see it? Can you let us know?
        Guy Vogel

  90. Hey Marty…What’s happening with the “Luis Garcia” law suit at the moment? Any info?

  91. I hate to “overrun” anyone on this KSW subject, but a very ironic thought just hit me.
    For as much as LRH warned us to keep Scientology working and pound it into us, I think it is very strange that apparently LRH is the one who really dropped the ball and allowed Scientology to not work anymore.
    1. He lied about his own PR in violation of his very own PR series.
    2. Despite originating the data on suppressives, he had dm very close to him and even worked with him and did not detect him, ultimately letting this mad man destroy or at least severly cripple it for a good long while, his very own creation.

    I am not bringing these points up as an argument to not follow his tech. I am just pointing out the absurdity of this very large out-point. I think it very strongly shows LRH’s fallability and is another good reason that we all should think for ourselves.

    • Yes, these are outpoints. If you read What is Greatness ?, where does that come in to play in practical terms with the organization? I don’t see where that is applied anywhere in the GO/OSA plans and targets. And what about ‘ignoring the barking dogs’ as in KSW? The Org has never ‘ignored’ even a yap from a critic. Also, he wrote Educational Dianetics and he didn’t apply this to his own son, Quintin, who apparently did not want to be the number one tech guy or follow in his dad’s footsteps, but rather wanted to be a pilot. I could go on and on. In many ways Ron had more of a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ in everything but the tech procedures. And, since they work, my remarks only show that following his opinions on anything but the basic tech and some policies is no better than following anyone else…better to think for yourself.

    • Tony, much of these outpoints are unverified about LRH. These days we can find anything we want to find on the www. He exaggerated? Oh my! Me, I’m done now with believing just anything that comes along about the man. LRH was a man, a great man if you will, but a man. Each of us has to reconcile our own past and beliefs and what we did about it, or didn’t, and I’m coming to think it’s time to do so now. Enough about Ron’s shortcomings.

    • I guess it’s not as-is ing Tony.

      • Oh it’s as-ising pretty good. It’s like itsaing a big engram. You go through it once and get some relief, but you may have to recount it several times. It’s third dynamic auditing.. better run…that might not be standard tech. Or I guess you could hammer my Tonyology out of existence. Lol.

    • Hi Tony, feel I have to comment on this. I’m a retired scn public for many years and hate DM as much as any of you. The colossal out point you mention, could imo have an explanation, even if very weird. LRH knows ethics, auditing and admin tech, and in a very contradictory way he disappears kind of abruptly, no power change, no sensible turnover and even with his somewhat OT abilities he can not spot a creature like the idiot DM, which can sail in and have a picnic dismantling the tech, church and become rich in the process. An explanation ‘of comparable magnitude’ making some sense to me is contained in the word threat. If LRH was threatened to ‘back down’, with the planet and its people in risk of destruction, I think he would do it. Its like the books Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth is an attempt from LRH to tell about this without ‘breaking the bargain’, and maybe he tried in many other ways to whistle-blow and do something from behind that cramped position. Who would be able to level this kind of threat, I don’t know, but it sure would explain a big part of the conundrum. Of course he can not easily come back, or act ‘openly’ as long as it is possible to re-enact the threat, so the feeling ‘we are on our own’ becomes a firm reality. I’m sure we will find out what this ‘enforced disconnection engram’ is really about at some point. The fact that this incredulous thing could happen sure support that LRH and the various tech areas have fallacies, and they are not tiny when a madman SP can successfully take charge. Well … just my 2 cents.

  92. Hi,

    Been following this blog since it’s inception. I have gotten what I needed out of it, which was some closure with a situation with my fanatical, self-centered, Scientologist father. Marty, thanks for your writings on this blog, your books, and a brief e-mail correspondence that we had (that I doubt you remember, and that’s ok). I’ve always seen the big picture of what you are doing here even when others didn’t. This includes both sides: the Haters and the Fanatics.

    Not that anyone here would care, but I’ve decided to let go of this blog. I just found out that my wife and I are expecting our 2nd child. I’ve spent enough time on the subject of Scientology. I need my energy to be on my family now.

    I wish all of you well.

    ARC and, as we say in the South, God Bless Ya’ll!! ;)

    Ethan Baker

    P.S. — Marty, if I’m ever in Texas, could we meet? I’d love to grab a coffee or something.

    • Congratulations! Speaking personally, my 2 girls (10 yrs and 21 months) are the best “therapy” you can get. The sheer joy and continuing undiluted pleasure from bringing them up, with all the unconditional love that goes with it – nothing even comes close. So I for one totally understand and respect your decision. And your moniker makes sense now! Good luck.

  93. I wholeheartedly agree with your article Marty Rathbun. Like Copernicus, you are one of my favourite people and for the same reasons.

    • One could easily make the case that LRH wrote and spoke of hundreds, maybe thousands of ways of KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. One of many pieces of Tech is EVALUATION OF IMPORTANCES; one DATUM is not necessarily as important as another DATUM. There’s of course THE STABLE DATUM which aligns other data…Data Series Tech, and so on, and so on.
      Just because LRH (and he makes his case with good reason) was pissed and added with BOLD TYPE CAPS and other stresses when he wrote KSW…

      How many times and how many ways did LRH tell us Scientologist (as Marty has pointed out on this post and others) – give us, and implore us on our responsibility – and on how and why to KEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING?

      It’s of course plain to see that Scientology IS NOT working (in reverse only) within the walls of CoS. But to hobby horse KSW as the reason is neglecting THE REAL WHY.

      So, is KSW just one of many other red herrings that will keep us Independent Scientologist distracted and or prevented from gaining enough understanding and application of Group (3-D) Technology successfully integrated with Auditing (1-D) Technology in order to expand fast enough to cause Scientology to have a Real and Positive impact on the dwindling downward spiral of the only playing field we know, life on planet earth?

      If LRH at the end of this lifetime did in fact say he “failed”, are we going to at the end of our lifetime say we failed?

      Steve Poore

      LRH:
      “The decline or failure of any organization is traceable only to this fact: its executives or staff have failed so often to make nothing of the enemy that they begin to make nothing of their organization and themselves.”
      “The defeated person still tries to make nothing of things. This impulse never fades. But the defeated person tries to make nothing out of the wrong targets; i.e. his organization, his friends, himself.” HCO Information Letter of Feb 25, 1962

      “The processes of Scientology could be described as methods of ‘unhypnotizing’ men to their own freer choice and better life.” SOP 8-C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit. Jan 54

      “In order to obtain knowledge and certainty, it is necessary to be able to observe.” Issue 16-G June 1953 This is Scientology The Science of Certainty

      “The ability to look at something and the ability to answer what is being asked are blood brothers. The fellow avoids looking so he avoids answering.”
      “The degree to which he avoids looking is the degree to which he avoids answering. Anyway, where we have a comm lag, we have an inability to look at something.” 20 Oct 53 Certainty of Anchor Points Processing Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space
      “From his viewpoint, the only one who can put more life, more understanding, more tolerance and more capability into the environment is himself.” Dianetics 55
      “You’ve gone through a continuous process of falling away from teams of various sorts or another and seeing them break up, seeing groups not reaching their goals. And it is no wonder that you would feel a disgust for groups of Homo sapiens.”

      PDC 18 Dec 52 Your Own Case: To You, The Student
      “Orders only occur where responsibility has failed.”
      “THREE GENERAL CLASSES OF MIND
      “A mind which is capable of doing some adjusting to the environment, but adjusting the environment

      “A mind which is capable of adjusting to the environment

      “A mind which is incapable of adjusting to the environment and is incapable of adjusting the environment

      “As you rise on the scale and get a higher and higher intelligence level, greater and greater worth to the society, you find that the person is more and more capable of adjusting his environment.” — L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics
      “For instance, I was talking to a fellow the other day. He was looking at the US Government and he says, ‘You know this democracy shouldn’t have been set up this way in the first place. Those dirty dogs that set it up that way…’ and so forth. And he was going on and on. And I noticed that he got angrier and angrier the longer he talked. So I knew he had had a hand in setting up that democracy. He was going downscale as he talked about it. Perfectly all right, you see, for him to talk about it angrily — nobody is arguing with his right to do that. But this other one is a funny trick and you should be able to recognize it at once. He was talking about it and he got more and more and more angry. Well, then you had to assume that there was a cause there for which he was not taking responsibility. And the longer he talked about it, the longer period he was not taking responsibility for it, the longer he became an unwilling and unknowing effect. You follow this carefully?
      “Well, that is the descent on the Tone Scale: less and less responsibility for an area, so no area is eventually Clear. See, less and less responsibility for an area or a zone of action.” — LRH, 19th American ACC, Lecture: Conduct of Clear, 10 February 1958

      “WHEN GOOD SENSE AND GOOD JUDGMENT ARE NOT ADDED INTO CONTROL, CONTROL GETS A BAD NAME.” “And that is where you get the idea that people shouldn’t control. HCO B 10 Aug 1982 OT Maxims

      “It has not been understood clearly in the past that the failure of a group to communicate ideas within itself results in the failure of the group; that the failure of communication between the group and its leader results in the failure of leadership.” – LRH, from How to Live Though an Executive
      “Well, everybody knows — everybody knows that it’s utter death to follow orders. This is the one thing which must never happen. What you do with orders is resist them; that’s what you do with orders. Change them, convert them, pervert them, …, but don’t follow them. Actually, the salvation of any individual is the ability, with a free and clear mind and heart, to follow orders. I knew the happiest professional soldier — there are a lot of people in armies — they always call them ‘professional privates.’ …

      “Domination, control of another, are all push buttons to Man. Actually, it does not demean a person one single bit to follow an order, but on the contrary will demonstrate to him that he can at least follow an order; he can be an effect — same thing, see? Follow an order, be an effect.

      “If an individual can’t be an effect, he will eventually wind up the effect of this whole universe. So by giving him orders and letting him follow those orders, persuading him to follow those orders — first giving him orders he can follow and then making them tougher on him, calling more and more on his self-determinism and decision, we bring him up to a point where he sees that he does not have to avoid obedience. Because it is the avoidance of obedience, the fear of obedience, which winds Man up a complete slave.”
      From lecture— L. Ron Hubbard, Six Basic Processes: Cause-Distance-Effect, Following Orders
      “The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to do the right thing, to be kind, to be decent.
      “Amongst us we have occasionally the feeling like: . . . We must be stern, we must be mean, we must occasionally be ornery, and we must steel ourselves to take an unkind action.”
      “Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does solve.
      “And it never solves by being tough. And believe me, ladies and gentlemen, here talks a guy who in his college days was a top sergeant of the reserve marines, who drilled battalions. And when I tell you that it doesn’t pay to be tough, I’ve had experience.
      “At no time during the entire war, did I ever see toughness win either in the field of discipline, the field of efficiency, or the field of getting a job done. I have never seen it win.
      “There is no substitute for liking people like liking people. There’s no substitute for reality like reality. There’s no substitute for communication like communication with good affinity and good reality.” — LRH (Lecture: “Attitude and Conduct of Scientology,” 3 Nov 55 quoted in the “Dissemination Course” 1992 edition pack, page 259-260)
      “If Scientology were used only on an educative basis, you would have to keep educating somebody in a relatively complex Scientological datum, repeatedly, over and over and over until the edge came off that much confusion. And then you would have to take a slightly simpler datum and educate him in this over and over and over and let him think about it and inspect it and so on until no more confusion or upset occurred with the datum. And in that wise you would probably be able to clear him educationally. And that is why Scientology education is itself a clearing process.” — L. Ron Hubbard
      THE HOPE OF MAN “It will depend upon us to a very large degree whether man will become an animal in earnest or will continue to be a spiritual being. Because man is today threatened by men who have become animals and who have no thought of any other thing than this.
      “This work does not represent a revolt. It doesn’t even vaguely represent a desire for the demise of any of these things. All it represents is the hope that man again can find his own feet, can find himself in a very confused, mechanistic society, and can recover to himself some of the happiness, some of the sincerity and some of the love and kindness with which he was created. And if man can do this, and if we can help in any way to accomplish this, then all the years of my life and all the years of yours will have been well paid for, and none of us will have lived in vain.”
      — L. Ron Hubbard

      • Hi Steve,
        I don’t think Scientology has failed. I think it will go on, way into the future. It will go as far as we use rationality and good common sense and are not robots.
        I has a cognition on Solo Nots once that ARC was the foundation that the rest of the tech and admin are built on. You actually cannot use any piece of tech unless at the same time use affinity with the person, reality with the person and communicate to the person. I really think that ARC was the main lost tech within the cult and that body of tech really needs to go in.

        • That’s right Tony.

          One of the methods how ARC became lost tech was when LRH invented the concept in ethics, you should exert “just a lil’bit” more “force” than the bank of the guy would.
          This was abused too often.
          The same goes for the “Ethics Presence” reference. God help us when people start to use this reference literally (or only single paragraphs therin).

        • Tony, I’m certainly not saying here that “Scientology has failed” I don’t even believe necessarily that LRH said he “failed.”
          Scientology certainly hasn’t failed for me. But I do think it’s failed so far in reversing the dwindling spiral of the 4th Dynamic, societies at large.
          As just one example, there may be less Psychiatric abuses evident today in Psyche hospitals. But the devastating effects of Psyche drugs have more than supplanted this. These causes (psyche drugs epidemic) are just a more “civilized” “fix” of the enslavers – and the results; school shooting, suicides, wholesale drugging of our school children (our future) and the general artificially disabled (no and low responsibility) ethics level is too plain to see, to be ignored.
          Oh, here I go again with my “alarmist” comments. Hey let’s all wake up (many here are) and realize that the 4th Dynamic eventually does affect our 1st and second, and all the higher Dynamics as well.
          Scientology will succeed, if and only when, we as true Scientologist can deliver enough volume of Scientology to begin to reverse the aforementioned decline.
          Me? I’m still hopeful!
          Steve Poore

          • I agree with you Steve. I do think that psych drugs are very destructive. Also there is a lot of cray things going on but a lot of good too.
            I always likethe idea of LRH to have the spirit of play and not take things too seriously. Dm made the cult VERY serious and I am very done with that.
            Have a nice weekend.

            • Tony, Agreed!
              I may come across pretty “serious” sometimes – probably intense is more accurate.
              But again, I agree with you and LRH on being serious. As he so eloquently stated: (possible paraphrase) you can’t win the game if you’re too serious… nothing wins like plain Insouciance, …a certain flippancy…
              Like a lot of word meanings, there’s good “serious” and bad “serious”. There’s good “reasonable” and bad “reasonable” and there’s also, “SUPPRESSIVE REASONABLENESS – NEXT DOOR TO BEING SUPPRESSIVE. (BTW, I’m not saying you are any of these and I always enjoy your comments here) ARC, SP_Steve Poore :)

  94. In contrast to the approach being demonstrated on this blog, I present David Miscavige products Grant and Elena Cardone demonstrating their communication skills:

  95. Marty,
    As an aside I would like to suggest that you re-post your article entitled TRAINING OUTSIDE THE WALLS which you refer to at the beginning of this post in a new unit of time. There may be more readers who became aware of this blog later or, like me, had simply had never read it.
    It is eye-opening to me. It explains so much about what WTF has been going at the int management level over the years and why the quality of tech delivery has declined so. A “Class VIII” or “Class XII” falling asleep in session? Sorry, but Flunk and Re-train.
    This explains a lot. Miscavige has assembled an army of dissemblers (pretenders).

  96. @ Tony DePhillips ” I think it very strongly shows LRH’s fallability and is another good reason that we all should think for ourselves.” I agree with this very strongly. I know, speaking for myself, I lost the ability to think critically while in Scientology, all the while believing I was becoming more able to do just that. Anyway, I found a good article in The Little, Brown Handbook on the skill of thinking and reading critically and I recommend it to anyone who might be interested.

    • Tony: Where can I find that article / book? Who is the writer / author? I presently read a book that may have similar concepts and interest to you by G. Polya. It is called: “How to solve it.” It is a very approachable step by step read (copyright:1948) on how to solve concepts. I picked up on the methods rather quickly and it actually rendered me the ability to think out of the box – so to speak. Very useful. By applying this format to LRH concepts / readings and lectures I must say that this read has actually opened up other dimensions for me. It is like a session. It gave me more space. Perhaps it is LRH tech that is giving me more space now that I have a workable ‘tool’ that finally helps me with a conceptual understanding of the tech. I recommend it to those who can visually see things three dimensionally.
      Guy

  97. Marty: read your book and about to begin the other. With all that you have been involved with in Scientology over the years I did not read where you had mentioned anything about your training level. Did I just not see it? Can you let us know?

    Guy Vogel

  98. I am having a blast, Marty, training people in how to audit, again, in a non-authoritarian but effective manner. And my students seem to like it quite well, too:
    ===============
    Suzy is and interned Class IV auditor, who audited for years at a large org in the mid to late 1970’s, but not since then. Tim and I are very proud of her as one of our first graduates of the Solo Auditor Course, just this week:
    ===============
    I just completed the Solo course with Randy.

    It was the most rewarding and fun training I’ve had throughout ALL of my training and internships (which have been extensive.)

    I received the 50% case gain everyday that one is supposed to achieve with training.

    I was blowing charge on former misunderstandings, I was sharpening my skills with full certainty for the first time.

    I can’t say enough about Randy as a coach. He has enormous ARC for his students and the subject and makes sure we are winning all the time. His gentle but no-nonsense manner, safely and thoroughly helped me to make 100% standard tech my own for the first time. Plus we had a million laughs.

    I am not only ready to do my OT levels but I have a real desire to audit others because of my new found certainty on metering and the mechanics of the auditing process.

    Wanting to help others drill this course is also a new game for me. My enormous gratitude goes out to Randy for helping me realize I can play a better game.

    – Suzy
    ==========================
    Thanks, Marty, for helping inspire me to DO my hat in life again.

    Tim Swanson and I have a blog here, if you would like to follow our activities:

    http://latrainer.wordpress.com/

    -Randy

    • Hey, good going Randy!

      • Marty:
        A great post on the subject of study. Have read it several times and have shared it with others too – who have a strong interest in getting LRH’s tech. However they (as I did) have great difficulty in deciding where to start with such an enormous study – being Scientology. I suggest to them to look at it as if wanting to eat an elephant – start with one bite at a time. Your post will surely give them a boost – as it did me.

        Several of us are interested in knowing your training level. As mentioned earlier your book was read as well as enjoyed. I believe it was mentioned that you brought you wife to the state of Clear. We would like to know your technical / training level regarding the delivery of tech / auditing. If you choose not to post it I can appreciate that. Could you let us know where to go if it is available elsewhere?

        In addition we would like to make a donation. Where do we go to get an understanding of how such funds are divided / used and how they help with the continuation of your work?

        Thanks,
        Guy.

        • My training is as detailed in the post you are responding to and the link toward the top in it. Donations recompense me for the time it takes to operate this blog, direct people through the underground railroad, advise on all manner of detaching from Scn Inc problems, etc.

    • Bring a gun to a knife fight. It’s a situation that is real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rny9ymeCTZY

      • 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.

        http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Can-humans-acquire-natural-night-vision/760394

        • 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)

  99. 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”.

  100. 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.

    Cheers,
    Still_On_Your_Side (formerly Anononyourside)

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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!) .

  104. 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).

  105. 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.

  106. 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.

  107. 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.

  108. 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.

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

  110. 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…

  111. Here is a Russian translation of this article:

    http://freezone-tech.info/blog/2013/02/04/kak-izuchat-saentologiyu-by-marty-rathbun/

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

  112. Pingback: Wie man Scientology studiert | Der Treffpunkt

  113. 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.

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

  115. You’ve impressive thing here.

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