Integral Theory

There is a tremendous body of work available on the subject of Integral Theory.   It comes from the idea to ‘integrate.’   That is, to bring disparate parts together into a synergistic whole.  Its principle author is a philosopher by the name of Ken Wilber.   Wilber sought to provide maps for those interested in rising to higher levels of consciousness.

He approached the problems of humanoid existence from a completely different perspective than L. Ron Hubbard.  Hubbard’s approach could be characterized as more ‘subjective’ whereas Wilber’s was more ‘objective.’   Hubbard tackled the problem of what was eating him, figured out how to deal with it and developed a technology to share the route.  It was a masterful process of elimination – differentiating those datums that assisted his journey from those that did not, and then codifying the former while rejecting the latter.  His rejection of that which did not assist his route was done in the most emphatic terms, emphasis perhaps added in part, to clearly differentiate his route.  In this regard, he was unparalleled in his ability to detect and label what and who was ‘wrong.’  His emphasis became dissociation and exclusion from other thoughts and ideas.

Conversely, Wilber began with the proposition that ‘everyone is right on some level’.   All routes have a place somewhere on a bigger map.  His emphasis was on association or inclusion.  He looked for the common denominators of great religious, philosophic, contemplative, and psychotherapeutic practices over centuries and placed particular emphasis on objective indicia of workability. From that he developed scales outlining evolutionary phases, levels, and states that people went through from birth to the highest states of consciousness.  Whereas Hubbard was the founder of a mental/spiritual practice or lineage, Wilber was more a philosopher/academic who mapped common denominators of many practices and lineages.

Probably in part due to the vehemence with which Hubbard rejected and condemned other routes, and his established reputation for severely punishing critical analysis of his route, apparently even though Wilber approached the matter with the stable datum that ‘everybody is right on some level’, Scientology was never included in the analysis (at least it was never mentioned).

Ironically, at the end of the day, the work of Hubbard fits quite tidily into the broader maps drawn by Wilber outlining what objective analysis tells us are workable means toward higher states of consciousness.  In that respect a study of Integral Theory serves to enrich one’s understanding of how and why Scientology works.  It also serves as an objective, even scientific validation of the work of Hubbard.  Wilber projects and advocates integral psychotherapeutic and spiritual practice – subjects that all too often are treated as two disrelated practices .  And so it is somewhat ironic that Hubbard gets nary a mention in Wilber’s work when L. Ron Hubbard was a pioneer in the integration of spirit into psychotherapeutic practice.  That is likely due in large measure to the intensity of prohibition on integrating Scientology practice with any other learning or discipline. Sadly, virtually none of the rapidly expanding ranks of Integral practitioners and thinkers – whose work over time increasingly treads on ground tilled by Hubbard – recognize a single word of Hubbard.

Interestingly, Integral Theory also validates virtually all of the commonly agreed upon distinctions that integral-thinking Independent Scientologists seem to have agreed upon that make Scientology workable on the outside and potentially deleterious within corporate Scientology.  That, by no means, applies to many Indies who have shown a violent disdain for the ideas of integration, evolution and transcendence as outlined in What Is Wrong With Scientology? Healing Through Understanding.

There are four potential benefits for learning something about Integral Theory.

First, one can attain a much broader, far-reaching understanding of the technology of Scientology than one could possibly attain from denying himself from studying data of comparable magnitude to it.  Ironically, to those literalists unwilling to expand their horizons, such an approach to learning is recommended in Hubbard’s Data Series (Scientology logic) and Scientology Logic 8 itself: a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

 Second, if one wants to begin thinking rationally with how the subject of Scientology might be communicated to the world, post corporate Scientology Armaggedon, one had better know the vast array of parallels that exist between it and other subjects. In the Age of Information a cloistered, my-way-or-the-hiway, damn the ignorant infidels presentation will likely wind future Scientologists up in remote caves clinging to AK 47s.

Third, for those who have ventured quite a ways up the Bridge it gives you  a number of informative standards by which to evaluate what Scientology has done for you and what perhaps you seek but have not found in Scientology.  In other words, you might find there are ways and means available on this big, wonderful planet that might serve you in moving on up a little higher.

Fourth, for prospective Scientologists and those applying it at all levels of the bridge, integral theory can help you to maintain your own intellectual integrity and sovereignty, integral to full expansion of consciousness and yet put at risk if approaching Scientology with tunnel vision.

For the curious, a good introductory overview of Integral Theory is covered in The Integral Vision by Ken Wilbur, which can be picked up used on the cheap on Amazon books.  A more in-depth, but very well articulated overview is covered in a ten-part interview series with Wilber conducted and published by Sounds True (available on Amazon, and sometimes EBay).

Word of advice.  I am not promoting or recommending Wilber’s own suggested introductory integral program at chapter 6 of the book.   It is a reflection of Wilber the guru or practice teacher, as opposed to Wilber the researcher and philosopher. The former grew out of popular demand by much good
work as the latter.  But, I think anyone who reads this blog is intelligent enough to differentiate when the two hats collapse – which in the broader field of the map making work does not happen often.  I do happen to agree with Wilber’s initially emphasizing the wisdom of an aerobic and weight-training regimen.  I read a Canadian medical study once that found that muscle stress training can greatly reduce the speed of body-aging deterioration (even claims, though I don’t grok the science of it well enough to vouch for it, that on a certain level it can reverse the aging process of the body).  In either event, I have found on a subjective level that a fit body frees all manner of attention units for work on the mind and spirit.

Note for the Kamikazee KSW crowd.   In Wilber’s more in-depth, purely research/map-making work he emphasizes that it is not wise to monkey with workable contemplative lineages. In other words, don’t change workable technology – instead, supplement it where it does not address or meet all of your needs or goals and purposes, and better utilize it by understanding it in greater depth against advances in science, the mind and spirit.

338 responses to “Integral Theory

  1. “kamikazee KSW crowd”

    That is both funny and sort of sad at the same time.

    I appreciate that you are assisting in expanding people’s willingness/ability to begin thinking for themselves, Marty.

    To still be stuck in “LRH or die, you Squirrel heretic!!!” is to be utterly trapped within one’s own postulates. Yuck!!! Been there, done that. Moving on up a little higher now, thank you…

  2. Really enjoyed this article, thought provoking and on many levels too, big thanks for sharing, sincere regards, Barry

  3. I think all those that try to increase awareness have the problem of communicating the higher awareness to those that need to be pushed up to that level. How could you tell a blind person the look and feel of a Da Vinci painting? Until he has workable sight he cannot be aware of it.
    For me awareness is not only perception but also knowledge of that which had been perceived.
    Sample: You make a time travel 500 years back and show the people there your laptop. They all can perceive this laptop. But have no knowledge about Windows / Linux / Mac or computing. Thus they are not really aware of that. Thus awareness is perception and knowledge. Anything that helps to increase awarenees (either the perception part or the knowledge or both) is a valid process.

    • Your comment is highly judgemental and elitist. You have not experienced life long enough to know that you yourself are not aware enough to know that a blind person can perceive a hell of a lot more than you do!!
      basically, you are full of shit.

      • Alex,
        you can tell me that I am wrong. Or that I see not something. That is Ok. But the „full of shit“ turns on my Scientology past quite a bit. Do you know how often I had to listen to that? This turns on charge. With this „full of shit“ thing I lost my wife, I lost my way up the bridge and thus a better life. I had quite a tough life. I had to work hard. I am not a good man. But due to Scientology I could better myself. In your eyes not good enough. Is it really neccessary to be that unfriendly with me?

        • martyrathbun09

          George,
          I agree. My bad for not paying closer attention. Let’s see how this plays out.

          • Thanks,
            no problem.

            I did cognite something about suppression. For me suppression turns on the desire to not exist. I think I have to work on that a bit.

      • Geez man, just because you disagree with him doesn’t mean you have to annihilate him! Practice a little compassion, why don’t you.

    • Keyed out, or just having a good day, we perceive the cool breeze, the blue sky, the squirrel in the tree and the leaves ruffling about and life is good as we smile and go about our business. Do we have to understand more, or stop to study everything happening around us? To me, that would be rather unworkable and introverting at best.

      I dono, but I suspect more than one blind person has found a way to appreciate DaVinci.

    • In the interest of “bridging gaps”… Can I invite the Scorch and those commenting on his comment to watch this… No agenda here… I actually think there is a valid point on both sides of this discussion.

  4. I really love this post. I have read several books of Wilber. By the way, he mentioned Scientology , very shortly, in his book Eye to Eye (a must read, I think).
    His most advanced book stays the quite monumental “Sex, Ecology and Spirituality”. Those books helped me a lot while decompressing of 30 years of scientology staff. It helped me to integrate scientology tech , to really see what was its place in this world, what was unique in it and what was not. Honestly, I think you should (if not already done) get in touch with Wilber. He is a great “humanist” (what he is doing let me think about the Renaissance), but I fully agree with you about the “collapsing hats”. He didn’t develop a workable spiritual technology, but, of course, I see that with my scientologist eye (read Eye to Eye…)

  5. Marty,

    “Second, if one wants to begin thinking rationally with how the subject of Scientology might be communicated to the world, post corporate Scientology Armageddon, one had better know the vast array of parallels that exist between it and other subjects. In the Age of Information a cloistered, my-way-or-the-highway, damn the ignorant infidels presentation will likely wind future Scientologists up in remote caves clinging to AK 47s.”

    That is really funny!!

    Thanks, I’ll check Wiber’s book.

  6. Marty, so far I have not read anything by Ken Wilbur but it sounds very interesting, so thank you for pointing out to us another avenue for enrichment. Of course by doing so, you are bound to have several varieties of zealots aiming their squirrel guns in your direction. It seems you can’t really Move On Up a Little Higher without becoming a visible target.

  7. Ken Wilber is a genius of the first order. I studied his work as part of my training in Body-Centered Psychotherapy. One of my instructors in Theoretical Basis was a good friend of Wilber, who lived in Boulder at the time, and we got to study drafts of his latest book and ask questions. A golden learning opportunity for sure.

    Amazing ideas, and an amazing heart, with an amazing ability to express the sublime in concrete terms. Moving and funny as hell, too! :)

    • Also, Ken is still very much alive and working. If you wish to ask him directly how he might see LRH in terms of his Integral theories, contact him at his website: kenwilber.com He’s always good for some interesting back and forth…

  8. Of course I agree with you and Wilbur – that said I don’t think those kamikaze KSW types will.

    It appears to me K-KSW types do not LOOK at their own lives with much objectivity and therefore they feel KSW-Scn addresses ALL their needs. That the tech and philosophy are not lacking at all. The fact that someone might be on divorce 4 or morbidly obese, or bankrupt, or unable to care for himself in his later years has NOTHING to do with the possible lack of tech in scientology or utilitzing greater advances in science, the mind and spirit.

    Others viewing a somewhat broken kamikaze KSW type will point figures at their out-ethics, at their connections on and on.

    I find that kamikaze KSW types are so frustrating, so thick and so bereft of the ability to have “divine doubt” (LRH’s term) that frankly I would rather discuss spiritual enlightenment and planetary clearing with a ground hog

    Who actually might be kinda on the money as the weather is warming, the sun is out.

    • It’s all a matter of gradients and degree isn’t it?

      Most of those literal-KSW minded folks probably need to move on up a little higher than they already have. Patience and ARC is the trick.

      Alan

  9. This is one of Ken’s best books, IMO. His testament to and testimony of his wife’s cancer ordeal and her inspiring, extraordinary spiritual strength in the process. The love shines through every page!

    http://www.shambhala.com/grace-and-grit.html

  10. “Ironically, to those literalists unwilling to expand their horizons, such an approach to learning is recommended in Hubbard’s Data Series (Scientology logic) and Scientology Logic 8 itself: a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.”

    Indeed, how can any data be honestly evaluated if one is unable to objectively look at it and note where/how it is logical as well as illogical. The hallmark of a good Evaluator is humility – a virtue sorely lacking in the untrained or self-righteous. Candid observation and analysis of all relevant data as well as one’s reactions thereto are the keys to awareness and freedom.

  11. I’ve read Ken Wilber a little bit and have great respect for his formidable intellect. However I find him a bit dry and needlessly complex. Let me give 2 examples.

    See what Lao Tzu says in 26 words. The depth, the substance.
    “Know That which is beyond all beginnings
    and you will know everything here and now
    Know everything in this moment
    and you will know the Eternal Tao.”

    When I read this, I feel beautifully. I feel my life is being transformed. I want more.

    Now see what the old man in the Louie Schwartzberg video that Marty posted 2 days ago says in 275 words. He says pretty much the same as Lao Tsu, but in his own words. Here too, I read this, I have a blast. I feel elated, I feel love, I feel my life is blossoming just listening to him.

    “You think “this is just another day in your life…Its not just another day, it is one day that is given to you today….It is given to you it’s a gift
    It’s the only gift that you have right now, and the only appropriate response is gratefulness.

    If you do nothing else but to cultivate that response through the great gift that this unique day is, if you learn to respond as if it were the first day in your lie and the very last day then you would have spent this day very well.

    Begin by opening your eyes, and be surprised you have eyes you can open
    That incredible array of colors that is constantly offered to us for your enjoyment…Look at the sky. Really look at the sky…Note how different it is from moment to moment, with clouds coming and going

    Look at the face of people whom you meet
    Each one has an incredible story behind their face
    A story that you could never fully fathom
    Not only their own story but the story of their ancestors…

    Like a life giving water if you open your heart and drink
    These are just a few of an enormous number of gifts that we can open our hearts to..I wish that you would open your heart to all these blessings and let them flow through you so that

    Everyone whom you will meet on this day will be blessed by you just by your eyes, by your smile, by your touch, just by your presence
    Let the gratefulness overflow into blessing all around you
    And then it will really be a good day.” Amazingly beautiful.

    Now see what Wilber says in one sentence of 365 words, to express more or less the same. Maybe it’s me, but I do not get the same elation, I do not feel a feeling when I read this, I’m left starving for transformation. Maybe I’m comparing apples and oranges.. For me life is short, I need to feel and be transformed..and I’ve come to look for transformation in the heart. Here is Wilber’s heady version..:

    “Throw the circle as wide as you can, find a view from 50,000 feet, be inclusive using an integral pluralism and not just a pluralism (which soon fractures, fragments, and falls apart, leaving only the ego to rule), extend your compassionate embrace to the men and women doing the extraordinarily wonderful work in all of those fields and disciplines (covered by the 8 methodologies), reach out and bring their phenomenal worlds into the map of your own world, stretch your mind until it touches infinity and begins to radiate with the brilliance of the overmind, expand the beating of your heart to unleash its inherent desire to love every single thing and person and The event in the entire Kosmos, so that you love all the way to infinity and all the way back, smiling when you actually, finally, amazingly see the radiant Face of God in the 2nd –person (or the ultimate Thou as infinite love, arising then as the ultimate We), even as your own Original Face is God in the 1st -person (or the ultimate I-I as this moment’s pure nondual Witnessing-Emptiness), knowing too that the entire manifest universe – the Great Holarchy of beings all the way up, all the way down – is God in the 3rd –Person (or the ultimate It as the entire Kosmos): I and Thou and We and It, all brought together in the radiant contours of the simple Suchness of this and every moment, as you feel into the texture of the Kosmos and find your very Self in every warp and woof of a universe now arising as the radiance of the Spirit that can never be denied, any more than you can deny the awareness of this page, knowing, too, that Spirit and the awareness of this page are one and the same, and certainly not-two, so that you realize – with the great sages East and West, Lao Tzu to Asanga to Shankara to Paul to Augustine to Parmenides to Plotinus to Descartes to Schelling to Teresa and Lady Tsogyal – the ultimate secret of the spiritual world, namely, that fully enlightened and ever-present divine awareness is not hard to attain but impossible to avoid.

    Just my 2 cents. Thank you anyway for launching this stimulating, thought-provoking conversation about Wilber.

    • Thanks for the insight into Ken Wilber. I clearly see what you say in regard
      to his complexity. Although I have had limited contact with his work.
      I admire Ken Wiber’s intent. He would be very difficult for me
      to follow after reading what you have posted.
      GMW

      • martyrathbun09

        If Paul finds it complex, I don’t think it will be so to you.

        • Marty,
          Well, I actually do understand what Ken Wilber is saying. The
          complexity is relative to the simplicity of the Dhamma or
          the teachings of the Buddha. If a person follows Ken Wilber and
          reaches a higher level, more power to the person. This blog
          over the past several years has provided great insight for me
          into scientology and awareness. In addition, I have stated that
          fundamental auditing as developed by Ron Hubbard has been
          of great value to me. I am grateful for this.
          On the other hand, I am perfectly happy with meditation
          and mindfullness. Ken Wilber is passing through the higher
          states with a technique that I do not need. There is value
          in almost all religion and Ken Wilber is no exception.
          Kind regards,
          GMW

          • martyrathbun09

            You misunderstand me. I am not suggesting anyone follow anyone. I am suggesting they look at some maps someone put together that attempts to make sense of, and find parallels among, all paths. I agree with Hubbard when writes that data can only truly be evaluated against data of comparable magnitude.

          • GMW – Clearly you are not familiar with Ken nor does it seem you even checked google to learn at least a cursory idea of who this man is.

            He started practicing meditation in the early 70′s and credits meditation as one piece of his integral path. He is not a theravadan meditator but I don’t think you can dismiss out of hand the vast number of meditators from other schools. He clearly feels that mediation is probably the best way to raise a person’s awareness.

            While it’s great to be happy with meditation and mindfulness – it seems decidedly narrow focused to me to believe only Theravadan practice is of value – which you seem to have said in so many ways several times on this board.

            Ken Wilber btw is not a religion. He’s a philosopher.

            Christine

            • wh,
              You know I am narrow in my practice and I do have a loyalty to
              the Theravadin school. I was not trying to cast doubt on other
              forms of meditation. It was not so obvious to me and I am grateful
              that you point it out. It is a journey and work is in process.
              By the way, I did do a google on Ken Wilbur and read a summary of
              one of his books which was quite extensive. In addition, my wife and
              I listened to one of his audio books, A Brief History…..
              To be very candid, I am having a difficult time with him.
              Kind Regards,
              GMW

              • wh,
                By the way, I wanted to mention that I have set aside time to study
                Ken Wilbur’s maps and will do this as soon as possible. I never
                mentioned that I am active as a professional in a technical field and
                my reading list is currently very extensive and my contractual
                obligations active. However, I will give Wilbur another try out of
                shame for my conceit.
                Kind Regards,
                GMW

    • Refreshing scholarly comparison. Aristotle is reputed to have said this in a eulogy to Plato [too many references to cite, but basically Barnes' translation in Princeton U. Press, works of Aristotle]:

      “… a man whom the wicked have no right to praise,
      who, alone or the first of mortals, showed clearly
      by his own life and by the course of his arguments
      that a man becomes good and happy at the same time.”

      (It’s a eulogy, but I think the first good and happy was the ‘laughing Buddha’ some 300 years before Plato – who knows, but I think the truth remains unchanged.)

    • martyrathbun09

      Really, the apples and oranges analysis provided is not an analysis at all because it is misidentifying all passages as attempting to describe the same thing which they don’t.

    • i have to agree paul, i read 1 big book of his years ago. he was to into his head. i know he knows whats going on ,but i lose interest . i read a lot of spiritual books,. kabir, rumi, thic na han, i get that high feeling from a simple statement. it is all good, and each person resonates with different approaches, i still like reading 88008. i like that marty is expanding his horizons,

    • There are many roads to one’s truth… All that matters is that the road is heading in the right direction and that one gets there.

      Some roads suit one traveller better than another…😊

  12. Hubbard researched with real live people, getting down to the roots of their problems and difficulties, really looking. I am happy to give someone directions, or suggest something, or help them out with their courses, but it’s pretty superficial stuff. When I ran into Dianetics, I saw a way to really get into another individual and bring some change. That change wouldn’t be based on what I thought, but on what they thought. I took what was right about them, and made it more right. That had never really occurred to me before, as I used to just make others wrong. I used measure others by my standards of behaviors, objective as they were, based on consensus opinions and behaviors, and I made people wrong or right by those standards of mine. Then with Dianetics I found that if you make someone right for themselves, even if they’re jumping up and down yelling and screaming that salt is pepper and pepper is salt, you get this big surprise that they’ll come back and tell you what you think is right.

    • theosismanides

      Τhanks Garcia, I do agree. And I disagree with Marty saying Hubbard’s research was based on a more subjective path. Finally it led to a very objective path, thus we have so many tools now which have been way analyzed and explained by Hubbard, to be used by everyone. Even my non Scientology gf now knows about Affinity, the ARC, withholds and overts and the dynamics, without even having read much. These are basics and Hubbard brought them to their clearest form so they could be at least passed on to others to understand life a bit better.

      If the population of Earth knew (in the fullest sense of the word) the definition of an overt as explained on the basis of the 8 dynamics I think criminality would be lower immediately. Imagine they could also grasp Withholds, Missed Withholds etc.

      I am no Kamikazee for anyone. As you beautifully explain with Dianetics and Scientology I learnt to be more Objective and see the other guy, too. That opens a new world just by itself.

      • martyrathbun09

        How could you possibly disagree it was more subjective path if you haven’t read and compared the comparison the post cited?

        • theosismanides

          Marty I would agree more with inductive not “subjective”. Hubbard had an inductive method not “subjective”. I haven’t read Wilber, that’s true.

      • Theo,

        It would be wonderful if everyone, non Scientologist and Scientologist alike, knew in the fullest sense of the word, what you described so well. It seems to me that the materials on the Grades are the mechanism of interactions with others. These are basics of life and indispensable.

        Just being flip today, it occurred to me that Scn should come in a package with some small print way down in a corner on the end of the package where you can’t see it: “Love not included”. Meaning, one has to acquire and install one’s own love to supply the proper energy to make it work, and get the positive terminals lined up, not reversed. Sounds stupid, but I did that just recently – new flashlight, and I dropped one of the three batteries in upside down. Cruddy flashlight. Brand new and it doesn’t work! Capitalist pigs! Probably made in China, for profit! Overt product! A friend who – unlike the stupid idiot manufacturer with their unintelligible assembly diagrams – understands that I am not a UL Federally Ceritified 12+V FCC PhD Electrician Emeritus, grabbed it and lined the batteries up right. In the Co$, I imagine I’d be RPF’ed and PTS’ed, and FES’d and Sec-check-esed … then declared … three times, once for the overt act, twice for good measure, and the third time for vengeance. (Beautiful LED flashight, btw. It does say “do not look into light” – I noticed that right after I did it, blink, blink.)

        An SP can mock up Tone 40 ARC. So one gets the deadly tone 40 “You’re a genius!” with a ton of manufactured confusion and “Everyone else is evil” behind it. And it can spin a guy just that quickly. Yhere really isn’t a lot one can do. An SP does know how to street fight with the very best. The apparency created is that the SP is the only one to recognize one’s true worth, making the SP a “favored key terminal”, and like the old vampire myth, once invited in, nothing but trouble ensues. The subject of one’s true worth is the very first item on the Ethics Repair List. An SP operates on full knowingness, knows this, and is truly deadly. An SP is viciously, maliciously, vengeful, but what we “hate” is not the being – it is the hatred and malice itself. This referes back to a previous topic, but all the KSW and ‘shouting’ LRH did, imo, is to counter the SP. An SP is very absolute! Ron wanted to make Scn available to as many as possible, and the length of the lectures imo, the reiteration of one point from different angles, is out of an anxiety that someone may not get it, a profound desire to ensure that the central point gets across. Sometimes, I find that that ‘someone’ is me.

        Carcha.

      • Btw, sounds like you got yourself a very smart gf! We do have a new world, and need the love to fill it.

  13. Marty, check out this one minute video, you may enjoy it. It made my day… Cheers.

    • martyrathbun09

      Sweet. Thanks.

    • From one Holocaust survivor to another! :) Like the Church of Scientology it was a malformed cluster of beings. Those were terrible times. Innocent children were dragged off to their deaths. When I was at Flag I spent 6 months at Flag recalling the names of people, tiimes a places most people never were. People seldom think of this period in time too much or the 6,300,925 other beings that died trying to tell their story. It is like the church, the story is almost always told after the damage is done. The church plans it that way. The reason they shouldn’t be considered a church. But many things are in the wind and are about to change. :)

    • Paul,

      Perfection personified.

      And if anyone wants to explore the “complex road” of that simple truth…

      Google “Victor Frankl”… Another holacaust survivor… Or better yet… Buy his book… “Man’s Search for Meaning”

      But thank you for passing that on Paul…😊

  14. Thank you for this. It’s much needed and wanted here.

  15. I dont think anyone would have a problem with you writing your thoughts on your own spiritual journey, and “they” would be a lot more willing to discuss and accept your ideas if you would just refrain from attempting to marginalize, sterotype, generalize and evaluate the intentions and thoughts of this group of people you have created in your mind.
    “Kamikazee KSW crowd”, “fundamentalist indys”, “literalists unwilling to expand their horizons”- jesus, just stop already. YOU are creating any conflict here IMO.
    Are you incapable of not having an opposition? Do your ideas always have to dominate? Does Ken Wilbur spend a lot of time writing about people who disagree with him?
    If some people disagree with some of it and have a slightly different future postulated for Scientology who cares? Why dont you do your thing and let every one else do theirs?
    I think a lot of what you write is very interesting and honestly has changed and expanded, I believe for the better my viewpoint on Scientology and other things, but I dont get why you keep throwing little jabs and starting fights with some mysterious group of people? Is it really neccesary? Maybe it is.. Maybe humans wont listen unless there is a reactive component to communication. (To be a politician you have to be against the other side and the other candidate for example.) It’s just not my thing though and I suspect it ruffles the feathers of people who are perhaps above that mechanism.
    Your thoughts and cognitions on Scientology are not universal truth. They are based, I assume on your experiences in Scientology which are unique. If you want to foster an environment where open comminication and freedom of thought is acceptable and welcome I think you should make sure you are doing that yourself, which for the most part you do, but this one aspect does not forward that objective.
    Just my thoughts.

    • martyrathbun09

      Chris, relax. If you don’t know who they are, then it shouldn’t be of any concern to you. I am speaking to a variety of people, and addressing some at tone levels they can have. If that is not you, then please don’t take offense. In that regard, I have a really good book recommendation for you that might make your life a lot less stressful if you are interested.

      • I was sincere. It might just be the mystery, but I am interested in the book.

        • martyrathbun09

          Thanks Chris, I was waiting for a sign of sincerity – your previous reply sounded like an invitation to throw an underhanded pitch to a guy poised with a big bat. The book is The Four Agreements by Don Migel Ruiz. I think you would enjoy it.

          • Ok. I’ll put the bat in the closet with my golf clubs I never use.

            • Well, Chris, don’t put your BIG BALLS in the closet too. You are a courageous communicator, and I admire that.

              • Are you serious. You fellows need an anatomy lesson.

              • Bob Dobbs,
                Whoever you are, dear amigo, you are batting on the side of ignorance, bordering on idiocy. You may as well be supporting Al Kaeda. Jeez!

                • Alex — I have to agree with Chris Mann. There are times you arrive on this blog and then proceed to take out a sledge hammer and beat on people.

                  How can that possibly be helpful. I’m sure you learned years ago as a program chief etc that people don’t produce well after having had a base ball bat to the back of their head.

                  People seem to produce or communicate best when at least addressed in a civil manner, without swearing or made to feel less than …

                  I think you are better than this Alex.

            • Chrisman,
              Unless you are some kind of fundamentalist incapable of accepting that many of us human beings are freely following the path of discovery, free of cultism, free of restrictions, with a clear mind, then you should respect the efforts of others who follow that path.
              I don’t think Marty is trying to convince people of anything they don’t want to be convinced of. You are reading this blog on your own volition and of corse you are free to stop logging in to it if what is being said is not according to your way of thinking. I think you need to grow up and learn to respect other people’s opinions, no matter how much they may restimulate your case (half joke).

              One of the greatests things I ever learned from Scn was the fantastic results of granting beingess to others, to listen, and then express my response accordingly, without judgement. maybe you have misunderstood the concept of “freedom of tought”? Because to me, it sounds like it.

              Just my thoughts.

              With good intent,
              Alex

              • This is from a guy who thinks I am comparable to “Al Kaeda”.

              • Alex, I hardly think you are applying what you learned about “granting beingness, listening, and then expressing your response without judgment”! For chrissakes, re-read what you just wrote and then take a walk to chill out a bit before you try to obliterate someone else!

                We are all in this together to “move on up a little higher”, aren’t we?

    • What is wrong with Marty putting a jab in here or there?

      Plenty of people jab at him on this blog. I dont see Marty stopping anyone from doing that. Through moderation, Marty could certainly block their posts. But he doesnt. Considering what he has and does endure, i think his “jabs” are amazingly restrained. That takes a pretty big being with a great deal of integrity, in my opinion.

      Chris, i really feel your desire for a conflict free “totally theta” environment, but that isnt real life.

      You obviously demand the ability to post what your feeling, so why cant Marty?

      Not all conflict is bad (ie. thesis vs. anti-thesis = synthesis, the process by which all human knowledge advances) and not all agreement and harmony is good (the members of the Nazi party where quite in agreement what to do with dissenters, jews, and the world at large and acted accordingly).

    • Sorry Chrismann, I do not see what Marty writes as “jabs.” A free being has to think freely. KSW kills free thinking. It flies in the face of Philadelphia Doctoral Course. It kills Scientology as a Philosophy.

      I personally, thank you Marty for mentoring me toward a higher state of awareness, and pointing toward the falsehood that is KSW.

      I believe that if not for the KSW series dm would not be controlling Co$ today.

      • “I believe that if not for the KSW series dm would not be controlling Co$ today”.

        Here’s a question I’m throwing out here to anyone: Didn’t LRH intend KSW to apply to ONLY the auditing tech? This is what has always indicated to me. Not trying to be right about it, would just be very interested in other viewpoints and opinions. Should KSW be applicable to Ethics Tech and Admin Tech when lots of these PLs were written AFTER KSW was written?

          • Thanks for clarifying Marty. Here is my problem: if you look at the tone level in which LRH wrote or lectured, you find that most of the Tech was originated above conservatism. Yet, most of admin is written below that. My opinion is that LRH was overwhelmed with the dynamics of the group and started sliding. Admin Tech is mostly (with the exception of a few gems) mediocre.

            KSW is written in anger. It contradicts the principles laid out in the Philadelphia Doctoral Course on how to be an OT. You are supposed to be unserious. You are suppose to grant beingness, etc.

            It looks like a different LRH. An embittered, dominant, failed executive, not a successful, brilliant philosopher, not somebody I would follow.

            In Science of Survival LRH mentioned that above Antagonism the being aims to survive, while below he tries to succumb. KSW is way below. It aims at succumb. It tries to destroy the beautiful and workable technology that LRH created. It allows a lunatic like dm to take power.

            • In my experience as an executive, whenever I tried to implement Policy I failed (no RTC, I do not have MUs). Whenever, I used LRH Tech (any tech) I succeeded. The Science on how to manage groups is the science of how to manage individuals, i.e. the Tech.

              I follow LRH the Philosopher, and Auditor. Not LRH the Executive.

            • martyrathbun09

              I believe Antagonism and Anger are far too often justfied and encouraged in Scientology.

              • Dont reactive mechanisms play a big role in leadership of humans?

                Also, I would describe it as “stern” or firm instead of anger.

                I get a firm, yet caring tone from KSW1. I totally dont get anger.

                • martyrathbun09

                  Not if you listen to the Tao: If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.

                • Antagonism and Anger are used way too much. It is disgusting. As for KSW, it is not stern and not caring. It conveys the message that groups are reactive, and worthless. Not true, groups are made of individuals and ARC. The “group think” concept is wrong and vicious. Groups have put men on the moon, built airplanes, created museums and much more. In fact LRH himself found that an OT cannot survive on his own, then he went and wrote KSW.

                  He was not aiming at survival when he wrote it.

          • Thank you, Marty, for this reference. I can now make a clear distinction between procedure (auditing tech) and policy (admin tech which are guidelines for decisions for action). I see that there is indeed a very big difference between the two! And I am now of the firm opinion that following the HCOB’s to the letter makes sense while following the HCOPLs “to the letter” is NONsense and not even really possible, because they are guidelines, not “how to’s”. Admin policy (guidelines) need to be utilized with high ability to obnose, and lots of common sense and a high ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. The correct application of admin tech, is, IMO SO different from that of the auditing tech!! Somehow I sensed this before but now I really get it!! Thanks again :)

    • I kind of second all of this comment. Although, to me, the little jabs at various viewpoints are not so much annoying, per se, as non-sequitur to the subject at hand. I don’t form my opinions as to what is true and what is not true about something based on the opinions of others (including Marty). I just try to listen to what people say (including Marty) about subjects understand the data presented about those subjects, evaluate it myself and then form my own viewpoint based on any information perceived. Everything else, particularly group “ad hominem” comments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) directed at people who may not agree with what is being said tend to be distracting from the subject at hand, in my opinion.
      So I agree with Christmann9′s comment.
      As to the actual subject being discussed, I’ll have to read a little more Ken Wilbur and see if what he says indicates to me, and seems applicable before forming my opinion about the his work and its pertinence.

      • martyrathbun09

        You might appreciate it more if you had teams of investigators following everywhere you – and your wife – went, and numerous websites dissecting and attacking your every utterance.

        • I don’t know if an experience like what you two endured would have made me appreciate Wilbur more, but I do know that the way you two handled it, and I am sure must continue to handle it, has certainly made me appreciate you and Mosey.
          You both are and will always be an inspiration to me. Yours’ is an unsurpassed example of confront, intelligence, good humor, and grace under fire. My hope is that one day all Scientologists and “freedom fighters” will come to appreciate what you have done by standing up for and telling truth the way you have. For what it is worth, please accept my sincere thank you for what you and your beautiful wife have done.

          • martyrathbun09

            Thanks. I was only refering to appreciating (in the sense of understanding) the mode in which I refered to certain people, in response to the criticism about the matter in which I expressed myself; I did not expect it would have any bearing on appreciating Wilber any more.

            • Got it.
              The people you referred to as “KSW Kamakzis”, and ALL of the people who have harassed you and Mosey have NOTHING to do with Keeping Scientology Working. They, like Miscavige, only confuse the world about what Scientology actually is. That kind of behavior is NOT a correct application of the subject no matter how they moronically “justify” their actions. I am very sorry you had to endure that kind of mental torture.
              If the perpetrators must insist on being moronic robots running out-tech and off-policy on people, it would be better for the world if they learned process R2-45 from the book The Creation of Human Ability, and ran it on themselves solo. Disclaimer: for the benefit anyone who might have a tendency to take anything and everything literally, the process is actually a joke by LRH. It is humor. It’s a joke. Don’t do it!
              It will NOT produce case gain. :-)

              • martyrathbun09

                I think my reply to Mark above is applicable here too. Ask any of the former Guardians Office members – who ran a well-documented campaign of terror against thousands – what primarily motivated (or justfied) their crime wave. This ‘not a correct application’ blanket explanation at a certain point becomes a cliche.

                • Like the pseudonym I chose, I like to think in simple terms. To me, there is only one way to keep Scientology Working: study the Tech and use it. Use the basics Code of Honor, Auditor Code (yes OSA, LRH recommended to use it in life. When ever you break it you are not KSW.), study the Philadelphia Doctoral Course and understand the philosophy, study tech, etc. Then in your life, whatever meets your agreement, apply it again, and again. Scientology will then work for you. Other people will mimic you. That is the real KSW.

    • I didn’t get a notice for the comm ev. Seems like Chris is the one starting up a justice action here, not Marty.

  16. I have an uncle who is a brilliant theoretical physicist that took an SCN study course while he was in college. He loved it. When he went to get auditing however, it scared him. When I asked him why, he said that his mind is precious to him and that he didn’t want to “mess around with it”. He has had very accurate eidetic memory for most of his life (he’s in his mid 70′s now and it’s not as good as it once was) to the point of being able to see and recall things that he studied verbatim. This ability enabled him to create over 200 patented inventions for companies that he worked for over the years. Most of them were monitored and used by the U.S. Department of Defense before being allowed into commercial markets.

    I have another friend who is a brilliant psychological and Buddhist scholar who also read some of LRH’s books while in college and reported to me that they helped her tremendously with her studies. She also rejected auditing because she was afraid of “monkeying around in there”.

    The point of these anecdotes is this: Obviously LRH has created some powerful tools to help one quickly “change his mind”, ultimately to the point of not even needing it anymore. The fact that other mental and spiritual pursuits are not even willing to look at it as a subject of study indicates one thing to me. Scientology correctly applied, when tested subjectively by many involved in the field of abstract or introspective thought, is perceived as “too steep a gradient”.

    The only way to handle this problem of getting scientology accepted in academic/philosophical/mental/spiritual circles is to cut back the gradient and make it safe for others to study and use in the pursuit of understanding other subjects.

    In this, de-powering the “authoritarian” nature of scientology is the only way to accomplish this goal. It has to be made safe for use.

    • I agree with the last sentence, “In this, de-powering the “authoritarian” nature of scientology is the only way to accomplish this goal. It has to be made safe for use.” It seems the only way to do that is to start spelling scientology with lower case “s” and divorce the subject not only from the Church but also from LRH who made it authoritarian and narrow-minded and set it off course in some ways. If we do that, would it still be Scientology? I wouldn’t think so but that’s okay. Seems like we may eventually take a part of the birth of a new religion like “Church of Spiritual Advancement” or “Applied Theology” or something. Pretty radical.

      • Hi Michael,

        A good book on the evolution of man to a higher spiritual state is “Childhood’s End” by Arthur C. Clarke

        In this evolution, Clarke says, “Of the faiths that had existed before the coming of the Overlords, only a form of purified Buddhism— perhaps the most austere of all religions — still survived.”

        Something like Scientology, perhaps?

  17. After the utter failure of the Squirrel Buster Operation, COB RTC David Miscavige came up with the bright idea of a Kamikaze KSW Krew (KKK).

    This fanatical group of OT’s will come out at night attired in IAS white robes and white hoods. They will ride horses into town at night to handle and shatter suppression wherever it may be found.

    The OSA KKK is needed in these final days as we head towards a Psych Armageddon!

    Fleet Admiral David Miscavige stands at the head of the OSA KKK ready to hurl himself into the face of suppression where he will hit, kick, punch, or choke whoever gets in his way.

    Join the OSA KKK today!

  18. Very much in favor of integrating although, to me, the most optimum action is to discover a way or ways to learn truths from within. To be less dependent on seeking truths from external sources.

    Dependency on the viewpoints of one or of many to establish one’s viewpoints, weaken, in my view, the ability and strength of the soul to be discovering one’s own truth and to connect and be faithful to one’s own heart and one’s own intuition. To achieve, what I consider to be, the beingness of genuineness.

    That beingness also demands, in my view, that one is very alert to the reactions (ridges) that get turned on when one is disagreed upon. When something one needs to be existing is threatened with extinction and/or when something one needs not to be existing is threatened with appearance and taking hold.

    Those experiences are the most growing opportunities I know of, as they make one aware of a ridge that is present in one and needs to be dissolved. All ridges, in my view, lead to disharmony, to labeling, to make wrongs, to ridiculing, etc., and to an inability to be being a soul, to be operating mostly from the heart.

    One of my top reasons for visiting this blog or any blog is to see what ridges show up within me, that are activated by the viewpoints that I read about.
    If I get an urge to label, to make wrong, to cause pain and/or resentment, then I know….

    If I get a make wrong, an invalidative labeling, an intent to be caused pain. In other words,, a disharmonious reaction or an “awayness” from love, then I understand. Plus I also get a gorgeous purifying chance to check whether a very subtle, yet unknown to me ridge, contributed to the reaction I got.
    Ridges are very easy to detect as they make one be very critical, intense, fanatical, judgmental, , mean, heartless, unaccepting, hostile, etc.

    Regards,
    Luos

    • Hi Luos,

      I was hoping there would be some other replies to this hence my delay in commenting.

      Personally I found the words and structure of your post a little convoluted and, in my opinion, I doubt many will understand what you are saying. I could be very wrong though and truth be told I very much hope I am simply because I do exactly why you refer to every day, as often as I can.

      However I would describe it this way;

      I make a conscious and deliberate effort to do three things.

      1. Offer any and all wisdom I feel would be beneficial and acceptable to others.

      2. Receive any and all critism, anger, “make wrong”, hate, etc, etc… As nothing more than a lesson for me to learn from.

      3. When and where I find myself emotionally triggered by anything…? I breath, make a note of how i feel and do all I can NOT to react at that present moment. When I feel ready I then work out why I felt the way I did. The beauty of doing this is that I invariably get better and better at learning and growing from life’s events. It’s an ever elevating spiral of growth. Self propelled for the most part.

      I would add however that although I look internally at the start of resolving “the ridge” I often find the solution in far flung “external places”… Well the wisdom anyway, ultimately it always comes back to me as it is me who can change… I can’t change you and vice versa.

      I also ascribe to “genuineness” although I would perhaps describe it more as a pursuit of authenticity… Semantics perhaps but slightly more my “style” I guess.

      I would also contend that one need not allow “others” to weaken one’s soul… I’ll freely admit that in the early days of exiting the scientology vortex as it were I was very vulnerable and susceptible to being weakened… But I just kept going until I was grounded enough to accept more and more wisdom without letting any of it undo the foundations built thus far such that now “growing” is almost as easy as breathing.

      Anyway… I very much agree with your post and appreciate your sharing…😊

  19. Hubbard engineered isolationism, exclusivity, and secrecy into Scientology for many reasons, In doing so, he made Scientology intellectually and spiritually discontinuous from both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions.

    Compounding this matter is the fact that Hubbard firewalled the OT levels behind a veil of secrecy so that Scientologists cannot discuss their own advanced levels with the world. Indeed, Scientologists can only discuss their own case in session and so are even further removed from any kind of meaningful discourse with each other let alone the larger world.

    I have talked to academics who have avoided writing about Scientology, even in the basic terms of comparative religions, because the Church is famously litigious and stalks its enemies. What academic wants a Cult coming after them?

    When you add up Corporate Scientology’s isolationism, secrecy, paranoia, dishonesty, and the revelations of its internal human rights abuses and rampant greed, it becomes evident that the Corporate brand of Scientology will never be mainstreamed into Culture.

    Corporate Scientology will never be welcome into Mainstream Culture for the simple reason that it has proven itself to be an extremely hostile Cult. And yet, ironically, Corporate Scientology craves mainstream acceptance, a place at the table of world religions, even as it refuses to change its brutal, secretive, and paranoid ways.

    ******
    Given the insurmountable obstacles inherent in Corporate Scientology, the only possible Rapprochement for the subject of Scientology is found in the Independent field, for the Indies do not have the extraordinary baggage and liabilities of the Corporate Church.

    Marty, it is interesting to see what you are doing intellectually and philosophically with Scientology. Once decoupled from the manacles of Corporate Scientology, the possibility to openly discuss what Scientology is and what it does becomes possible.

    • “Compounding this matter is the fact that Hubbard firewalled the OT levels behind a veil of secrecy so that Scientologists cannot discuss their own advanced levels with the world.”

      This is true for Miscavige and his followers.
      However, the OT levels have been public knowledge for
      decades. Many of us former members have
      discussed the details of the OT levels with scholars.
      I have recorded a full history of OT1-8 with Hugh Urban
      at Ohio State. In my opionion, the public at large is
      not interested in Xenu except for a good laugh.
      Scientology is a secret narrative based religion and pays a
      steep price for this. After all, Ron Hubbard died well before
      the age of the internet. In my opionion, scientology was a
      venture capital project funded by a few thousand with
      spiritual adventure. The P/E on the stock was very high
      in the 1970-1990 time period. Secrecy was really
      corporate security. Once thousands passed through
      the “Walls of Fire’, the P/E crashed.
      GMW

      • GMW, you are correct: The Indies and former members are the people openly discussing what Scientology is and does because the Corporate Church cannot and will not. Although Incident II of OT III, the Xenu narrative, can be found online, the Church has placed itself in the ridiculous position of being unable to discuss something that is quite public.

        IMO, the taboo on discussing the OT levels comes about because of the claim that doing so will put a person’s “case into restim.” This seems to be the pervasive prohibition in the Church against talking about anything outside of session: It will put a person’s case into restim. This model is self-serving inasmuch as it a paid session becomes the only safe place in the entire universe to talk about one’s case. The corollary is that if one runs out of money, then case progress suddenly grinds to a screeching halt and all further work stops until and unless one can find more money or go into debt.

        Scientology claims to make the able more able and yet, paradoxically, if session is the only safe place to discuss one’s case, then the Scientologist is actually quite vulnerable outside of session and had better not read any entheta on the internet lest they stir up their case. Worse, they will be sent to Ethics where they will pay more money if they look online at “entheta.”

        *****
        GMW, I really like your take on Scientology:

        ” In my opinion, scientology was a venture capital project funded by a few thousand with spiritual adventure. The P/E on the stock was very high in the 1970-1990 time period. Secrecy was really corporate security. Once thousands passed through the “Walls of Fire’, the P/E crashed. as a venture capital project.”

        In one sense, Scientology can be thought of as a form of intense spiritual adventurism full of danger, intrigue, and mystery — particularly if one taps into some trapped pocket of psychic energy they did not expect or gets pulled into an OSA caper as a volunteer.

        But eventually it all plateaus, the adventure ends, and the demands of the organization for increasing donations of money, time, and labor overtake and destroy the adventure, That is when the Church experience becomes all about MEST, PR, lies, and working to spread the tentacles of the Church into every nook and cranny of society by use of various and often deceptive stratagems.

        IMO, the contemporary Church is completely lost and rudderless, trapped as it is in its Self-Created, Self-Sustaining, Never-Ending Attrition by Crises.

        • Swifty,
          Now we are getting some traction. One of the “keys”
          to scientology, in my opionion, is the concept of “amnesia”.
          You find this concept in the current church and on the
          very top of the Bridge. It is the ultimate explanation for all
          of scientology. Amnesia is loss of memory due to shock, or
          injury or repression. Let us take the concept of the ‘engram’
          as a starting point. It is a simple blank out. Now we expand
          amnesia to a longer time period and we have the OT levels.
          We can place any type of narrative we want on amnesia.
          It is, after all, loss of memory. So the church has the current
          stand which is “How can you – outsider – understand
          Xenu when you have amnesia? Now the money is then
          ‘chicken feed’ because you have amnesia.
          Actually, the idea of amnesia is not an adequate explanation
          and does fall apart at the end.
          GMW

          • Of course, any valid datum can be (and has been) used to exploit. But it stands to reason that amnesia is the antithesis of awareness. Accordingly, a recovering of awareness from trauma-induced amnesia would be a worthwhile objective. So, the relevant question is, does amnesia exist and can captured awareness be recovered from it?
            By the time one gets, validly, to the OT Levels, one has recovered enough awareness from the subconscious to have personal certainty on the fact that amnesia does exist and that the only limitations on one’s awareness is that which one has fire-walled off from awareness. And actually running the OT Levels standardly does result in massive recovery of heavily encysted awareness.

            All the awareness you will ever have is already somewhere within you. That was a discover that happen under a Bodhi tree 2500 years ago. The issue is, can it be recovered? If so, how? Hubbard designed a system in answer to those questions that has workability. So, I don’t see at as productive to piss on the whole system for its few design flaws and the unconscionable viruses it has accumulated over the years. A laterally integrated, virus-free 2.0 version (by whatever name) could result in achieving the objectives of that Axial Age, if ALL stakeholders could get over their own sectarian virus.

    • Corporate Scientology likes to tell people to read a book about Scientology in order to see what Scientology is about. But reading a book does not actually tell you much at all what Scientology is or does.

      Corporate Scientology likes to say that Scientology is knowledge, or knowing about how to know, but what it does not say is that there are extraordinary barriers to finding out what the OT levels are about or what actually happens on the OT levels.

      According to the rules of Corporate Scientology, if one wants to actually know about the OT Levels they must:

      * Become a member of the IAS and and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to go up the Bridge to OT

      * Undergo extensive sec checks

      * Qualify for OT Eligibility

      * Pay for the OT levels

      * Sign a parishioner contract giving the Church the right to lock one up in an Introspection Rundown

      * Donate money for IAS statuses, Super Power, libraries, etc.

      * Sign agreements that any monies donated to the IAS, Super Power, etc are nonrefundable and subject to Church arbitration

      * Sign bonds agreeing to never disclose any information about the Tech, briefings, or other internal matters

      * Etc.

      In other words, one must capitulate to the demands of the Church and assume the incredibly oppressive enforced identity of a “Scientologist in good standing” in order to find out what the OT Levels are about and what they do. That is like gambling in a rigged casino and expecting to win.

      When Tommy Davis walked out of his interview with Martin Bashir, it became quite clear that the Church has absolutely made the OT Levels off limits for any kind of public discussion. The Church of Scientology therefore dead ends in a “Dark Secret Swamp” of its own making.

      The Church’s “Secret Form of Alleged Enlightenment” cannot be known by outsiders and will not be discussed with journalists. This places the Church into a contradiction wherein it claims that Scientology will improve people’s ability communicate, and yet the Church itself will not communicate anything except blanket denials through its attorneys!

      The Church of Scientology is not only cruel and greedy, but it is also fundamentally absurd.

      • “But reading a book does not actually tell you much at all what Scientology is or does.”

        Actually, reading the books is the only way to find out what the SUBJECT of Scientology is and does.

        Yes, you do have to qualify for the OT Levels and, yes, you do have exchange for the service. That’s going to be the same everywhere – whether it’s higher levels or higher learning. But most of the other claptrap you mentioned are C of S additives not sanctioned by Hubbard. There’s nothing in Hubbard’s policies about the IAS. The association he founded was the HASI, and membership was nominal or free.

        The OT Levels aren’t generally discussed even among technically competent Indies for the very good reason that unless one is at that level of awareness, they are unreal. Unreality or disbelief of actualities is a manifestation of amnesia. (Just talk to someone with Alzheimer’s for an extreme demonstration.) Unreality (disbelief) prompts rejection and ridicule. That’s just the sort of “red meet” Editors want in order to sell copy, which is their real agenda, not genuine understanding.

        People want to know what’s on the OT Levels so they can decide whether they believe it or not, or to make a judgment about “Scientology beliefs” because they view all religion through their own Judeo-Christian belief system lens: religion = beliefs, no beliefs = not a religion (in total disregard for Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, which are also not belief systems). You may or may not believe what’s on them but belief is not necessary or required to run the OT Levels or any auditing processes for that matter. Auditing processes by-passes belief so as to unlock that which causes amnesia, thus resulting in greater awareness. You just DO IT! What you believe is wrong is not it otherwise you wouldn’t have that problem. So, belief is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether what’s run moves the Tone Arm of the meter, gets amnesia off the case and results in relief and a new awareness.

        That the Church has made a mockery of the subject of Scientology is without question.

        • Graduated,
          You sound like a top-notch auditor or C/S who has
          left the “Church”. What years?
          GMW

        • Graduated, the presumption that the OT Levels comprise a very extraordinary level of awareness is a Scientology doctrine. Therefore, your characterization that “unreality or disbelief of actualities is a manifestation of amnesia” might be better restated to say that, “From a Scientology perspective, unreality or disbelief of the OT Levels is taken to be a manifestation of amnesia.”

          Another way of looking at the matter is to consider what LRH wrote:

          “Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble … without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now it’s too late to be stopped. The protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant scoff.
          – L. Ron Hubbard

          HCOB 29 July 1963 “Scientology Review”

          *****
          In terms of belief, I hear you loud and clear: Belief causes all kinds of problems, Beliefs form the identity of many people and “believers” falsely equate their identity with Truth. Hence, they equate any criticism of their identity with an attack on God and Truth.

          • “From a Scientology perspective, unreality or disbelief of the OT Levels is taken to be a manifestation of amnesia.”

            Indeed, that would make a good ser-fac* if belief was necessary or desired, but it’s neither.

            *sec-fac: service facsimile – A mental image picture the one uses to make one’s self right and others wrong, help one dominate others and escape domination, or to enhance one’s own survival and injure that of others. (paraphrased)

          • “Sweet are the uses of adversity,
            Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
            Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
            And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
            Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
            Sermons in stones, and good in every thing.”

            As You Like It Act 2, scene 1, 12–17

    • Swifty… For many years I have enjoyed all that you have shared on the various “inter web” portals… Yours is a point of view I have not always understood but have always enjoyed and to this day it always makes me smile when you join a debate… Somehow I know it is an important one if you are inclined to comment on it.

      Having said that I have a question if I may?

      Your first line… “Hubbard engineered…” Do you feel that his journey was one of “engineering” a movement… As opposed to “discovering”…? Semantics maybe… But for me there is a huge difference… And I have often felt there was a large amount of “reverse engineering” involved in his journey.

      Marty… Feel free to not post this if it is off point from the OP.

      And Swifty… Feel free to ignore the question if it doesn’t take your fancy. But please know there is a traveller out here who very much enjoys reading your offerings and who, no doubt like your good self, has always to tried to heed Mr. Swift’s final words to us all.

      (Epitaph below for other readers)

      ‘Here is laid the body of
      Jonathan Swift, Doctor of Divinity,
      Dean of this cathedral Church,
      Where fierce indignation can no longer
      Rend his heart.
      Go, traveller, and imitate if you can
      This earnest and dedicated
      Champion of Liberty’

      • Hello Chris. Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that people like you are charitably disposed towards my various excursions.

        I used the word “engineered” because it better applies to the field of psycho-mechanics wherein one develops and articulates a specialized body of very technical spiritual knowledge.

        Buddhism is a very highly specialized field of technical spiritual knowledge that can be spoken of as having been created, or realized, and then articulated into form by the Buddha. The Buddha and his disciples and heirs in his lineage engineered, or elaborated, Buddhism into a formal spiritual framework in which practice occurs.

        A synonym for “engineered in” would be “designed in” and so I am not committed to “engineered in” other than as a term to describe the hard work of creating and elaborating a spiritual system that incorporates a body of psycho-mechanics.

    • J.Swift,
      I like your post. There is way too much secrecy and of course the litigious nature of the church creates antagonism and fear. It seeks to be too different which brings it out of ARC with the rest of the religions. It all adds up to arrogance. Sad state of affairs as I can use and compare Scientology to so many things in life. It is healthy and inspiring to talk about it. The muzzle effect creates unnecessary mystery and obedience.

  20. Damn. I had just about settled myself down into “I got what i got” and I’m glad I’m out of the trap of gurus and cults. Now Marty comes along with this recent serious of articles and starts to revitalize my purpose to reach for higher levels of spiritual enlightenment.

    I look forward to some Wilbur study and a little integration of my own.

    • Yvonne, you’re not even gonna’ believe it.

      I’m on page 226 of Wilber’s “Short History of Everything” and am completely engrossed’; as in can’t stop reading it but don’t want it to end.

      It’s been a real kick (as in boost) for me.

      I give it a thumbs up, LOL

      Love to all,
      Vic

      • I’m not sayin’ that it reads like a romance novel, but it certainly works as a conceptual/spiritual geography atlas.

      • Vic, Your endorsement is valuable to me. I’ll hit Amazon for my download to Kindle next.

        I’m becoming more convinced that there is no one path to “higher” and certainly that no two paths will be the same. I may resonate with The Tao for awhile, with Wilbur for a bit, and with LRH. Perhaps a little Tao will open my understanding of Wilbur, or Wilbur will open my understanding to a piece of LRH. Whatever lead me higher.

  21. Thank you Marty. I sincerely like where you are going. I certainly have some work ahead but boy does it ever feel good to be more aware of what needs to be worked on. I feel so rich. Oh no, I might be `going up the pole` LOL
    (Where ever did that line come from – anyone know?)

  22. ::) This blog post brings a shit eating grin to my face! Marty, your blog is certainly living up to its name.

  23. I am not very familiar with Wilber and his theory, but I take your advices seriously … also because:

  24. I’ve downloaded a few samples of Wilber’s work and found them a bit hard to get into, whereas I rarely had that trouble with LRH’s stuff. But Marty, you are getting me interested and I’ll give him another go.

    I do have to say though, that I think “early Ron” was open to looking at all different philosophies, religions, points of view, etc. In 8-8008, he stresses the individual’s ultimate ability to create one’s OWN universe (and I have been grappling with and cogniting on the meaning of those passages for almost 40 years – they speak to me about ultimate freedom, liberty and creation). Ron also in his 1950s lectures on education,stresses the right of the student to reject datums taught and even says that a good teacher should encourage that. He adds that one should be extremely suspicious of any teacher who promotes the idea that he is always right and should not be questioned. And of course, Dianetics and Scientology incorporate many earlier philosophies and religions.

    But …. as fantastic as all those early writings and lectures are, they are still “1950s Ron.” In the 60s, Ron decided to style himself as “source’ (talk about religious allusions) and give himself a military rank as well, Then it was demanded that group members be on board on “the same terms”, which were continually being defined by LRH himself. Now, one had to be “duty motivated” – that is, to say, do what is demanded of one,carry through on the righteous acts, all of course continually defined and re-defined by LRH, and be sure not to commit one of the 40 or so “crimes” or “high crimes” or suffer the group consequences.

    So, I would say that there WAS a time where LRH would have embraced integration of philosophy (though not in application of clearing, as LRH makes evident even in 1952 -53 or so when he was working on the 6 processing to clear people – there was ONLY the way he prescribed, even if he changed it every few weeks or every few years).

    And so, LRH felt he HAD to repeat or dramatize earlier Earth religion. Remember Paul in the New Testament warning the early followers of Jesus not to put their attention on “false doctrines” which were only there by dint of Satan to draw one away from salvation. Unfortunately, ditto in the history of Scientology.

    Of course, not being members of the CoS, we are free to apply “1950s Ron” as we wish, without penalty.

  25. From the very beginning it always struck a quite disharmonious chord with me that L. Ron Hubbard himself spend such vast amounts of time studying other civilizations, technologies, cultures, sages, philosophers, religions, wise men, etc., while codifying step by step how to properly evaluate and study these subjects; how to remove false data and how to test the workability of a datum or subject, while later first urging and then by the time of KSW practically forbidding all such practices by anyone but himself.

    Instead, though he didn’t cancel any of his original codifications he certainly made it clear that he had walked the path and no further walking was necessary. There is some logic in this as far as ensuring you walked in his exact footsteps and didn’t stray but there was an unwritten presumption that no other individual would have the intelligence/ability to also do what he did.

    I’m personally not very familiar with Wilbur outside of a casual knowledge of his works but he, like LRH devoted a lot of time dissecting works of other fields and wise men/women.

    LRH concluded that his way was the only way and that his path had to be followed with an almost unobtainable exactness. I can see how he came to conclude this but he is the only Scientologist that didn’t follow this path himself though he insist that everyone else follow it. The problem becomes that LRH is not you or I. Doing exactly what he said with no further inspection will take you higher, but only higher from where you are and only as potentially high as he got.

    He did however leave behind (fortunately) the technology, axioms and codification of how to get higher through logic and evaluation which opens the door, potentially, for further integration and (correct) evaluation to, once again potentially, advance to new levels which is something I have always been curious about but couldn’t openly contemplate while in the Church.

    Marty openly contemplates it which makes it a rewarding read and validation at the same time of this curious notion.

    • Hi Ulf… Long time my friend… Would be great to catch up if you want to… Marty has my details.

      Here’s a question for you;

      Why do you suppose Hubbard did as you describe above (study so much, present his findings and then “forbid” others to look outside his castle)?

      Not sure there is a right or wrong answer… Or even a mutually agreeable one… But, for me at least, answering that question to my own satisfaction threw open the door to a life spent in the present, looking forward and not dwelling on the horrors of my past which up till then had been far too easily experienced both subconsciously and out in the open for those around me to react too.

      Maybe I’m the only one that could benefit from the pursuit of that answer… Like 42 in Douglas Adams famous fiction novel… Perhaps it means nothing to all but my own “computer”… And the real “answer” is in fact within the correct wording of the question… I’m kidding of course… Sort of…😉

      Anyway… It’s very heartening to see you out here enjoying life and clearly practising a great deal of wisdom learned from “our” journey so far…😊

  26. This is not a correct statement:
    “Hubbard’s approach could be characterized as more ‘subjective’ whereas Wilber’s was more ‘objective.’ Hubbard tackled the problem of what was eating him, figured out how to deal with it and developed a technology to share the route.”

    Hubbard developed and devised a methodology based on empirical results. He is not only the most objective pragmatist in methodologies that address human thought, but also the most consistent. His research involved the case studies of numerous individuals and schools AND integral data analysis. It began by his pondering the smallest possible unit of energy and the mechanics that comprise human memory.

    Wilber does not offer a methodology, he offers a theory. He poses some original observations and offers interesting data.

    Theories and ideas are marvelous but comparing Hubbard to Wilber or comparisons of Hubbard to psychoanalysis is like comparing someone who hands you a GPS to a someone proselytizing a lecture on labyrinths.

    • martyrathbun09

      My comparison was not for choosing one or the other. I even noted that I do not suggest following Wilber’s own personal path, which incidentally is only a region on the maps that he made. He does not offer a theory. He makes maps. Scientology clearly fits within those maps. If you choose to remain in a particular region, bon voyage.

      • I get it when you say,
        “My comparison was not for choosing one or the other. I even noted that I do not suggest following Wilber’s own personal path, which incidentally is only a region on the maps that he made.”
        But when you say,
        “He does not offer a theory. He makes maps. Scientology clearly fits within those maps. If you choose to remain in a particular region, bon voyage.” , does not ring true to me.
        From what I have read so far, his “maps” describe his theories. They communicate Wilbur’s opinion about what other theories and personal paths have in common, how they might relate to each other, where they are different, etc. Those “maps” are his part of his “theory”.
        Every person looks at everything (including Wilbur’s theories) from where they are on their own personal path, their own region. Otherwise they would be existing and looking from some other path or region.
        So Marty, we might also wish you, Wilbur, and everyone we know, including Facts, a “bon voyage” (good journey) with sincere best wishes and a good heart.

        • martyrathbun09

          Every person looks at everything (including Wilbur’s theories) from where they are on their own personal path, their own region. Exactly. Except, some paths forbid looking. I contend that injunction ultimately imprisons folk and instals a glass ceiling. I am not offering a path by recommending learning of Integral Theory. I am suggesting that by looking at an analysis by someone who took the time to correlate hundreds of paths one might begin to recognize the bars and the ceiling for what they are. And hopefully find his or her way out of jail.

          • “Except, some paths forbid looking. I contend that injunction ultimately imprisons folk and instals a glass ceiling. I am not offering a path by recommending learning of Integral Theory. I am suggesting that by looking at an analysis by someone who took the time to correlate hundreds of paths one might begin to recognize the bars and the ceiling for what they are. ”

            I totally got this and agree with what you just said.
            Any path which forbids looking leads to a dead end of nowhere. Scientologists often practice the subject this way, but I do not observe that it is actually part of the subject itself as laid out by Ron.

            This is how “believers” of any ilk practice that which they “believe”, but have not really observed, evaluated, and decided upon for themselves. This handicap also makes it nearly impossible for a “believer” to observe and see any truth in some else’s path.

            Ron said that “what is true is what is true for you”.
            Jesus said something to the effect of “Ye who have ‘eyes’, the same shall see.”
            I think that both were more interested in spreading truth rather than inspiring “blind faith”.
            I do not knock either of these paths, even though I see that some travelers have misread or chosen to ignore the markers and caution signs that are part of these paths.

    • I’ve always been very frustrated with people referring to LRH’s “research” and “data”, because he never provided any proof of his research or data besides his word or stories. From what I can ascertain most of his research was LRH sitting in a room writing and thinking – that’s not empirical evidence or results.

      If you make references to “case studies” or patients in writing, you must provide the actual data behind these cases. Unfortunately, LRH never did anything close to this and it’s leads one to assume he just made a lot of shit up out of whole cloth and thought referring to “patients” and studies made it sound more credible.

      • martyrathbun09

        That is not accurate. There is a long, documented history of testing processes and sharing them and codifying them after piloting. It is memorialized through thousands of hours of audio recordings and the writings that accompany them.

        • Did you mean This is not accurate?

        • Marty, unless you know something I don’t or read something I haven’t, I’m going to have to say that is not true.

          Ron left behind no records of his research that someone like me can get their hands on. Sure, he talked and wrote about it, and presented his conclusions – but the raw data is not there where I can see it.

          Where does that leave someone like me? It means I either believe the old man or I don’t. The oft-quoted reply is “test it and see if it works”. Well, that isn’t enough. I don’t necessarily want to test Ron’s conclusions, maybe I want to double check his raw data and see if I arrive at the same conclusions before I do any testing.

          Unless the data really is out there and I just haven’t found it yet.

          Alan

          • martyrathbun09

            I was referring to the thousands of lectures and thousands of bulletins that document the track of research. By their very nature they describe a track of working with groups of people on route each step of the way. Yes, it is all subjective results. Scientology won’t permit to be inspected from without; as I noted in the post upon which this thread is appended.

            • I should have clarified my statement. Once LRH had developed a following I believe he did take notes, conduct his own brand of research, audit, pilot programs and work with the people interested in his methods. My main gripe comes from his early writings, where he makes sweeping statements about working in psychiatric hospitals and curing patients of all manner of diseases – all before even publishing Dianetics – but offers nothing in the way of proof or data.

              All the same I agree it’s a pointless conversation since the cult refuses any type of outside verification or to allow anyone but high level SO, true believers access to any of Hubbard’s files – even if it would actually help prove certain aspects of research Hubbard did conduct.

              • martyrathbun09

                There is a certain power in developing swag apparently. It became a the cental premise to all manner of self-help gigs for generations: power of positive thinking (e.g. The Secret). Muhammad Ali once wrote:
                ‘I am the Greatest. I was saying that even before I knew I was.’

              • I think 99% of the workable “tech” we use in our lives was developed outside this system you are talking about. Not that it is a bad system for things that fit within it. If I was getting a surgery on my eye or something I would want a certified surgeon performing a published, peer-reviewed, case studied and approved by AMA, or whoever does these things, surgery .

              • As regards auditing tech, I think that focus on LRH’s undocumented claims of cures with it is an altered importance. To me, what’s important is, when you correctly apply the correct auditing tech, what does it do for the PC? Does the PC improve? That’s how I determine the value of anything, actually. Does it work? Don’t forget, lots of valuable things have been discovered and/or invented without the inventor or discoverer leaving research notes. Just saying.

          • mimsey borogrove

            I can give you an example, and it is only one case. Maybe it was different on other proceedures. I was FESing for a while at AOLA and I ran across a folder that had some LRH C/Sed sessions. One of them I read, he had the auditor try and rehab drugs. The auditor did so, and LRH proclaimed that it had been proved it could be done. So, the total extent of the research on drug rehabs was one session on one pc.

            Mimsey

            • Mimsey,

              I have another one, but its hearsay. A good friend of mine, still inside, held the post of LRH PPRO INT for 3 years or so. he claims to have seen and read the original Purif research materials and case studies. But, he doesn’t say how many cases there were, doesn’t elaborate on how the study was done, and does say that the originals were locked down tight in a vault where no-one would ever get to them. As for publishing the studies – he was under no illusion that that would ever happen.

              Alan

            • So, it was based on proven techniques. He tried it on one person. It worked, so he tried it on more. It does work correctly and as described right?

              • mimsey borogrove

                So let me get this straight, you are saying that 100% standard tech that works on 100% of the people if done exactly, need only be done on one person to prove it out? That is my point – he took this single test as the benchmark then proclaimed the technique was proved. He didn’t try it on more cases, beacuse it was now part of standard tech. What if it was a fluke?

                Don’t you see an outpoint there?

                Mimsey

                • Thank you so much for this comment, mimsey.
                  Techniques are not generally “proven” by a test cohort of one.
                  Even by LRH.

                • I dont think I said that.
                  I think it was based on already established techniques. It was not an entirely new thing in other words. I don’t know if I’m saying it right.

                  It does work doesnt it? Do you think it doesnt work? I guess I don’t get the objections. You should pick something that doesnt work

                  • mimsey borogrove

                    Like th introspection rundown?

                  • mimsey borogrove

                    I was thinking about rehabs, which you are likely referring to as proven technology. I have given them, recieved them and done them solo, and I can’t say I have had the original state of release regained. Yes, there have been F/N’s, vgis – but some of theose big keyouts regained? No.

                    If it doesn’t regain the state of release, how exactly is it a proven technology? Isn’t that what a rehab is supposed to do? Marty is spot on when he says it is subjective. It works if you are satisfied it worked.

                    Further, I feel there is a conflict. On one hand you are rehabing states of release gained from taking drugs. On the other hand LRH says the opposite, that drugs beef up the bank, make a person hard to audit. He even says lack of drugs are the reason the bridge worked so well back in the 50′s. Then there is the line from the GF “Are you seeking to get the same thrill as drugs?” He is sending mixed messages. How should I resolve the conflict?

                    If the rehabs work as stated, would you want to have a pc regain a state of being stoned in session?

                    Mimsey

                    • martyrathbun09

                      If you didn’t get what LRH was trying to do by rehabbing drugs from Scientology, you might get what LRH was trying to do by studying Integral Theory. He is not the only one who recognized drugs can give temporary releases that could fool a person into believing that by continuing to pursue releases with drug will send someone somewhere other than south.

      • In the interest of potentially beneficial discourse can I offer that maybe you are confusing Hubbard’s “lack of data behind these cases” with what may be more accurately described as a “lack of peer reviewed research and evidence to support his findings”…?

        In that vein I believe there is a valid question to answer; Is there such a review? And after that; Why not?

        I’m not saying there should be one… Or that one is even possible… Just that in answering that particular question for myself it got me immensely closer to understanding (to my own personal satisfaction) Hubbard the human being and invariably led me on to finding peace with all that he left in his wake (good and bad).

        Anyway… Just a thought… In the interest of healthy discourse and nothing else…😊

        • martyrathbun09

          The correct distinction, in my opinion.

        • I think that LRH answered that question in Dianetics, the Original Thesis, and elsewhere in his early writings about Dianetics when he described the Science of Dianetics as a “heuristic” science. A heuristic subject is one that “proves” itself (or not) by being applied exactly.
          By contrast, in the “peer review” system one must depend upon the opinions of others to declare whether something is valid or true. While this can be useful, peer review has validated plenty of untrue and even destructive things. It seems that Ron Hubbard regarded you and me as his “peers” and was willing to take our word for it as to whether the techniques are beneficial or not. To my observation most people who have actually experienced personally and/or made use of these techniques (exactly applied) have been pleased with the results. Doing a peer review would be interesting from a public relations point of view, but it would not necessarily establish or the validity of the subject or lack thereof. Reading a peer review would be not be very helpful to me if I was looking into something that was a new phenomenon for the first time. I would have to be personally familiar with the ability to observe and the integrity of the reviewers for a peer review to mean anything at all to me.
          I would be more inclined to look for myself and then form my own opinion based upon my own observations.

          • Good point, Espiritu. The basic outpoints here is “incorrectly included methodology.” and “omitted peers.”

            Peer reviewed studies belong in the field of applied science, not applied religious philosophy. Hubbard initially thought he was in the area of applied science and even wrote Science of Survival for the medical academia. He thought they’d give it a fair hearing and candidly test it out and see of it had legs – whereupon he ran into the vested interests of the AMA and Big Pharma. Realizing that the Medicine was its own materialistic religion and not about to slaughter any of its sacred cows or income streams for the sake of recognizing consciousness over matter, he correctly (albeit reluctantly) accepted that the subject was more appropriately categorized (given society’s tendency toward binary logic) as an applied religious philosophy under the auspices of the Church which had already been founded in L.A., and dropped the scientific affectations of his earlier efforts.

            60 years later, now that the field of quantum mechanics is being forced by scientific method to recognize that consciousness is the arbiter of matter, at some future date perhaps cold, clinical, disinterested scientific analysis may finally be realistically considered. But peer review requires . . .peers! Which do not exist even yet within the applied science community. One would have to get a team of applied scientists through a full battery of Auditor training in order to have the peers to do the reviews, assuming that they would actually fully participate as self-determined individuals. And even if they did and even if Hubbard’s methodologies were fully validated in the New England Journal of Medicine, those peers would be attacked as having been brainwashed or some crap.

            OK, so Hubbard made some early claims that got him onto the Best Sellers List and into the public eye that are even today impossible to validate by applied science. BFD. (Even Wilber gets lambasted and he’s in the field of THEORETICAL science.) If that’s what it took to get his R&D ramped up in earnest, I’m glad he did.

            How many “peer reviewed” studies have you seen on Buddhism or Spiritual Yoga lately?

            • martyrathbun09

              Integral Theory is about as close, and credible, as you are going to get as far as your ‘peer review’ question goes.

              • That’s good enough for me, especially from an opinion leader like Wilber. Nice to see that commonalities are being discovered even amongst diverse schools of thought and that things are starting to align, finally. Once it all formally coalesces into something like an integral Qs, Factors, Axioms & Logics, Mankind will be in for a spiritual renaissance.

  27. gretchen dewire

    I agree with Joe on the fact that Wilber was difficult, or mabe I just needed a better dictionary. Whereas LRH from the beginning was easy for me to get. I am not saying I cant get anything out of his writings, but it is a hell of a lot of work.

  28. I love Ken Wilber.

    Like many idealistic and intelligent men, he had trouble reaching the ideals of his writing (specifically the passage you posted of his you posted earlier):

    http://postmasculine.com/ken-wilber

    His ideas are gold though. Very enlightening stuff.

    • I defy anyone to read that article and not see the parallels between Wilbers Integral Institute and….

      • martyrathbun09

        I think Wilber’s words about Adi Da pertain to Wilber himself, and to L. Ron Hubbard for that matter:
        By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk.

  29. Marty, totally GET you, this post, and where you are going! I’d like to take a moment to just thank everyone that experienced the “Open Your Eyes and Heart” posting. Yes you too ChrisMann. Chris, you keep a dialogue going. Keep it up. In that video I felt soooooo much theta with all of you on the 7th dynamic. I am still processing it. Marty, with this post you have renewed the inner fires in people such as Yvonne. I’m not familiar with Wilber yet. Another door of enlighternment is opening. Thanx much for all.
    Peace&ARC

  30. I often disagree with Marty rather heavy (not that he is the only one)

    I do however heavy agree that we all should and always should have read other peoples work.

    On any level, – be it business, science, spiritual, or ……

    And yes, Ron did say in many places including the PDC that it is ok and even good to for instance look into Buddhism.
    However, he did say that he hopes that your understanding of scientology is pretty good, so you can see where they go off the road – usually just right before arriving.

    The church – as you know – goes off the road why before “just arriving”

    I never understood, why someone might think, believe or know that he is spiritually rather aware, has the student hat and tones of other training and auditing and not trust himself to sleep with the devil and still be OK.

    And by no means do I say that other data are the devil.

    Anyhow, I read lot f stuff, manly in the business area, but good business writers are very spiritual inclined and in any case have observed many a LRH datum way, way before Ron wrote about it.

    They often express them just as good, but different.

    Reading there stuff brings many a LRH datum into better light or simply reminds as of it again.

    It’s a win, win, and remember, KNOWING the LRH tech will ensure that you won’t go down the major wrong turns should there by any in what you read.

    Trust YOURSELF – as after all if you don’t, you won’t make it anyhow – not even a little bit.

    Helmut

  31. Thanks for the recommended reading Marty. The quote posted of Wilbur’s sounds to me like poetry, a beautiful harmony. Looking forward to reading the book.

    I don’t understand the “don’t look, don’t know” views of the fanatics. Where reading descriptions of life and social intercourse from other people’s views, is considered taboo. The KK’s, The S.O. staff. As if reading something other than L.R.H. is flirting with satanic notions.

    How do these people sincerely audit anybody, if they are not willing to view from anybodies eyes except Hubbard’s? How can they even solo audit? The Sea Org staff are not permitted to casually chat with public anymore, I can’t imagine how cold and limited the auditing sessions must be going. I wonder if it is even possible for an auditor that has been at the base over 20 years to view through the eyes of the P.C.. What is the P.C. doing every time he opens his mouth? He is inviting the auditor to view through his eyes! If you aren’t willing to do that you shouldn’t be auditing, even solo auditing. It’s a disservice to pretend to understood something when you did not and were not even willing to. Perhaps, even a “why” on no case gain for the P.C.’s.

  32. I found Wilbers work to be very comprehensive, offering insight into many different paradigms and belief systems. It really helped me broaden my world-view and appreciate diversity and the great love of wisdom that characterizes the history of mankind. He is truly an integrator.

    For those who do not have the time or inclination to read one of his books, here is a link to a fairly succinct summary:

    http://integrallife.com/node/37539

  33. Truly, there is nothing wrong with K.S.W.. It is ordinary police in any professional group. If you learned how to replace successfully, you would write down the procedure and pass it along and expect others to follow the methods for the same workable success. Especially if your “methods” had your name attached.

    The problem with the K.S.W. fanatics is the alter is they write into the K.S.W., not the K.S.W..

    It more or less goes like this:

    One: Having the correct technology. Gets alter ised to:

    1. I am one of the few people on Earth that has anything of real value. Nobody else really has or is of any real value.

    Two: Knowing the technology. Gets alter ised to:

    2. If I get my certificate, or if I can convince others I have superior knowledge, I will ASSERT POWER OVER THEM and use this knowledge to control them.

    Three: Knowing it is correct. Gets alter ised to:

    3. “Correct” is if you can get others to listen to you.

    Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. Gets alter ised to:

    4. Beating it into others to abandon any other recourse except my way as that could lend value or importance elsewhere. And to someone else besides myself.

    Five: Applying the technology. Gets alter ised to:

    5. Running with the herd.

    Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

    Gets alter ised to:

    6. What policy can I use to justify my actions?

    Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. Gets alter ised to:

    7. Hmmm, this looks like a convenient trap door to delete certain bodies that deem them self of value and distract from my control.

    Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications. Gets alter ised to:

    8. This is always the secret weapon if you know the tech well enough, to fair game anyone that annoys you. You can ALWAYS do a spin with words to slide your enemy into this category.

    Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. Gets alter ised to:

    9. Run a can’t have on everyone with information. Can’t have looking. Can’t have knowing. Therefore your ownership rights of the universe get transferred to me.

    Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. Get’s alter ised to:

    10. The only people on this Earth that matter are us.

    • martyrathbun09

      Yes. But 8, 9 and 10 go further in practice. Monique several times had face to face encounters with the OTs who overtly stalked her for close to year. She sincerely asked them what could possibly justify their conduct. Invariably, they justified it with KSW with trademark fixed, dedicated glare certainty.

      • KSW should not go outside of the org. It should be for training and application of techniques within the controlled environment of an org, for the delivery and teaching of Scientology theory and correct application.

        Those “OT’s” were just way, way off the rails and should have their OT status revoked. I can actually get their viewpoint, but I also understand that it is wrong. You have to be in pretty bad shape to go along with such an activity. I suspect those participating gravitate to it somehow.

      • Marty,
        That is horrible, it is the death of reason, and the death of self determinism and it has been the shackles of every workable spiritual path before. The vehicle becomes the master.

        I think that at the end of the day, those so called “OT”s and the KWS crowd, are pitifully admitting that they are incapable of causing knowledge, that they afraid to know and to experience life by themselves.

        By their own fear they can only view life as a cozy data construct, all packaged and handed down to them by a big being, a little perfect Scientology universe, where one can safely rest.

        This has being the plight of every major philosophical path, it was just a matter of time, before the terminally idiotic emerged and took over Scientology.

        I guess it was your lot to catch the ball on its way down to oblivion?

        I’m very happy that you did. Thank you.

      • What they were doing actually has nothing to do with KSW. As you said, it was only their justification for their robotism and inhumainty. If they actually fully grasped KSW, they’d be Indies.

      • Yes – well these OT’s were saying they were OT as well, which is obviously not the case.

      • One word.

        Context.

      • “KSW” when used by the Church in self-defense is a dirty word anyway. What I find really great here is that Monique confronts these so called “OTs” with sincerity, i.e, she wants to understand them so she communicates even though they are criminals in as far as they perpetrate crimes against her like harassment and stalking. Monique is being OT and really using Scientology.

      • “She sincerely asked them what could possibly justify their conduct. Invariably, they justified it with KSW with trademark fixed, dedicated glare certainty.”

        This is disgusting. These people had long since ceased to be true Scientologists because a Scientologist is someone who uses the subject to HELP themselves AND others. Not to seek to destroy others.

        The activities of these people remind me about something I was reading about recently regarding the history of Christianity. When Jesus of Nazareth preached his message of love and compassion in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago many people in that area listened and became what came to be called Christians. As Christianity spread to other parts of the world, these communities remained and continued to practice these teachings. Later Muhammad appeared teaching his own message. These Christians continued to practice their religion and, in this area, the Muslims and the Christians co-existed and granted each other beingness to some extent. However, later some European “Christian” politicians decided that all Muslims were bad because of the warlike behavior of some Muslims they had encountered. They launched the Crusades to eradicate all Muslim peoples from the Holy Land. In the midst of this slaughter, the Crusaders also massacred a large percentage of the Christians who were descended from the Jesus’s original followers just because “they were there”.

        So I think that there is an analogy in this story. The way I see it, you were attacked for Being There, not because those people were “keeping Scientology working”. Those people do not really know what Scientology is or what it is for. So, I hope that you and Mosey just keep on Being There, and let those twisted souls who harassed you just fade away into the anti-Scientology oblivion that they have been creating for themselves. Meanwhile, as always, the Word is Love.

      • Marty, I look at the cover pic of “What is Wrong with Scientology” and realize that these are the type of goons that you are speaking of in regards to Monique. These people are OT’s? For real? Is this what passes for OT in COS today? This is an example of why Scientology has zero credibility with public! Marty, an honest question, do you feel that the fundamentalist indies are as disgusted by this as we are?

        • martyrathbun09

          No, in my opinion outside fundamentalists are in sort of a weak sister harmonic mimicry of the church, and so on a certain level are in agreement with what we’ve been subjected to.

    • I agree with you completely, O. The same literal BS thinking of some so-called Scientologists does the same thing with ARC/X’s:

      “Well! What is your crime? You must have a withhold if you have a missed withhold, and missed withholds are the CAUSE of ALL ARCXs!!!”

      Never mind that the person is pissed because yet another intensive was spent cleaning cleans and invalidating clear states.

      and

      You BLEW from the HOLE??? You MUST have CRIMES because ALL BLOWS ARE CAUSED BY OVERTS and MISSED WITHHOLDS!

      Never mind that the person was forced to clean toilets with his/her tongue, or that they were involved with Seances and forced confessions.

      Anything that comes out of a Corp. Scientologist’s mouth is a mockery of the real thing. Therefore: “KSW” is just fascism. “O/W” is just domination by intimidation. “Auditing” is just a revenue extraction mechanism and thought control device. “Training” is just rote indoctrination of fake materials. “The Basics” are dumbed-down and altered versions of LRH (which cannot be duplicated by them in their original form). “Ideal Orgs” become empty gilded cages. “SPs” are all people who are not under the control of Mr. David Miscavige – or who are, but who are not trusted anyway – which really means: “SPs” are anyone who is not David Miscavige.

      So, it is an error to consider anything in the current church “Scientology” – they confuse the issue because they use words that sound something like Scientology.

      Ron went over the top a bit in the KSW policy – but the core is true, and Ron never meant it to be interpreted like this.

      • Grasshopper,
        Amen.

      • “Ron went over the top a bit in the KSW policy – but the core is true, and Ron never meant it to be interpreted like this.”

        Grasshopper,

        Do a thought experiment. Assume the viewpoint of someone completely unlike yourself, for example a new student in the Academy for the first time. The first green on white you encounter is KSW 1 and you run into things like this:

        “It is not “entirely a tech matter,” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.”

        “NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.”

        “Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured *if* the technology is applied.

        So it is the task of the Assoc or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied.”

        “I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. …”

        And the last 5 paragraphs which I don’t need to type up, you likely know them verbatim.

        Now, remember that you assumed the viewpoint of a new student; you do not have your actual viewpoint of someone very familiar with auditing tech and years of experience.

        So tell me this: what possible conclusion is the new student going to come to after reading 7 pages of KSW1? Do you really think the average person alive in the world will conclude that maybe Ron went a little overboard but they actually do know what he meant? How many new people would intuitively conclude that it applies to session and the course room and doesn’t actually apply to what you personally think about life everywhere else? Do realize that the reader has just been smacked between the eyeballs for 7 solid pages with paragraph after paragraph about how she/he absolutely has to do it *this* way and no other! Add in the very pervasive attitude that as far as improving the human condition is concerned, Ron is very clear that he reckons he knows what the solution is and no-one else has a clue.

        I cannot see any way the average person could possibly reach any other conclusion than that it’s Ron’s way and no other, together with the fixed dedicated glare and all the other shock and awe references.

        Are we at all surprised that groups like RTC and the Squirrel Busters came about, especially when the MOST IMPORTANT policy letter of all tells them to basically become exactly that kind of group?

        Let’s not forget that impressionable newbies will always vastly outnumber wise oldtimers. It is very hard for people to move on up a little higher above the smack in the jaw that KSW1 gives. It took me 27 years and judging by comments other’s here for 3 years I think 27 years is about par for the course….

        I really have no idea what the hell Ron was thinking by writing that PL, but I no longer have any doubt that the interpretations oraclemysticism lays out are an inevitable consequence – the larger group are going to assume those viewpoints eventually and there is probably nothing any of us could have done to stop it.

        I don’t have issue with the real intent of KSW1 – like you I get the gist of it. But my god, the actual wording on the paper and the fact that Ron reissued it TWICE has got to make it his most colossal blunder of all. For someone claiming to be so smart about humankind and wise to how they think, the old man really should have known better, should have sat back and done a little predicting.

        Alan

        • Grasshopper (Mark P)

          I remember the first time I read KSW. I am pretty sure it was on the HQS course, but it may have been Student Hat – so I was 13 or 14. I remember thinking “OK, Ron, whatever.” In all my training until mid BC its message was “teach and learn Scientology as it is.” Honestly, I never saw KSW go outside the course room until David Miscavige shot down de-dinging in ’82 or ’83. It was at that point it became dangerous to audit, and “KSW” was applied as a blanket.

          • martyrathbun09

            Mark,
            I suggest you ask any of the couple thousand former Guardians Office troops what motivated them and whether they took KSW out of the courseroom in the 60s and 70s.

            • “I suggest you ask any of the couple thousand former Guardians Office troops what motivated them and whether they took KSW out of the courseroom in the 60s and 70s.”

              I think that there is an inference here that is a little bit unfair and I wish to defend those “Guardians Office troops” a little bit. I knew some really good people in the GO, Marty. I think that most of them were dedicated to doing what you did from your post in the S.O…..protecting LRH and their church from very unjust attacks. It is true that some of them went overboard and got into some very dicey activities which are now well known. Apparently some even became renegade criminals. Most did have a purpose to protect and preserve the subject and the organization, but I think that it is unfair to infer that most or all ex-GO people did so in a criminal manner. For example, GO people did a lot of good work through Freedom Magazine back when it published real exposes and was well respected and often quoted by the mainstream press. And GO members also were instrumental in setting up CCHR with Dr.Thomas Szasz, I believe.
              It is true that when some members of he GO stupidly planned and ran an illegal counterintelligence operation against the FBI and got caught, the G.O. had to “GO” (pardon the pun) for legal reasons. But it is also true that Miscavige used the situation to consolidate his power. And a lot of good people, including Ron’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, got sacrificed in that purge.

              • martyrathbun09

                If you call that an unfair inference, then I don’t think you know the half of what the GO did and what motivated them to do it. That will be covered in some detail in my next book.

          • Mark,

            I think your first response to KSW1 is very unusual to say the least.

            Now that’s a good thing – you have a viewpoint that is your own and you are willing to think for yourself. But that is rare, and the vast majority of average Joe human readers will respond entirely differently.

            • How do you know it’s very unusual though?

              Is the main objection here the idea that Scientology is the “only way”?

              On my own I concluded that Scientology and Dianetics appeared to be the most effective or best, most interesting way to get me where I thought I wanted to go. So when I read that part of KSW1 I didn’t ridge on it.

              Somehow it got past my ser-facs and all that. But even with that I still only took it to mean within Scientology. That I should study my materials, get hatted, expand my post and org, deliver, etc.

              I don’t think OT8 Zombies trying to eat your brains and do a “tech inspection” is a neccesary result of KSW policy.

              • Chris,

                I didn’t say I know, I said I think. That one word alters everything.

                In the light of that I would like you to re-read my post and if you then have questions, I will answer them best I can.

            • KSW is a document about getting Scientology, this valuable thing that helped a lot of people, understood and delivered correctly. Ron points out that it is unique in this universe, which it is. He also points out that people have created hell on Earth, which they have.

              Anyone who imprisons people, creates endless RPFs, forces abortions and mistreats children, builds guided cages and calls them “Ideal Orgs”, and persecutes auditors under the banner of “Keeping Scientology Working” is a liar. This blind fanaticism has got to stop. And I don’t know that Ron has an answer to it. And, as you point out, he contributed to it by wide-sweeping statements about how we are the answer to the universe. If anything, this means that Ron is fallible.

              Now, to me, the task at hand is figuring out how to do Scientology without recreating the abortion that is the Church of Scientology. Mr. David Miscavige, his minions, and the current church is the most damning evidence of the weakness of Scientology tech there is.

      • Hallelujah! I think Hubbard overestimated people. Can you imagine him doing some of the stupid shit you see some others doing out here? Can you imagine him shipping a dildo to Marty’s house, or riding around in a golf cart, or banging on Marty’s door interrogating? Tossing someone on the OT levels without having done a solo check sheet and no OT preps? These people forgot about Hubbard long ago. They are doing NOTHING in his best interest. They are just making him look like a loony. Stupid M*%&^r F*%&$#s! They are all in an enemy condition toward Hubbard why professing love for Scientology, Hubbard and mankind!

        • Yes indeed. Ron trusted people to a fault. Not a bad fault to have, but it does open the door to some crazies.

        • Absolutely! I think Ron greatly overestimated people. But then again, he also expected and considered that being a Scientologist was synonymous with being an auditor, and he felt auditors were intelligent and valuable. He did not consider that they would be stalking people and attempting to degrade them.

  34. Novalis (german romantic poet) : Men travel in manifold paths: whoso traces and compares these, will find strange Figures come to light; Figures which seem as if they belonged to that great Cipher-writing which one meets with everywhere, on wings of birds, shells of eggs, in clouds, in the snow, in crystals, in forms of rocks, in freezing waters, in the interior and exterior of mountains, of plants, animals, men, in the lights of the sky, in plates of glass and pitch when touched and struck on, in the filings round the magnet, and the singular conjunctures of Chance.
    Whoso traces and compares these, will find strange Figures come to light: people like Novalis, Wilber, Hubbard and a lot of others come to us with this affirmation: look, look, observe and compare, you will find your way!

  35. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    “Kamikazee KSW crowd”

    They don’t know that they don’t know.
    If you take their falsely assumed stable data away there will not be much left …no education, no deep communication with the wog world, no understanding of our modern times, no books read just confusion and they’ll not aloud that you show them the truth !

    How sad !

    • How true. Took me three years after I got out and was declared to stop bursting into spontaneous Sieg Heil salutes and goose stepping the second I heard of our Lieber Fuhrer Dave. It is taking me 8 years now to really start looking around and find unbelievable spiritual gems and riches that this society and humanity generates quite outside Scientology.

  36. Aspiring for deeper insight one is bound to cross path with “everyone” and “everything”. Going back on LRH one can even spot it as the first lesson.

    Thanks for sharing.

  37. On KSW (usually when I say that I am thinking of KSW1) – I have had to study and get checked out on it many times over the years and I even did the “KSW Course” at one point. I also did M1 and Student Hat for “FF” Student status if that matters.

    I did not get the same idea from KSW that some are objecting to here- that it prohibits other subjects. Granted, I was not in the SO, but I never felt I was prohibited from reading or studying other subjects.

    While receiving auditing there is a recommendation that one refrain from doing “other practices” at the same time, but that is something else. When I was on Class V staff no one ever told me I couldn’t be interested in other things. I doubt if I had read Ken Wilbur on my lunch break that it would have caused a problem.

    If I had tried to combine zen meditation techniques into an auditing session I assume there would have been some resistance, but what’s wrong with that? I also assume if I was studying at a temple I would be required to practice what was being offered there.

    As I said, I was not in the SO or in International Management so I may have just not been exposed to that viewpoint.

    I bring this up to say perhaps it is not the policy, but the interpretation that is the problem. I have re-read policies and bulletins after leaving the Church that read differently from a free viewpoint. There were enforced interpretations in other words.

    I always thought KSW was about Scientology. Who it is addressed to is a good indication of what it covers. It’s title is Keeping Scientology Working. I mean, just look at the title in a new unit of time and the individual words. I think it’s just about keeping Scientology working.

    If there is disagreement with certain interpretations, or misapplications of the policy why don’t we just correct and drop those? I think an anti-KSW stance might turn people away , particularly people considering leaving the Church with the hopes that an outside group exists.

    It’s a tough subject because it is so ingrained in Scientology. If I am to take LRH seriously it is hard to not take this policy seriously. I mean, he was pretty emphatic with this one. It makes it difficult for me to consider myself part of a group that objects to it because it limits their free thought or harshes their mellow.

    That could seem like exactly what he was talking about. I know some of you guys are pretty smart, but I don’t think you can blame a Scientologist for having doubts. How many times in Scientology history have people known better and had their own fantastic ideas? Weren’t these people integrating and evolving? Maybe some of them came up with something good. I’m not personally aware of any.

    I was never told I couldn’t read Ken Wilbur.

    • martyrathbun09

      Chris,
      What case and training levels did this open-minded, unrestricted interpretation take you to?

      • I was just trying a little debate here. It’s not my fault if people accept a blue wall as green when told to by people like Miscavige.

        I am just saying if I, in my own experience didnt get all this attached significance from the policy maybe it’s not all in there.

        • martyrathbun09

          Chris,
          You are writing very authoritatively all the sudden. So, please share the Scientology credentials from whence this authoritative voice comes.

          • Weak argument and illogical. I wasnt attacking you. I think what I wrote was polite and simply expressing my opinion. I dont know why you would attack me instead of addressing anything I said. Better to say nothing.

            • It is not an argument. It is a question you have twice now failed to answer. So, I suppose it is naive to believe I might get an honest answer to this next question. Are you being coached, or ghost written for, in your recent comments here?

              • I am not being coached or ghost written. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I have talked behind anyone’s back. Whoever you are thinking of might even be able to confirm this.

                I’m not disagreeing with you completely. I’m just voicing a disagreement on this one point. Maybe I’m way off. How will we ever know? I’m not a Class VIII OT VIII? That’s why I’m wrong?

                • No, you are engaging in Scientology-style sophistry, nitpicking on style and diverting off onto meaningless byroads. I gave four reasons why a working knowledge of Integral Theory might forward the aims of Scientologists and Scientology. Got any view as to whether any of those four reasons might be useful or not to Scientologists? Or whether my introduction to the IT makes sense or not? Of maybe you have a question about something in that introduction? Or anything substantive, for that matter?

                  • You’re getting mad or something Marty. I’ll take a break.
                    I am a dick to you sometimes. I am working through this stuff.
                    I think what you write on your blog is worth communicating even if someone like me doesnt agree with something I have to look at it.

                    I have to get out abig order here so I’ll continue to look at this as I work. Ok.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Not really. But really would like to hear from you on substantive issues. The whole purpose of the blog is to introduce them and intitiate thought about them.

                    • Don’t know if it helps, but I just reread my post and I thought I deleted the last paragraph ” That could seem like exactly what he was talking about…”. I didnt think it was correct when I wrote it. Sometimes WordPress is hard for me to read if I post a long one. The section that has the logon details overlaps the text.

      • Maybe when you get into the OT levels in the church this misinterpretation of KSW is just part of the mess one gets into.

        And certainly there are examples of “out” KSW in the church clearly presented on this blog and others.

  38. Bonjour Marty !

    This post of yours made me blow a lot of charge. I heartily agree with the viewpoints you expressed here. As a matter of fact, I’ve had these viewpoints myself for quite some time but couldn’t find anyone to share them with – even outside the RCS. Your post acted as a rehab. Thanks.

  39. Marty,

    Your recent articles have been very interesting, and I’ve enjoyed participating in the discussion. But as the blog has evolved, it seems to have skipped something widely needed and wanted.

    When you started the blog, it was all about spilling the beans on what had really happened at Int under DM, and how many high-level Scientologists had left the Church as a result. The information you revealed enabled thousands of us to blow charge and de-PTS, as we individually came to realize that we weren’t alone in suffering from mishandlings by the Church, and that the cause of those mishandlings was largely DM. That was a tremendous service by you and all the other “insiders” who collaborated with you on it. Thank you very, very much for that.

    However, you never got to the BIG REVALATION that I think most of us were waiting for: What really happened to LRH in his last years?

    All of the discussion that’s occured on this blog about topics such as what DM did to ruin the Church, what tech really is Standard Tech and how closely we should stick to it, why “OTs” have often acted so casey, what were or were not LRH’s flaws, how could LRH have missed spotting DM as an SP, how was DM able to circumvent LRH’s estate planning and become the Church’s sole dictator, what should be done organizationally by us at this point, who among us should lead and to what degree and how, etc., etc., — all just grind on the earlier missing data regarding what really happened with LRH personally after about 1978.

    We have a huge 3rd Dynamic Engram here. While there’s no reason to let it paralyze us, if you were to take a survey of the readers of this blog, I’m sure you’d find that the overwhelming majority of them want its clearing completed, through the revalation of the exact time, place, form, and event of what happened to LRH in his last 6-7 years.

    A couple of years ago, when “Sarge” — one of the very few people who were actually there with LRH towards the end — escaped Int and got in touch with you, we were told that he would be disclosing the full story of LRH’s last years, or at least what he had observed of it. That was exciting news. But then he didn’t do it. He posted a couple of LRH anecdotes as a kind of warmup, but never came back with the Main Act. I for one just figured that you were saving the BIG REVALATION for your book, and was fine with that. But you’ve now published two books, and neither one has covered it.

    So, where is Sarge? When is he going to tell the rest of the story he promised? If he’s unavailable due to health reasons or whatever, how much do YOU know of the truth of LRH’s last years? When are you going to tell us the full story? If you don’t know, who does? How can we get this data into the light of day?

    • martyrathbun09

      For those who can handle the truth, the book will be out by May latest.

      • Is it truth as in hitherto unrevealed information or is it more subjective?

        I swear the bat and balls and all that stuff is in the closet.

        • martyrathbun09

          Far more information. I have said all along that it requires far more context than interviews or blog posts. Just as spiritual transcendence does.

          • I look forward to your book. I remember you’ve stated before that you could put those years of LRH’s life into proper context it deserves. I feel that you certainly will.

            I have a lot of interest in LRH’s later years. I’m a fan of his book Battlefield Earth so I always wondered where he was living when he wrote that. And where was he living when he wrote the 10 volume Mission Earth series. And what made him do science fiction again so late in his life. Any sad similarities to Simon Bolivar’s life I will suffer through but I am still interested. I haven’t read any published book with Sarge’s data yet.

      • I have for some time suspected that you have withheld information about LRH, perhaps out of respect for him or Scientologists in general, that to some degree influences your current opinions on the subject.

      • It will sell like hotcakes.

      • Have you run this past Mr. Nicholson by any chance…😂

      • SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

      • Can’t wait bring it on – CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

    • You can read Lawrence Wright’s book for more data on what Sarge has to say. The final two pages give Sarge’s view of LRH’s last few months. I have to say that it’s quite disturbing to read.

      It will be extremely helpful to have Marty’s insight on all of this in the next book.

    • We have the tech as given. It works. Beyond that must be
      further advancement. Cleared theta clear is a goal that has not been
      reached by many if any. Its a good direction.

  40. This is great, Marty. It can never be wrong to know and understand more. People seem to think that they will be polluted by reading things with which they disagree. How crazy is that? I feel sometimes that I have learned the most from people I disagree with. Understanding their position helps me know mine – and change mine many times.

    A great example is an educator named Jonathan Kozol who seems almost Marxist in his radicalism – but who nails the problems of public education on the head. He is brilliant – and yet I know that we would get into heated arguments if ever we were at the same dinner party. http://www.learntoquestion.com/seevak/groups/2002/sites/kozol/Seevak02/ineedtogoHOMEPAGE/homepage.htm

    One person I came across recently is Bishop Carlton Pearson. He is an evangelical who woke up and realized that there is no Hell. His story is amazing, and Marty I know you would see some parallels. I wrote up a quickie on my blog http://wp.me/pYSAZ-8j I find him incredibly inspiring. his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/bishoppearsonsfanpage

    I will have to read some of Ken Wilbur’s works. It sounds like something I would really enjoy. Thanks!

    • Brilliant post grasshopper… I could not agree more.

      Two of my favorite authors of all time had the most opposing political and social views possible.

      Johnathan Swift and George Orwell.

      Orwell even stated that Swift was one of the writers he most admired, despite disagreeing with him on almost every moral and political issue.

      Now if Orwell admired someone he completely disagreed with… well… ’nuff said.

  41. For the Kamikaze KSW crowd, etc…

    “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”
    ― Gloria Steinem

  42. You said Marty: “And so it is somewhat ironic that Hubbard gets nary a mention in Wilber’s work when L. Ron Hubbard was a pioneer in the integration of spirit into psychotherapeutic practice.  That is likely due in large measure to the intensity of prohibition on integrating Scientology practice with any other learning or discipline. Sadly, virtually none of the rapidly expanding ranks of Integral practitioners and thinkers – whose work over time increasingly treads on ground tilled by Hubbard – recognize a single word of Hubbard.”

    I don’t think the lack of mention is from the isolated culture in Scientology. There are many practices out there that are a focused and chosen path only using the practices of a particular tradition. And many teachers from those traditions are often quoted and referred to from other writers.
    I think it is because of PR that Scientology brought upon itself.

    For instance, the Sea Org uniforms. Ron created a military persona with costumes for the leaders of Scientology. That immediately says ‘weird’ to society.
    The money: most people in society saw Scientology as a money making scheme.
    The black ops: these verified that it was a paramilitary operation for common people.
    Ex Scientologists that I know were embarrassed to even admit they were Scientologists.
    OT3: has been seen as crazy/cultishly insane.
    Ron’s teaching truth but lying about his past.
    Fair Game and disconnection: all doctrines of Ron
    The only way to REAL spiritual freedom etc.

    These strange and cruel anamolies are in the way of seeing the good parts of Scientology. Who even wants to find out about Ron if he thinks he is the only hope for man or that it is ok to distroy enemies………… Utterly.

    In a way, admitting to being a Scientologist or studying Ron seriously is akin to admitting being a gullable idiot. I don’t think that, but most people do because of what I mentioned.

    Ron has zero credibility on the buffet table of contemporary spiritual ideas, because of how he dealt with critics, his only way savior thing etc.

    The only way Scientology can undo this is by:

    1) not white washing Ron (‘he was only human’ won’t do)
    2) wise Independent Scientologists going through the bridge and culling what is true from Ron’s personal case. (good luck on this one and wear asbestos when they burn you in the town square)
    3) delivering auditing to help people over a very long long time.
    4) happy people…… Help people to discover the happiness within.

    Scientology is a war zone of damaged ex members and cult slaves with a sprinkling of unique free thinkers. Who would want to quote Ron and give him some love.

    I only quote Hubbard to close friends and family never to new people or simple aquaintances. Me being an ex Scientologist is on a need to know basis. Scientologist=mindless cult person in the real world.

    These reasons above are some of the reasons Ron is not considered a spiritual or philosophic luminary to be quoted. Some of his doctrines causes a lot of suffering.

    • Brian… very salient.

      In my line of work the subject of scientology crops a fair few more times than I’d prefer… well… depending on my mode anyway. But I can count on one hand the number of times the conversation has been fair or at least indifferent. I rarely add anything to the conversation save to encourage, carefully, whomever is opinionating away to not hold back…;-)

      Out of… I don’t know… maybe 200 to 250 conversations over the years what has stood out as the most dominant opinion of “scientology/scienotlogists” is… two words;

      Stupid and Crazy.

      Well… that is the polite version of the majority of descriptions.

      I have said it many, many times on this and other forums. Scientology as a subject and a resource (of any description; academic or otherwise) has almost no chance of survival in the long run save for one thing.

      Brian I completely agree with you that it is going to be a handful of sufficiently humble and clever “independent’s” (even that phrase doesn’t ring true for me personally) that will keep it alive despite the enormous effort being made by the “KSW crowd” (again, corporate or whatever). It’s the view of not just missing the wood for the tree’s but literally bulldozing the wood’s down so they can “protect” the “sacred” tree… that will then die because they’ve destroyed everything around it to “protect” it.

      It is heartbreaking to bear witness to the foolishness.

      But like Marty has quoted many times before…

      “What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher. What is a bad man but a good man’s job”

      Ergo… those who “get it” kinda have to “do it”… if you know what I mean…. such is their curse… or blessing…:-)

      • Let me ask something. At this moment I don’t think I fit into either side you have created here. What I want to ask is, from your viewpoint- what are some actual things that will happen? What are some actions? What will the products be? What will the “humble and clever independent’s” do? What will they be doing in ten years?

        • Chrismann these are my speculations, hopes and conjectures:

          1) Ron did not complete the bridge.

          2) Ron did not free himself.

          3) If your conviction is that Ron is not the only being in the universe who can seek and mapout a process then, just like all scientists and pioneers, a free thinker with an unstoppable passion to further the work of Ron’s can build on his work and take it further.

          Some of Ron’s work needs the trash bin, some of Ron’s incompleted work needs to be protected for posterity and added to by some wise person.

          Scientology, as it has been known, even pre Miscavige, will never find acceptance from society. Scientology will never clear the planet. Scientology will never make a sane world. This will never be a Scientology planet. (thank God…… Could you imagine!)

          Scientology needs a true reformation. It needs to be the kind of Scientology that Ron never made.

          But……… The mind in the hands of unenlightened experimenters can cause spiritual and psychological damage.

          If Scientology is to survive it will have to truly free people and not trap them with Scientology.

          At this point in my opinion, Scientology is a kind of spiritual psychology therapy. Sometimes brilliant sometimes dangerous.

          I knew a celebrity women who audited OT 3 for three years every day. Sometimes 12 hrs a day. She was considered upstat at Saint Hill.
          She ended up homeless and on the missing persons police registry.

          Now someone please tell us of Ron’s ending and what he was trying to free himself from.

          Scientology can be brilliant and change lives and it can destroy them as well. Even it’s founder.

        • Not consulting fortune tellers.

          • Ok, I thought about this a little myself.

            Integration in society would include products such as an acceptance of basic principles and data. Some of this has already occured. I think most people have the opinion that prescription drugs such as antidepressants mask symptoms and are not good, for example. Wouldnt it be cool if stuff like ARC and all the applications that come from it, the tone scale, comm cycle, etc and other stuff worked it’s way into society? What about the Grades? It would be a different world.

            I don’t really care if people take it, research it, test it, and work it into their own stuff. Who cares? I think this type of integration could be a vital part of the future of Scientology.

            Take a psychotherapist- what if he learned one little bit of data like ARC breaks and worked it into his thing, handling them with some two way comm when they came up? Well, whatever he was doing would be a little better and more effective I think. nothing wrong with that.

            On a personal level I think most people here are already practicing this. Nothing wrong with that either. I actually have respect for guys who have done scientology and are now doing other things to expand their knowledge and awareness of life and the spirit.

            I also think a vital part of the future of scientology is a preservation and continuation of standard Scientology tech and application. I would love to have an “Indy” org within driving distance. At some point I think I will be close to one, either they come to me or me to them.

            I don’t see why the two are incompatible. I think that gets to the heart of my objection. I think I am on both sides and I don’t understand why there are two sides. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I keep getting the concept there are two sides here. When I read about “fundy indys” or literalist KSW types, or KKK I don’t really know who exactly this is referring to. I have been assuming it might include some people I have a lot of respect for. So when I see any indication that it is one or the other is when I disagree.
            I said previously: “…..if you would just refrain from attempting to marginalize, sterotype, generalize and evaluate the intentions and thoughts of this group of people you have created in your mind.
            Ok, the way i said it was not the correct tone level for constructive discussion, but it gets at what really is my only serious objection. I can’t not speculate on who these people are. Do they include people I highly respect who are people of good will? From reading this blog I got the idea it does include some of those.

            • martyrathbun09

              Are you heeding my book recommendation?

              • So far I read a synopsis and some articles on a website about his works.

                Look Marty, to be honest something I still have attention on is Tom Martinianos “OpEd” and your response. I have not talked to Tom in a while and actually have not talked to anyone about this subject. It just seemed like you used him for target practice. That and a few other things created or contributed heavily to an ARC break in the independent community. I do not know the back story or the behind the scenes story. Thats just what it looks like from my place. I think it was mishandled originations and ARC breaks. Leave it there if you want, but it does feel like something is there.

                • martyrathbun09

                  All the more reason for you to read the book, and contemplate its lessons, rather than skim some website.

        • Chris… I am torn… Personally I find your constant barrage of “having to know”… Well… Exhausting… I want to answer you… I really do… But for the same reason I do not give a drunk homeless man any money I cannot.

          Here is some food and water for you.

          What will you do?

          Where will you be in 10 years?

          Chris… Please… Stop looking past the mirror. Stand in front of it. Take a deep breath. Let it out. And spend some time helping the person in front of you.

          Stop worrying what everyone else is doing, saying, thinking and why, what they mean, where their going, how their getting there… Seriously… How does your head not hurt my friend?

          “The enemy is always in the mind”

          Personally the only mind I concern myself with is my own on account of not having much control over anyone else’s.

          • I believe this is the first time I have ever asked you for your opinion.

            I was only trying to get some “mass” on where others were coming from on this. I thought you might have something interesting to say on it.

            Does this mean you have never thought about it?

            The only problem and possibly the only real disagreement I have with you is that you are trying to audit me on a blog for some reason. I don’t need a session from you on a blog.

            I am not an enemy. If a mob of OT8 zombies was converging on Marty’s house and I was there I would be fighting the zombies.

    • +1

      If I’m *truly* honest with myself and stop intellectualizing how I feel about having been in CoS, the truth is that I don’t tell people I was associated with CoS and Scientology for 27 years because

      I’m embarrassed to admit it out loud.

      There, I said it. That makes it the first time for me.

      Alan

      • Been there… Done that… Got the T-Shirt…😊

      • Very Well Done Splog!

        I have found the process (“admit it out loud.”) liberating. It is of course the truth for me and that has allowed the whole of it to be a part of the past rather than the future.
        Gawd! the thought of being involved with the CO$ as part of my future is , well…………hmmmmmmmmmmmm…………interesting. Just had a nice cog on “KNOWING THAT I AM FREE OF IT!”

        Now ….. onto the constant vigilance side of the equation. Gotta keep one’s eye out for random piles of dog poop while enjoying the sky and the clouds!

        • Hi newcomer,

          27 years since I walked into an org for the first time, 11 years since I last walked into one for any kind of service reason, and I still have trouble with the mind fuck that went on.

          To this day I still have the urge to half rip people’s heads off when they screw up; I still have trouble genuinely showing warmth and affection to others (even when I genuinely feel it) and I still instinctively ridge hugely and take personal affront when folks disagree with what I say. I could go on, there’s more. But I guess you know exactly what I mean.

          Was I always like that? No, not always.
          Would I have been like that anyway without Scientology? Quite possibly.
          Did CoS improve that side of me and make me more social? No, it did not. It fostered and increased the nasty.
          What I don’t know is the degree to which each of those things are true. For all I know the third could be tiny in comparison tot he other two.

          And the bitter irony is is that Scientology gave me tools to spot this very thing happening, then the church went and mad eit all come true. Ironic huh?

          Being free of it is not a viable goal for me; getting a handle on it is

          • martyrathbun09

          • Splog… I hear you loud and clear.

            Can I just pass on… As someone who has experienced, in the most real and visceral sense, all that you have just shared… that I not only managed to get a handle on it but I can assure you that it is possible to be free of it too.

            It’s been many years now since I behaved in a manner that I felt any negativity about.

            Of course I have my “little moments” every now and then… But they are “my” moments… No one else has to suffer the experience… And the best bit is each of these little moments just highlights another little crumb for me to pick up… Which now a days is very, very easy to do.

            Anyways… Don’t give up. It took a lot of effort and more importantly a lot of persistance but I got there in the end.

            And if I can do it then anyone can.

            God speed…😊

          • Alan – further up this thread you said “Patience and ARC is the key”. You seem to be an ok person to me – perhaps you are being a little hard on yourself. I had a conversation with an OT8 friend the other day about this exact topic (the “side effects” if you like).. We concluded that this is part of the game/journey and its probably a longer road ahead than anyone thought. I think it is very possible to get a handle on whatever needs handling, if it needs handling. I too am working on it. It still is interesting though, you must admit, that some of the most stimulating, insightful, ARCful ( and also contentious) conversation you can hope to find in everyday life is on this blog. And who is on this blog? …….Scientologists/ former scientologists/ independent scientologists…. amongst some others. I am glad to be out of the CoS – but also glad of the experience – warts and all. I don’t deny the adverse side effects – just saying – while you are introspecting on the bad stuff – you’ll see some good stuff there too.

            • Hi Wendy,

              Let me expand a bit on that. I’m a computer geek and like most geeks, if I walked into a pop-psychologist’s office I’d be told I’m manic. If I visited the E/O I’d be labelled PTS. And I’ve had a bucket load of botched INT handlings too. If I were to pick one, my money’s on the third option ;-)

              Yes, I am hard on myself, especially when it comes to things I understand so clearly and yet can’t apply to myself consistently. I have this uncanny knack of being able to help people with everyday problems and they are delighted with the results. All I really do is simple common sense like the example of the girl estranged from her parents in Dianetics 55! or maybe Problems of Work – the auditor used ARC and first got them to be able to say hello and be happy with that. It’s easy to deal with that – I can separate myself out and have a helpful discussion.

              And then there’s the other thing, when stuff happens in the world that directly affects me personally. My reactions are often very different from what I wish they were. I see that it’s probably some old valance and seeing that seems to make it worse.

              • I understand. I had a lot of auditing on out lists, because of earlier errors. I have very similar experiences to you – I wish I was a better person too. I have so many regrets and I regret the regrets too because they are not helping.

                On the upside, recognising our own faults means we cannot possibly be SPs (contrary to what an alleged declare order says about me) – SPs don’t have the luxury of self criticism. And on an even greater upside, we at least have a clue where the road out is. I have one eye on my further scientology progress and another eye on finding a way up even further. You have the brains and compassion to get there. It does not lie in my mouth to dish out advice – but maybe the thing is to be as good a friend to yourself as you are to others.

                “Doe Well and Doubt Not” (the motto of my junior school) ;)

  43. As I read your post for the second time Marty, the message became quite distilled. For me, the message that came through on my second reading was how important it is for one to have an open mind. Indeed, I don’t think one can move on up a little higher unless they do have an open mind and a willingness to integrate. But what exactly is an open mind? I think the concept of an open mind is probably one of those where it means many different things to many different people. In my case, though, I consider having and keeping an open mind to be one of my most incredibly useful tools in this fantastic journey.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. Reminds me of the repeated injunction of the author of the epic My Big Theory of Everything, Thomas Campbell, that if you want to learn, explore and transcend you are well advised to maintain a healthy, ‘open-minded skepticism.’

      • Marty! You read T.C.’s My Big T.O.E! I started reading it on Google bks and got to about page 200 when I lost my internet serv for a long while. I still have the link to the bk on my bk marks bar. Have thought about picking it back up from where I left off but…well, Tom’s writing style is a bit tedious for me. I did, though, watch 8hrs of his presentation at Calgary on YT and I, even as dry as he is, I thoroughly enjoyed what he had to say. And actually found his perspective more than a little useful. Here’s a T.C. quote that I took a shine to (page 131):

        “You can always assume that other people are lying or confused but when your own experience, consistently and on demand, carries you to a logically and scientifically inescapable conclusion, the truth of that experience will demand a larger and deeper understanding of the reality in which you exist. Simply labeling the [occurrence, circumstance, event] as something experienced by the delusional, the diabolical, the weird, and the wacky will no longer provide an easy way out of dealing with the existence of a reality that flies in the face of your deepest beliefs and assumptions.”

        • martyrathbun09

          I think he spins out somewhere in the stratosphere around page 450 – but God bless him for trying. Learned a lot from it – particularly the idea that the degree to which we are unwilling to or are in fear of exploring beyond our horizons defines the dimension within which we are bound.

    • I like to think of a “healthy open mind” as a being like a great oak tree that is well rooted in a sufficiently nutritious environment but who can bend with the wind and grow in new directions as needed.

      Well… it’s one “concept” anyway…

      But yeah… “open-minded skepticism” is a more realistic way of putting it…😊

  44. Marty, thanks for posting this: “…….. Some paths forbid looking…….. that injunction ultimately imprisons folk and instead is a glass ceiling……….. I am suggesting that by looking at an analysis by someone who took the time to correlate hundreds of paths one might begin to recognize the bars and the ceiling for what they are. And hopefully find his or her way out of jail.”

    It’s been my experience that finding freedom is, at least for me, a dual process: first, looking around, understanding what the various paths and possibilities are. And then sensing which one resonate or do not resonate with oneself.

    So, maps matter. Whoever, like Wilbur, creates maps, provides great value: they help people orientate themselves. I remember as a teenager devouring the books about comparative religions, trying to see which ones may work for me. These were maps, and they helped me greatly to get in my way.

    There are however three limitations in maps, in my experience, and they do not in any way diminish the value of maps.

    The first one is that the elusive and subjective nature of religious / spiritual experience makes pretty much any map incomplete. Maps to the inner self are not like Google Earth maps: no Google car equipped with a GPS taking 360º pictures of the inner world. All we have is imperfect beings with less than perfect inner clarity trying their best to map something which they discern imperfectly, through the filter of their own sincere heart, ideas and mental models.

    The second difficulty is that some territories are listed on maps, but how to get these territories, and how to enjoy what’s there remains mysterious, like life in other galaxies. Unlike the roads leading to geographical destinations, I believe there are no predictable means available to reach the higher realms of inner experience. Each step has to come from within: new, fresh, never taken before. Of course, there is guidance. But each step on the journey remains a step of discovery.

    Last but not least, in my view, the most important thing when you have a map, in order to be able to use it, is to know where you are. And that, no map can tell you. Having the best map in the world, but no knowledge or where you are, and you will be a lost person. A whole other set of insights is needed to get a sense for: “where am I at?”. But that’s a whole other story.

    So thank you for the Ken Wilbur of the world for providing maps. And thank you to Marty for posting this.
    And than you to whoever created this universe because he has kept it mysterious enough that, while maps help, no map will ever be able to fully out the mystery in it!

  45. Marty,

    I perceive this whole discussion and discourse, aka, Moving On Up A Little Higher, centers around making Hubbard’s stuff available and integrated into the mainstream. That in itself would take it, the subject and applied philosophy, back to the pre-cult era and to the early to mid-50′s if not late ’40′s as I fondly recall.

    As such I support your efforts whole-hardheartedly while you stay this course despite all injected efforts and confusions to the contrary.

    Otherwise, consider what is result?

    A short answer: The subject will have disappeared like countless other fundamental historical truths and efforts for universal improvement.

    I hope the Kamikazee KSW crowd come to grips with these truths. Then again, maybe they haven’t learned their lessons.

    • As a reminder:

      • Thank you Tom for posting this. This man echoes my thoughts exactly. At some point the brilliant pioneer Ron, became Ron the nutjob world saver. And imprinted a sick and dangerous ideology onto young and impressionable youth. Who are now adults doing the same thing to new impressionable youth.

        I hope the law of the land delivers an effective blow to the enemy: Scientology as it stands today.

    • Here here…😊

  46. And it is my opinion that it was OT3 that took him out. Because OT3 was his subconscious mind and not an unfallable whole track recall. It was on OT3 that he realized that he was unique because no one ever ‘got OT3′ before.

    It was on OT3 that he became “the only way.”

    OT3 became the reason the earth was dark, OT3 became an absolute justification for hating the mental health community for rejecting Scientology and Dianetics. Ok psychs! You reject me, I make you part of an absolute evil. And I will teach my impressionable young students to hate you too. But he truly believed it.
    Who knows what was reading on the meter when he was going through that. And on what drugs? Pinks, grays and rum? That is what one women with him said he was doing on OT3 research. No food, just rum and pills for days. She said she had to ween him off the drugs and give him food.
    He was a mess.
    That was the “OT3 almost killed me” bit. He was strung out on uppers and rum. He even states somewhere were speed can help run processes.

    And voila, OT3.

    • Brian,
      Would you please clarify what you mean by the following statement in regard to OT3 being the reason for rejecting Dianetics and Scientology.

      “OT3 became the reason the earth was dark, OT3 became an absolute justification for hating the mental health community for rejecting Scientology and Dianetics.”

      Thanks in advance
      GMW

      • I don’t know why you need a clarification. I think you know exactly what he means. I am not going to open up a dissection of the OT levels on the blog. It is still a somewhat ‘safe’ place to look for under-the-radar, on the fence, and (can’t remember that third majority category Karen came up with) folk.

    • If you’re going to cite such extremely negative reports, and use them to undermine LRH as a stable datum for many people, please also cite your sources and state why we should believe them. If you don’t do that, your posts are just as harmful as those saying LRH was infallible and should be followed as though he were God.

      As for OT3 and all the various people who ridicule its actuality, I have 2 things to say.

      (1) What’s handled on OT3 was totally real to me, by way of present time perception and communication, as well as recalls, instantly upon reading the materials for the first time. That doesn’t necessarily mean the story is true, especially in some of its details. But it does raise the question of the awareness level, or acceptance level, or confront of evil of the person reading the data. Many people think the idea that we’re all immortal spirits is ridiculous bullshit, too, but we know that those people are just unaware. Well, maybe some of us are more aware, or less aware, than some of the rest of us. Maybe thoseof us to whom the OT3 story is real are just easily hypnotized, or maybe those of us to whom it’s nonsense just can’t confront it. Whatever the truth is, I don’t think any of us should be invalidating or evaluating for any of the rest of us on this technical matter. It’s a violation of the auditor’s code, because many people reading about the OT3 story are, at that moment, “interested in their case and willing to communicate about it.” That’s why the OT3 story is confidential. As long as the process works to give people case gain, commenting on the objective truth of it, even without revealing any of its data, is therefore out-tech and out-ethics, even if the story IS bullshit.

      (2) The truth one finds in auditing is whatever is there to be seen when one looks. That can include dub-in, which by definition one cannot spot as dub-in the first time one looks. Any attitude on the part of the pc or pre-OT that something seen in auditing isn’t true will just get in the way of auditing it, or at the very least turn the session into the auditing of the attitude rather than the intended object of the process. One of my best friends made massive case gain on OT3 despite the whole thing being completely unreal to him while he was doing it. But the meter kept reading, and the TA kept moving, so he kept running the process, and he got a great result — astonishing in fact. Years later, after a lot of NOTS, his awareness improved and the OT3 story finally became very, very real to him. The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter whether the story is objectively true or not. Just run the process and get the TA and the gains. Then, after doing that, if you still think the story is untrue, don’t implant others with that attitude, as it will just be in the way when they run the process themselves.

      • Diogenes, points well made. I will just add that, to me, the basic underlying principle of your post is that there is a certain “sanctity” one might say, to a being’s own point of view, of the right to choose one’s reality (as long as that reality isn’t directed towards lessening other beings’ right to have THEIR own reality and liberty and right to survive). My problem with many actions in the CoS (whether it be an IAS reg cycle or that one should be “duty motivated”, etc) is when one is NOT allowed CHEERFULLY to have his/her own reality on whatever he/she wishes to have it on.

        A person’s wins and cognitions are HIS wins and cognitions. They don’t have to be justified, and in fact, should be celebrated. The best things I got out of Scientology were my cogs and wins and better understanding about life. Which process is or isn’t “true” is really secondary to that. BUT, I will point out that a more major issue in the CoS re: the OT levels is that an OT is very rarely respected BY THE TOP FOLKS IN the CoS as having made any case gain at all (otherwise any decision made an OT re: his/her financial decisions – let’s say an OT – or any person really – says to an IAS reg “no, a donation isn’t in ethics for me at this point across the dynamics” – then that comm should simply be given a “thank you, call me when you decide to make one”, but of course that is not allowable. The truth is that the CoS doesn’t “drill in” the validation of a being’s postulations and ability to decide about life. It uses force to overhwhelm the being, the exact thing that is supposed to have gotten the being into trouble in the first place.)

        So, yes, validate your wins and your own personal truths, whether about the OT levels or anything else.

        • Great point Joe. Realizations that bring more freedom and happiness are true. Happiness needs no proof. It is self revelatory. And truth cowers to no doubt or skepticism. When it is directly known.

      • Great points!

      • D, I really like your posts and the way you express yourself – but I must respectfully disagree on this point. To the very best of my knowledge there is no disclaimer as to the validity of the factual literalness of the OT III story. All those who have done it assert that the material is to be taken as literal historical fact.

        Now, many people like your good self and Joe and others are clearly of sufficiently good mental well being that this is not necessarily a problem, and can “work with” the material and think with it. Many others have not been so fortunate and have got into some desperate states, including full blown insanity, after trying to do this level. Just look around some of the other boards and blogs – there are plenty examples. I remember once early 90s sharing a house with a German guy in East Grinstead auditing the level at home. He became paranoid and unwell, and so ineffective in his work he was recalled back to St Hill several times for repairs and what not. Others have attested that realizing later on that the whole story is probably complete bunk gave more actual case gain than the level itself!

        I think it is extremely dangerous to present such material in the way it is presented, as hard and fast fact. If it’s an illusion, or metaphor, then say so – it should be made that 100% clear.

        • Martin, I’ve known people who had similar tough times on OT 3. But it would be hard to imagine any process aimed at getting off such huge amounts of charge not being dangerous if done improperly. One does need to have done earlier processing levels thoroughly and be a good auditor, with very good TRs, going in. Many pre-OTs weren’t, even long after they did the level. Good C/Sing is also required, and that became less and less likely both inside and outside the Church as decades of post-LRH tech deterioration accumulated. It wasn’t always present while LRH was alive, either.

          In running OT 3, of course the story is to be taken as literal, historical fact. That’s what you have to do to run it. But the actual truth or untruth of the story is something one finds out for himself by doing the level. There’s also the issue of how and to what degree one personally participated in the historical events, if in fact the story is true.

          I’m not going to say what I think today about the actuality of the OT 3 story, or anyone’s personal historical participation in it, or what one is supposed to be relieved of by doing the level, because I consider that discussing those matters would be a violation of the Auditor’s Code. I may already have said too much. All I will add is that I think that if a person has been thoroughly audited on lower levels, and well-trained and interned as an auditor, and properly C/Sed on the level, and then just runs the process without opinion, all should come out well.

          The ultimate truth of the OT 3 story and the factors it claims to handle is part of the larger reality of what life and the universe really are. This reality may or may not be at all similar to what is put there and seen by the average man in the street. But whatever the truth is, it will all sort out for each person as he just gets charge off case, whether that be his personal case or the cases of others he is helping. The bottom line for me is that my reality on life and the universe is something I have outside of session by virtue of my own observations. In session I follow LRH’s cookbook to the letter. Doing both, and keeping them in balance, isn’t necessarily easy to do, or to get others to do. That was LRH’s great struggle, in my opinion.

          The whole lineup of R6EW, the Clearing Course, and OT 1, 2, 3 and NOTS was an undercut to LRH’s failed early 1960′s research into running one’s own (non-implant) GPMs. Running one’s own GPMs got too complicated, with the consequences of errors too severe, to be practical in the hands of the auditors he was training at the time, so he cut back to something more doable. But that doesn’t mean that what he cut back to would be easy, only that it would be possible for more people. His slamming in of KSW was also part of this new strategy.

          LRH’s new Bridge was doable, but to get all the way through it, one had to do it exactly by the book, and not everyone stuck to the book. The same case factors auditing was directed at handling got in the way of auditors and pc’s duplicating and applying the book. That included org staff as well as public. We all have some responsibility in “why it all went wrong.”

          The tragedy is that our resistance to admitting that fact has driven too many of us, both inside and outside the Church, even further away from confronting and mastering what we didn’t in the first place. As I’ve stated in my previoius posts, I do recognize the potential validity of “further research” such as the CBR OT levels, Idenics, and Clearbird’s method of running one’s own GPMs. But any processes anyone comes up with will require good TRs, good auditor and pc basics, and exact, thorough application. If we can’t do that with LRH’s processes, we won’t be able to do it with anyone else’s, either.

          Our own failure to confront, duplicate, and apply is our greatest, and really only, enemy. In my opinion, this undercuts the debate about the actuality of OT 3 and any trouble anyone has had running it.

          • martyrathbun09

            For anybody buying into the idea that anything ought be taken literally along this line, please see What Is Wrong With Scientology? for a completely different view.

            • While we’re all entitled to our opinions on this matter, I think that expressing those opinions can become inval and eval for those hearing them if we’re not very careful.

              For anything in Scientology to work, one must make his own observations and come to his own conclusions, free from the influence of others, however well intended that influence may be. That means not necessarily taking the OT 3 story literally, but also not necessarily doubting it, either. Just follow the instructions, run what reads and gets TA, and then decide for yourself what’s true and what isn’t. The story doesn’t have to be literally true for the process to work, nor do we need to doubt the story just because it’s different from what we expected.

              The ancient mystery religions succeeded in getting charge off for many of their members, with some increase in awareness, by having them view operatic portrayals of certain stories from Greek mythology. It was a workable technology in a limited way, producing TA motion and release whether one took the stories literally or not. Modern plays and movies sometimes can have a similar effect, causing restimulation through similarity, and then getting one to view that restimulation from a new angle.

              In auditing, belief and disbelief can both function as obstacles to seeing what’s actuaIly there. So, anyone getting auditing of any kind needs to approach it with the attitude of “I don’t know what the truth is now, but I’m going to find more truth by running this process.” Belief and disbelief must both be set aside. The great modern Korean Zen master Seung Sahn’s answer to almost any question asked him was, “Only go straight. Don’t know.”

              • martyrathbun09

                Quotes from your comment in italics: For anything in Scientology to work, one must make his own observations and come to his own conclusions, free from the influence of others, however well intended that influence may be. That is precisely what I try to communicate in What Is Wrong With Scientology, the referenced section and throught out.
                While we’re all entitled to our opinions on this matter, I think that expressing those opinions can become inval and eval for those hearing them if we’re not very careful. Are you implying that this applies to my opinions and not yours equally? I would say the reference I gave, my book, is far less opinionated – and more fact based – than the views you are expressing here on this blog thread. I pointed out there where opinions, potentially invalidative and evaluative, are entered into the Scientology equation.

                • Marty, I participate in your blog from time to time because I think I have something to contribute. But I agree that anyone doing that needs to take care to respect the viewpoints of others. I haven’t read your book yet, so forgive me if I said anything that came across as a wrong indication or invalidation of what you wrote in it. When your next book comes out, I plan to buy and read all 3.

                  Re my posts in this thread containing inval and eval, I agree that they do on an intellectual level, as it would be very difficult to discuss different points of view without that occuring. But I’ve tried to avoid inval and eval of others’ reality re their experiences in auditing. The one exception to that was stating my personal reaction to first seeing the OT 3 data, which I did in order to counter the ridicule of that data in the post I was responding to. My intention was not to invalidate the person who made that post, but just to balance his opinion with something from the other end of the spectrum, so that people who haven’t done OT 3, and even some who have, won’t offhandedly reject it based on it’s being “out of the mainstream” of conventional homo sapiens thought.

                  • I was not referring to a ‘wrong indication’ or ‘invalidation’ of me. I was referring to your condemning any viewpoint that might consider the OT levels ought not be taken literally as potentially constituting inval or eval. While I do suggest that taking the OT Levels construct literally is a pre-rational – and potentially dangerous – approach in the book, I am pointing out here that your suggestion that people take it literally is just as evaluative and invalidative.

                    • Oh, OK, I understand. Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I think the proper pc or pre-OT attitude regarding any auditing one undertakes while having data from anyone, including LRH, regarding what to expect, is just “I’m going to look in the direction I’m asked to look, but then I’ll come to my own conclusions regarding what I see or don’t see there.”

                      With respect to the OT 3 construct and story, that would mean neither believing nor disbelieving in them before actually looking for oneself, but going ahead and running the process as though they are real, simply because that’s the process. In this context “take it as real” to me means “RUN it as you would run something you know is real,” not “BELIEVE that it’s real before you find out for yourself .”

                      I definitely do agree with you that believing in the OT 3 construct too strongly before actually looking in session would be accepting eval, and very possibly inval as well, and could be dangerous. On the other had, if in your book (which I haven’t read yet) you say that one should audit OT 3 with the attitude that the construct and story are NOT real, but just symbolic in some way, then I’d have to disagree. In other words, I think both extremes should be avoided, because they both stick the pc at Know About (at best, and possibly just Thinking), when the only path to Know is through Not Know. Even in the Study Tapes, LRH says that the real first barrier to learning is thinking that you already know.

                      As I said, I haven’t read your book yet, so I don’t know exactly what you say in it about this issue. If it’s OK with you, I’d like to read all 3 of your books, and then resume our discussion sometime in the summer.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Well, I can’t repeat the book here, not enough room – that is why I bothered with a book in the first place. But, I’d love to resume this conversation after you have read it – and perhaps also The Tao of Physics by Fritjob Capra. Ironically, I think that violation of what you quoted from the Study Tapes is precisely where the overall Scientology construct went south.

    • Brian, about the OT3.

      When someone checks into the emergency room at a hospital who has just suffered a stroke, the doctor simply addresses the stroke. He does not sit down with the patient to audit him up the bridge to discover all the ways this person arrived in a stroke condition. The people he has known. The stress’ the person has coped with the last several million years. Why this person had a stroke when someone else did not. He simply addresses the person before him.

      When I went onto OT3, it did not matter to me at all the back ground of Hubbard’s discovery that were are influenced by others. The figures and identities in his life. I simply checked the theory, to see if it was true for me that such influences were possible. Which were true for me and which were not surfaced as I went through the level.

      WHY these influences were, as they were for me, came into view after some time. I had a different reason but these influences did exist and I was able to address that.

      This was how the level worked out for me to have some value.

      This is the same as examining every other theory you stumble across in life. The person reading the theory actually has some responsibility to THINK and OBSERVE and DECIDE.

      If one finds some basic truth in a theory, then the research and discovery from that point on is up to the person.

      I did not find engrams to be the common denominator in these connections. Other conditions more spiritual were present. I did not find influences that were being body parts either. Love, hate, honor, duty, allegiance, were among the conditions I discovered for these conditions and influences.

      Just because of the backdrop of Hubbard’s conditions are different than someone else’s, does not invalidate the theory of these influences.

      You can jest at identities and circumstances of another person. O.K. so he popped a few pills. And you can highlight that as the most important and significant issue around the theory to discount it, if that works to bring you into a better day, as you would write it.

      Not everyone is going to be moving along that purpose line. Or will discount a theory because to them, personal habits of the author are repelling to them on some level.

      Meters are a dime a dozen and psychometric values are a science.

      • OM, your post is a great illustration of what I’ve been trying to get across in my posts above. You started the level with neither belief nor disbelief, but the simple intention to follow instructions and find out the truth for yourself. What you found was different from what the story would lead you to expect, but worked for you. So, the level worked, and that’s it. Nothing else needs to be discussed.

        • Thank you for your kind acknowledgement. I realize now what I am saying, is that what was real to me was that my connections were postulated. And I had to address the postulates or wants behind the connections. I never had New Era Dianetics, as I went clear on the original Dianetics. I am not trained on N.E.D. either, but it could be workable to import the N.E.D. tech into the OT3 tech and address postulates, as I did on the level, as opposed to lists of locations or incidents. Which seem to unfold as a result of purposes.

          When I began Dianetic auditing I did view the reactive mind as a “handicap”. As this was how it was explained to me and it made sense. In the end though I realized that for me, it had been a tool.

  47. I remember a scientology that was different from the scientology presented to the world today by the Co$ , I remember it from a past life .
    In the original scientology the idea was to find out how everything is, to find out the data on the way the world is in present time and then use that data to work out what would be the greater good for the greater number of dynamics .
    It was that you would have to research yourself because it was assumed that not all the data was there in scientology.

    • I was working at it when i was growing up, how it is done is one would try to see the real world as it is, but not as they would think it is, anything I would think about the way it is I would disregard and try to see the world as it really is with the intention to see close to an optimum solution by working at this .
      It does work very well, to work that way.
      It is working to see the way things are by looking and not by thinking .

  48. Marty – I realize it’s not the crux of this article but I love your use of the word “grok” when referring to the science of exercise. I absolutely loved “Stranger in a Strange Land” by Robert A. Heinlein. Deep down, I always thought it should be required reading for anyone that wanted to go OT.

  49. I thiink there is a need for training centers which focus on training auditors to deliver the grades and NED and the published OT levels as they were laid out in the late 70′s/early 80′s. Call them Central Orgs or whatever you want. This is where “KSW” can be helpful. If someone comes here to learn to audit they are not integrated with other subjects or mixed with other practices. We teach standard tech on this line. If there aren’t centers which do this, then I believe the tech will eventually get watered down and mixed into a lot of unworkable or moderately workable variations.

    I also think that the service facsimiles of some people who are trying to run a “standard group,” are more destructive than the squirreling they oppose.

    For those who have a passion for KSW 1 and a resistence to exploration in the field, you would be well advised to look at what LRH said in the Superior Service Program and Policy Letter. This is, to me, the unifying and underlying philosophy which makes all things go INTO ARC, not out of ARC.

    “It is an old maxim IF AUDITING IS OCCURRING IN THE FIELD ORGS WILL BOOM.

    It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions Standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the org.

    The real org action is to put it out that IN AN ORG WE USE AND TEACH HIGH GRADE STANDARD TECH IN DN and SCN.

    The whole org message is, If anyone gets roughed up in the field training or processing THE OFFICIAL ORGS EXIST TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE STUDENT OR PC. ALL HE NEEDS TO DO IS COME IN TO AN OFFICIAL ORG.

    If the org is trying to guarantee their training and processing in some group or franchise (and it can’t) then it gets a black eye.

    If an org exists to handle the rough cases, then it is the place to go.

    A line to Franchises to the effect that the org will be happy to handle their rough cases or pcs if they send them in to the org (at the student or pc’s own expense) will be received as very welcome news.

    An org is not just another Franchise and competitor and MUST NOT GIVE THAT IMAGE.

    The org is the benign source of the groups and Franchises and helps them out.

    THIS IMAGE MUST BE REBUILT FAST BY EVERY PES WITH FRANCHISES AND PUBLIC.” LRH

    That there up above quote is part of KSW. In my opinion, it’s a KEY policy that I continue to use because it allows me to maintain my own standards yet remain in ARC with and “maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public” and “deliver what you promise.”

    The people we train who go out into various groups to try and get Scientology tech in use must INTEGRATE with those groups. They have to find the R of their chosen public and integrate. The game plan of pushing KSW 1 onto the general public or even into a specific group in one’s area with a “we’re right, you’re wrong…let me show you how this is friggin done you moron,” attitude hasn’t really done any good–has it?

    And at some time in the future, some guy or girl might alter the tech in some way that actually makes it more workable, more valuable, more socially acceptable and mor efficacious in freeing beings. And if it really does accomplish that, we’ll know it by results, won’t we?
    And then those guys will become the new “central org.”
    And would that really be a bad thing if it works?

    Personally, I think a very large percentage of our problem as a group has been the continual promising of specific results and the failure to actually deliver what was promised. We need to get honest and straight regarding what we can and cannot do. If part of the program is to create a civilization of which we can all be proud, we’ve fucked up. As I’ve said before, the “civilization” of scientology is repulsive to me.

    So looking outside the box and investigating other people’s ideas and studying their road maps to a better world might serve us well.

    Get into ARC with the people of the planet. Find out what they are thinking and where they are going. Learn from them. Evaluate the data they have to offer. Then figure out based on a real knowledge, how we might make our subject acceptable to them without violating our own integrity. Going in with a gang buster’s know-best attitude ain’t gonna work. The added-inaplicable service facsimiles have always been and will always be destructive.

    One other thing I want to say. We are living our philosophy every day of the week. In a year or two I will write up the results in a short book, outlining what what we’ve found.

    I really wish more of the arm-chair philosophers pontificating about the virtues of standard vs squirrel would actually apply the tech prior to assuming the status of “expert.”

    By the way Marty, we use “The Four Agreements” as part of our required reading for any drug rehabs we do. Great book.

    Les

    • Thanks for this Les. You all are a shining beacon.

    • Hark! The sound of reason and common sense! The sound of music!

    • I agree 1000%, Les! Very well said!

    • That’s the “as-is” of it ! :-)

    • We’ve never met, but I’ve always liked your comments and what you are doing. I dont think anyone would disagree with this. It would just be nice if both “sides” were on the same side. Thats really all I’m objecting to here. The sides thing.

    • Brilliant.

      Just brilliant.

      I forget the reference (sorry KSW’ers ;-) but I distinctly recall Hubbard talking about the enormous importance of a qual division such that he made the point by stating all one actually needs is the qual division because if it does it’s job it will ultimately correct everything until there is nothing left to be corrected. Well… Along those lines anyway.

      Of course I could be way off and that may have been my own enterpretation of his words. But it’s an interesting thought no?

      I have actually seen this concept applied to great success in a number of other walks and paths of life.

      Les I think you are one of those who will make a huge difference for the better to the, as yet unwritten, history of Scientology.

      I hope we can meet up some day.

      😊

    • Very well said, Les.

    • +1 Yay!

    • Flexible Flyer

      Exactly

    • From your lips to God’s ears, LDW. Brilliantly stated. I’m totally on the same page with you.

    • LDW,
      Your post speaks for me and probably lots of others. Very well stated. As my grandma use to say, “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.” ARC, good intentions, AND the correct tech will beat out any false promotions and hyperbolic statements about what Scientology can do and its goals. People don’t want to live with loss in their lives. People do want to live in ARC with others, but I would like to have just one dollar for every person who came into Scientology or bought a book and thought that maybe there was something to it, but then got turned off by the ‘win or die in the attempt’ to salvage the whole planet stuff and reg cycles that follow. The ‘we’ vs ‘them’ attitude was always part of it and that just doesn’t communicate what Scientology is all about.

    • Hello Les,
      this was the best post about KSW I’ve read on this blog ever.

      I liked the LRH quote you selected.
      It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions Standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the org.

      This is also where the Church failed. They literally destroyed the Field Auditors through their GAT Program. And they were doing witch hunts for decades on Independant Auditors instead of concentraiting on the quality of delivery in their Orgs and Advanced Orgs.

      Someone asked me once what would I do if I saw someone in the field violate “standard tech”. Well I replied “what about help?”
      And your post and the LRH quote is exactly the correct handling for this.

      And you can’t even keep Scientology working without the field.
      How could good quality emerge without people who actually audit in the field and have a place where they can go for corrections?
      Don’t let a competitive attitude destroy the Communication between the different groups in the field.
      I also think that the international Birthday Games for Orgs, Missions and AOs (statistics hunger) played its role in the decline of Standard Tech and quality of service.
      Nothing bad about competition, really – but when the statistics has more value for the Administrator than the VFP (i.e. the spiritual being in front of you), the quality will worsen.

      This is also the Yin-Yang aspect for me and what Marty spoke about in his Video-Clip.
      The clinging (and battle) for quantity vs. the attitude towards quality.
      Real power is found in harmony. Thus, the Tao is a perfect concept.
      You can even apply the Administrative “Tech” of Scientology in a balanced manner and increase Quantity harmoniously (more beings helped) without injuring the Quality.
      Lots of the “Yang on steroids” stem from the “game for statistics”.
      “We do it for Ron!” (really?). Scientologists are fighting against each other since the inception of the international BG. Many even give their life for the Statistic (where quantity is the suppressive ‘hidden standard’ if you look at it from a exterior viewpoint). This artificially creates a GPM for the true virtues and objectives of Scientology.
      That’s where Scientology struggles.

      So thank you Les,
      and thank you Marty.

      SKM

  50. Marty and all:

    I have completely duplicated (understood) and accepted all you have written since you left the dark world of David Miscavige years ago. I have followed every step you have followed (what you have published) up to present time. All very good and acceptable to anyone who is seeking enlightment without the barriers of cultism. I for one, am one of those, and that is why I am in complete agreement with you and your method of development.
    Over the years before and since he parted company with us, lots and lots have been said about LRH, the Scientology creator and Guru to thousands around the world, his successes and his failures, his crimes, his private foibles as a family man. Now he is being pitted against other beings who probably are in possesion of similar, if not greater, wisdom than he achieved while he was at his best. I consider that as unfair. LRH, in his time, did his best to help, even if his help effort eventually turned out the way it did. In my view and that of many others, the Old Man was a good Old Man.
    As a non-KSW person, if I met him today, I would first salute him, then give him a bear hug and then I woud say: Thank you for helping me in my journey through life.

    And let’s not forget that if it wasn’t for that very controversial person, this blog would not exist today.
    With respect,

    Alex

    • I agree with you….Scientology and many other paths will always lead to where we ultimately want to be……But…It’s just A PATH not an end-all.
      And to those who truly believe that it’s THE ONLY path will shrink and shrink some more.

    • I agree Alex with you. He did do some great work. But he also taught me, albeit not intended, that there are two definite, very important, essential, life protecting, and must be said criticisms of any path.

      1) the only way
      2) justifying the harming others in the name of that only way

      These criticisms can never be overstated or said too much. These criticisms must be blasted out onto the mainstream of contemporary thought. AND THESE TWO CRITICISMS MUST BECOME PART OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF YOUTH JUST LIKE SMOKING, RACISM, AND BEING GREEN HAS BECOME PART OF THEIR NATURAL WAY OF THINKING.

      THE DANGERS OF THE ONLY WAY MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE HUMAN MIND. ONLY WAY MENTALITIES NEED TO GO THE WAY OF THE DINOSAUR AND THE OLD WORLD TYRANT. PERIOD!!!!

    • Re other “guru’s” having higher wisdom than LRH, I think that depends on how you look at it. I was very active in Eastern religion prior to Scientology, and had spiritual experiences not touched by my later wins in Scientology. On the other hand, I had wins in Scientology not touched by the results of my Eastern spiritual practices.

      My viewpoint on Scientology is that it’s an undercut and complement to those Eastern paths. The truth is that many people have achieved high spiritual awareness and ability from time to time on this planet. The problem has been keeping those gains, and making them available to people more broadly. LRH addressed the factors causing that problem. I don’t think he finished the job, but he gave us a tremendous body of tools we hadn’t had before.

    • Well said. Frankly, if Ron was not as over-the-top and insouciant as he was, Scientology would never had happened. It takes someone who is fearlessly uncompromising in what he is doing and seeing to get something like this done – even if what he is doing and seeing is sometimes pretty crazy.

  51. ” (…)how the subject of Scientology might be communicated to the world(…). In the Age of Information(…) ”
    It is or should be one of the most coherent and rational goals of Independent Scientology. KSW doesn’t make the cut in a world of relative cynism, relative freedom of thought and largely distributed data on everything and anything.

  52. PS: When I said I am not a “KSW” person I did not mean to say that the original auditing processes can or should be altered. I know from experience that when auditing is delivered by following the procedures as LRH developed them and by fully applying the Auditor’s Code, good results can be expected.
    Alex

  53. Thanks for continuing to look Marty and for posting your thoughts.

  54. Marty you write……“I think Wilber’s words about Adi Da pertain to Wilber himself, and to L. Ron Hubbard for that matter:
    “By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk.”

    This is a really interesting way to frame things. Now… since you’ve read Wilber and many others… if a person was to look for not just maps, but for the “territories” that offer both the most utterly profound revelations AND the most enjoyable communities…What would she/he choose as a destination?

    In other words, what spiritual journeys, paths, or whatever one calls them, rate well both for depth of experience and for personal and community enjoyment?

    Does Wilber or others that you know of offer such assessment, like in a much more trivial domain, Tripadvisor.com offer for hotels?

    This may come through as trivial or funny, but it is not meant that way: much of humanity is looking for utterly profound revelations, while having a good time and not being bothered by politics, sectarianism, hierarchies and other unpleasant artifacts without live is more enjoyable. This is what people are looking for. Wherever such possibility exists should be widely made known!

    Last but not least…I’ve never quoted L. Ron Hubbard before, but I read last night in the “Piece of Blue Sky” book (page 394) my favorite LRH quote that far: “The hardest task is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not. And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue”. Amen. If everyone did that on this planet, there would be peace on earth!

    Thank you for this forum.

    • martyrathbun09

      Paul,
      I think a foray into Integral Theory will improve your own ability to serve as your own trip advisor.

      • Marty… I think I might have to steal that one… “Your own trip advisor”… Brilliant… Apologies in advance for the plagerism…😉

  55. Thanks Marty

  56. “LDW writes: “If part of the program is to create a civilization of which we can all be proud, we’ve fucked up. As I’ve said before, the “civilization” of scientology is repulsive to me.”
    I don’t have first hand experience of that, but that’s clearly the impression that prevails in the media these days.

    Life is short, as much as deep revelations and an effective religious technology, people want a civilization to live in, that is conducive to experiencing happiness.

    The time of great sacrifice and renunciation of the 70s is over. People were then ready for any austerity to find truth, and once they had found it they were ready for any renunciation for their entire life.
    It was common practice in my generation—and I went through that like many– to hitch hike to India, go from ashram to ashram in search of the right master, and when one had found him dedicate oneself to a life of service spent in poverty chastity and obedience.

    As they grew successful these ashrams became controlling, and later totalitarian organizations, driven by money, social climbing and worse. The brilliance, lightness, inspiration, that had attracted people in the fist place turned into labor camps, bureaucratism, small mindedness. Spiritual sclerosis became pervasive. Without knowing it, many of these institutions fell behind the times. And they fell so far behind that all hope to catch up was lost.
    In 2013, the vas majority of people are not looking for a regimented life or even for rigid directives to follow. They are looking to find themselves and remain free. They will not tolerate intolerance, coercion, criticism, “holier than thou” attitudes. Those behaviors are from a bygone era.

    In terms of spiritual figures and movements, my sense is that the future belongs to those who establish tolerance, inclusion, kindness at their core, and who walk that talk. Those who include rather than exclude, who educate rather than criticize, those who encourage rather than judge. Gone are the days when it was possible to talk peace but wage war and keep an audience. When it was possible to talk about love but rule with the sword of judgment. My sense is that, outside Muslim fundamentalist circles, this pattern has been debunked, like Marxism was debunked with the fall of the Berlin wall. Humanity has turned that corner. What a relief! But now comes the real challenge: to not replicate the behaviors of the failed movements. It is a lot easier, a lot less demanding, to judge than to love. But for those who harbor a deep aspiration in their heart, there is no alternative…

  57. I think the hardest part of the ‘I’m with Ron crowd’ is that he, Ron, lost it a long time before it became observable and apparent.

    We need to reboot to before the lunatic church voodoo system.

    We don’t have any enemies. Unless one seeks out that outcome.

    Pope Moe (miscavige) demonstrably thinks and acts otherwise. To the death.

  58. About ten years ago I was introduced to Integral Theory. I directly felt that Scientology and IT where connected. Unfortunately I didnt go much deeper than that. However now it got clearified. Great article! Thanks, Marty!

  59. As an admirer of Ken Wilber, what an insult it is to associate him in any way with Hubbard. I despise both Scientology as it exists today as well as its founder, whom Miscavige is emulating. I was only in the Sea Org a year, but that was plenty of time to figure out the lies and deception at the heart of the cult. I commend you, Mr. Rathbun, for getting out. I find you likable based on the videos I’ve seen of you, in spite of some of the atrocities you committed in the name of the movement. I don’t understand your defense of what I consider an evil man and his incredibly blatant and obvious lies and charlanism. Regardless, I wish you well and acknowledge your value in fighting the spectre of corporate Scientology.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. I think if you read more of Wilber, and read some of Hubbard on the philosophy and methodology of helping the mind and spirit, it will bring clarity to the paradox.

  60. Pingback: Why Bother? | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  61. Pingback: Ideas In Motion Blinkende LED Einparkhilfe · INFO-BARRELS.COM

  62. Dear Marty, my name is Matthew, and I’m from Western Australia. To be honest, I’m not a Scientologist, but I wouldn’t consider myself an SP, or anti-Scientologist. Why I’m here is because I found the Scientology idea of the Eight Dynamics (self, creative/family, group/culture, humanity, life, MEST, spirituality and infinity), very similar to Ken Wilber’s ideas of egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric and cosmocentric. It’s this idea of there being levels of existence that makes me believe personally that Scientology is at the “Integral” level of spiritual development, if not higher. I was once a Bahai, and before that a Christian and I still consider myself a spiritual person. I believe that Ken Wilber’s work with Spiral Dynamics not only charts different ‘memes’ (the word meme oddly enough originating from athiest Richard Dawkins), but that a religion could be prescribed to each of the Intergral levels. Pantheism in Beige (Wilber’s Infrared), Animism in Purple (Wilber’s Magenta), Polytheism or possibly Judaism in Red (also Red according to Ken Wilber), Christianity at Blue (Wilber’s Amber), Islam at Orange (also Ken Wilber’s Orange), Bahai Faith at Green, and Church of Scientology at Yellow (Ken Wilber’s Teal). I was thinking of writing a book that shows the development of spirituality and how each religion has its own place. What are your opinions on that?

    Yours sincerely

    Matthew

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