Becoming Clear

The communication training routines in Scientology are very much downplayed in my opinion.  Supervised with the requisite attention and emphasis, in and of themselves they are a tremendous advance toward the state of Clear.  Ron Hubbard at one time made that point rather plain.

From L. Ron Hubbard’s lecture Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957):

I woke up eventually to discover that these training drills (communication training routines) all by themself, practiced with sufficient rigor and coached well enough and instructed well enough, were steps on the road to Clear, all by themselves, without any further processing…

…And where training and processing processes are successful, they lead toward a straighter communication.  And therefore, the road out is marked by simplicity and direct observation….

…The whole subject opens up at its inception with just this: that the simplicity of observation, the simplicity of communication itself and only itself, is functional and will take Man from the bottom to the top.  And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

Provided one approached the training routines with the above in mind, and not as a bait and switch toward dependence on years and years of costly and complex psychotherapy or membership in some true-believer group, one might avoid the pitfalls Ron warned of in the same lecture:

Now, that’s the first thing we must know about Scientology is that by the attainment of a simplicity we accomplish a benefit. By the attainment of a simplicity, we accomplish a benefit.  By the invitation of or involvement in a complexity, we accomplish the unfathomable and create a mystery.  We sink Man into a priesthood, we sink him into a cult.

It is interesting to note that Taoists had a similar philosophical view about becoming clear more than two millenia ago.   From Lieh-Tzu: A Taoist Guide to Practical Living (translations of ancient Taoist texts) by Eva Wong:

Those who are involved are muddled; those who watch are clear.

There was a man who was so intent on avenging his father’s death that he could think of nothing else.  He was so engrossed in making plans for his revenge that he forgot he was holding his walking stick upside down.  He leaned on his staff and the sharp point punctured his cheek.  One of his friends said, ‘He is so deep in his own thoughts that everything around him is a blur.’

There was another man who was obsessed with getting rich.  One day he went into the bank and tried to walk off with several bags of gold.  The guards caught him immediately.  A passerby said, ‘only a fool would think of robbing a bank in the presence of armed guards.’  The man said, ‘my mind was so set on the gold I didn’t see the guards.’

You often see people stumbling into walls or stepping into holes because they are so occupied by their thoughts that they don’t see what’s in front of them.  When we are too involved in a situation, we can’t see straight, and things that are obvious and clear to bystanders are a blur to us.  This is very dangerous.

The training routines that Ron devised, well supervised by those not caught in the rapture/delusion of complex scripture, go a long way in attaining that ability to be clear.  A handy stable datum to help steer one clear of the ‘priesthood’ and ‘cult’ aspects of Scientology is to question anything you encounter that doesn’t seem to contribute to this:  And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.

249 responses to “Becoming Clear

  1. I’ve been on a warpath the last couple of years to drive a stake through the heart of this monster.

    The best summation that I could find of all things wrong with Scientology was stated by the old man himself:

    From 18Th ACC –Tape Lecture #7. LRH TAPE SHSBC-05, 19/07/57 THE FIVE CATEGORIES:

    “….you can take any philosophy and make a control slavery operation out of it.
    Do you understand this?

    Therefore, I am saying to you here that the next resurgence or compilation of knowledge concerning the spiritual nature, actions and behavior patterns of man and this universe coming up at this time could again be roped, hogtied, smothered and used for a control operation.

    The first sign of this would be secrecy concerning one or more of its essential parts. It would have to be made into a mystery before it could be made to accomplish slavery.
    Slavery and mystery are almost the same thing. Look at the CDEI Scale. Curiosity becomes desire becomes enforce becomes inhibit. Mystery. Dispel the mystery and you’ve dispelled all.

    Now, for understanding, a thing called trust may be substituted. This is true. They’re two slightly different things: understanding and trust. Now, trust can very, very easily be made over to enforced faith. And any time anybody tells you to take something totally on faith, they are trying to pervert your sense of trust. There is no reason you, at any time, any
    place, or any period of the universe should have to take anything on faith.

    Therefore, destruction would be the end product of any slavery, super control operation, whether it be communism or Christianity or anything else.

    Now, these things basically found themselves on truth. And then somebody comes along and for somebody else’s good, feels that it would be best to pervert this truth, give it a little curve, omit a couple of things, add a couple of saltshakerfuls of mystery and this is for the good of man. At no time will this ever be for the good of man.

    Something wins, however, to the degree that it assists others to exert control over their own environments. Those things which solely seek to control and nothing else, don’t win.

    They just—this little group here is going to control all those groups across the world. And that—that just doesn’t win. The only way a win is achieved is to use what you know to better somebody else’s control of his environment.

    War comes about because nations—meaning nationalistic nations— weaken the control of other nationalistic nations by propaganda and trade and other things. They don’t bolster the control, they weaken it. And sooner or later they drive another nation mad and war occurs.
    That is the phenomena of war. It’s just you weaken the control of somebody somewhere and he gets angry and upset.

    Now, here we have numerous examples and I have to set them forward in this wise: the first thing I’m trying to tell you is the use of any technology to place another being into duress brings about a disaster. It doesn’t matter whether it’s on a large, civilized plane or individual to individual or group to group or nation to nation.

    And you haven’t realized it but all this time I’ve been talking to you about a thetan.
    And therefore they’ve got all these wild ideas about spirits and souls and religion and all kinds of other nonsense. And all of these wild ideas have made them avoid entirely this signal, single datum: that the only thing you can do is assist a spirit to control his environment. That’s all you can do. You can’t do anything else but that. Because anything else but that is destructive. And because you are part of that environment, you’ll get included in.

    Well, let me call to your attention that this does not fall outside what you have just been looking at. It is comprehensible. The only thing that stands between you and totally comprehending it is an interjection of the mystery factor, usually for purposes quite remunerative, apparently, to somebody else—which will pay him off not at all. Somebody’s dropped the blinds on it and when we peek around back of the blinds, we find ourselves once
    more looking at thetan, mind, body, universe.”


  2. SKM, in answer to your question, I spent nearly 40 years of my life in a new religious movement, (Maharaji/Prem Rawat/ lived a monastic life in ashrams (much like your Sea Org) in India and in the West, etc..and had a high level of responsibilities (like some of you). I went in 2008 through the rollercoaster of separation from the movement/organization very similar to what you are guys seem to have been going through. 4 years after exiting, I’m still in a recovery mode, enjoying the practice of the “technology”, trying to stay at peace in my heart and to have a happy and fulfilled life, in spite of all the reasons I could have to look back and be angry.

    I’ve been a lifelong student of religion and spirituality. I remember being 13-14 and already reading books comparing religions. At 16, I was studying Sanskrit and reading the Vedas and Upanishads and in 1972, at age 23, I met my teacher in the Himalayas.

    In 2008, when I exited, I was very upset and angry and started reading forums like yours written by people exiting other new religious movements. At first I was interested mostly in reading from other people leaving spiritual movements, to help me understand my own journey and cope with rollercoaster moments and also to not get stuck in anger. I found a lot of similarities between my own journey and the journey of people exiting Scientology.

    At some point I noticed that even though I read and understood about people leaving Scientology, and saw their reasons for departure as being pretty much the same as mine in my movement, I had no idea what Scientology was about—which in itself was interesting since I knew a lot about a lot of religions and spiritual paths– and I started getting interested in knowing more.

    Most people have no idea about what Scientology is, all they know is the clichés. I believe it may be the least understood religion. Also, I find the person of L. Ron Hubbard fascinating. That someone in his lifetime would find the vision and energy to formulate a technology of the scope and breadth of the path of Scientology is beyond normal human possibilities. This aspect is little known. Whether one likes Scientology or Hubbard or not, what he did is mind-boggling. This story unfortunately is not being told. I’ve never been through auditing or training, but, after reading so much on your and other sites, I get a better sense of what Scientology is about and I feel a kinship and brotherhood with you guys. For having done it, I know what it is to spent decades leaving in poverty, chastity and obedience, with a 24/7 focus of serving. I have deep respect for whoever did this, regardless of what movement they were in. This is at the core of the closeness I feel with you guys.

    What I find very interesting is the depth of the contrast between of your rejection of the movement, and on the other side, the depth of your continuing loyalty to the religious technology itself. The same contrast exists in me between how I see the movement I left, and my views in how it was managed, and the validity of the spiritual path and practices that were shown to me and that I keep practicing.
    I’m getting old, and don’t know how long I will be around.. I realize more than when I was young that each breath matters and that I need to make the most of each to understand, and live whatever the best is that life has in store for me. Im trying to focus on the positive, on the meaningful, to keep growing as long as I am alive..

    I find Marty’s site and the comments from people like you to be very interesting, helpful and inspiring and I enjoy spending a bit of time here each day. Even though I’ve never had any auditing or training or even read Dianetics, I can completely relate to what is being said (even though most of the Scientology terminology flies above my head) . Thank you to Marty, to you all, and to you SKM!

    • Fascinating, Paul, great story, my friend. I think what you sense is that, despite the outpoints and the bad publicity, Scientology technology contains an enormous amount of brilliant and profound truth – as well as procedures to attain that truth. LRH, for all his faults, was a genius with feet of clay – but you are absolutely right to admire the vast scope of his unparalleled achievement.

    • Nice :)

    • Paul, to me you are a truly kindred spirit and this reflects in all of your posts.

      When you stated, “Whether one likes Scientology or Hubbard or not, what he did is mind-boggling…” you certainly got the big impact.

      I think you would enjoy auditing and/or TR’s…

      At any rate, thanks so much for your inspiring posts,

    • Hello Paul,
      thank you for the thorough answer.
      I very appreciate it.

      I liked your posts from the very first I was aware of. Your spirituality really comes through.

      I really, really wished you could come together with a well hearted Scientology Practitioner, who would be able to introduce you to Scientology in an appropriate way.
      Given your spiritual background you would need someone who really is into the spiritual aspects of Scientology. Scientology has many many different aspects and in the last years I very seldom came across Scientologists who really were spiritually “sparked”. A Scientologist with a good grasp of the spiritual basics of Scientology and some understanding of the different religions of the world would be of great help for you.
      I mean, there is so much material in Scientology and it is not easy to pick something out at random.
      I would suggest to listen to the Phoenix Lectures, but if you go in communication with some of the people here who are in your environment and speak English better than me and if you really want to try it: do it – don’t hesitate.
      Or get in contact by e-mail with someone you trust. They will answer your questions in private and will suggest some reading material on the subject you’re interested in mostly.

      I can tell you one thing: I left Scientology because it lost its soul, its spiritual goals. I was spiritual since my earliest childhood. Found Scientology with age of 18. Left the Church behind with 35. But I always was interested in different paths – before Scientology, while in the Church and for ever. LRH encourages us even on many occasions to do so. It was the Church who told me not to look around – but this is stupid – I was into religion not only to find God, but also – and maybe even more so – in order to understand my fellow man. I wanted to know what is driving them. In Germany you have people from around the whole world. With different religious and ethnic backgrounds. I loved to talk to them about their believes and often they wondered how I could know more about their religion than themselves. Haha. It was not always the case – but I always was willing to learn more about it.

      It was a sad circumstance for me that Scientology Church was so deep into MEST and that MEST was more important than the accomplishment of spiritual progress as LRH asked for.

      That’s why I left. And I am glad that I started to reconnect with Scientologists who are similarly spiritually motivated as I am.

      It’s very nice to have you around here.

      • martyrathbun09

        Just so you don’t get tripped up by running into contrary facts, this statement by SKM is not true: But I always was interested in different paths – before Scientology, while in the Church and for ever. LRH encourages us even on many occasions to do so.

        • Which part?
          That I was always interested in different spiritual path or that that LRH often (“on many occasions”) encourages us to explore different paths?

          • martyrathbun09

            The latter of course. I listen to LRH daily. If there is one theme consistently driven in as hard as the technology of Dianetics and Scientology it is that any other path – religious, spiritual, eductional or scientific – is merely a dramatization of one sort or the other.

            • Got you.
              Here is but one example from “The Phoenix Lectures”:

              ” The Veda, should you care to look it over, is best read in a literal translation from the Sanskrit. And there are four major divisions of the Veda, all of them quite worth while. A great deal of our material in Scientology is discovered right back there. This makes the earliest
              part of Scientology, its sacred lore.”

              For me it looks like an invitation. And “The Phonix Lectures” are full of this stuff.

              He also cut down some people, even spiritual figures, I know, but who am I to judge him?
              And that fact doesn’t make my statement untrue.
              LRH was a man of vivid emotions.

              • martyrathbun09

                Yes, and if you read the back history of this blog – or even What Is Wrong With Scientology? – you will see I noted that very things in that very same lecture series. However, there are thousands of other lectures and hundreds of other writings that say otherwise. Don’t want Paul to think you were conning him if he makes a study of it and encounters this.

                • “Don’t want Paul to think you were conning him if he makes a study of it and encounters this.”
                  I understand. Thank you.

                  You are right, Paul may encounter some critical stuff from LRH.
                  He also may see that LRH was right in some instances.
                  After all LRH also said “Don’t believe it only because I have said so.” (paraphrased.)

                  Actually Scientology for me was very encouraging to study/restudy other fields. That’s why I am so enthusiastic about Pauls presence on this Blog.

            • Marty, I agree with some of what you say here. However I do not believe it applies to education. How about the study tapes? How about LRH’s study of photography & motors & all sorts of stuff? Yes, he may poo-poo other religions & certainly some aspects of science – but I have yet to read where he discourages education itself. Quite the contrary – he put the study tech there as tools for people to use. Nowhere did I ever see him or hear him put down study or education, or discourage it in the slightest.

              True, he said that the field of education was fertile ground for supressives and that a lot of what passes for “knowledge” in academia is suspect and arbitrary. How can anyone who has spent 4+ years at a major university argue with that?

              But a blanket statement that education is “merely a dramatization” – I think that is overdone and inaccurate.

              • I guess it depends on how much you study of LRH.

                • I think it also depends on the observer.
                  I wouldn’t be too scary about what people may think when they encounter some of LRH criticizing other paths. He did it.
                  I think it was his right to express his views.
                  After all, he really found something of magnitude. I mean, the whole body of work is not really comparable with any other path. This is not a try to justify his temper. Anyone can study it all and judge for himself.
                  The problem is when people take things out of context (where the context is, LRH tried to help mankind.)

                  LRH also spoke many thousands of hours of lectures, to different audiences with different tone-levels and in different time periods. That’s why his words sometimes seem inconsistent or contradictory (and sometimes they actually are).
                  As I said, the observers eye.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    Don’t get so defensive.

                    • Marty, no “offence” but I think “being defensive” is one of those things that classify as “in the eyes of the beholder”. I sometimes get told in so many words (or directly) that I’m on the defensive as regards LRH and Scientology, and I in turn usually feel that people who say that to me are prone to take the offensive on these subjects. I imagine that, as with anything, it’s inevitable that each of us comes to an overall evaluation and that’s the “stable datum” we operate on.

                      “Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from ONE DATUM. That is its STABLE DATUM. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” (Problems of Work)

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Precisely my point, I am not on the offensive against your, and SKM’s, cherished stable datums – unless of course, those are complexities, mysteries, and defense mechanisms that seem to come with the package.

                    • Thanks. I just wish you would have left out the word “cherished” in the first part of the sentence, which seems to imply you assume I’m merely defensiveness and makes you sound a bit on the offense :). But sincere thanks for the last part, which is a really good stable datum on the subject of stable datums. I’ll keep that in mind.

                    • martyrathbun09


                    • You are really cool, Marty. Or I could simply say “free”. :)

              • I think LRH noted the plus-points and pitfalls of every subject he studied, including his own.

    • Wow Paul.

      You brought a tear to my eye with that.

      Thank you for your story, it was very moving.

      Thank you for being here and contributing your wisdom to this forum.


      • Same here, and my feelings exactly.

        We have all graduated from the grip of participation in groupthink with the treasures that induced us into it in the first place. The only regrettable bits is where we compromised our own personal integrity for the group. But then, wasn’t that a valuable lesson learned as well?

        We have all been betrayed a million times across our lifetimes on this journey out of the matrix. And many have abandoned the search as a result. But there are ways out and the Bodhisattvas – corporeal and not – will never abandon us. And each time their collective efforts lift the veil just that much more, even if they, too, or their efforts become obscured by the sociopathy of groupthink in the interim. With such assistance, however, there ultimately comes an opening that will require us to walk out alone. Then it will be our turn.

        Welcome, Paul

      • Tears (plural) in my case. A big dose of good emotion.

    • Thank you for your beautiful story. There is definitely a kinship in truth-seeking, no matter the path chosen.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for your fascinating story. Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl is fantastic medicine for anger and regret.

    • Hi Paul,

      First, I want to thank you for all your good comments in this blog. It’s very important to compare different religions and philosophies.

      Like you, I remember being 13-14 and already reading books comparing religions. At 16, I became a Premie. I used to frequent the Ashrams, but I never lived in one of them. My best friend became an Initiator.

      I have a lot of good memories from my involvement with Premies and Maharaji.
      During my 20s I started co-auditing Dianetics. After some years (especially after reading the Scientology 8-8008 book) I left Maharaji.

      Similar to this blog, there is a website ( about brainwashing, attempts to silence Prem Rawat’s critics, etc.

      I think you’ll like this cartoon.

      • Hi MaBű :) I’m curious what it was that you read in Scientology 8-8008 that caused you to leave Maharaji. Or was it just a general recognition of truth?

        • p.s. I forgot to say that yours is an amazing story too!

        • Marildin,

          As I already stated, I have a lot of good memories from my involvement with Premies and Maharaji.

          I appreciate your interest in the subject, however I don’t think Paul is following and contributing to this blog in order to read something critical to his own religion. (Unless he himself ask it.)

          • MaBű. I phrased it in a misleading way but I was actually just wondering what you found in 8-8008 that inspired you to become involved in Scientology, rather than what in it made you want to leave your former practice. I just happen to think Scn 8-8008 is a great book so that’s where I was coming from. But I do get what you’re saying. :)

      • MaBu — thank you for speaking out as well as providing the link to the ex-premie site.

        I spent a couple hours reading the stories and the similarities are remarkable —

        But what amazed me is that I had never ever run across a premie nor the teacher … and apparently the movement was/is vast.

        Leading me to wonder, yet again, how much MORE is outside of my radar screen?

        The tendency is to stay so very locked into what is comfortable, familiar and known … leading to rigid views of the world convinced that my view is THE view.

        Fortunately my own experience for years within scientology only mind set enabled me to step away from the buddhist group I was attached to.

        Am now continuing with buddhist philosophy but away from buddhist “religionists” —

        Again thank you for sharing.


  3. I think that to be able to be in present space and time, is a great ability. But it is vast limitation to say that that’s all there is to a road towards spiritual freedom. I cannot give you an exact refference, but I know I have read in a ‘PDC tape as well in another source this thing with which -by personal experience too- I agree, and correct me if you have the exact quote somewhere handy: A psychotic lives in the past. A neurotic lives in the present. A sane man lives in the future. Also: Axiom 45 Theta can consider itself to be placed, at which moment it becomes placed, and to that degree a problem.

    For this reason, and for reasons of my own cogs, I understand that OT TR 0 can result in a Clear, but I don’t think it is a technique to the end of all Bridges. A being is so much more unfixed, than to be a point in the here and in the now.

    • Spyros: I remember that quote as well.

      However, I remember another one … something about being able to *predict* the future only because one’s *now* is bigger …

      I came to understand that now isn’t a POINT but rather it is a view and depending on how wide that view is, one could be said to predict the future.

      Perhaps this is what LRH meant when he said a sane man lives in the future. And perhaps he was talking about the neurotic as someone with a very narrow fixed view.

      Don’t know —

      Thanks for reminding me about that quote.

      • :) maybe it’s meant that if one can be in present comfortably, without being dragged into some past, he can then create and predict futures too.

        Thank you too :)

    • It’s a bit more complex and very well expressed in PAB 17, 1954, Future Processing: “FUTURE PROCESSING
      There is a basic rule which is covered in the first book and which was more specifically delineated by Fellow of Scientology Dick Halpern, that the psychotic is concerned with the past, the neurotic is barely able to keep up with the present, and the sane, as we jokingly called homo sapiens in 1950, are concerned with the future.
      This division could be more specifically made by realizing that the neurotic is barely able to confront the present but that the very, very sane confront the present entirely and have very little concern for the future, being competent enough in handling the present to let the future take care of itself. Looking into the past and looking into the extreme future alike are efforts to avoid present time and efforts to look elsewhere than at something.”

      The definition of Know-point might be to the point too – “KNOW-POINT, a know-point is senior to a viewpoint. An individual would not have dependency on space or mass or anything else. He’d simply know where he was.”

      • Pierrot, yes the way you put it is much more understandable. Thanks for correcting me.

        Some additional data that were mentioned in those lectures in the PDC (it would be great if somebody, knew exactly where. I cannot recall where out of the 72 tapes :P ), were about psychologists who asserted that all one has to do, to be alright, was to be in present time. LRH made fun of them for saying so.

        I think the reason for this, and also the ‘future’ part is that one uses his own universe in order to plan for the future of the MEST universe. And if he can do that independently of the MEST universe, he is then sane. SCN 8-8008 and the PDC were much about the attainment of infinity through the reduction to 0 (nothing) of the apparent infinity of the MEST universe (it’s domination over a person), by increasing the person’s own universe from 0 to infinity. In my own words, to have one stop convincing himself that the MEST universe dominates his own universe -or worse to identify the MEST universe with his own- and to be infinitely self determined over his own universe.

        Other than that, since time is a lie, I think there isn’t actually any past or present or future time. It is all created the moment it is experienced. One could say, that there is only present time, or no time. I think all would be correct. The reason why I mentioned this about past, present and future, is because I used to think that to be sort of fixed in MEST universe present time, is therapeutic. I no longer think so. I just think that it is better to perceive present MEST universe time, than to dramatise some past MEST universe time. But one should be flexible to be whenever and wherever he decides to be.

      • Pierrot, (or anyone), are you aware of an LRH lecture in which he refers to the Code of Honor, in which he states “The future is made for you.” ? (rather than the conventional “you make your tomorrow”.)

        Your statement about the future taking care of itself for the very sane, associated to this in my mind. I’m sure I have it on a CD or possibly even a DVD from the CoS, but I haven’t been able to locate it.

        • Spyros – thank you, I got what you wrote. Perhaps a handy definition of Present Time is “(…) It is the point of coincidence of three universes” From PAB 29. It’s handy because it doesn’t refer to concepts like “time”, “moment”, past-now/present-future, otherwise one is going into a loop of having to define no-time of “being there” while using concepts related to time.

          This is where OTIII level makes a nice statement, if one cares to look at some of its functions, regarding the overwhelm factor and resolves that matter completely – as long long as one of the three universes doesn’t overwhelm another or others, the coincidence of those 3 universes achieves a nice balance, an effortless present “time”. One is – a source point in ex-istance rather than lost in some is-nesses. Thus, for instance, the time track ceases to exist, other than as a curiosity, all knowingness is where one is (saying “now” would make one start creating a time track all over again) rather than having to look for answers wayyyyy back on the track, as that would be agreeing with the mest universe or the universe of others too much for one’s taste.

          Iamvalkow – hi, I don’t know that reference, sorry. But both ways are good and workable.

          If I go on stage and play a solo on a guitar, thus improvising, I would hear the notes slightly before In my universe before translating them on the instrument and projecting them into the universe of others. The apparency is though that the action is simultaneous in all 3 universes, that is when one does really groove (which is that coincidence I wrote above :-) and the key here is the rhythm.

          Now – if you and I did switch bodies, occupying each other’s viewpoint (if we had any, lol) I’m sure that the whole physical universe we do ex-ist in would take a turn and a fast evolution. That means Pierrot wouldn’t be living the life of iamvalkov for long. Thus the future is somewhat depending upon the viewpoint of the observer, and as Spyros wrote above the formula 8-8008 getting one’s own universe from 0 to infinity is a marvellous trick.

          Other than that I prefer the future to be made – I love surprises and besides I’m too busy to have to create the future of the physical universe part all day long…

  4. To be there comfortably ,doesn’t imply that you become stuck in PT.
    But it implies that you are not creating pictures or situations not under your control ,just doing what you are doing when you are doing it , toward a future that you can envision , unencumbered of unwanted arbitraries.

  5. Going Clear on OT TR 0, absolutely astonishing!

  6. Eric S.

    Thank you for your explanation of TR in the Scientology context– yes, this helps!
    I just read this quote from the Dalai Lama
    “Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.”.
    Inspiration for the day!
    Wishing you the best, Cheers Paul

    • Paul

      Thank you. I am glad it helps.

      I must add however, though I suspect that you realize this, that this is my own view of TRs based on my personal assimilation of the philosophy and from doing the exercises and experiencing my own results, and through supervising others through these drills.

      Certainly not all Scientologists will see it this way. Perhaps none at all.

      And thank you for that “inspiration of the day”.

      Eric S

  7. That Paul mentioned humility before, rung a bell in me. It is not rare to find in SCN texts decriptions of the powers of a thetan. One could say that this indicates some arrogance or big ego.

    These are my own opinions: I think that arrogance and ego are enemies of freedom and thus of power too. The reason why ego has been mixed with power and control, is because those who have much of that ego try to convince that they are powerful and that control. In fact, people obsessed with controlling others, are so weak, they can’t even control themselves…their own thoughts. They’re confused.

    Pan determinism is a light thing and takes no force at all. It is the control of self, but not self in the sense of an ego. Static can be more than a unit.

    Other determinism is a mockery of that. It is controlling another through enforcement and inhibition.

    An SP mocks pan determinism. He uses force (not his own. Can use stuff like money, or fear and other things) in a way to make the other think that he is controlled, and that he is not controlled by himself. This is a lie, as one is responsible for all that happens to him. An SP aims to implant one so as to make him think he is not in control of himself.

    All this stuff give abilities and power a bad name. But this is just the dark side of power –which is only apparent power. A truly powerful being wouldn’t use power to dominate over others. And if he did, he would reduce himself so that he wouldn’t be able to use this power anymore, as that would be an overt.

  8. Talking about simplicity, SKM mentions a wonderful quote from Saint Exupery: “ “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” As a child, I grew up reading Saint Exupery, this quote brings up a lot of fond, early memories.

    There is a book called “The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World’s Religions” by Wayne Teasdale. His work is about examining the world’s religions and highlighting the underlying beliefs and yearnings that link humankind. Teasdale is a proponent of spiritual diversity, urging readers to protect and study their own indigenous religion. He distinguishes “spirituality” from “religion,” for him: “Being religious connotes belonging to and practicing a religious tradition. Being spiritual suggests a personal commitment to a process of inner development that engages us in our totality.” He sees religion as a potential means to the greater end of genuine spirituality, which in his view is of mystical nature. The common points that he seems between all religions include ”solidarity with all life; moral capacity; nonviolence; self-knowledge; selfless service; simplicity of lifestyle; daily practice; and serving as a prophetic witness in the causes of justice, peace, and protecting creation.

    Teasdale may be overoptimistic in that he sees an age coming, where spiritual unity will emerge among diverse peoples, but nonetheless he is a good and kind soul and reading him is heartwarming.

    There is on YouTube a video (“The Mystic Heart, The Supreme Identity”
    ) with an interesting conversation about the Heart, between Ken Wilber and Teasdale. Teasdale comes through as clear, gentle and humble.

    I also just noticed a nice, 6 minutes video from my teacher on YouTube, talking about the Heart. (if you watch, watch until the end, there is a progression to the video)


  9. Jean-François Genest

    Thank you! Excellent post! Really spot on!
    I am so glad that your new home allows you to operate without the insane distractions. Θ

  10. Excellent post. Thank you. :)

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s