On Becoming A Person

To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.

To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – departs from that formula it is a practice potentially destructive of awareness and ability.

Means by which Scientology adheres to and departs from this workable formula are covered in the books What Is Wrong With Scientology? Healing Through Understanding (Amazon Books, 2012) and Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (Amazon Books, 2013).

Other means by which Scientology routinely, and as a matter of policy, departs from its own workable formula:

  1. Requiring membership in Scientology accompanied by the label and assumption of the personality traits of Scientologist.
  2. Issuance and enforcement of codes of conduct for Scientologists to guide and control their behavior.
  3. The invalidation of gains that people assert they have attained through practices other than Scientology.
  4. Indoctrinating people in detail what incidents they should address and what events lie on their own experiential tracks.
  5. Appealing to fear in order to persuade or coerce people to engage in or continue Scientology practices.

To the extent any purported Scientology practitioner engages in any of these departures, I recommend people steer clear of them.  To the degree they do participate in them is the degree to which they will ultimately contribute to a decrease in your awareness and ability.   These departures may indicate either of the following in the practitioner: a) a lack of understanding of the mechanics of what makes witnessing (including Scientology auditing) a therapeutic activity, and/or b) their own unhandled subjugation to any or all of 1-5.

The fundamental two-way communication process that all Scientology processing derives its workability from existed before L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote a word on the subject of the mind.  It would behoove Scientology auditors to study of it.  A great place to start would be On Becoming a Person by Carl R. Rogers (Houghton Mifflin, 1961).  One of Ron Hubbard’s greatest contributions to the improvement of  mind and spirit was simplifying the codification of such principles thus opening the process of self-actualization to far more people.  Unfortunately, as his group evolved much of that contribution was lost as Scientology became more mass-production oriented, expensive, exclusive, and cult-like.  The training of practitioners became progressively more assembly-line like.  On the one hand that helped to thoroughly drive home some workable skills while on the other hand it omitted a more contemplative, intellectual appreciation for the mechanics at work and the responsibilities incident to such practice.

Many veteran auditors reacted with some surprise when I noted the vital importance of the First Act (the one paragraph contemplation exercise an auditor is advised to engage in so as to have his own head right in order to audit, from Advance Procedures and Axioms) in What Is Wrong With Scientology?  Some noted that there was next to no emphasis placed on that in their auditor training.  That may well be.  But, the book (AP & A) is part of the auditor training line up.  I would suggest that the fact that a single paragraph is devoted to the issue is a flaw in the Scientology line up.  On Becoming A Person is a four-hundred page treatise on the First Act – relating it to every aspect of the actual auditing (or generic, counseling) process.  I believe that an auditor ought to study the book so that he fully appreciates why and how auditing works; and why and how an auditor must become the being (not simply ‘assume the beingness’) that naturally (not mechanically) duplicates, understands, accepts, and fully acknowledges (not with a mere ‘good’, ‘thank you’, ‘I got that’), all while genuinely – and unreservedly – intending the client to regain his or her genuine self and his or her determinism.

It cannot be gainsaid that Scientology is rife with datums, dictates, rules, and policies that detract from this pure, undiluted intention and being.  It therefore would behoove anyone trained in that discipline to read and contemplate On Becoming a Person so as to orient himself to what actually creates gains for an individual, and how the slightest departure from it spoils the process, any process.

Even if you are not an auditor or training to become one, I recommend On Becoming A Person.  It is all about becoming a better person, more of who one really is.

161 responses to “On Becoming A Person

  1. Jane Parker White.

    Excellent recommendation Marty – thank you. On becoming a person – I can not say it better in a little comment than this:
    “When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love.

    Love is the missing factor; there is a lack of affection, of warmth in relationship; and because we lack that love, that tenderness, that generosity, that mercy in relationship, we escape into mass action which produces further confusion, further misery.

    We fill our hearts with blueprints for world reform and do not look to that one resolving factor which is love.”
    ― Jiddu Krishnamurti

    • Take it straight from L. Ron Hubbard: “Despite inferences to the contrary, this tech has not been available before anywhere and was not even known”..LRH RJ37 1983. With that said, let the tech guide you to being really you, and a better you and doing all there is in life to do. Life if forever. There is no stopping it. To think, I used to be afraid of that fact! :) There’s so much time left. Why spend it earning $9.00 in the Sea Org and giving 10% of it to DM for his annual Birthday Gift. Hey DM, why don’t you buy me a birthday gift f****r! :) Now that’s the real me! :)

  2. Marty,

    Should this:
    their own unhandled subjugation to any or all of a-e

    Be:
    their own unhandled subjugation to any or all of 1-5

    sp

  3. Not sure where you stand on upper level discussion, so please don’t post if this is not acceptable.

    You state this below is potentially destructive:-
    “Indoctrinating people in detail what incidents they should address and what events lie on their own experiential tracks.”

    This I presume means OT 2&3 is potentially destructive.

    I did these levels twice to excellent effect. In niether case did I believe the Xenu story. The mechanics of the action were very workable, and is found so by most who do them.

    I used to think the Xenu story was “metaphor”. Then someone directed me to PAB 12 where running explosions was then the most powerful example of black and white processing, and that the basic of any engram is akin to an exlosion. Running explosions or similar is what one is constantly doing on these 2 levels. Thus potentially addressing any engram that anyone listening may have.

    • Gern Gaschoen

      Yeah, I’m not getting the big MU on Xenu, either. Its very clearly stated that all sorts of materials would and can be used to set up a PC for the session. Reading a bit of hand-written LRH fiction is indeed a truly theta way to get the ball rolling on the hat.

      I think the big MU behind Xenu, actually, is that people don’t actually know what Auditing, is. Its not belief, its not enforcement of an ideology, so on and on. An Auditor simply listens, communicates, and applies the steps that will get the PC through the process, and thus, the session. There is no worship here, no pennance, no indoctrination – if the incidents don’t run, then the tech is: simply out. Go back and find the MU, as if .. by the time one is supposed to get to OT3 .. finding MU’s would be difficult/unpleasant, pfft. I quite happily word-clear for hours a day, me personally ..

      See, thats just the thing. Folks, the OT levels are *GREAT* if you do the steps in order. Would you cook a pizza backwards/skipping steps? Hell no. The OT levels are like a 12-course meal for you. Theta.

      • OT 2 and OT 3 are a form of implanting via Hubbard.

        It’s the opposite of what auditing is initially presented as being.

      • Go back and find the MU, as if .. by the time one is supposed to get to OT3 .. finding MU’s would be difficult/unpleasant, pfft. I quite happily word-clear for hours a day, me personally …

        That just about sums it up.

        • Sorry, I have no MUs.

          I’m a big fan of auditing – actual auditing.

          OT 2 and OT 3, while including some auditing, mostly are the opposite of true auditing.

          If you’re a Scientologist, I don’t expect you to understand.

          • Gern Gaschoen

            Well, how much auditing have you done? I mean, on OT2 and 3, that is?

            • Do you want to see my folders?

              Should I report in for an metered interview?

              Try to understand this:

              There are people who’ve done the levels we’re discussing, who yet do not recommend that others do them.

              These same people are proponents of *actual* auditing, and see the levels under discussion as being, primarily, something other than auditing.

        • Gern Gaschoen

          What is wrong with finding MU’s? You don’t like doing it? It ‘hurts’ somehow?

          Personally, I love finding an MU. It is an awesome, enlightening experience.

      • CommunicatorIC

        Gern Gashoen:

        ****************************************
        “Axiom 38
        1. Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

        2. Mechanical definition: Stupidity is the unknownness of time, place, form and event.

        1. Truth is the exact consideration.

        2. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

        Thus we see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity.

        Thus we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actual experiment.

        Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

        Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.

        Lying is an alteration of time, place, event or form.

        Lying becomes alter-isness, becomes stupidity.

        (The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another’s lies.)

        Anything which persists must avoid as-isness. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.”
        *************************************

        Applying the above:

        Did you audit OT III? Did you audit above OT III?

        If so, WHAT were you doing? WHY were you doing it? WHOM were you addressing? With WHOM did you communicate?

        IF you communicated with anything other than yourself, where did it (or they) come from? Why was it (or were they) there?

        Were you addressing reality? A myth? A metaphor? An allegory?

        Can one truly AS-IS a myth?

        Can one truly AS-IS a metaphor?

        Can one truly AS-IS an allegory?

        Did you AS-IS anything? If so, WHAT?

        *************************************

        With regard to your suggestion to just do MU finding and Word Clearing until one agrees with, accepts, acquiesces, and propitiates, sorry, I’ve been there and done that. Never again.

        No amount of MU finding and Word Clearing will make a text accurately describe reality (thus permitting one to AS-IS) if it does not, in fact, accurately describe reality.

        I agree with the other posters. Auditing OT III is a form of implanting.

        I will add that OT III procedure is a violation of the principles behind, the rational for, and purpose of the Auditor’s Code. It is evaluation in session. Instead of auditing one’s own time track, one is TOLD what is on their time track.

        • Gern Gaschoen

          The OTIII materials and the Incident described was real to me before I ever did the level. I was aware of, but did not run, multiple engrams of the incident, and clusters of facsimiles available to me to observe were available during the Grades, even. I don’t know what happened with you guys, but by the time I got through my standard Grades and Clear, I was very definitely ready to move on to BT’s. I *knew* they were there, before I even started the level – and no, not from some off-tech line, not some skipped gradient – my case was just ready to run the tech. Reading (Well, m9 word clearing actually) DMSMH, even, I became aware of clusters of facsimiles which *really* were not my own. When I got to OTIII, I was *very* ready to address that aspect of my case. Was LRH using DMSMH to “implant me”, or was it more likely that my case was simply being restimulated and stirred up? Since it was my personal experience, I know the truth is in the latter case.

          Look, if its not real to you, then don’t run it. But don’t discount the fact that the Incident is there, and the case phenomenon are real. I am very sure that Ron didn’t give me *any* implants – he sure did give me a way to get the charge around these implants off my case, though. And I will be forever grateful, because on the other side of the wall, things are amazing.

        • Communicator IC
          “Were you addressing reality? A myth? A metaphor? An allegory?”

          I am not a tech expert but nevertheless had to somehow reconcile
          that not believing the OT 3 story, running OT 3 worked very well. Incidentally I did a survey many years ago, and most who had done OT 3
          hadn’t believed the story but also got excellent results.

          A key point is that per the important HCOB “The Nature of a Being”
          we are not single unit beings, for example entities are given as a factor.

          Also this statement :-

          ” This is also why Objective Processes are so effective – they get many of these factors all going in the same direction for once”.

          I think thats what happens when running explosions. In other words one
          is not addressing a metaphor etc, but many parts of a composite being
          with the concept of explosions, which would restim any engrams they had,
          and being single unit beings they would find it relatively easy to resolve.

          Recently looked at one of my folders and was surprised to see that twice I mentioned that regarding volcanoes as explosions gave more reads.

          At that time I hadn’t read PAB 12.

          ——————–
          From pab 12:-

          ” The thing which most closely approximates life itself in the
          material universe is the explosion.”

          “The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and,
          for our purposes here, can be considered to be basicbasic. And it could be remarked with this PAB that basicbasic for all cases has been discovered and is being delivered into your hands to be run,”

          “What exactly is the cycle of the explosion? One gets the preclear to
          get nothingness, then a growing expanse of whiteness, then turn the whiteness black, have the black dwindle and get nothingness again. You will readily see the similarity of this to Black and White Processing and, indeed this is the furthest extension of Black and White Processing but is many times more effective and usefull.”

          “….It does not matter how poorly the preclear runs this. It does not matter if the nearest approach to whiteness is simply the idea that something might be white if he could see it”

          • martyrathbun09

            Rather an effect point of view – one which can prevent as-isness as well as keep a audience captive indefinitely.

            • I’d say less effect than swallowing the xenu story hook line and sinker and unexamined. The audience weren’t staying captive and I presume as-ised
              what they needed to.

            • Gern Gaschoen

              Isn’t actually the point that LRH is attempting to locate on the track, the basicbasic of Effect, itself? So how does evaluating it in present time as some sort of ‘tactic to keep people in control’ lead to understanding this better? basicbasic, of Effect, on the Whole Track: Run it, or address it in a multivariate manner of ways, using whatever Words the PC needs in order to continue case gain on the subject.

              I mean, running this blows a *lot* of secondaries, chains, clusters. It revives massive amounts of Theta for the individual, like .. really, running B&W can be extremely rewarding for the individual, I mean .. wow.

              Surely, as a Tech person, you’re not suggesting that LRH set up some trap, here, around B&W?

              • martyrathbun09

                Who are you addressing?

                • Gern Gaschoen

                  This statement:

                  “Rather an effect point of view – one which can prevent as-isness as well as keep a audience captive indefinitely.”

                  Did I misunderstand to what you are referring?

          • “A key point is that per the important HCOB “The Nature of a Being”
            we are not single unit beings, for example entities are given as a factor.”

            Interesting. This viewpoint is validated by the oldest traditional Chinese Taoist teachings, that hold a man(woman) is a being composed of (at least) 10 different independent ‘ soul-like’ entities, without any of which a human being is incomplete and that a person can even die if one of these entities leaves the body prematurely.

        • Gern Gaschoen

          Auditing OTIII is *not* a form of implanting. If its not real to you, its not real to you.

          It was real to me, when I did it, standardly. Had a great, great time. There really is a Wall! You really can get through it! :)

          • Oh, I do believe that “it’s real for you.”

            However, some people don’t want to reside inside L. Ron Hubbard’s head, but some enjoy living there.

            I, and others, like it better on the outside.

    • Terril, I can remember back in 79 I was looking forward to doing OT 111. I was very excited when I got the materials and they were locked up etc. It was such a let down reading the story . I was very disappointed. I don’t know what I expected but it wasn’t that. It didn’t indicate at all. I was sure I couldn’t run anything and I hoped I hadn’t skip a gradient. The surprising thing is that when I got in session and did exactly what LRH said to do I was amazed at what was happening. Not only did I get reads but LFBDs and even a floating TA. I had no confidence in the story but the process worked anyway. I actually thought that the Xenu story was a metaphor too. I thought that I would all of a sudden cog about the truth of the level. Love, Sarge

      • I can see you were impressed with the e-meter responses. Perhaps too impressed.

        Listen to Ron’s Journal 67, Incident 2 is not a metaphor. According to the tech, it’s an incident on the time tracks in the reactive minds of “body thetans.”

        Reactive minds are very literal. A =A.

        Ron promised OT by way of the the OT levels. It didn’t happen.

        Maybe all this deserves a closer look?

  4. Gern Gaschoen

    Geeze. I wish LRH had lived another decade or so, and had his own blog too.

    • Gern …for someone who has been a victim of implants designed by LRH you certainly make a lot sense.

      A blog run and maintained by LRH? I can’t tell you how great that sounds.

      • Although a blog would provide Ron the problem of handling all the incoming traffic from across the world.

        Would 10,000 posts a day be out of the question?

        LRH would probably have to bypass Cisco Systems and design his own server to handle the load.

        • He would put someone to handle his blog like he did for the SO#1 line.

        • Gern Gaschoen

          Well, we’re discussing a fancy, but I know for a fact that LRH would have embraced the Internet expansion immediately. He predicted it would happen, quite well, actually, and I personally know a few people who profited from knowing what LRH had to say about computerization and the globalization of mankinds computer systems.. the man had access to enormous amounts of knowledge of the subject. Google? Ha! Its whole-track dramatization, in PT.

          NSA Spying on all Americans? LRH said it would happen as soon as possible. It did.

          • Your absolutely right Gern. The NSA as well as the IRS and the The Justice Dept. are playing ( dramatizing ) the same whole track game-Close the loop, establish control and remove freedom from beings

            • Gern Gaschoen

              It is ridiculous, isn’t it, that the US Government is getting away with all this stuff? The same people (or rather, valence) that are being run-in on the US Government, and of course, the Church of Scientology, would be *Terrified* if we were to turn the tables and start recording every single phone call any one of them made, time, place, form .. event.

  5. “Other means by which Scientology routinely, and as a matter of policy, departs from its own workable formula:
    1.Requiring membership in Scientology accompanied by the label and assumption of the personality traits of Scientologist.
    2.Issuance and enforcement of codes of conduct for Scientologists to guide and control their behavior.
    3.The invalidation of gains that people assert they have attained through practices other than Scientology.
    4.Indoctrinating people in detail what incidents they should address and what events lie on their own experiential tracks.
    5.Appealing to fear in order to persuade or coerce people to engage in or continue Scientology practices.
    These five are a great way to recognize any cult, simply substitute the name. Lately, you are providing people a great educational service whether Scientologist or not. Thanks.

    • I’d like to propose a 6th:
      6. Attesting to a level completed, and an ability gained, and later being told that you didn’t.
      I only have a handful of what I would call very good personal friends who are Scientologists. 3 out of 4 of them reached “Clear” and then were told they weren’t later on. The 4th? He’s so messed up he can’t even drive in a car or sleep at night.

  6. Gern Gaschoen

    These points require a response from a positive Scientologist:

    >>>1. Requiring membership in Scientology accompanied by the label and assumption of the personality traits of Scientologist.

    What personality traits are described as needing to be enforced in the LRH policies, in the scripture as published by LRH .. I wonder? I didn’t find much. There are things like “FBO should be stern” and so on, but stern is just a personality? Really? How do these things spread? At what point does a Word become a Personality, then .. this is very clearly explained by LRH, and explored throughout the materials.

    It is my point of view that the personality problem in the current Church of Scientology is derived from the societies from where the management individuals, themselves, are cultivated .. The Cleared Cannibals who have gathered around the Usurper in *FULL* dramatizing-of-valences mode are of course due to a lot of out tech, mostly around the rudiments. Tired, out-ruds people eventually conglomerate their personalities. Its got nothing to do with Scientology, its just how we as a species work: we copy each other, we imitate, we perpetuate clusters of significance using all manner of communication, and using ones personality is just one of an infinite bundle- especially in times of stress. The Bank does this, across the dynamics. And it is a clear fact that the technology of Scientology serves to address the complex interplay between the first, and second, and third dynamics, fourth and so on, and the ways that these dynamics impinge upon the other. The way the group and the individual play together in the grand scheme of things *definitely* dictates the valences which get propelled forward by the theta unit in present time. Flows are real, there are underlying mechanisms to perception which impact on the reality of the individual. You-to-you, others-to-you, you-to-others, others-to-others, and so on.

    Within the Church, as practiced by Black Scientologists, a typical method is this: an un-flattened flow on missed witholds:masturbation is a sure-fire way to turn some new recruit into a terminal, subdued. If you have a high-pressure mission, and someone needs their sec-check before getting on the plane (leaving post, etc.), one definite way you’re going to get that person under control is to miss their witholds. It happens/happened, categorically as a group dramatization, all the way through the Church. The ones who rise through the ranks around DM, categorically, miss the best witholds on any others in their environment.

    If one is borne in a society where personalities are highly, highly valued, as is a fact of modern western life in any major modern human culture today, one will find it very difficult to break through the valence barrier. It is extraordinary to perceive, with a little obnosis, just how important this fact is to every human being you could meet, anywhere.

    I must say, though, I find it rather odd, dare I say actually Cute, that the word ‘personality’ is being used in connection with ‘fixing Scientology’ and all ‘its problems’, because underneath the cloth it is a fact that personality is entirely the point of the subject, in the first place: to inject some personality into the Universe ..

    >>>>Issuance and enforcement of codes of conduct for Scientologists to guide and control their behavior. The invalidation of gains that people assert they have attained through practices other than Scientology. Indoctrinating people in detail what incidents they should address and what events lie on their own experiential tracks. Appealing to fear in order to persuade or coerce people to engage in or continue Scientology practices.

    Seems to me that these are the very high crimes and misdemeanours an Inspector General would’ve gotten in. LRH himself, in stated policies, agrees with all of the above : unless I’m missing something?

    • Could you explain your last para please? What high crimes and what misdemeanors? Where is issuance and enforcement of Codes a crime? What about invalidating everything about other practices? How in the world would IG get them IN? He created them and imposed them?

      • Gern Gaschoen

        Take a look at the Ethics book, High Crime and Misdemeanours – every single point is covered by an LRH statement, as well. No, we are not supposed to come up with ‘codes of conduct’. No, LRH says time and again that anyone invalidating case gain, for any reason at all, is suppressive and must be removed from tech and admin lines immediately. Indoctrination about time-track incidents and what they should run? Nope, thats going to get you kicked out of an Org real fast. Using fear to coerce people into Scientology? Hell no, High Crimes and Misdemeanours covers this very well, also.

        An IG would be working tirelessly to ensure that these points are not being found in the org lines of the Church, at an International level, and would not allow them to be dramatized by anyone. This didn’t happen – DM got everything he ever wanted, because his cleared-Cannibal sycophants give it to him, for decades on end, and never have the courage to address their own failings in the matter so that they can repair, return, and resolve the situation. Fact is, I think that anyone in the Church today who attempts to indicate the High Crime nature of DM’s activities is going to be joining us, soon enough, complaining about it from the outside ..

  7. Tears in my eyes. Thank you for the right indication.

  8. Thanks Marty for another pointer to a viewpoint that supports the good basics and shows the ability Ron had with respect for separating the wheat from the chaff. ARC Bill Dupree

  9. Mary Rathernotsay

    Hey Marty
    I believe I am going to go ahead and read On Becoming A Person now that I’ve finished Memoirs. As soon as I get back from my camping trip.
    I for one appreciate that you are offering counseling, whether you call it Scientology auditing or not, never mind.
    I have had the desire to get some counseling from you ever since I first saw how good your TRs are (better than the average bear, for sure).
    The problem is I’d rather not get harassed by those crazy dudes who seem to keep following you around searching for the stash of nuts.
    I can’t help feeling that you yourself need an “All Clear” of sorts.
    An “All Clear” of the harassment tactics of DM’s minions.
    If that ever happens I’ll be on the next plane out there for my session.
    Lucky for me I got some “auditing” from a fellow who’s probably never even heard of Scientology, but who is just a natural-born auditor.
    Listens. Acks. Decent TRs. No eval. No inval. No meter.
    But he sure does get results. And his stats would blow away most auditors at a CoS Org. He “audits”…OK so “audit” may not be the word, but he has clients 60 plus hours a week, no certs of any kind, and he gets results.
    No training of any formal kind.
    I’d continue to go to him, but I’m at the point where a meter could really be useful. Lol.
    Anyway, it’s great to know that some good counselors are still out there.
    My congrats to those who brave the harassment to take your services.
    My sincere wish that one day it won’t have to be that way.

  10. I would say that your recommendation of Roger’s book is an application of Scientology Logic 8: A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

    There are a lot of things outside of Scientology which should be compared with similar things inside of Scientology in order to develop judgement, and a fuller understanding of those things.

    The notion that a person could study the ideas of one man – L Ron Hubbard – and end up being an expert on anything – especially in something as vast as counseling – is ludicrous.

    Alanzo

  11. Elliot McMann

    As far as I know, Carl Rogers was a “good psych.” I read his books “On Becoming a Person” and “Client Centered Therapy” as a college student in 1966, before I’d ever heard of Scientology. I absolutely loved both books.

    In 1968 I went looking for a Rogerian therapist, and found one who’d gotten her Ph.D. directly under Rogers at the University of Chicago in 1955, and then become a professor at San Francisco State. I saw her weekly for about four months, without experiencing any inval or eval from her. Then, to my surprise, she progressively became more and more evaluative.

    One day I asked her why she was violating the rules set down by her mentor Rogers, especially considering the fact that I’d come to her because I believed she’d follow them and simply facilitate my sorting things out for myself. She dismissively answered that most of Rogers’ students came to realize that evaluation from the therapist was necessary after all. That disturbed me, but I continued to see her for another few weeks.

    During that time I stumbled onto “Evolution of a Science” and also read the first few chapters of DMSMH. When I excitedly told this therapist about Dianetics, she pooh-poohed it, saying that Rogers’ group at the University of Chicago had “tested Dianetics thoroughly and found that it didn’t work.”

    Based on what she’d previously told me about not following Rogers’ rules, it was immediately obvious to me that the reason their test of Dianetics had failed was that they couldn’t bring themselves to run any therapeutic procedure without evaluating for the client. It was a simple matter of the tone level of the therapist.

    That was the last non-Scientology session I had with anyone. A few months later I started my Scientology auditing. I found that nearly all of my auditors were high-toned enough to avoid inval and eval in session. The gains I made came very rapidly and utterly dwarfed anything I’d achieved in 2 years of trying out various types of psychotherapy (Rogerian, Jungian, Freudian, and “encounter groups”).

    However, even in Scientology some C/Ses, ethics officers, reg’s, and admin staffers weren’t as high toned, and did evaluate. This tone level problem became worse and worse as the years went by. It was also worse at higher orgs than at lower orgs and missions. I attributed this to the growth of Sea Org influence, with a consequent shift from an emphasis on philosophy, tech, and individual betterment, to an emphasis on admin, control, and group strength.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Marty that today’s Scientologists and other therapeutic practitioners would benefit greatly from reading Rogers’ books. But as Marty has pointed out on numerous occasions, it’s a lot easier to talk the talk than walk the walk. My personal experience with one of Rogers’ major direct disciples was a prime example of that.

    I think it would be a mistake to invalidate LRH’s processes based on their results in the hands of low-toned practitioners. Even the issue of “addressing what the pc wants handled” rather than robotically “just doing the grade chart” boils down to this. Any auditor or C/S high-toned enough to truly eliminate all inval and eval from his work would always handle what the pc wanted handled while also moving him up the Bridge. The apparent conflict between the two is merely a matter of the tone level of the practitioner.

    As for the value of “standard tech” vs any variations or outright other practices, LRH himself said the Auditor’s Code is more important and efficacious than the processes run. I personally believe LRH’s processes and the grade chart are good and workable as issued. But if I had to choose between “straight LRH processes” delivered by a low toned person or organization (and consequently with eval and inval), vs something else that involved looking and communicating (such as the procedures in Rogers’ books), delivered by a high toned person or organization (and consequently without eval and inval), I’d take the high-toned alternative any day of the week.

    That said, in my opinion anyone capable of delivering non-LRH processes at a high tone level could do the same with LRH processes, and in most cases get even better results.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for sharing that Elliot. Reminds me of The Sopranos. Almost every psycho therapy session you can see Tony blowing charge with the therapist – and then every session she would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by evaluating followed by predictable blow up by Tony.

    • The Auditors Code is fine as far as it goes, but it didn’t apply to LRH, as “Source.” LRH evaluated for Scientologists outside and inside of session, through the LRH materials – especially the confidential materials.

      • Elliot McMann

        So what? Didn’t you ever learn a lesson about your own behavior and then find it hard to apply that lesson 100%? Also, the Auditor’s Code says “I promise not to evaluate … IN session,” and “I promise not to invalidate — IN or OUT of session.” There’s a difference.

        • Telling someone what their time track is composed of is a supreme evaluation.

          • LRH acknowledged up front that he was ‘evaluating’ for people in giving lectures. He discusses this in one of the early lectures on the 4th London ACC set.

            In fact any ‘education’ involves this kind of ‘evaluation’, listening to lectures, reading books etc. So we should stop educating people, right?

            The Auditor’s Code is a specialized code for a specialized setting and purpose.

            • Some of us don’t want to be told the contents of our minds, even by L. Ron Hubbard.

              We’re funny that way.

              Call us eccentric, but we think that’s the antithesis of what auditing is at its best.

              • Gern Gaschoen

                Well, get some Auditing then, because with Auditing you will tell the universe about the contents of your mind. That is what its for ..

                • That sounds good but, around the time that auditing becomes confidential, it becomes something very different than that. Granted, someone who’s “set up” for it usually doesn’t notice.

                  What’s being discussed are the contents of L. Ron Hubbard’s mind.

                  *His* problems, his “case.” And sometimes, for whatever reason, the “case” that he wanted others to have.

                  Hubbard wrote that once a person, on the Advanced Courses, sees the e-meter react, and is impressed by that reaction, that this “case” will become real for them.

                  OT 2 and OT 3 are 40% P.T. Barnum, 40% hypnosis, 20% auditing.

                  I’ll just take the 100% auditing, thanks.

              • Yes, and those who do not wish to be ‘evaluated for’ by LRH or anyone else, are of course free to not read LRH materials or listen to LRH lectures, or in fact materials written/spoken by anyone else, whether it be Carl Rogers, Marty Rathbun, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, George W. Bush or any noted philosophers, commentators etc.

                By all means avoid the valuations of others and just create your own. But don’t send your kids to school, either, because they will be ‘evaluated for’.

                I do agree with you however, about what auditing is. If it is evaluative, it is not auditing. But I haven’t done the Advanced courses so I can’t speak to what those are or are not.

                • If you haven’t at least thoroughly examined the contents of the Advanced Courses, then, I guess, there’s no basis for your having an opinion.

                  However, I, and others, do have an opinion.

                  And, if you ever plan on doing these levels, I strongly recommend that you look at them first, thoroughly, before you subject yourself to them.

                  It takes some searching on line, but you can find most of it.

                  Best wishes.

            • I get your point Valkov. The Auditors code is a laudable practice.

              My point is that we believed in Ron and his whole track recall. We believed it to such a degree that we considered everything that came up in his mind, his session to be indisputably in the minds of all people.

              When looking at things like ARCxs, communication etc. these are obviously common to us all.

              But in the R6 materials and other fantastic space opera, we were told that we all have this, the whole world IS this, all religion is R6, theaters, planes ……….everything is a dramatization of that.

              And the only “proof” of the existence of these things is needle reactions and charge blowing.

              To declare beyond a doubt that all of us are subject to these is an evaluation of epic proportions. That is my only point.

              • Brian gives very important and very reasonable points for anyone who has been influenced by Scientology – in any way:


                to consider
                to think about
                and to view things with.

                Good luck.

                Alanzo

              • Margot Diaz Learned

                I find this interesting because it aligns with a realization that I had after I got out. I felt that things started to go off when I was no longer running my case, but LRH’s, which for me is what occurs once you enter OT3. I had wins and gains up through V, where I quit, but it always felt a bit different and for me it was that it wasn’t my origination, but his. Didn’t totally indicate. Never thought of it as total, straight up eval, but that’s right.

              • Elliot McMann

                I never believed that LRH was infallible, or necessarily right when he said we had all been through certain identical experiences. I am and always have been ME, thank you very much. But I was always totally willing to give LRH the benefit of the doubt in my auditing sessions, and sincerely run his processes to see what would happen.

                In the final analysis it doesn’t matter whether or not LRH’s “fantastic space opera” stories are true. It doesn’t even matter that the needle reads or doesn’t read on them. All that really matters is that charge blows, and the pc or pre-OT gets better. It’s then up to that person to have his own whole track recall, his own integrity, and decide for himself what his own history really is.

                Given the nature of OT case, this can obviously get complicated and confusing at times. But even that doesn’t really matter. Just keep looking, with your personal integrity in, and untruth will as-is, revealing the truth whatever that actually is.

                If anyone ever evaluated for you about your history or case, or enforced their reality on you, or gave you a wrong indication, just acknowledge that for what it was, let the bypassed charge blow, and move on. If you need an auditor to help you accomplish that, then go get one. In the Indie field there are plenty of auditors who will grant beingness to your being yourself.

                Ultimately your willingness to look and decide for yourself what you see is your most important asset. Just be willing to grant that asset to others, too, without resisting if and when they see something different than you have so far.

                • Eliot, LRH’s OT space opera was the beginning of violent retribution in the real world. It does matter if LRH’s space opera is true or not. The war against psyches got it’s teeth from R6. The saving of the universe got it’s story from R6!! The enemy was defined in R6. The good guys were defined in R6. The Sea Org were the reincarnation of R6’s good guys.

                  The entire esoteric foundation of Scientology is from R6. Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on solving OT3.

                  How did it come to this!!! that “it doesn’t matter if something is true or not.”!!!!!

                  Did you just listen to what you said?!!!

                  How did it ever come to this that a sane man like yourself could say a statement like that and consider himself to be on the road to truth.

                  This is the mass hypnosis of cult mentality demonstrated. I am sorry for being so rude Eliot but………. come on dude….. please rethink that one.

                  Please!

                  • Elliot McMann

                    Brian,

                    There were plenty of space opera implant stories in LRH’s early 50’s lectures, long before he talked about R6. And the esoteric foundation of Scientology is far deeper than R6 or space opera of any kind.

                    The essence of Scientology is that we are immortal spiritual beings, who make existence and conditions by way of our own intention, and that because of that fact our thoroughly viewing things can unmake them.

                    If a process says, “Look at that Klingon battle cruiser,” and the pc looks but finds only Tweety Bird, who then morphs through various dissolving dub-in layers into Kermit the Frog, with F/N, cog, VGI’s at the end, then the truth for that pc is Kermit. The pc should be able to walk away from the session satisfied. If someone else then invalidates him for “seeing Muppets” rather than enthusiastically joining Starfleet to fight the Klingons, then that’s a violation of the Auditor’s Code, isn’t it?

                    As a TECHNICAL matter, it doesn’t matter whether or not LRH’s “sci-fi” stories are true, as long as the pc is actually in session, with personal integrity, and the auditor and everyone else follows the Auditor’s Code. The pc will find his own truth, and become more free, more aware, and more able, regardless of what he ends up thinking about LRH’s stories.

                    As an ADMIN matter, however, I agree that LRH’s stories formed the basis for the “war” the Sea Org and the G.O. engaged in, and gave justification for the abuse that occurred.

                    However, almost any “taut ship,” “save the world” organization would have deteriorated into similar abuse, because that’s what happens to such organizations, whether they be religious, political, military, or anything else. They’re just too restimulative for most of their members, who have to go out of valence to survive in them. Compared to this more basic factor, even if LRH’s space opera stories were pure hokum, they were a superficial influence.

                    I personally never had any trouble granting possible validity to LRH’s stories, because I recalled plenty of whole track space opera of my own, starting with my very first auditing. I also never got swept up in the Sea Org / G.O. cult madness, despite being on staff several times, including in Sea Org orgs, and accepting LRH’s stories as probably true. And many other Scientologists could say the same thing. We weren’t hypnotized at all.

                    And by the way, you haven’t given any evidence that LRH’s space opera stories AREN’T true. All you’ve done is ridicule them. But think this through. There are 300 billion galaxies in the known universe, with an average of more than 100 billion stars in each one. Wouldn’t simple statistics tell us that it’s very highly probable that there ARE space-faring civilizations out there?

                    Then look at the actions of various human dictators to stay in power on this planet, with ultra-primitive technology by comparison. Given what they did here in recorded history, what kind of “brave new world” control operations could have occurred long ago “out there” in space-faring civilizations? What might still be going on today? In that context, the inevitable, common-sense, “sane” conclusion is that LRH’s “sci fi” stories COULD be true.

                    Of course, that doesn’t mean we should believe those stories until we look for ourselves. But after all of LRH’s obvious brilliance at lower levels, why not give him the benefit of the doubt at least enough to do our looking at upper levels by way of continuing to run his processes? That worked for a lot of us. We got case gain from it.

                    I also have friends who did OT levels and ended up rejecting them as nonsense. But that rejection occurred only after they became tremendously over-restimulated by obvious out tech, leaving them no choice but to blow. Unfortunately, the Church has specialized in such out tech for about the last 30 years.

                    • Eliot, you said,”. If a process says, “Look at that Klingon battle cruiser,” and the pc looks but finds only Tweety Bird, who then morphs through various dissolving dub-in layers into Kermit the Frog, with F/N, cog, VGI’s at the end, then the truth for that pc is Kermit. The pc should be able to walk away from the session satisfied. If someone else then invalidates him for “seeing Muppets” rather than enthusiastically joining Starfleet to fight the Klingons, then that’s a violation of the Auditor’s Code, isn’t it?”

                      You have just summed it up lol ROFL!!! lol!! Thank you!

                    • Eliot, it is not ridicule that is my intention.

                      Do you believe that all psyches are the cause of all crime?

                      Do you believe that Jesus was a child molester?

                      Do you believe that L.Ron Hubbard is the only being in the universe to get through the ‘wall of fire’?

                      If you do, then I am an SP and damned proud of it. The conversation ends here.

                      To disagree with the truth and validity of something is not ridicule. But I can understand how you feel that way with what your experience is.

                      Eliot, I can also not prove to you that there is not a gigantic cauliflower on the verge of eating the universe.

                      But……… I can address it with reason, and extrapolate from my own wisdom and intuition, and come to conclusions thereby. And that process I use to address the cauliflower is not ridicule of the alledged cauliflower: it is using my intelligence to differenciate between what I see to be real or unreal. Fact or fiction. I do not grant Ron infallibility of track recall. I do not grant Ron greater wisdom then me, or you.

                      If you read Marty’s latest book, did you read about Sarge being with him and Ron asking Sarge to go out to see if there was a BT at a certain place?

                      What is your take on that Eliot? How can you rationalize that? To consider these things delusional is not ridicule. Someone has got to have the balls to take a stand and state what they feel and see.

                      There has been too much fear of punishment to be courageous, until now.

                      And I state for one and all to hear that the confidential materials are delusional. OT 3 is a fairy tale spun out of a man looking to liberate himself from darkness.

                      But Ron got caught in the unconscious. He got shipwrecked in a story of victimization. Something outside of himself was the cause of his darkness.

                      It wasn’t him, his choices, his attitudes, his values, his attachments, his lust for power that caused him unhappiness. It was space ghosts that victimized him. And everyone who buys into this BS. All victims of a tall tale that racked in millions upon millions for him.

                      What the hell ever happened to Total Cause!!! What the hell ever happened to stable exterior with full perception!!!

                      The OT levels degenerated into a body centric trap.

                      This is not ridicule, this is integrity to communicate and disagree. This is the courage to challenge the very heart of Scientology: the sacred secret teachings of the OT levels.

                      Consider it challenged

                    • State away, Brian. Bloviate away. I’m not sure who your audience is, who you’re addressing, but go ahead, knock yourself out, get it all off your chest. You’ve earned that by your experience in scientology.

                      I’ll do the same. Aside from feeling cranky today, I ‘ve been reading for about 4 years now these non-specific generalities about th effectiveness of “other practices” vis-a-vis scientology, never, never ever a mention of any specific data to compare effectiveness, results, stats, etc.

                      It’s not that I necessarily think all scientology is that effective. That’s not the issue. The issue is authoritatively stated opinions that are nothing more than opinions that appear to be entirely unsupported.

                      So now when I read some similar statement or ‘claim’, I just go “Cool. DOX or STFU.”

                      And guess what? I’m still waiting for the specific data of comparable magnitude. I’m still waiting for someone to get down to cases. None seen yet.

                      It has nothing to do with ‘believing the space opera” or anything like that. Personally, I think folks who know only scientology need to spend a few years informing themselves about ‘data of comparable magnitude’, much of which actually forms the background of scientology.

                      Maybe start with this short book by a very intelligent and knowledgeable scholar:

                    • Elliot McMann

                      I’m not sure this comment will get placed where it belongs. It’s in response to Brian’s second comment under my last one.

                      Brian, many people have done the OT levels, found the phenomena they address to be perceivable, and the stories about them to be recallable. They’ve also obtained significant case gain from doing these levels. For you to label such people as deluded is a violation of the Auditor’s Code, which states, “I promise not to invalidate a pc’s case and gains IN OR OUT of session.” This is a harmful act on your part. You should cease and desist.

                      Of course, that’s only if you’re a Scientologist and subscribe to the Auditor’s Code. Are you? If not, were you ever?

                      More to the point, have you DONE the OT levels? If not, then you are spouting off about something regarding which you have no personal experience. That makes your opinion worthless.

                      If you HAVE done OT levels, and they weren’t real to you, there could be only three reasons: (1) You’re right, and they’re hokum. (2) You’re just not aware enough. (3) You are aware enough, and you know they’re real, but you have a vested interest of some sort in keeping others away from the truth. Being a Scientologist who tries to abide by the Auditor’s Code, I will not invalidate your case or gains IN OR OUT of session by stating which one I think it is.

                      But I will point out that the lower levels exist to strengthen a pc’s confront so the upper levels WILL be real to him. If a person’s lower levels are done incompletely, as happened with MANY pc’s in the past, the OT levels could subsequently be unreal to him. This happened to one of my best friends. His awareness did eventually come up, and today he laughs at anyone who suggests that OT levels are some kind of delusion.

                      The fact that the stories and claimed phenomena on the OT levels are different than the common reality of human beings and current science does not make disbelief in them “intelligent.” No actually intelligent person rejects anything without looking.

                      And, by the way, the scriptures of every major religion on the face of the Earth through all of recorded history contain descriptions of non-material spiritual beings making trouble for humans, and provide techniques of exorcism.

                    • Elliot McMann

                      Brian, you said, “This is the courage to challenge the very heart of Scientology: the sacred secret teachings of the OT levels.” I’ve already clearly explained how the “secret teachings of the OT levels” are NOT “the very heart of Scientology.” But to add to that, there is NOTHING about the OT levels in the ACTUAL “very heart of Scientology,” which is the Axioms, the Factors, and the Pre-Logics.

                    •  Hey Valkov and Eliot!  Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you. Valkov said:

                      “I ‘ve been reading for about 4 years now these non-specific generalities about th effectiveness of “other practices” vis-a-vis scientology, never, never ever a mention of any specific data to compare effectiveness, results, stats, etc.” 
                      I’m sure you would agree with me that reading books is not a demonstration of facts. It takes years of study and practice to understand something. But I think you know that.

                      “And guess what? I’m still waiting for the specific data of comparable magnitude. I’m still waiting for someone to get down to cases. None seen yet.”

                      If you are waiting for something that agrees ONLY with a Scientologist’s perspective you will not find it. A fundamentalist Christian will always think a Buddhist wrong because they don’t have Jesus. It is the limits of fixed and agreed upon dogma that bar an open minded ecumenicism to see the validity of truths outside one’s group.

                      Eliot said:

                      “Brian, many people have done the OT levels, found the phenomena they address to be perceivable, and the stories about them to be recallable. They’ve also obtained significant case gain from doing these levels. For you to label such people as deluded is a violation of the Auditor’s Code, which states, “I promise not to invalidate a pc’s case and gains IN OR OUT of session.” This is a harmful act on your part. You should cease and desist.”

                      Any knowledge learned about the spirit, happiness is not in question. Any wins people have had are wonderful. And if they had those wins and have attained knowledge of the soul, that wisdom can’t be invalidated. Because it IS true knowing beyond a doubt. Only partially digested knowledge and faith can be threatened by reasoned doubt or questioning. Also I am now not an auditor and you are not in session. 
                      But what I am saying is, it is ok to think about these things. In our Scientology experience it was a high crime to discuss these things. And I say one word to that thought stopping suppression: bullshit. We are free to discuss anything. And if the discussion of the validity of the story of OT 3 makes people upset or makes them loose their wins, that does not sound like stable knowledge, certainty, total cause to me. That is a weak argument for the OT levels if people are so sensitive to loose their wins because someone doubts the story( not the realizations of life, but the story)

                      “have I done the OT levels?”

                      Yes and no:-) but if I have or haven’t is not a convincing argument because there are many who have done it in the church, now left, who have my view.

                      Valkov, I have one simple question for you. Do you know anyone who has died with pneumonia or anything else by being exposed to R6? Anyone????

                      Ron categorically stated this to be a fact. Is it a fact? This is the start of a reasoned doubt.

                      At some point in the future there will be a research, maybe by Marty, maybe by some other ex member that will uncover just what was happening during space opera OT sessions. I have given in detail my opinion on that. I don’t know how far back in Marty’s blog they are but, maybe if people have the courage to bring it up I will add my opinions again. 

                      The dichotomy of OT 3 is: wins are occurring, realizations about the spirit are occurring. And that is the glue that sticks the story. When and if the opportunity to communicate these things pops up I will give my opinion again regarding space opera mental dream therapies

                       I would give Ron the laurel wreath of this one praise absolutely: creative genius

                      Thanks Valkov for the opportunity to bloviate:-)

                       peace,
                      Brian

                    • Brian, I’ll give this one response and then let it rest, as Either I am not making myself clear,or you are unable to duplicate what I am posting,or both. You posted,quoting me:

                      Valkov said:

                      “I ‘ve been reading for about 4 years now these non-specific generalities about th effectiveness of “other practices” vis-a-vis scientology, never, never ever a mention of any specific data to compare effectiveness, results, stats, etc.”
                      I’m sure you would agree with me that reading books is not a demonstration of facts. It takes years of study and practice to understand something. But I think you know that.

                      “And guess what? I’m still waiting for the specific data of comparable magnitude. I’m still waiting for someone to get down to cases. None seen yet.”

                      If you are waiting for something that agrees ONLY with a Scientologist’s perspective you will not find it.

                      #1. I am not talking about ‘reading books’. I am talking about blog comments such as yours, to the effect that “Scientology does not deliver anything that one can’t get from other practices”, or similar.statements. I believe in your comment, it was to the effect that other practices promote similar results. I said that I didn’t think so,and challenged you to provide a single example.

                      You not only haven’t done so, your responses to me have been 100% non-sequitur,’straw man’responses that have not addressed the content of my posts, but have just continued to roll out your one-track spiel.
                      OK, so there is no cogent discussion coming back from your end. That is fine with me.

                      #2. I am not “waiting for something that agrees ONLY with a Scientologists perspective….”.

                      I am waiting for a response that actually addresses the issue I raised, of you providing an example of ‘another practice’ that either promotes a result comparable to scientology’s, or actually delivers a result comparable to scientology’s.

                      So far you seem not to understand what I have been saying, so let’s leave it at that.

                      In the mean time, try googling “straw man fallacy” maybe you will get some idea of what I’m talking about here.

                    • Elliot McMann

                      Brian,

                      1) You said, “This is not an auditing session, and I am not auditing you.” So what? The Auditor’s Code says, “I promise not to invalidate a pc’s case or gains IN OR OUT of session.” We’re out of session, but that doesn’t matter. You’ve invalidated my case and gains and those of every Scientologist who’s done the OT levels and found out for himself that the phenomena they address and the stories run are real. You’re an Auditor’s Code violator, who by his own statement intends to keep on violating the Auditor’s Code. That’s continuous overts.

                      2) You also said, “Any knowledge of the spirit learned is not in question.” Yet you blatantly called the OT levels LRH’s “delusion.” So if someone learned that LRH was actually right, and not deluded, would THAT “knowledge of the spirit” be in question? You make no sense. If LRH was deluded, it would be impossible to gain the knowledge that he was right. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

                      3) And what’s this “yes and no” answer to, “Have you done the OT levels yourself?” Have you actually done them or not?

                      (1), (2), and (3) above are all classic 1.1 behavior.

                      You said that other people have done the OT levels and come away doubting them. In the C/S Series LRH explained how that can happen. Either something was skipped in the person’s earlier auditing, leaving him unable to confront the truth at upper levels. Or the person received out tech on the levels themselves. Both happened to many, many people, even before DM took over but certainly after.

                      Your comments are too energetic to be just idle chit-chat. What product are you going for? Do you want people to stop doing OT levels? Is that your game?

                      If the OT levels are true, then it’s obvious that it would be to the advantage of certain bad guys to discourage people from doing them. In fact, it’s pretty standard for implants to include commands influencing their victims to disbelieve that the implants ever happened, and for operations to then be run to keep that disbelief restimulated. THAT’S the REAL “thought stopping.”

                    • martyrathbun09

                      This thread is testament to the shortcomings of the path – and its enemies – by reason of its leading to dramatizaton of the phenomena discussed here: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/dichotomies/

                    • Elliot McMann

                      Marty, I will agree that it’s tough not to get sucked into this type of debate, and that any path to be valid must at some point provide one with immunity from such temptation. Alas, I haven’t reached the end of the path I’ve chosen, which is mainly, but not entirely, LRH. Thanks for the intervention.

                    • Truth can never be invalidated Valkov. It can only be suppressed.

                      And thank you Marty for posting this thread. I sometimes think I’m pushing the limits. But then again I am in good company.

                      Actually, the very fact that we are having this conversation is also testimony to our freedom. A freedom not afforded to the past of Scientology. That in itself is wonderfully liberating.

                      As I have said before, the civility and tone of these discussions plus the fact that we are actually having them may be even more important than the context of them.

                      Thank you Valkov for engaging me in it and thank you Marty for your Marty-ness!

                      Have a good day gents, see you round the next mind bend ;-)

    • Tom Gallagher

      Elliot,

      Thanks for such an eloquent, succinct, and spot on take of the scene. I’ve read your take on all this twice and I’ll read it again to digest all of your points. Thanks for posting this.

  12. There is so much I agree with you on Marty, and then you come up with something like this. Do you think a sort of anarchy is the way to go?
    To me Ron spelled out very clearly what he was after for us all. The ability to have or not have a body and the games of the beingnesses of bodies. The degree to which you think you are a body and a part of the mest universe, is the degree to which you will have problems. Having problems associated with bodies and survival in them is the lesser game, its not the whole thing. I have never come across anything that has approached his deliniation of the subject with a methodology to achieve it. He and many close to him, worked very hard and suffered a lot to bring this about, if he made mistakes, well get over it, why concentrate on the outpoints?

    On 1. Every group has this, the fact that the traits NOW are coming from a lone toned being does not make it a part of Scientology, On 2, does this mean the auditors code or the code of honour should not be followed? Personally I agree with and would follow those codes. On 3, I have never come across it. 4. Well I got alot out of the OT levels, definately dont agree with you on this one. 5. He put forward the future of the track, as he saw it, and told us we could use Scientology or leave it, up to us. What would you do if you had the same reality as to the future of this planet, not say anything?

    “To the extent any purported Scientology practitioner engages in any of these departures, I recommend people steer clear of them. To the degree they do participate in them is the degree to which they will ultimately contribute to a decrease in your awareness and ability.”

    Crap, had some of the best auditing I have ever had from an Independent. The ones I have met are bright, knowledgeable with a great understanding of the tech and who can apply it. And they are alot of fun to be around!!

    Sorry Marty, loved alot of your book but cant agree with you on this post.

    • martyrathbun09

      No one could agree with a statement about what is over a horizon if that person vowed never to look.

    • George

      “I have never come across anything that has approached his deliniation of the subject with a methodology to achieve it.”

      That is true, you haven’t. But because you haven’t doesn’t make it so that it doesn’t exist. And the assumption of certainty that it doesn’t exist, makes it easy to consider that Ron had the “best, most advanced, most scientific.”

      And it is that line of reasoning that leads to the very reason that Scientology is considered repulsive by society.

      By the way, stable exterior is one of Ron’s goals and stated achievments in Scientology’s methodology.

      Have you attained it? Do you know anyone who has? It would be a simple test to prove.

      And if you can’t prove a state that Ron’s methodology promised, what does that say about the methodology.

      I am not saying that there are not methods and proceedures in Scientology that can lead to increased ability and awareness.

      But the same can be said of many other therapies and practices.

      • If a method promises an outcome, and that outcome is never achieved, but that method is still believed in as a science and only truth: that is the essence of a faith and evidence of a belief system.

        • “But the same can be said of many other therapies and practices.”

          I don’t think so. In fact, it seems to me most therapies and practices promise little or nothing. Often they overtly state there are “No Guarantees”.

          • Ok Valkov, Please give me your real world experiences on the practices, procedures , theories and stated outcomes of the other practices you are familiar with.

            Let’s discuss it. I don’t mind being proven wrong as my intention is to get to truth and not be right.

            So please start the dialog and I will listen.

            • OK. Please copy-pasta some examples of “other practices” promo and what they each promise. Let’s compare and discuss.

              Like some Anons like to say, DOX or STFU.

        • Gern Gaschoen

          Sure, unless there is an MU in the ‘science’ somewhere, and the Thetan doing the Applying goes off the rails and doesn’t deliver a product, per Definition. Its what theta do, do.

          See, if you have a whole bunch of nice Science in front of you, whatever it is – let us take Geology, rock-science, one of my favourite kinds – and you go “hmm.. I’m not quite personally sure, although I’ve been told, that this rock and this rock should not go together, but .. well .. I don’t know, those people are Cannibals, maybe they’re tricking me .. oh .. lets just slam ‘em” .. then *BANG* and off goes an arm .. well, did the Science fail you, or did you?

          It is a bit of a quandry, because books don’t do much but get moldy unless someone opens them up, says “yes, I see that” and “how does this work” and .. “this is ‘believed’ to be true, but let us actually use it in present time right now and verify with validity right now, for ourselves, here are some methods others know and use too” .. and the dust gets shaked about. Thetans do dust.

          Anyway, enough poetry. Lets get to the meat of the ‘argument’ here: exteriorization.

          Exteriorization cannot happen unless the state of Stable Clear is attained and acknowledged .. and maintained. It is discovered that exteriorization and attention are very seriously closely related, and the reason for that is flows upon the perceptics, all of which a person should have word-cleared, understood, learned to recognize, acknowledge/describe states, and so on.

          Also, there is something that is too gruesome for some, and light and fairy for others: The Bank is designed to prevent exteriorization, specifically. All and any attention on flows, energies, discord, emnity, and so on .. that is not derived from the theta unit, that is currently in session, is going to impinge across the Theta/MEST *wall*.

          So, you have to be really, really In Session. No out-Ruds = Really, no out-ruds. At All.

          And then of course when you are in that state, the exploration of exteriorization can occur. It is a personal journey, nobody can ever ‘prove’ to you that you can do it, you just do it yourself and see: for yourself. In fact, if ‘exteriorization is real’ were a social phenomenon, wouldn’t you feel like shit right now knowing that you can’t do it? Good thing “you can’t exteriorize, nobody can, end of subject forever” is the normative. The nature of the Theta bonds are that they are, indeed, a 3rd-dynamic trap for the individual.

          It is a very, very, very fine line between Dreams and Reality, and once you start to realize the nature of the universe, Theta variety, and its relationship to universe, Body, things must be executed with *all* rudiments in.

          So, handling of the above is not really possible in a dangerous environment. If you go exterior and start hanging around in the banks and vaults of your local Orgs’ neighborhood, you’ll need to deal with a lot of other facsimiles in the region of your attention. In even the slightest movement of theta attention, along the perceptics, any single “worry”, or “discomfit”, or “other thing floating in my attention” will restimulate the mechanics behind Body-restim and endless Facsimile/overwhelm, etc.

          Alas, way outside the scope of the current 3rd-dynamic ‘reality about the Church, and the Subject too’, there is another reality: it takes about 12 really nice, friendly, theta people to deliver the conditionsn required to deliver stable exterior. There definitely needs to be an Org. There definitely needs to be a safe space with very few major, 3rd-dynamic, distractions. Also, a very well ordered and functioning, happy human kitchen.

          Get that rudiment in, on the 3rd dynamic first, and then attempt exteriorization. See you over the wall.

          • Elliot McMann

            Great comment on exteriorization! So true! Thanks for this, Gern!

          • Why someone can’t go exterior was not the context of my point.

            Ron promised stable exterior. Do you know anyone who has attained it?

            • The sound of crickets……. Chirp chirp chirp

              • Gern exteriorization is not as complicated as that. Actually the full monty is “exterior with full perception”. That was a stated goal and outcome of the OT levels. It got me into Scientology.

                OK…. Exterior means outside of right? And with full perceptions means can see, hear, touch, taste and smell…. Right?…. Very simple.

                So…. Lets give a very clear example. If I am sitting in my recording studio and I stand up and move to my kitchen, that is going exterior from my studio, right? I am now out of my studio (out of my body).

                Now I am in my kitchen and I can see my refrigerator, table glasses etc. I can touch the walls, taste the food, hear the exhaust fan etc etc.
                I can tell you if the apples are green or red.

                That is full perception exterior. An easy test.

                So without getting all esoteric about exteriot with full perceptio….. Oh sorry there is one more word he promised. STABLE….. Stable exterior with full perception.

                Have you attained that or do you know someone who has? The scientism of scientology promised that. It was Ron’s big sales item for us all.

                For all the standard, predictable, accurate, scientific technology that is worshiped on this path, has anyone attained that which standard methodology has promised?

                And if not why is OT methodology not seen as a fallacy?

                OT procedures ultimatley became about the body, about it’s pains and pressures.

                The elephant in the room is stable exterior with full perceptions. It was not delivered and it was promised.

                And believing in a method that has not delivered what was promised is faith and faith alone. Scientology was not supposed to be about faith. It was supposed to be about truth not believing.

                The cognitive dissonance is quite loud.

                “Tom, come out of the closet Tom.” ” No, I”m not in here”

                • Gern Gaschoen

                  I can see you’ve made your mind up. I was prepared to discuss this with you, but okay .. its “just not possible”, so therefore: there is no point.

          • Gern: “Exteriorization cannot happen unless the state of Stable Clear is attained and acknowledged .. and maintained.”

            Huh? What is the above statement based on? Or, how do you know?

            Have you read Marty’s new book yet?

            • Gern Gaschoen

              I know from personal experience, that once I started to be able to exteriorize at Cause, going for Stable meant really, really de-PTS’ed, full ruds in, absolutely good exchange on the dynamics, and so on. Like it or lump it, if you want to explore these aspects of the spiritual experience, there are indeed a large number of constraints which must be addressed, in pretty much all Cases, list-wise. The Theta realm is no fancy mystery, very good tools were built to explore its depths and details, and if you decide to do this with the goal ‘get exterior’, you can indeed attain it. It really helps to just do Scientology from the perspective of getting the results desired, though: if it all seems to you, based on the people you are with in the Org, to be a huge ripoff and some sort of marketing scam that you’ve just walked into, with some friends or so off the street, then there is a really long way to go before the *use* of the Subject becomes something the *user* understands and becomes effective with.

              • Maybe we’re talking about 2 different things here. A person who is not “Clear” can exteriorize.This has happened to many people while doing TRs or CCHs. Is this “Stable” with a capital “S”? Probably not. But many people have experienced exteriorization, with and without Scientology. That’s all I’m saying.

  13. Looks like these points 1 to 5 would be a great public pledge by any group practicing Scn. This touches on a point which has always bothered me. Within organized Scn you have the Code of a Scnist, Creedo of a Group Member, Aims of Scn, etc. all of which seems to be used (and sometimes twisted) on a public member to control that person’s behavior. Yet at the same time there seemed to be a lack of “code of conduct” for staff themselves.
    There is no shortage of horror stories involving extreme reg cycles, financial irregs, threats, duress, deception committed by staff members on the public. And it all seems to roll along unchecked.
    Points 1 to 5 would be a good start, something like:

    We, as a group, will never…
    1) require or force you to become a Scnist
    2) apply force overtly or covertly in an effort to modify your behavior

    and post this in Reception as an R-Factor for the public. How refreshing that would be.
    I thought of couple more…
    6) We will never force you to BE, DO or HAVE anything you do not want
    7) We are here to assist you in recovering your self-determinism, not replace it with ours.

    Anyway, good stuff Marty. Valuable for individuals, as well as any group activity.

  14. Thank you Marty, these ideas are moving up higher. They inspired me.

    I believe we are at the end of the “faith only or else punishment” cycle regarding human potential movements. The end of that old world approach, where we surrender our knowing to an outside agency, is vastly becoming unpopular to human beings craving something much deeper, more fulfilling and authentic.
    The way this new era will be ushered in is by recognizing that direct perception is the only way to true knowledge and liberation from ignorance.

    A path to evolving must do this one thing absolutely: put a person in a condition whereby he/she can see truth directly with nothing in between, no intermediary, no dogma, no lies, no false preconceptions forced on the student.

    And a valid path to direct perception must be able to allow the unique individuality of the perceiver to be fully expressed, validated, acknowledged and celebrated for it’s precious uniqueness.

    Each of us is a scripture unfolding. Each of us is the only way. Each of us is a totally new and original revelation of ancient truths.

    Knower, knowing and known as one.

    And when we are free to directly perceive spiritual truth unadulterated by the bias and ignorance of a cookie cutter mentality, then the sacred happens:

    We find unity in diversity. We find that directly intuited perceptions of truth to be based in Universal Truth. I am, and directly percieve that I am, a soul is not just my truth. It is the Truth and rooted in the Universal Principles of the cosmos we all share.

    But the state of recognizing that unity can never be accopmplished until individuals directly perceive for themselves. And that occurs when individuality is honored and cultivated, not hated and crushed by false doctrines and mind numbing ideologies.

    It does not matter the name of the path, the religion etc. The only thing that matters is: does my process put me in a condition wherby I can peceive truth directly and free myself from suffering and darkness.

    This is the future of religion, where it intersects with science.

    Direct perception of the observer and the observed. Inner and outer truth directly known.

  15. Persons reading here.

    This is a completely off-topic comment, but I would greatly appreciate your participation in a survey I am conducting on my blog of those who have been declared in the last 10 years. If you have not answered the simple survey I would appreciate you taking a minute once done with your reading here.

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/sp-declare-survey/

    Thanks.
    Mike

  16. Thanks for the recommendation Marty. I’ll read it when I finish your latest.

    You are absolutely right on in your assertion of the paramound importance of Act One in auditing. You hit the bullseye by mentioning that little detail about “why and how an auditor must become the being” in order to actually achieve the intended result with the PC.

    Beautiful.

    • +100. Scott, I also believe that once the PC, or recipient of the auditing/counseling has been able to regain their own full ability to be the “being”, the auditor is not longer needed. Thus, the person can graduate from that aspect of scientology, needing the help of another. Then that same person can live their own life as they see fit – they are the full being and, therefore, the captain of their own livingness. As long as dependence is part of the culture and agreement of the pc they can not achieve the full EP and they, also, cannot graduate from that group.

      The independent being, fully aware, is and will always be senior to any group they are part of. There is a sovereign being involved – they need not be subservient nor dependent upon the group, the auditor or even a specific subject. That to me is the road to transcending the “need” for scientology or any other type of subject.

  17. First line of second para should have said, “You are absolutely right on in your assertion of the paramount…”

  18. Interesting comments Marty.

    You made me think of this “dichotomy” or whatever you might want to call it. Call it a riddle or puzzle maybe.

    LRH as I recall seemed to want to help people achieve their goals in auditing. Lots of examples of asking pc’s what their goals for the session are and such. So then let’s say the person wants to start their own religion. Or become the founder of a new line of thought and counsel people.
    LRH also says :
    “THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
    The Creed of the Church of Scientology was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954.
    After Mr. Hubbard issued this creed from his office in Phoenix, Arizona, the Church of Scientology adopted it as its creed because it succinctly states what Scientologists believe.
    We of the Church believe
    That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
    That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.
    That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.
    That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
    That the souls of men have the rights of men.
    That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.
    And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
    And we of the Church believe
    That Man is basically good.
    That he is seeking to Survive.
    That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.
    And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man
    To destroy his own kind.
    To destroy the sanity of another.
    To destroy or enslave another’s soul.
    To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group.
    And we of the Church believe
    That the spirit can be saved.
    And that the spirit alone may save or heal the body.”

    So in that creed LRH is saying that men and women have the right : “That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.”

    So if a person had their own goal to create their own religion or counsel people using some of Scientology and some Buddhism and some poetry and some pottery and some meditation, this would seem to say that the person has this right. I do believe that any person has this right.

    Then enters the ideas of HCO about adherence to squirrel groups? Etc. This seems to be LRH saying that it ISN’T okay for people to have and practice their own ideas if they don’t agree with “standard” Scientology. (whatever that is)

    This is quite the conflict.

    I think as the COS moved forward that it went against it’s own basic principles and derailed. It probably derailed to the point where it could never reset itself and self correct without the admission that some of LRH’s references were incorrect and destructive and contradicted his earlier more noble ideas. I think LRH has to take responsibility for this part of the mess.

    I see you as a person exercising their own rights to practice whatever religious ideas you might have. There could almost be a scale between these two extremes.

    Total Religious Intolerance practiced by “standard scientologists” anyone not adhering to “their brand” of Scientology is a “squirrel” and should be stamped out.

    Tolerant of other religions but not of someone “squirreling” Scientology.

    Tolerant of most religious ideas including people thinking what they want about Scientology as long as they don’t alter it in any way.

    Tolerant of any religious practice as long as it doesn’t violate other peoples Human rights.

    I think the cult entered in this idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” and this perverted the whole calculation as it was enforced on to us by the cult.

    If you had the purpose of starting your own religion for example, this could be a great thing if it was a sane religion. Or if you wanted to be a teacher and teach some of Scientology and other things it would be great. But these goals became unacceptable to the cult because they didn’t forward the greatest good (per the cult)and became “out-ethics.”

    The whole game became a labrynth of fighting between the noble earlier values of the philosophy and the values that Scientology is really the only way out for Mankind.

    • The “Creed of the Church of Scientology” was for display, as part of the effort to convince the public, and governments, that Scientology was a Church.

      If you want to see a more serious (not Public Relations) presentation about what Hubbard wanted Scientologists to believe – not non-Scientologists or “raw meat” wandering into the lobby of an Org who then see the framed ‘Creed’ on a wall – read ‘The Manual on Dissemination of Material’ of March 1955.

      • I think it is not that black-and-white. i think many of the staff and public Scientologists, not just new people, liked the Creed and hoped or believed the CoS was actually standing for those things.

        • The prominently on-display “Creed of the Church of Scientology,” as written by L. Ron Hubbard, emphasizes “rights.” According to L. Ron Hubbard, in his writings, and in his lectures, “reactive minds” or “Suppressive Persons” or those chronically “low on the tone scale,” and “squirrels,” do not have rights.

          There would seem to be an asterisk and some fine print attached to this “Creed of the Church.”

          Non- Scientologists and, perhaps, some very new and naive Scientologists, reading the “Creed of the Church of Scientology,” won’t know about the fine print (about “SPs,” “Squirrels,” and the “low toned,” not having rights), but I’ve never encountered a member of the Church of Scientology who didn’t recognize that all those nice rights described in the “Creed of the Church” did not apply to the “SPs,” etc.

          I’m sorry, but the “Creed of the Church” was always, and is, essentially, PR.

          • I get where you’re coming from. By analogy, many years ago I worked as an aide in a psych hospital for awhile. Many of the front-line staff, the nurses, aides,etc were sincere people who believed wholeheartedly the ‘mission’ of the place was to “help people”. There was no ‘creed’ posted but that was what they thought they were doing and personally really did try to help the patients as much as they could within the system.

            But I could never quite shake the feeling that ‘upstairs’ there were other considerations running.

            • EnthralledObserver

              So… you still wholeheartedly believe ‘The Psychs’ are evil, or a sub-human enemy of man-kind? Really? Are you aware, that before each individual psychologist or psychiatrist does their study, that they are regular people, like you and I, that studied regular study material at a university, thought critically about it, tested it, saw results as defined, then accepted and practiced the material? And not only that… they are then free to expound and re-test, develop and add to that material should they happen on something new, or revolutionary. There is no ‘they’, twelve men/families cannot, and do not control the worldwide mental health field. That’s the most ludicrous thing anyone has ever proposed. The only individual who tried that was LRon… he, with the help of tools like Miscavige, ARE the ‘they’… and they are failing! LRon is the only person who insisted he was the ONLY person to have been right without evidence.
              They are just people, Valkov… some can do bad things, some good… but they are just people. From some of the rubbish sprouted from the mouths of Scientologists, I think a name change is in order… something like Paranoidatologist OR Conspiratoriologist seems a bit more fitting… innit?

              • Sorry EO, I don’t believe any of what you seem to think I believe. You fantasize about what I or others believe and it is delusion on your part. You treat others as though we are two-dimensional cartoon characters, and trot out your stereotypes. It is sad.

                You don’t know me or anything much about me yet you can do this? It is really sad.

                For a little background, I worked in a leading University teaching hospital for quite a few years, in 3 different settings – with adults, with teenagers, and with children. This was in the USA, I got to know many people at all levels of the business. And it is a business.

                You in fact stereotype anyone you think is a “Scientolopgist” just as badly as some “Scientologists” stereotype psychiatrists or “wogs”.If you want to know more about my viewpoints, try visiting Geir Isene’s blog. isene.wordpress.com

                If you just want to litter the environment with your cartoonish thinking, have fun I guess. Soapbox away. But don’t fool yourself that you are ‘having a discussion’.

                If you want to read some good investigative journalism not written by Scientologists but by respected medical journalists from Chicago, try this. It will give you a realistic idea of the politics involved in the business of medicine.

    • Yeah Tony –

      I think writing a Creed of the Church of Scientology, saying this is what “We of The Church Believe”, and ordering that it be hung on the front wall of every church and mission for all new people to see, and then making some parts of that Creed of the Church of Scientology HIGH CRIMES in issues that are not on any walls anywhere – is pretty despicable.

      This is what needs to be exposed to all people who may come in contact with Scientology so that they know that they are being lied to, by L Ron Hubbard, about what “we of the Church believe”.

      Alanzo

    • Hi Tony

      Just one point I would like to make here.

      The concept, or philosophy, or operating principle, of ” “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” sure takes a whipping sometimes.

      Unfortunately this concept, like all others, goes through the filters of every person who reads it, and comes out the other side with their own twist. Some find it helpful as a way of enhancing ALL of THEIR Dynamics. Some think it says some other controlling agency, beyond the person himself, has the right to force or inhibit actions of others. Some use it as a control mechanism to bring others into subjugation.

      But this concept, taken from a pan-determined viewpoint, gives one a personal yardstick for determining the value or harm of their actions on the overall outcome of the creation of optimum survival across their Dynamics.

      Since everything MEST or Spiritual is on your Dynamics someplace, by employing this yardstick sanely, one should move toward more optimal survival for everything.

      If one IS actually improving the greatest number of Dynamics to the greatest degree they are capable of, then that improvement will show up as having produced more optimal survival. It will be an “objective” reality.

      Eric

      • Hi Eric,
        I know that “the greatest good” has value. It is only when computed with a stuck 7 that it goes awry.

      • Margot Diaz Learned

        You need to read “A Tale of Two Cities.” “The greatest good for the greatest number” is the philosophy taken to task in that writing. It goes a long way to demonstrating how that concept can go terribly awry and is not simplistic yardstick it appears to be.

        • I’ve read that book. Great book. I love Charles Dickens.
          I really think that concept is best used by an individual. The saner the better.

          An insane person can use anything and turn it into insanity.

  19. Thanks for the recommended reading, I will pick it up when I have finished your book. Through the first part and it is just a great story. So many great ideas put forth and shared, especially on creating your own reality.
    That is just a great notion, to put out there for others to think about. I mean, plenty of people have never thought that! Or think it is possible! And that you lived with that causative purpose at such a young age is amazing.

    I am back to reading…just wanted to say, I realized at 1/4 way through, that Tony never read the book. I know he said he did. But he didn’t. He might have quick glanced looking for fresh punch for his blog, but no way he read this book and gave that review. He lied. That is why it sounded so non sequitar.

    The book is amazing. The stories and people are amazing. Even the “ordinary” ones. Very funny lines, and the unfolding of the soul over the beer, is something we all need to hear about, the way you write it.

    If you went audio on audible.com it would be flying off the shelf!

    Who else was there living that life at that time? Nobody! Extraordinary!

    • Sorry for the false report on my part, that was an injustice. I just returned to Tony’s blog and his write up, and he never said he read the book.

      • He said: Last week, Mark “Marty” Rathbun sent us a review copy of his newest book, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. We’re grateful that he did.

        I assumed he read it before he gave a review but that was on me.

        He never claimed he read it.

      • I would expect anyone doing a book review to have read the book…. duh.
        Can you really do a book review without reading it?? Lol.

        • At the end he writes: “But after getting through this book’s 326 pages, ..” So it is implied. But that still doesn’t say he read it. He knows the outline of some of it. I assume (my responsibility again) he thumbed through it and updated himself on certain areas and points of interest. There is just so much more in there to write and think about, it seems that only a few details were dredged, what he thought might common interest points for his blog.

    • Also, I only mention adio because a lot of people don’t realize how many books are written, that the story really can’t TOLD. It can be read, but it does not translate through a telling. This is one of those books that you can be told. It had that natural harmony. In fact, I don’t even feel like I am reading it, I feel like I am listening. This is one those books that will really fly in audio!

      • P.S. I had a HUGE realization while reading the part about communication and training routines. Probably will sound whack, but, grade zero should come before the communications course. A person should get up to a point where they are WILLING to communicate first. Then teach them how.

        • Mind you, I spent many early years body routing as a volunteer when I could, for Org’s and missions.

          It was very discouraging to bring 20 or 30 people in over an evening and watch them all leave.

          Oddly, the ones coming in and staying on were people auditors in training were offering free auditing to to get through internships. You may remember, auditors starting internships would just offer to audit someone, anyone.

          Those people stayed.

          I think it is easier to introduce someone also when their first experience is a pleasure experience.

          T.O.

    • TO: Great idea about audible.com – lots of people listen to books/lectures on CD while driving … Great idea …

      This would give a whole new audience!

    • You cant take the scientologist out of the indie. You did not like the book review, so Tony didnt read it, and he is a liar. Reminds me of a certain organization. Disconnection, lies, the hole, lies, Marty Rathbun, liar and all around bad person, and abusing church executives, all lies. Although most of the people who have read Warrior seem to think it was a great read, not all have. Using your logic, oracle, if that is your real name, that anyone who doesnt enjoy this book is a liar who did’nt read it.

      • martyrathbun09

        Did you read it?

      • Using your logic is A=A=A. Whatever I say = C of S = Scientology + disconnect etc etc etc. Whatever my viewpoint is is because I = Scientology = disconnect + etc etc etc.

        YOU are the one stuck in something, not me. We all = something / someone else.

        I did “use my logic”, jeb.

        • Please quit speaking in scientology Oracle.. I have no idea what your reply is or what the hell you just said. You called Tony Ortega a liar with no evidence and that seems to be the way of the church,.Tony’s site has been very resourceful to me in understanding the COS, as has Martys. .Im not a scientologist and never have been. Im one ot the 99% that when introduced to it, saw it for the scam it was. No Marty, i have not read your book. I have no interest in paying full price for any book.But I will eventually read it. My interest in Scientology is the cult has taken over the town I live in, Clearwater, and I went online to see what the hell scientology is and was directed to your site, among many.

          • martyrathbun09

            Read my book if you’ve got the balls to (or be a eunuch like Tony). You might learn, that contrary to repeated positive suggestion, Scientology – though it might be any number of things to any number of people – is not as you so vehemently contend, a scam.

            • Dictionary definition of a scam: A fraudulent scheme for money, a swindle. Sounds like the church of scientology to me. If you try to practice scientology without giving the church money, you are a squirrel, I think that is what the siily term is. Im attempting to grow a set of balls, If I am able to, then maybe I will find the courage to order your book. But i will have to ask Tony first, to see if he will give me permission.

              • “If you try to practice scientology without giving the church money,”….. Does this imply you recognize some difference between “scientology” and the “church of scientology”? Some difference between the philosophical ideas and the embodied form the Church has taken?

                It’s kinda like asking, Is the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, hunting witches and heretics and burning them at the stake, the same as the ideals and principles of Christianity? Or was it a corruption of those? It was all justified by interpretation ‘scripture’ after all, wasn’t it?

                I don’t think you can necessarily accurately judge the basic philosophy by a particular expression or embodiment of it.

          • Plus and minus symbols and the letter A is not “Scientology”.

            They are symbols used across the planet.

            I did retract my statement that Tony was liar, as I pointed out, he never claimed he read the book. That was my assumption.

            Let’s leave at it this.

            You are right.

            I am wrong.

            And you were right when you said, “You cant take the scientologist out of the indie.”

            There is no part of me or my life I make an effort to discard or disown.

            I am not ashamed of any of it. And I don’t blame anyone else for any part of it. Because I am not sorry for any of it.

            I don’t apologize to myself or to anybody else for what I have been or who I am.

            I don’t owe anyone an apology. I have a right to me, and everything I have been. I live in the life I have created. I live with the consequences of my choices.

            I have posed no inconvenience or expense to you, for being me. Or for having lived my life. It cost you nothing to use the Internet to try to degrade me or make me feel bad about myself. I don’t even owe you a refund.

            And I am happy being me.

            I wish the same for you.

  20. I have seen some of the results of 1-5 above and it was not pretty!!

  21. Marty,
    Thanks for emphasizing the importance of the First Act. It is an often ignored vital part of auding. It is unlikely that much auditing can occur without this being in. Yes! Auditors ARE supposed to meditate. :-)

    I have finished actually reading What is Wrong With Scientology in stead of skimming it and am part way through Warrior. Thanks for filling in many blanks and validating many things that I intuitively knew.
    One conclusion so far is that you are an amazing, well intentioned person with a very deep and pure understanding of Scientology Tech. I can see why neither David Miscavige nor Tony Ortega can easily have the fact that you exist. Thanks for being here anyway.

  22. Phil Bruemmer

    Well said Marty.
    You do good Qual.
    Really, sometimes I read something here and go away feeling like I just had a good correction cycle in a real Qual.
    Act 1 was drummed into me by a great intern super back in ’80-’81 and it became something I just did naturally. It prevented me committing many sins, along with no eval and no inval.
    I have to admit however that I later slipped on the “no eval”, as a C/S.

    I just got the book “On Becoming a Person” and it’s next up on my list after “The Divine Matrix” by Gregg Braden.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Phil. The ‘drummed in’ and having to prevent oneself from ‘committing many sins’ is precisely what I was addressing. Far simpler and more effective to get a complete grasp of the mechanics at play and so a natural inclination to perform accordingly.

  23. windhorsegallery

    Skillful means = various methods that enable a practitioner to achieve the purpose of the philosophy/religion, which in buddhism is essentially to “know thyself”

    Knowing thyself isn’t very doable when what is at the forefront of most of our minds is a continuous churning of thoughts. Thoughts that feel real because they often mirror or logically follow our lives, but they actually obscure/hide the truth.

    Marty has laid out in #1-5 above what to watch for that could override any scientological or otherwise “skillful means”

    I would hate to see this become a … ALL SKILLFUL MEANS are bad and thus should never be used. Brian’s comment about the track and saying it is this way and thus an evaluation is TRUE; HOWEVER, it, doesn’t IN and OF itself mean it’s bad.

    IF you continue to work at moving on up — the skillful means you used can fall away and you are left with you.

    After all, you don’t leave a ladder on the side of your home once you are finished painting it. You take down the ladder and admire your work.

    Christine

  24. windhorsegallery

    Buddhist thought teaches that it is our “MERIT” that enables us to attain various elevated states of mind/being … some are pretty exceptional like clairvoyance …

    On a lesser scale, because of our “MERIT” we can understand teachers who APPEAR to some to speak in riddles or gobbledygook — while others sit there knowingly nodding their heads.

    What is “MERIT” — basically the accumulation of more positive deeds than negative deeds. And IF you believe in rebirth, then it posits that some COME INTO THIS LIFE in better shape than others.

    And those that are more inclined to want to help their fellow man – gravitate towards various paths that help mankind. And somehow navigate their own lives pretty well.

    It is “MERIT” to me that explains why a child of dysfunctional (perhaps mentally ill) parents rises above his/her siblings to work hard to free himself from the apparently locked in genetic codes that materialists would say define him/her and his/her earlier childhood environment.

    The missing factor … MERIT. Not the thetan per se but the MERIT accumulated by the being/person.

    Even if one doesn’t believe in past lives or rebirth – it is the MERIT accumulated from the get-go this lifetime that separates the person from his genetically locked-in-stone brethren.

    Christine

    • Elliot McMann

      I certainly agree that being a good person is a pre-requisite for making any substantial spiritual progress. But there are different schools of Buddhism, with slightly different takes on the issue of merit. I am most familiar with Zen Buddhism, and from that perspective offer the following:

      In Zen Buddhism, merit is important, but is not external to the person. It’s not the objective balance, out in the physical universe, of good deeds vs bad deeds. It’s one’s subjective consideration that it’s OK to know and be free. Therefore it can change quickly.

      One of the most famous and instructive Zen stories is about the meeting between Bodhidharma and Emperor Wu. By about the year 500 AD, Wu had made Buddhism legal in China, and had endowed many Buddhist monasteries. But there were no enlightened Buddhist masters yet in China, just a lot of monks studying translations of Buddhist scriptures. They needed guidance. Bodhidharma, an enlightened Zen master from India, traveled to China to fill that need. His first stop was to pay his respects to Emperor Wu.

      When they met, Wu asked Bodhidharma, “What merit have I gained through my great works?” Bodhidharma answered, “None whatsoever.” Surprised and disturbed by this response, Wu then asked, “If my good deeds have gained me no merit, what then is the essence of Buddhism?” Bodhidharma answered, “I don’t know.” Wu then asked, “If you don’t know, who is it that stands before me now?” Bodhidharma answered, “Nobody.” Wu was outraged and threw Bodhidharma out.

      Each of Bodhidharma’s answers was correct. “Nobody” meant “without a particular self that in turn requires any particular doingness or havingness.” “I don’t know” meant “without ideas getting in the way of observation of what is.” “No merit whatsoever” meant that in the final analysis it is not our deeds themselves that make enlightenment possible, but our thoughts about them.

      “Right conduct” (ethics) and the rest of the “Eightfold Path” are important as a context that facilitates spiritual progress, and even as a pre-requisite for most people. But in the final analysis the runway is only as long as one’s failure to confront what he’s created makes it. Thus in Zen, enlightenment can come suddenly, albeit in stages. And Scientology auditing can work.

  25. I very much appreciate all that you have said here, Marty, and the contributions from your commenters.

    I have not (yet) read “On Becoming a Person”. I shall. Tell me, do you think someone who adopted the Basic Auditing Series as their prime stable data in re: counseling others would have this same viewpoint?

    I talked with someone recently about how simple it would be to clean up 90% of Corporate Scientology’s present time problems. I think that some of it fits here.

    1. Amnesty to everyone without any conditions at all. Totally clean slate.
    2. Restoration of all cancelled certs, including pre-GAT.
    3. There was a program that treated SO “Freeloader Debts” fairly some years ago. As I recall, the debt would sort of “recycle” every 5 years. At the end of 5 years, there would be no debt and the amount potentially owing would begin again, but would be reduced by 20% every passing year. E.g., a person leaving after 7 years would owe nothing for all services received in the first 5 years, and would receive 40% off on all services in the subsequent two years if he were to break contract.
    4. All past Class V org staff who have completed a 2 1/2 year contract or 5 year contract given vouchers to train to Grad V whenever they want. Same to also be given 1/2 off on their Briefing Courses and OT levels whenever they want them. (In other words, give these people what was promised in their contracts.)
    5. Those who have paid to buildings, cornerstone projects and IAS to have all such monies credited to the org(s) of their choice for use by themselves, their families or by their employees. IAS to actually pay these monies to the respective orgs.
    6. Re-pricing of Scientology services as per the pricing formulas in OEC Vol 3.
    7. How spokesman for the Church should discuss Ron’s whole track stuff and Xenu, etc. “Yes, the Xenu story is intrinsic to much of the material in the OT levels and it is acknowledged that much of what Ron Hubbard discusses in his lectures regarding the history of the universe or principle events that have occurred is held as untrue by modern science. It is also acknowledged that much of the material that Ron asserted as true and historical fact in regards to the whole track are not verifiable. It is also true that many people feel that they have benefited from working with these processes even when aware of these scientific opinions and having their own doubts. Even so, it is interesting to note that the preponderance of opinion amongst those who have received these services is that they have benefited from them. It appears that Scientology is again very much like most of the world’s major religions in that we also have our own beliefs that others scoff at. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, certainly, Hinduism all have their cosmologies and their ardent adherents, some of whom regard these stories as metaphor, some of who regard them as completely true, regardless of educated and contrary opinion. No one is being forced to do the OT levels and people receiving Dianetic auditing are informed that the Founder’s ideas about the whole track are only that: his ideas. Anyone is free to accepts these stories as true or only Ron’s beliefs.” (Even with this, there would still be a big percentage wanting to do the OT levels. Particularly if they were priced with reality.)
    8. Get confessional auditors back to being aware of the “Craftsmanship” tape, dump the anal little nuances of what an overt could be… where it was clearly defined that an overt actually involved real (not imagined) harm to another person! (Wow. What a concept!) Dump the use of confessionals and ow write-ups for organizational political “crimes”.
    9. Disband the IAS and all these other off source money grubbing activities after all the monies have been re-credited as above. Refund quickly to anyone who wants it back. Re-implement the HASI membership as Scientology’s sole membership program, perhaps with some slight adjustment in cost.
    10. Make arrangements with property management companies to lease out or sell these huge gaudy buildings. Get all the orgs back to high traffic areas with mismatched Samsonite chairs and real people in the div 6es that put people on a tough TRs course that gives wins and and HQS objective co-audit. Life Repair program restored that is low priced but high enough to be viable and leaves new people glowing 50 foot auras after two to three weeks in and a couple grand (max) spent.

    Well, a fellow can dream, can’t he?

    • “You may say
      I’m a dreamer,…. but I’m not the only one
      I hope someday you’ll join us
      And the world will live as one”…..the Beatles

      I’m loving your dream Dan. Do you have room in there for me?

      • Marty certainly makes his point well. Corporate Scientology doing things like this? It’s a dream unlikely to come true. Yet I am hearing more and more of people in the field doing things as sanely. Perhaps not in the particulars, but overall.

        Loving hearing what Marty is doing; there are others as well who are building better bridges.

        I see the future of Scientology being much along the lines that Marty has been describing: locating the real “wheat” of the subject and just allowing the chaff to be blown away; the real value of Scientology has been recognized by many, and there’s many people around who are smart enough to see what are the real fundamentals and what are the arbitraries that have been layered on top of it.

        Actually the only reason it seems to not have worked and the only reason that it’s in difficulty now is identification; a monotone assignment of importances. I think the held down 7 is something like this: “Anything that LRH ever said is just as important as anything else he ever said.” Maybe one more: “Int management orders and directives are not to be contested, even when they are ridiculous.” Kind of as crazy as “Whatever DM tells us is to be as revered as if it was Ron talking with us about the Axioms.”

        Marty has done very well in his looking at this whole subject and deciphering it’s strengths. It’s good to see so many hear commenting in alignment with this. No matter what happens with the “official Church” the key value of the subject itself will become vital again as more people who are and who have been involved rehabilitate their interest in the core subject and choose to look at it again “with new eyes” and differentiate again. It’s really not hard at all. The valuable stuff brightens us up, produces realizations, certainty and makes more fun. The other stuff activates our bull shit detectors and fills us with doubts: not just about our group, but our selves as well.

    • I look at list like that and I just think one thing- Healing.

    • “Amnesty” seems to have replaced “cleaning up the field” with auditing.

      “We will for give all, IF you come in and write up YOUR crimes” seems to be as far as the Church will bend since Miscavige took over.

      The last communication I had with Miscavige was a letter from me to him telling him to take his amnesty and……..shove it. 1993.

      What a comm lag! December 2012 I find Jimmy , reporter from Freedom Mag / OSA messenger on my front porch asserting that I am in “good standing with the Church”.and trying to collect intel.

      These are the type of comm cycles that David has with the world.

      Frankly, I don’t think the majority of the people out here or off lines could care less if the Church “forgives them” or not.

      We are shoppers. The Church is a store. How do you forgive your shoppers for not shopping?

      Just keeping it real………..

    • martyrathbun09

      Dan,
      Great post, thanks. On Basic Auditing Series, no. Simply because it is a summation. It is a great summation – and absolutely ought to be the part of any auditor/counselor study. However, HCOBs for the most part are sum ups, compilations of datums from lectures. Now, if one listened to all the lectures that series was derived from (probably a couple dozen) you’d be getting somewhere. However, you’d also be introduced to a lot of potentially misdirective material that could seriously cloud the matter (such as digressions on Marcabs, alleged OT abilities, suppressives, psychs, and perhaps even politics, government, or you name it). As to your dream, a great manifesto. However, I think my latest book makes a strong for case for that only ever being a dream. That is because of the catch-22 of Scientology – for every reasonable policy or advice (read scripture) you find to support your ideas, one or more can be found to shoot them down – makes the subject (as the entire package it insists it be taken as) in need of evolution. IMHO.

    • EnthralledObserver

      That’s be a pretty good start to COS having a chance to stay in existence, except for I disagree with the Freeloader debt altogether. Dump it… people are giving their time which ought to be seen as valued far higher than any service the COS could offer.

  26. Marty,
    For me the most basic LRH’s betrayal and squirreling of his own technology was the introduction of group mandated security checking, as there is absolutely no justification for not maintaining “security checking” within the formal auditing confines.

    It just simple violates all that LRH set out to do, and the ONLY RIGHT he ever had, which is to simply counsel willing people for their own betterment.

    This enforced “auditing” also opens the door for future implantation, as now you have a subject that is being forcefully (by overt or implied threats) to introvert and then “extrovert” by turning over his own mind control and life to third party handlers.

    The extroversion that occurs is only subjective, as now the person remains in possession of the group.

    When you add to that the tomes of mandatory and threatening morals codes, under the guise of “Ethics” you end up with what we have in Scientology, a very clever Religious Control Operation.

    Too bad, as at the end of the day the only good of Scientology is about counseling willing people for the own desired betterment.

  27. Margot Diaz Learned

    Thank you Marty. I appreciate your journey. I am looking forward to the book. I audited for a number of years, was auditor of the year for my org and had good success. I was able to avoid the Golden Age of Tech after completing the retrain of Student Hat with it. I got lost in the mishmosh that Scn became at that time, but now I’m found and know what I know. Life is so much broader, interesting and exciting this way. I don’t find myself with enough time to do the exploration you are involved in, so I truly appreciate your direction.

  28. gretchen dewire

    Man, I am half way through your book and can not believe all the extra bullshit created around a technology to set people spiritually free. Well if a thetans purpose is to create an effect, they certainly are doing that. Well done LRH. Marty, on your post here you tell us what to look for when looking for an auditor or other type of counselor,but is there some criteria that you as an auditor are looking for in a PC? or does anyone just make an appointment and fly to south texas? Just wondering

  29. Could it be this philosophy being based upon the premise, (if that be true) that the engram IS, necessitating the need for ALL beings to follow certain Tech to gain an ability of freedom within and beyond MEST, is misguiding? The pinch point in the hourglass, if you will, through which all must pass to merge with ALL THAT IS. Might it be that there was a misconception on Ron’s part that led him to his theories? An inner experience of a being that touched upon the unknowable and the interpretation the mind transferred to logic. Adding yet another philosophy, acting in union with or at times an alternative to others, through which the evolution of being is inevitably progressing via infinite possible paths. If so all the invalidation of others practices becomes an inconvenient mistake that can be used to learn from and move on. Offering one explanation of why certain Tech might be working for some and not for others. Also opening opportunities to follow multiple disciplines or practices to gain better understanding of one self, without the concern that abilities of being will be stunted or not forthcoming.

    • martyrathbun09

      I am not introducing another philosophy. I am introducing to you the source of yours. Blood does circulate.

      • I apologize for my lack of clarification in the opening of my remark. I was not referring to your statements. I was talking about the practices Ron developed. I believe that each and everyone of us is responsible, unto ourselves, to find our true being.

        • martyrathbun09

          Sorry for the non sequitur response. I was reading on a smart phone on the road and missed enitrely what you were saying.

  30. Marty: …”That is because of the catch-22 of Scientology – for every reasonable policy or advice (read scripture) you find to support your ideas, one or more can be found to shoot them down – makes the subject (as the entire package it insists it be taken as) in need of evolution. IMHO….” ……………AMEN and pretty succinctly sums it up for me as well. EVOLVE.

  31. Pingback: My Practice | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  32. Pingback: Why Scientologists Cannot Be Trusted | Moving On Up a Little Higher

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