What’s Going On?

I came across an interesting passage in a book – the passage originally published in 1963 – by a prominent psychologist predicting quantum advancements in human consciousness by the marrying of religious and philosophic wisdom with rapidly evolving science. It is fifty years later and it seems Scientology is only now beginning to go through the throes of differentiating the adults (truth seeking spiritualists and values inspired scientists) from the children (flat earth religionists and reductionist-mechanistic inclined scientists).  Scientology seems, to steal a verse from U2, stuck in a moment that it can’t get out of.  From Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, by Abraham H. Maslow:

These two groups (sophisticated theologians and sophisticated scientists) seem to be coming closer and closer together in their conception of the universe as ‘organismic’, as having some kind of unity and integration, as growing and evolving and having direction and, therefore, having some kind of ‘meaning.’ Whether or not to call this integration ‘God’ finally gets to be an arbitrary decision and a personal indulgence determined by one’s personal myths.  John Dewey, an agnostic, decided for strategic and communicative purposes to retain the word ‘God’, defining it in a naturalistic way.  Others have decided against using it also for strategic reasons.  What we wind up with is a new situation in the history of the problem in which a ‘serious’ Buddhist let us say, one who is concerned with ‘ultimate concerns’ and with Tillich’s ‘dimensions of depth’, is more co-religionist to a ‘serious’ agnostic than he is to a conventional, superficial, other-directed Buddhist for whom religion is only habit or custom, i.e., behavior.

Indeed, these ‘serious’ people are coming so close together as to suggest that they are becoming a single party of mankind, the earnest ones, the seeking, the questioning, probing ones, the ones who are not sure, the ones with a ‘tragic sense of life’, the explorers of the depths and of the heights, the ‘saving remnant.’  The other party then is made up of all the superficial, the moment-bound, the herebound ones, those who are totally absorbed with the trivial, those who are ‘plated with piety, not alloyed with it’, those who are reduced to the concrete, to the momentary, and to the immediately selfish.  Almost, we could say, we wind up with adults, on the one hand, and children, on the other. 

151 responses to “What’s Going On?

  1. Exceedingly well put. Adults seem to be those that can actually think for themselves and have a true spiritual goal. Children need to be led and directed and just want to belong, regardless of what it is they belong to.

    It is funny my goal in Scientology was always spiritual enlightenment. I didn’t want OT powers, a perfect memory, or behavior modification (though I got the last to my chagrin) or anything else. Just More understanding of the true nature of spirit. Maybe that is where there is a difference between adults and children as described above.

  2. Because I tend to still have a “resist” on psychology or authors who are psychologists, I have put off reading Maslow — even though years ago my fav. modern philosopher – Ken Wilbur – spoke of him, often.

    I’ve now ordered the book — through Amazon. Better hurry to those who perhaps have also not read Maslow yet — only 11 more left in stock :)

    Thanks Marty. I’m always inspired by your continuous push on helping those so interested in widening their view (which per force opens their hearts)

    Christine

    • Just a bit of clarification: I have at least 8 friends who are psychologists — so I have ZERO problem with the profession – just a problem with some of the books I’ve been given in the past because of my own laziness and unwillingness to learn the vocabulary.

      Just don’t want a bunch of replies that are along the lines of — don’t blame you they are all crazy or something :)

      • martyrathbun09

        Maslow’s book – and a lot of his work – is all about religious and spiritual development. I think it will quite easy for you to understand.

        • Marty, it is not the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology that are the culprits. It is wrongdoer’s INSIDE the Church of Scientology that are and always will be responsible for the negative 3rd party about the 2 subjects the public currently entertains as the truth about them. Do you remember a time years ago, when there was no such thing as Anyonymous, Independents, YouTube or Wikileaks criticism of the Church of Scientology to deter them in their criminal acts? People inside the church would go home and practice the lies they were going to tell people the next day on staff for their church. LRH Was alive if you recall? Today, people already HAVE the truth about the Church of Scientology IN ADDITION to OT II, OT III, OT IV and NOT’s materials with which it protect themselves from the church’s lies. What more could anyone ask for? The people that originally set out to make believe they were helping people go Clear and OT discover from the public, the church’s services are no longer needed and wanted? Everyone wants a church where they can go on Sunday and just BE. The Church of Scientology as the truth about it shows, never has been and is not the church people need, in spite of LRH’s discoveries. :)

      • Tom Gallagher

        Christine & Marty,

        I had no idea that Maslow touched upon these subjects because of my early 1974ish (sophomore in college) inculcation with RCS. I recall interfacing with PhD psychology professors, who I went out of my way to insult verbally and thought-wise condemn.

        RCS staunchly asserts it’s us versus THEM!

        Truth-be-known, we’re all in the same boat.

  3. Funny, I was just thinking about Maslow today. “Self actualization” seems to be about as close to the idea of “going Clear” as anything I’ve seen in modern psychology.

  4. Tom Gallagher

    “…we wind up with adults, on the one hand, and children, on the other. ”

    Such is my observation on a continual basis whether here on this blog or others, in my neighborhood, country, world, or even professionally. Oh, and let me add my own immediate family now that the six of us ‘orphans’ are well into our 50′s and 60′s.

    Some are purposefully naive and some few have chosen to seek a path of sought-out enlightenment on a practical and spiritual realm.

    I choose to be both ‘an adult and a child’ regards viewpoints, considerations and conclusions.

    Otherwise, aren’t I but another spiritual cinder?

    Finally, let me ask a question that seems timely:

    Who have you disconnected from lately?

    • Tom Gallagher

      My song for the night……….

    • martyrathbun09

      To whom is the question addressed?

      • Tom Gallagher

        You asked: Jim Logan.

        • This really got turned around 180 degrees in a hot minute. Jim Logan stopped posting here months ago. He has disconnected from Steve Hall, according to Steve Hall on his blog:

          0 # Thoughtful 2013-06-27 01:08
          Update: strangely, she and Jim Logan have now disconnected from me, Haydn, Lucy, Mike Rinder, Karen de la Carierre, Sinar, Betsy Repen, and they also left the Indie group on facebook. Sorry for mis-duplicating you.
          - See more at: http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/470-milestone-two-fail#sthash.v9RZu39v.dpuf

          Sinar, several others, according to Sinar:

          +11 # Sinar Parman 2013-06-25 12:33
          Thanks very much Steve, Haydn and Lucy for clarifying where you stand.

          There are a few points about M2 which as written cannot be supported as it divides the Indies.

          Disconnection is definitely alive as Logan (but not Lana) has disconnected from me, some Indie friends and other more prominent Indies who have pioneered the movement despite personal dangers and hardships.
          - See more at: http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/470-milestone-two-fail#sthash.v9RZu39v.dpuf

          and 240 Face Book people from the Scott Campbell’s group.

          Yet, here is someone implying Marty has disconnected from Jim Logan.

          Wrong item. Wrong indication. Wrong Who.

          This is why groups implode upon themselves and restimulate one another.

          • And so what if Jim Logan did disconnect from everyone? People disconnect all across the planet every day, by dying, by relocating, by changing jobs and neighborhoods. People decide they do not want to occupy the same space as others every minute of the day planet wide.
            Child birth is the baby disconnecting.

            Are we going to swing to enforced connection from enforced disconnection?

            Isn’t that a bit out code of honor?

            What exactly is the accusation here and the crime and the guilt conveyed?

            Who is to BLAME?

            I have to hire and fire people all the time depending on work projects . If someone is done painting a home and I am going to sell it and I pay him and say “good by” I have disconnected. So F’n what? If someone is caught smoking pot out back and making someone else do his work and I don’t call him back to work on the next project, I am supposed to apologize?

            The protests about disconnects have been about ENFORCED disconnects in the Church. Not someone who lost interest in an Internet Blog!

            Am I to go bang my head on the mirror if I start to read a book and do not finish it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have I, “disconnected” from the author!!!!!!!!!!!!

            What if I leave the theater before the movie is over?

            Have I “disconnected” from the producer and the actors and the support staff!

            Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!

          • Kind of reminds of the church. :) I know what it is that the Church of Scientology almost found out about me. :) And you know what? I don’t want them knowing what it is! :)

          • “The Oracle” – How is it that you happen to know the membership figure for Scott Campbell’s Facebook Group “Indie Scientologist” or that Jim Logan has disconnected from all of our members ?

            At a guess, I reckon you have at least one fictitious Facebook identity (profile) that is a member of Indie Scientologist. Perhaps another one that is not a member of Indie Scientologist but is on Jim Logan’s friend list ?

            Our group is private and has written guidelines from Karry Campbell (the real owner/moderator) that information from our group is not to be relayed or published outside of it, “The Oracle”. Fictitious identities are not allowed either.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

            • First of all, I put the quotes right above Mike. These were quotes on Steve Hall’s Blog.

              Second, I was told by someone on this forum in an email how many people “Logan and Lana “disconnected” from.

              Third, I was asked by several people to be a member of that Face Book page and told about the group by Scott before you even were on it.
              It is not necessary for me to be a “Spy”. I CHOSE not to be on that group page even though I have been INVITED. By SEVERAL people.

              I CHOOSE not to be on ANY Face Book Group Pages.

              Take your comm ev and accusations and prosecutions onto someone else’s lines. I am not the ethics particle as you suggest and and neither am I bound by secret codes.

              Scott and Karry Campbell know perfectly well who I am, where I live, and how to dial the telephone to call me. I have a had REAL, not an Internet, connection with Scott Campbell for over a year.

              When you want to have it out with me, send me your address and set your key board on the shelf. I don’t have a problem driving to L.A..

              • “At a guess, I reckon you have at least one fictitious Facebook identity (profile) that is a member of Indie Scientologist. ”

                That would be the direction your mind would go to wouldn’t Mike? That I am basically treasonous, evil, sneaky, covert. And I some how had that information through dark and dubious means.

                That you even publish such innuendo here, with NO evidence, is a perfect example how of easily people can be restimulated into dark places the their mind. And spread this restimulation else where and drag people into others doubt conditions.

                As the appointed “security chief” for that Facebook Page, wouldn’t you know who is on that page? Oh! How did I get that information! Was it pilfered as I sneaked about under sock puppet identities? Possible! Except it is smeared all over ESMB!

                Targeting me for public execution because YOU get restimulated into dark imaginings? I now dub you, “The Red Queen”.

                • Please dis connect from me!

                • And JUST for your INFO, I didn’t even find out how many people were on that FB page because of someone’s “TREASON” that you are on a rampage about. (Posted all over ESMB by now) (No, I am not there under fictitious means either. People CAN READ IT that are not members. In case you didn’t know.)

                  There was even any EVIL connected to the numbers I received! Someone was telling me what POPULAR PAGE it is and why I should join! And you manage to twist this into a CRIME! JUST SICK and TWISTED social intercourse!

                  You have NO AUTHORITY to monitor or DOMINATE MY comm lines.

                  • Oh Mike! It is all over ESMB now! How, by the mere fact that someone was inviting me on to a Face Book Group, and promoting it’s success at 240 Members, has turned into an ETHICS INVESTIGATION and TREASON DECLARES and a WITCH HUNT looking to mark the new week with a PUBLIC EXECUTION and some BLOOD LETTING!

                    This is EXACTLY I am REPELLED at the K.S.W. scene and those that choose to MOCK IT UP ALL OVER AGAIN!

                    • What is the “K.S.W. body count” at now on that FB page Mike? Bet it has dropped from 240 since three or four days ago and there has been at least one public execution? Is everyone completely re stimulated yet? Have you “put ethics in” on the “top secret” group fully? Does it feel like the Int base from people’s key boards yet? Go get em Mike!!!!
                      KEEP it WORKING Mike! Mock it up all over again Mike!

                    • It isn’t the reporters and the media that make Hubbard look crazy! It is THIS kind of irrational abuse “Scientologists” choose to wallow in under the banner of “Love for L. Ron Hubbard and mankind” that make Hubbard and every Scientologist look CRAAAAAAAZY!

              • Evidently I was much mistaken. My humble apologies, then.

                Michael A. Hobson
                Independent Scientologist

                • I have been much mistaken myself on occasion. OH YEAH!!!! I’ve made some HUGE MISTAKES! Let’s forgive each other AND ourselves! XXOO

                  “I tell you the only unethical thing I have ever been able to discover is for an individual to deny himself. And if an individual thoroughly enough denies himself, believe me, he’s unethical because he’ll wind up by denying himself and everybody else and everything across the eight dynamics, pang! So that’s real unethical—also immoral”
                  — L. Ron Hubbard

        • Removing people from you Facebook Friends List is not even *REMOTELY* similar to “Disconnection” as practiced by members of the Church of Black Scientology. Making that assertion is nothing but a PR lie intended to defame the person who did the defriending.

          Don’t believe me? Ask yourself whether any of the people Jim Logan has removed from his FB friends list are losing their Real Life(tm) family, friends or means of livelihood, which is the consequences of CofS enforced *disconnection*.

          I don’t approve of this action at all. It certainly is not demonstrating the use of the tools of Scientology(no TM) to resolve upsets. But it is *NOT* “disconnection”.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

          • martyrathbun09

            You would be mistaken to believe that, on this one.

          • Obviously you didn’t even read my post above on disconnection before you planted yourself on a soap box.

            Please dis connect from me.

          • Use this tool of Scientology to resolve your upsets. And the upsets of every other fanatic running around out there:

            Security Check Children

            Bulletin September 21, 1961

            The following is a processing check for use on children.

            Be sure the child can understand the question. Re phrase it so he or she can understand it. The first question is the most potent.

            Children’s Security Check Ages 6 – 12

            What has somebody told you not to tell? (Isn’t this your issue)?
            Have you ever decided you did not like some member of your family?
            Have you ever taken something belonging to somebody else and never given it back?
            Have you ever pretended to be sick (ill)?
            Have you ever made yourself sick (ill), or hurt yourself to make somebody sorry?
            Have you even wanted something every much, but never told anybody about it?
            Have you ever gotten yourself dirty on purpose?
            Have you ever refused to eat just to worry someone?
            Have you ever remembered something about yourself and not told anybody, because you thought they wouldn’t believe you, or be angry at you?
            Have you ever refused to obey an order from someone you should obey?
            Have you ever told another child something that wasn’t true, just to frighten or upset him?
            Have you ever bullied a smaller child?
            Have you ever deliberately got another child, or a grown-up, into trouble?
            Have you ever pestered grown people, who were trying to work?
            Have you ever been mean, or cruel, to an animal, bird or fish?
            Have you ever forgotten to give food or water to a pet entrusted to your care?
            Have you ever broken something belonging to someone else?
            Have you ever deliberately spoiled clothing of yours because you didn’t like it?
            Do you have a secret?
            Have you ever noticed something wrong with your body that you were afraid to tell anybody about?
            Have you ever done anything you were very much ashamed of?
            Is there anything about you your parents could not understand, even if you told them?
            Have you ever failed to finish your schoolwork on time?
            Have you ever flunked an examination at school?
            Have you ever deliberately given a teacher trouble?
            Have you ever tried to make others dislike some teacher?
            Have you ever tried to make another child unpopular?
            Have you ever broken, damaged, or taken, any school property?
            Have you ever lied to a teacher?
            Have you ever been late to school, or late to a class?
            Have you ever stayed away from school, when you could have gone??
            Have you ever cheated by copying someone else’s work, taking notes into an examination, or looking up answers in a book when you weren’t supposed to?
            Have you ever spoiled things for somebody?
            Who have you made guilty?
            Have you ever done something you shouldn’t when you were supposed to be in bed or asleep?
            Have you ever told others bad stories about someone?
            Have you ever tried to make others believe that your parents, or teachers, were cruel to you?
            Have you ever offered as an excuse for something you have done wrong that you are only a child, or that you haven’t grown up yet?
            Have you ever felt that your parents and home were too good for you?
            Have you ever felt that your parents and home weren’t good enough for you?
            Is there anything you should tell your parents, and never have?
            Have you ever done anything to some else’s body that you shouldn’t have?
            Have you ever told anyone that you did something, when you hadn’t really done it?
            Have you ever told anyone that you hadn’t done something which you really had done?
            Have you ever ganged up on another child and made fun of him because he was different from the rest of you?
            Have you ever made fun of another because of the way he looked?
            Have you ever decided never to talk to someone again?
            Have you ever made your parents or teachers work harder than they should?
            Have you ever decided that you were too bright, or too smart for the other kids?
            Have you ever annoyed an adult by something you did or said?
            Have you ever hurt a child?
            Have you ever mae a child cry?
            Have you ever made a child sulk?
            Have you ever kept another child from having something that really belonged to him?
            Have you ever found anything and failed to return it to its owner?
            Have you ever told stories about someone behind their back?
            Have you ever lied to escape blame?
            Have you ever not told the whole truth about something so as to protect someone?
            Have you ever felt ashamed of your parents?
            Have you ever disappointed your parents?
            Have you ever run away when you should have stayed?
            Have you ever felt sure your parents wouldn’t understand something that had happened in school, so you didn’t tell them?
            Have you ever not told teachers something about your family because they wouldn’t understand it?
            Have you ever failed to keep another child’s secret?
            Have you ever felt it was just no use talking to someone?
            Have you ever hurt someone you didn’t mean to?
            Have you ever been sloppy about your clothes or possessions?
            Have you ever cried when you shouldn’t have?
            Have you ever been a coward?
            Have you ever made too much fuss over a little hurt?
            Have you ever tried to make your parents believe you were doing better in school than you were?
            Have you ever told on anyone?
            Have you ever teased younger children?
            Have you ever mae a mess and not helped to clean it up?
            Have you ever broken or damaged something and never told anybody it was you who did it?
            Have you ever let someone else get punished for something you did?
            Have you ever cried till you got your own way?
            Have you ever decided “Someday, when I’m grown up, I’ll get even”? If so, with whom?
            Have you ever picked on someone smaller than yourself?
            Have you ever upset anyone by throwing a temper tantrum?
            Have you ever hurt anyone by telling them you didn’t love them any more?
            Have you ever made out that you were more badly damaged than you were in order to make someone stop picking on you?
            Have you ever pretended to like someone that you didn’t like in order to satisfy your parents?

  5. Great find! Amazing how fresh it seems — and also how Maslow’s basic thought here has proven so hard to accept, not just by Scientologists.

    You might enjoy, on a related note, an essay just published in Aeon called “Does Life Have a Purpose?” ( http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/does-life-have-a-purpose/ ) It provides a broad and informative overview of the longstanding tension between the hardcore mechanistic worldview (which often presents itself as the only true “scientific” position) and the alternative view, which the essay calls teleological or, roughly, purpose-driven. Not exactly what Maslow is saying here, but in the same spirit.

  6. Just recently I was reading a book titled *The Four-fold Path to Healing* by Thomas S. Cowan, MD, which brings together medical findings with spirituality. Here’s a passage from the chapter “Heart Disease” in which the author describes a whole new model for the heart and shows its relationship to social systems:

    ———————————————
    “It is not uncommon in the history of the world for philosophers or social scientists to look to the human being as a model for society at large. The alchemists summarized this way of thinking with the phrase ‘As above, so below.’ A famous example [but inaccurate and misleading, the author goes on to say] of this type of thinking was the use of social Darwinism to justify the mistreatment of the poor or the slaughter and repression of indigenous people. The Darwinian paradigm described these peoples as unfit, especially compared to the “more fit” peoples of European descent.

    “If we are to use the human being as a model for our social system, it is important to get the model correct. Survival of the fittest is no more an accurate description of human evolution than the model of the heart as a pump. Both models are inaccurate and inherently misleading…

    “If the heart functions as a listener rather than as a pump, then the model for the state should not be one of central control, be it the socialist state or the Federal Reserve, but one of freedom and decentralization; …of a billion religions, not three or five central dogmas; of a God that listens and reacts to our needs, just as the heart reacts to the circulation, not the other way around. The heart as a pump reflects itself onto society as control leading to slavery and the inability for mankind to progress, just as Rudolf Steiner suggested.
    […]

    “The meditation for the heart can be none other than the practical advice to ‘follow your heart’, advice that is easy to give but often difficult to implement. I have found two ways that work for myself and my patients. First, since it is clear from this model that the ‘central’ god listens, it is important we talk to “Him.” In other words, ‘Ask, and it shall be given unto you.’ Explain your situation as though you were talking to your best friend, then ask for guidance. It is important the image you carry is one of asking for help – no demands, no suggestions, just the heartfelt request for help.”
    ——————————————-

  7. “What we wind up with is a new situation in the history of the problem in which a ‘serious’ Buddhist let us say, one who is concerned with ‘ultimate concerns’ and with Tillich’s ‘dimensions of depth’, is more co-religionist to a ‘serious’ agnostic than he is to a conventional, superficial, other-directed Buddhist for whom religion is only habit or custom, i.e., behavior.”

    Marty,
    You raise some intersting questions:

    First of all, Maslow is making the argument that was made 2,600 years ago and
    put directly to the Buddha. Even people in ancient India noticed that the Theravada tradition was inwardly self directed. The Buddha basically replied that his teaching worked one person at at time. Although he taught a social doctrine based on non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, it was not accepted until a few hundred years later under Ashoka, the great Buddhist King.
    Secondly, an “other directed Buddhist for whom religion is only a habit or
    a custom” would surely not be a candidate for Tillich’s “dimensions of depth”.
    Thirdly, Theravada Buddhism does not “believe in God”. Additionally, in Theravada we have the doctrine of “no soul” so we do not accept theoretical
    discussions on the spirit as the Buddha was himself silent on the entire issue.
    There are other Buddhist traditions which do not hold the doctrines stated above. These views are from the Theravada school, the tradition of the elders.
    Lastly, Maslow calls Buddhism a “religion”. That issue is subject to great interpretation. I like Maslow when he stays in the pyramid. I like Tillich
    when he gives creative definitions of God. I have not run into an agnostic
    recently since I avoid theoretical discussions on the existence of an absolute God. Brahma is the supreme God in the Theravada tradition but even he is
    actually ignorant and impermanent.

    George M. White

    • martyrathbun09

      I think your horizons might expand a tad if you read and contemplate The Tao Of Physics; unless of course your non-religion frowns upon such studies and contemplation.

      • I’ll take up your challenge and read the book. Yes, my non-religion does steer us away from theoretical discussions. However, I’m going to make an exception here in this case. I’ve never had any issues with the Tao or any
        branch of physics. By the way, my non-religion would not like the expansion of horizons either, if you mean any tytpe of karma?
        Much Metta,
        George M. White

        • martyrathbun09

          I really think you will like the book George. I think it brings great clarity to all Scientology constructs by comparing quantum discoveries to Taoist, Buddhist and Hindu philosophies and teachings.

          • Marty,
            I have read about 1/2 of the book and I really do like it. In addition, I now see
            that the author has an extremely limited view of my school which is the Theravadin. It is one of the smaller schools of Buddhism, about 120 million.
            I will finish the book but I am rather turned off by his handling of the Supreme Buddha. The sections on physics seem to be very well written. When I finish the book, I will contact you.

            Kind Regards,
            George M. White

    • Hi George,

      I would like to dispute with you on this one!

      I think the main point of the quote is that a philosophy or approach with a “dimension of depth” is concerned with some kind of ultimate meaning and unity, regardless of the label that one might use to describe it. In this case, the word “God” can be applied to it, perhaps even in a very loose, impressionistic sense. As long as the meaning behind it is understood without getting caught up in preconceived notions relating to such a term.

      Of course, you’re quite right, Buddhism doesn’t accept God in the sense of there being a first supreme individual creator being. But it does accept an ultimate truth – the cessation of Nirvana. This is true for all forms of Buddhism. Having said that – and I understand the desire to keep the meaning pure – I don’t think it’s helpful to always balk if the term “God” is used as a label; it can even bring greater unity between followers of different paths if tentatively acknowledged as a word pointing towards an idea of there being an “ultimate”.

      Furthermore, all forms of Buddhism posit anatman (no-soul) without exception, however, it is also always held that the mind undergoes continual rebirths.

      As for spirit, well, that’s always been a bit of a hazy one. Personally I find it gets a little tricky to believe in a deathless state beyond all fathomable concepts, let alone the existence of devas, and yet distance oneself from any talk of spirit or spirituality.

      As an aside, I also find it interesting that Brahma was perhaps considered ignorant, and yet, he was the first one to have recognised the value of the Buddha’s realisation enough to implore him to teach the dharma.

      Actually, even though a lot of this is “investigable” through the mind, there’s a whole lot of stuff here that falls under the umbrella of “belief” or “faith” – and as such it’d be splitting hairs to take issue with people seeing it as a religion. I notice that a lot of believers attempt to drop the “religion” label when singling themselves out for exception.

      Buddha asked us to investigate very carefully and thoroughly. How are we to do this without discussion and debate? There should never be an expectation to buy wholesale in relation to whatever a particular group or school says.

      In summation, I don’t really think we need Buddha to spell every last thing out for us before we start engaging in meaningful and productive discussion. :)

      • Hi Rainbodhi.
        I can accept some of your points. You have a universal outlook
        and I can appreciate that. Yes, I do think that the concept of God can
        be extended and applied to an ultimate unity. I am not a teacher and
        never claimed to be one. I learned very early on about 12 years ago
        that viewpoints can differ on religion.
        I will be the first to admit that I am very parochial in my views on
        Buddhism. The Theravadin school has been very good to me and I
        follow it to the letter. The key point is that it works for me. In addition,
        I rarely stray from the Pali Canon. You should have talked to me 10
        years ago. I was totally intolerable.
        The Buddha said to investigate. I am well past that stage. The
        Dhamma has been investigated and it works. We are professional
        grade in the Theravadin school and I am in the final stages of
        the application of the Buddha’s teaching as stated in the Canon.
        I don’t have a problem with devas. When all of the
        pieces come together, it is impossible to think of a world without
        them. Brahma is an interesting dude and he did convince the
        Buddha to teach so I should be grateful to him even in his
        ignorance. The Devas are tricky and so it makes it easy
        to accept them.
        The idea of “no soul” or “anatta” is so firmly rooted, I don’t question
        it in the least. In the end, it is a tool anyway. In the Theravadin school,
        many of us cannot teach or refuse to teach. This is simply the way it
        is. I try to answer questions, if asked.
        This latest book “The Tao of Physics” is an excellent example of the
        problems faced in modern society. I have read about half of the book and
        find that the author is actually clueless on the subject of Theravada
        Buddhism. He is trying to take the universal approach and he
        produces a lot of ideas which is great. However, from my point of view,
        he will need to make up a lot of ground in the second half of the book in
        order for me to accept his words.

        Much Metta,
        George M. White

        • martyrathbun09

          Can you direct me to the page numbers where he discusses Theravada Buddhism?

          • He starts on page 33 of 112.
            I can give you a few specific words that he mis-translates as
            far as Theravadin Pali is concerned.
            The most glaring is when he uses the word “meditation” as
            the 8th step in the eightfold path. We say “concentration” and it
            is an error to call it meditation which is a broader term. I can give
            you more specific detail in regard to what he misses. In addition,
            we are the ones who give “homage” to the blessed one.
            He talks down to all Buddha’s from my vantage point.
            GMW

            • martyrathbun09

              Thanks. I don’t know what book you are reading. Mine is 342 pages, not 112. The book I have does not appear to contain the word ‘Theravadin.’ If you are going to argue distinctions between ‘concentration’ and ‘meditation’ as fatal flaws in the reasoning of the lesson he is attempting to impart, then I am pretty sure this book will not educate you, but rather only upset you.

              • The book I am reading is a .pdf version on-line.
                Anyway, I have hit the point where I see the fundamental differences
                between his interpretation of reality and a more traditional approach.
                By the way, I have passed through the upset.

                He only mentions Theravada once and at other times he uses the
                pejorative term Hinayana, translated as the “lesser vehicle”.
                Most of this book is based on “derived” notions of Buddhism.
                The author simply misses the entire point in regard to the
                original teaching. I do not dispute his notions of physics or his
                interpretations of Hinduism, Taoism etc etc.
                This book needs a more professional context. It would not stand under the
                “white light” of a world class review.
                Much Metta,
                George M. White

        • Hi George,

          I appreciate that you’re responding so comprehensively, thank you for that.

          I can most certainly understand that holding strong to the teachings of one’s path and following them diligently. Even so, learning and discovering continues up until the point of enlightenment (and perhaps afterwards in its own way, too).

          Personally I have always been hesitant to use the word “God”. Like you, I think it’s important to have accuracy in terms of how to approach and understand Buddhism as it’s taught. Also, certain concepts have their own preconceptions associated with them, so there are a few reasons to steer clear of the label.

          But in essence, part of the argument here is one of allowing for the freedom to redefine “God” based upon deeper experiences that we’re either seeking or have already discovered for ourselves. If doing so is comforting or helpful to people, or facilitates dialogue, then so be it.

          Relating to Brahma, I find it an interesting line of inquiry too. After having looked at the suttic references relating to this, I found that he is said to have been Brahma Sahampati, who was a monk during the teaching cycle of Kassapa (Kasyapa) Buddha. So it’s entirely possible that he was, in fact, on the path, if not actually a buddha in his own right, when he had requested Gautama to teach.

          I too share your hesitancy in teaching, and a lot of responsibility goes along with it. Discussion is great though – why not?

          Relating to the Theravada school, of course it is a venerable tradition of primary importance in terms of preserving the canon as well as the full monastic order. Even so, I still think Buddha’s words hold true in terms of looking closely at what’s taught rather than just accepting tradition blindly. If one wishes to “look under the rug” of tradition, so to speak, one can find all sorts of things that can be helpful to spiritual growth.

          For instance, Theravada itself is the only surviving early school out of about 18 which are otherwise lost, and technically it is descended from other traditions too. Interestingly, there seems to be some indication that early Mahayana also had an influence on the school’s teachings. I understand the desire for stability but nothing’s ever completely cut-and-dried and in fact I think it’s healthy to do a bit of digging. :)

      • For a Buddhist just substitute the word Consciousness for God. The characteristics of water are not changed by the labels that represent them. Buddha did not find some special truth and all others did not because he doesn’t address the Supreme Being.

        Around 500 BC Hindhuism had fallen into an over ritualized priesthood, with ceremonies and outward sacrifices taking center stage.

        The Buddha incarnated to basically say,”shut up and meditate.” His teaching of kindness made animal sacrificing a dwindling spiral.
        He revolutionized India and beyond through his practical approach.

        Then in around 700 AD Buddhism also was at the end of a cultural cycle and degenerated somewhat into an overly intellectual class that preached a misunderstanding of nirvana. It became to extinguish the Self instead of extinguish the ego. And at the height of it’s nihilism Shankar incarnated and preached a positive aspect to consciousness, created the swami order of monastics and preached ever new consciousness, ever new existence and ever new bliss.

        All the Masters taught the same Universal Truths.

        It is we, aspiring students that make such a fuss: my teacher is better that your teacher, my cosmology makes yours look like the superstition of unlettered rubes!

        God is Consciouness, Nirvana is God consciousness, because when the ego (body indentified soul) extinguishes it’s false identification with all form (nirvana) it realizes itself to be immortal blissful consciousness, never born, never died, always been and always will be. That always ‘will be’ is not meant in a linear time sense. There is nothing but now, and now is Ever Conscious/God

        • Just look around at the spectacle of Intelligent Forces keeping all forms in harmonious relations. Atoms buzzing and electromagnetic intelligent energy keeping galaxies and floating island universes spinning in space!

          The body miracles of digestion, elimination, crystalization and absorption all ocurring effortlessly by the Invisible Cosmic Electric Motor that paints effortlessly all dream space and dream objects into existence.

          And behind the screen of space, behind the postulated solidity of form, behind the darkness of closed eyes, lies the Conscious Cosmic Factory of Golden Bliss!

          One taste of that unspeakable joy, that overwhelming bliss of Pure Consciousness will make us say as the ancients have said, “having which gained, no other gain is greater!”

          And when this state of consciouness becomes common place here on earth, we will have entered a new era of humanity.

          Every day in every way, we must all do our part to bring it about. Find your Dharma, follow your Dharma, live your Dharma and change the world one mind at a time.

        • “The Buddha incarnated to basically say,’shut up and meditate.’ ”
          This made me giggle! :-D

        • Brian,
          You are perfectly free to substitute the word God for consciousness.
          For those of us at the lower levels, consciousness is more specific
          and extremely useful as a concept in meditation.
          Much Metta,
          George M. White

          • George — “for those of us at the lower levels …”

            Is this being said to impart that you are humble?

            Seriously?

            • wh,
              ROFL
              I have been seriously working on the notion of humility.
              It comes and goes.

              Much Metta,
              George

            • I’ve been pondering your response “for those of us at the lower levels …” and my comment above about being humble …

              Actually I *think* you might have meant “those of us at the lower levels” to mean the lower realms?

              But I’m not sure. I find that it’s important that each of us, who might be involved in a practice other than scientology, to clearly state what we are talking about.

              Otherwise, what might be intended as helpful just comes off as arrogant, pedantic, incomprehensible or boring.

              I find I often do buddhism a disservice by posting MY TAKE on buddhism.

              After all, I think you might agree George that we VIEW our teaching through our OWN deluded lens — not yet having achieved enlightenment.

              It is my understanding that the buddha talk 84,000 different stories/teachings in order to accommodate all the differences we have as human beings in an attempt to reach everyone.

              We would do well to heed that idea … IMHO

              Christine

              • “It is my understanding that the buddha talk 84,000 different stories/teachings in order to accommodate all the differences we have as human beings in an attempt to reach everyone.”

                That is what I always thought LRH was trying to do with his many, many lectures and writings. He tried to hit as many people’s Reality as he could.

          • Hey George, the reason I brought up the God/Consciousness relation is because earlier in in my practice, when I was a young man, it confused me to have a no God/ there is a God dichotomy amongnst wise men.

            My mind would spin because, how could wisdom be so conflicted.

            After many years of study and reading about these discussions I resolved it for myself and realized that Buddha had a special thing to bring to the table: dump the esoteric stuff, learn how to behave, shut up and meditate.

            It wasn’t that he said there is no God, he was saying, ” look, whatever It is you will find it in the silence of your heart and through a reasoned investigation. Believing not an essential, practice is everything, shut up and meditate.

            I love the Buddha. What greatness he brought to the planet.

            I just wanted to share my thoughts on him

        • Hi Brian,

          I do see what you’re getting at in terms of substituting terms, but in some ways, it’s also a two-edged sword. For a Buddhist, there are many specific applications, i.e. consciousness is something you have and utilise, not unify with, per se.

          In many ways, a Buddhist is as protective of the dharma as a Scientologist is of the tech. I don’t see the problem with using terms abstractly or drawing potential comparisons though.

          In terms of special truth, I think that it is possible argue that there are differences between a dualistic and non-dualistic approach, at the very least, i.e. if we always keep the destination at a distance, we’ll never reach it.

          And a lot of absurdities can come from not making distinctions.

          But a lot of this is can be highly conceptual, and who is to say in the end, really, what someone is able to realise in their personal experience?

          I do think it’s wonderful that such discussions about Buddhism are welcomed here on this blog, and of course I think part of the reason is due to Hubbard’s own affinity with it.

          It’s difficult to pin down LRH’s exact position due to varying statements he made, however he did say that the Buddha had attained the state of Clear.

          In a similar way, the Buddha (Gautama) recognised at least four other prior historical Buddhas within a particular time frame. It had also said that the teachings of the next historical buddha wouldn’t necessarily resemble what’s already been taught.

          So I find it a bit funny when people from either affiliation hold unequivocally, in a truly literal sense, that it’s impossible to attain realisation outside of that particular teaching or discipline at all. At the very least, a philosophy is able to lead an individual into yet another one.

          I appreciate what Hubbard was doing when he defined Theta, and why he chose specifically to use that word rather than deferring to the concept of soul (and its usual correlates, heaven and hell).

          In any case, I do understand what you are saying on a “heart level” and I think that is important too; and, I know from experience it’s important to stay reminded of the most simple and essential of principles: love.

          • To me the approaches are many but the goal is one. I tend to focus on the goal instead of the approaches.

            Practiced and realized principles are important. The labels and symbols of our varied approaches are not.

            Realizations know no sectarian divisions

            Happiness knows no exclusivity reserved for a privilaged ism.

            There are underlying principles that all true teachings have. These underlying principles are found in all true teachings.

            Customs, ethnicity, geography and culture form all apparent differences between approaches.

            I appreciate, not simply tolerate those outside my group. In fact those outside my group are truly in my group.

            Because I see know difference in truth seekers. No matter the outer forms of practice, the principals of love, wisdom, discipline, intuitive guidance, happiness, service to others, self inquiry, reason, ecstasy, immortality, freedom, study, inner radiance, self evolution etc etc are soul qualties that are common to all students of the Spirit.

            The goal is one, the roads are many.

  8. IMHO, an individual who is by nature a “seeker of truth” can simultaneously seek truth in both the spiritual and scientific realms, but I don’t see that these fields on the whole are any closer to each other than they were when Maslow wrote this essay. As Scott Tyson reported in the Unobservable Universe, most of his scientific colleagues recoiled sharply from anything tainted with spirituality or religion. At the other end, Creationism has been gaining ground throughout much of the USA during the last 50 years, in defiance of all scientific evidence. Also, a disturbingly high percentage of Scientologists continue to express disdain for science and scientists.

    The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould probably had it right when he used the term ‘magesteria’ to define self-contained bodies of knowledge. He proposed that religion and science were “non-overlapping magesteria” and that it was an exercise in futility to try to explain either of these belief systems in terms of the other.

  9. To show you how child like some citizens can be, the theory of electrons was presented in 1897 by J.J. Thompson. To date, nobody has even seen an electron. There is no photograph of one. Only “images” of drawings are put forth. Yet we have an entire body of science built upon this “belief system” of the “electron”. Although nobody has ever actually seen one.

    The “uncertainty principle” was proposed by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, which says anything in the sub atomic level can not be predicted.

    But by then, people were thinking about the atom that no one had ever actually seen. And the mere suggestion that there should be any “uncertainty” in their texts and Science, was taken as inval and an assault on their “intelligence”.

  10. Here might be someone to add to your list of authors Joesph Campbell. He was a professor at Sara Lawrence College. His teaching was primarily concerned with mythology and comparative religion.

    Marty if you have not read any of his books you might consider it most of his works were rather well received. Unfortunately he passed on October 30, 1987, “Follow your Bliss” was one of his favorite sayings. I think that you Marty might be doing just that, it’s just an idea. Maybe something for your future reading list.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks.

    • Old Secretary

      I am pretty sure it was Bill Moyers who did a PBS series of interviews with him. They were very good. One might enjoy the video more after having read his works. I found he offered tons of anectodal and historical information which was at the very least very interesting. But a spiritualist he was not.

      • As to Campbell being a spiritualist I would respectfully disagree. He kept it close at hand however he believed that he was a Buddhist more than anything else. I have many of his lectures the entire series along with quite a few books. Joesph always tried to speak and write with an objective mind. However studying him long enough his true feelings would shine through.

      • Old Secretary, it was Bill Moyers who did a PBS series of interviews with Joseph Campbell and, I must say, they were most excellent! Last year when the regional PBS did a fund drive they aired these interviews. What a gift!

    • Joesph Campbell is amazing. I wonder how many people even know the entire star wars series was based on his books?

  11. good questions make good music. this is for you mosey, u da woman:)
    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2822/9168034826_0bfd797b90.jpg

  12. crap I have subjected everyone to one of my stained glass pieces, I meant THIS;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXZS-TRWSCA

  13. In the beginning of the path externalities are worshiped: my church, my teacher, my symbols. At some point the path must lead within.

    Truth is truth whether it is external or internal

    To see that the labels of spirituality mean nothing, but the practiced and realized principles are everything.

    Then the Buddhist is a Christian, the Christian a Buddhist, a Hindhu a Jew. Because though the external labels, practices and customs differ, does not mean the perceptions of truth differ.

    The mystics of all religions speak of the same truth. Spiritual Truth has been double blinded through experience not verified by some measuring device.

    It is also why many physicists are practitioners of some form of meditation. Because meditation leads to direct experience, like a good auditing session.

    But meditation is not necessary a process created to find individual problems. It is a process aimed at a more broad outcome like comprehension and direct percetion of the Static/Void/Perception of one’s immortal nature/Causeless Joy/Wisdom/Total Freedom etc

    It is because the inner journey of meditation is not a faith based practice but a directly experiential one, science and spiritual practice will find a strong parallel because both the observation of natural phenomena (external sciences) and the observation of the observer (awareness of awareness) are based on directly knowing and not indirectly believing.

    Yogis (those that seek awareness of the Infinite through some practice of meditation. That is a broad term that includes any diverse practice that leads to liberation) and open minded scientists will define the future spiritual life on the planet because the outcomes of disciplines will be based on perceivable experiences that are found to be universally true.

    Consciousness will be discovered to be existing and prooved independent from matter.

    It is exciting! What a wonderful time to be alive. On the threshold of so much new discovery.

    Old world isms are showing their rusty age. Old world institutions are crumbling beneath the weight of their obsolescence.

    Science and spiritual practice will define the future.

    • It is because the inner journey of meditation is not a faith based practice but a directly experiential one, science and spiritual practice will find a strong parallel because both the observation of natural phenomena (external sciences) and the observation of the observer (awareness of awareness) are based on directly knowing and not indirectly believing.

      Well said. Btw, observation of the observer is also ” observation of natural phenomena ” – nature is inside us as well as outside us. For a long time observation of what is outside was the only data considered “objective” but this is no longer the case as there are instruments now that can measure and correlate inside events as well as any outside events.

  14. Because in essence they are one and the same.

  15. Old Secretary

    Maslov seems to have had an open mind and was able to observe. Something more people could use. Too many people “shut down” their ability to observe when they have pre-determined that a source is antithetical to their own positions. Whether its the psychiatrist disparaging religious beliefs or the scientologist doing the same to psychiatry. If you have to attack and disparage others to bolster or protect your own positions, you are probably operating on a bunch of wrong headed ideas. I think LRH said somewhere that the not quite bright are shut off from the fruits of observation. At least the not quite bright had an excuse. The rest of us just absorbed the party line of whatever camp we were in at the time. So I suppose we allowed ourselves to be among the not quite bright. Intellectually hustled. At least for a time.

    • Off track, but an interesting aside: Psych studies have found measureable, positive outcomes among believers (generally of religionists in the form of prayer.) Anyone wanna place bets on whether dyed-in-the-wool Scientologists will ever consider that psych practices (such as counseling and medication) might be worth observing to see if they have any beneficial effect whatsoever?

      Nancy

      • martyrathbun09

        So have non-psychs, and they’ve demonstrated in the process the validity of the use of wheatstone bridge contraptions (the e-meter is such a contraption) in measuring as much. Validates a lot of what one does in Scientology, if one correlates these studies to what is done in auditing. For example, see The Intention Experiment, by Lynne McTaggert.

  16. “These two groups (sophisticated theologians and sophisticated scientists) seem to be coming closer and closer together in their conception of the universe as ‘organismic’, as having some kind of unity and integration, as growing and evolving and having direction and, therefore, having some kind of ‘meaning.’ ”

    I’m mentally comparing that statement to several of miscavige’s more recent speeches. Also comparing it to a 16 a-hole at Flag telling me I had to buy two intensives at flag rates in order to have my cramming ruds flow…after a complete ethics cycle to make sure I qualified for flag services. Also to some of the more recent events in the indy field and some of the slightly less than philosophical statements that were made.

    Focusing one’s attention on intuitive minds who are truly seeking for a higher level of understanding which can be utilized at various levels in society to raise consciousness is pretty much where we are heading.

    I’m finding this blog to be an excellent launching pad for fruitful search.

    Thanks Marty.

  17. I read this post with bated breath. I feel that indeed there are these two types of people, as you described. I would like to offer another semantic as to how to call them.

    When a person is born, he is consumed with curiosity. The baby spends most of his waking hours exploring. That is the only way he can learn. Once he learned one thing, he immediately turns his attention to something else he does not know. I remember when i was 5, questions like God, existence, etc would consume me. Unfortunately for some, that curiosity is targeted by thought stoppers around us. Some may naturally give up the quest for knowledge. Some, however, never do. They stay children in the sense that they keep looking, and by that expand their consciousness.

    When I first joined Scientology, I thought that it concerned itself with removing the barriers to learning. I thought that a person moving up tha OT levels ought to become more and more curios. The more I met those people the more I was disabused of that idea. Having listen to the Philadelphia Doctrate Course, I felt that the more a person is exterior, the more curiose, the less serious he was. I believed that the OT levels would somehow be a continuation of that course. Boy, was I wrong.

    I find no fault in your post Marty and I agree with it. I would just exchange the terms adult and child in it. The adult is the one who is satisfied with his believes. The child is the one who constantly wants to expand his consciousness.

    • I just want to add that as a child, I never had much appreciation for adults. They always looked so clumsy, physically and mentally. You would show them logic and they just could not accept it. I realized I was growing up, but I never wanted to become one of “them”. Fortunately, both my parents encouraged free thinking, and would fight with teachers who would try to stop that.

    • I like your last point. When adults become developmentally arrested perhaps they could be called childish, or immature. But to be child like is possibly a good view point for looking out and around. Child-like as in up to the age of five. Montessori called this pre literate time the “absorbent mind.” Around the age of five there is a brain cell die off, an inner editing, as the brain feels pretty confident that it now knows what things are. Progressively after the age of five children (generally speaking of course!) become keenly interested in being able to approximate the “norm” and there starts to solidify the affect of social pressures.

      Some very old wise persons may be finding they prefer the like minded company of the very young.

  18. Well I unfortunately fall into the non spiritual interest group today.

    Retracing where my reading interests might have lead, had I not gone into Scientology, I’m back to reading philosophy, in human history, right now I find the pre-Socratics, and the “atomists”, who are thought to have gained some of their ideas from Hindu cosmology. Eternal return, also known as eternal recurrence, fascinates me currently.. .

    Off topic, but I’m really milking your book and thankyou again for your thorough coverage of your early years in the Sea Org Marty. You write well and fill in a lot of details about all the players you interacted with. I’m now at Chapter 18 and it’s such an excellent description from your viewpoint about that tumultuous period.

    Sorry this is off topic, but I’m not your regular blog reader for my spiritual betterment, I greatly appreciate your book for just the detail you cover, and I am hoping more of the people who lived those same tumultuous years in the early to mid 1980s write their memoirs also. (I’d love t see what Gene Ingram might write, even if his memoirs would only be published postmumously.)

    Your book has a whole bunch of history details that have never been said before in any past books or media. You’ve added some extremely important details. Thank you again very much for your 3rd book just for those details!

  19. Thank you for the thoughtful post.
    I seem to recall reading somewhere LRH talks about theta colliding with MEST and it being an educational experience. For me it’s been theta and MEST and always involving other beings – other life of some sort at least.
    Maybe the ‘children’ simply have not collided enough (yet). Maybe the other life forms are not important.
    Questions like Where did I come from? and where am I going? are too obvious questions for so many to miss but that is my opinion. So maybe the ‘children’ will take some time and figure it out after the kids are thru college or maybe never.
    I believe that the persons that do figure out truth also care enough about us to pass it on. I’m happy to have you researching and helping get the word out.
    Cece

  20. Nice quotes. Adults and children brought to mind a quote from Lewis Carroll: “We are but older children, dear, who fret to find our bedtime near.”

  21. “Almost, we could say, we wind up with adults, on the one hand, and children, on the other.”

    Yes, I agree. At the end of the day, we need to walk the walk and own up to who we really are.

    One big part of that is for Scientologist to stop miss assigning the wrong causation to their Peak Experiences.

    It is US who own and cause those experiences individually, NOT LRH or Scientology.

    • martyrathbun09

      I think Scientology’s intense attention focus creates myriad peak experiences, also known as releases in Scientology. Where it constricts is in enforcing strict adherence to interpretation of each peak against its own narrow construct. No one is allowed to own them, and process them toward expanded awareness and consciousness. If you read the book this post references there is an appendix that gives a couple dozen features of peak experiences. Each of them is potentially available in any Scientology-induced release – but not within the Scientology construct.

      • Marty,

        This is interesting, would you care to further expand on how the “Scientology construct” undermines such a release? If applied to the field as a whole, it’s potentially quite damning, isn’t it?

        I think that there is a place for being able to identify or “cut through” various states of mind that are experienced, including states of bliss. I believe that attaining a particular state can be helpful for further discoveries, but it’s also possible to get lost in states that one might think are important in their own right but are actually subject to falling away.

        I would venture to say that a path to total realisation stands or falls on this.

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        I’ve read many books where the authors were describing life changing experiences that sounded like releases.
        They were described into the last details, better sight, feeling of exteriorisation etc. I asked myself each time how come they can describe my releases without having had some auditing ??????

      • Agreed. The system that houses training and processing needs some serious overhaul.

        I asked you years ago, if you thought the whole system was ever reformable, and you said no basically.

        Do you think training and processing should be done in pairs or just informal small groups of people who really wish to learn how to audit, then?

        Or do you think reading and just living life, educating oneself through reading and watching on the internet, is sufficient, or do you think the auditing practice (and case supervision) should continue or do you think those practices are too constraining and need tweaking or reforming?

        No need to even answer this, if this is too off topic! But I’d appreciate learning your thoughts publicly, on these questions, if you might cover these questions in future threads.

        I take it you favor letting people just practice essentially as Field Auditors though, correct? Or do you think one ought study wider for one’s long term spiritual improvement, and not even get even focused on becoming an auditor or by receiving auditing?

        • martyrathbun09

          Chuck. I am writing up my recommendations in another book. That is, how I feel aspects of LRH’s work can work positively in an integrated, integral, context. That is the only positive, contributive future for his ideas in my opinion. Standing alone – segregated, as the system (not the organization) demands – they lead to all the misery that has been communicated (along with the reasons for that being the case) in my books and on this blog.

      • Marty, I found the book online at scrbd.com and I see it is mostly appendixes. Can you say specifically which one you’re referring to?

        APPENDIXES:
        A. Religious Aspects of Peak Experiences
        B. The Third Psychology
        C. Ethnocentric Phrasings of Peak-Experiences
        D. What is the Validity of Knowledge Gained in Peak-Experiences?
        E. Preface to “New Knowledge in Human Values”
        F. Rhapsodic, Isomorphic Communications
        G. B-Values as Descriptions of Perception in Peak-Experiences
        H. Naturalistic Reasons for Preferring Growth-Values Over Regression-Values Under Good Conditions
        I. An Example of B-Analysis
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/142187640/Abraham-H-Maslow-Religions-Values-and-Peak-Experiences

        • “No one is allowed to own them, and process them toward expanded awareness and consciousness.”

          Wouldn’t that be handled by just “letting the pc have his win” and come back when he is ready for more auditing? That would be part of standard tech, per my understanding, which became lost tech.

          • martyrathbun09

            Sorta. But, now you take us right back into the Scientology matrix that reduces Scientologists to dramatizing the dichotomies it purports to help one transcend. You lifted from an HCOB, implying the simplicity of ‘standard’ Scientology (persistent F/Ns). And if I chose to remain in the matrix, I could come right back with the HCOB on reading through an F/N. And, after about six or seven chess moves back and forth each – forfeiting original thought and viewpoint for quotations from Source along the way, we start evaluating one another’s comm to determine who has overts, is PTS, open minded, SP, you name it – and we are at war. I am no longer playing the Scientology warrior game – and am experiencing new horizons I never thought possible while in the matrix.

            • Thanks much. Actually, I forgot that “let the pc have his win” is related to persistent F/N’s, and even if I had remembered I had the idea it didn’t just apply to persistent F/N’s. But I’m not that highly tech trained to really know the references, and I don’t doubt what you say.

              Also, just so you know, I’m not necessarily trying to make LRH right, with references or otherwise. I’ve gone past doing that. But I am still interested in trying to “think with the tech” and preserve what is valuable in it when applied with conceptual understanding of the whole. And I’m all for keeping what’s good and supplementing that with whatever may be missing to make it truly “whole” and would promote, or at least allow, experiencing new horizons. Basically, I neither want to be overly critical of the tech nor over-promote it.

              • martyrathbun09

                Thanks. I hope it didn’t come off as a personal attack. I was using your comm as an opportunity to illustrate our conditioned ways of thinking. I did a post about Scientology’s built-in refusal to participate in the integration in evolution of spiritual and material wisdoms (something that really cannot be credibly denied) and I am back to handling originations that all the answers are already in Scientology.

                • I thought your comment expressed the point succinctly and conclusively. I just didn’t know if I had given a certain impression or not and I wanted to make myself clear.

                  Wow, you say you’re “back to handling originations that all the answers are already in Scientology”. I think that’s great – it falls under your mission, IMHO.

                  Btw, speaking of your writing ability, I’m reading your latest book finally and I must say, so far it really stirs the emotions. Like almost continuously. :)

            • Being “at war” would be being in a state of heightened awareness but with no equanimity. In Scientology, I learned through reading the books and this blog, there is an auditors “preparation” which sounds like an approach to equanimity. Also, there are frequent references to “granting beingness” which sounds like an approach to equanimity. But in the accounts of behaviors there is no equanimity..there is saving the planet, making things go right, and aggression towards others for the benefit of… “the church.”

              Like “corporation, like “nation,” like “community,” “church” unless you are referring to a specific building, has no real physical existence. You can’t point to it, only to examples of it. These abstract nouns are dangerous when we forget that they have no “first dimension” and can only thrive by absorbing beings with breath and blood into their constructs.

              (Platonic thinking which has dominated western culture says the opposite: that these abstractions are what’s real and that we beings of breath and blood are mere shadows cast on the wall of the cave by the fire of “ideals” – when my father posited to me that the tree we were looking at was not real and that somewhere beyond my vision was the real “idea” of a tree, I cried, not from grief but from the insult. Modern philosophies, Existentialism and Phenomenology, counter Platonic Idealism and bring deductive and inductive reasonings into active and open harmony.)

        • martyrathbun09

          A. Religious Aspects of Peak-Experiences.

      • This is definitely an experience across many religions and practices, not just Scientology.

        In my childhood as I was raised in a strict evangelical Christian environment, it was made very clear to you how you were to interpret any kind of spiritual experience you had. Something happened in a positive way in your life, and you prayed or thought positive thoughts about it? Well, the “Lord” is working in your life. It’s not up for interpretation, that’s what’s happening.

        As a child when I achieved something I would sometimes think… well, no. I worked hard for this. I achieved something great myself! Or, wow, I really have so much to be thankful for… look at all the work my group did together to achieve this! What a special connection we built. And my upbringing would simply say, no, Dirk, the “Lord” did this.

        When I experienced beauty in nature I’d learn about the kinds of incredibly complicated and majestic and chaotic physical processes that created the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone or any other natural wonders, and I’d think wow… how beautiful and amazing. My upbringing would say no, Dirk, the “Lord” created this and that’s it. “Praise the Lord.” That kind of mindless certainty can suck all of the beauty and wonder out of a “peak experience.”

        I think the idea of being able to openly and freely interpret your highs and your lows, the beautiful and the ugly, leads to tremendous growth. Unfortunately in a “we know everything” environment of spiritual certainty, that’s just not allowed, Scientology or otherwise.

        • martyrathbun09

          Thanks. That is one of the reasons why I advocate an integral approach. Any single discipline tends to put a ceiling on consciousness and awareness when it constructs are mistaken for – or worse enforced as – reality.

      • “Where it constricts is in enforcing strict adherence to interpretation of each peak against its own narrow construct. No one is allowed to own them, and process them toward expanded awareness and consciousness. ”
        LFBD! (long fall blow down e-meter read) Wow, does that indicate to me!

      • Just an aside here. I read the appendix re. Peak Experiences. As an auditor, THAT was exactly what I wanted to bring to the person I audited. THAT was my purpose and what I decided my hat in life was – but defined as an “auditor” in the CofS, which is the limiting definition that has little workability (in its corporate form, that is).
        I’ve had peak experiences while auditing others and especially when they have a peak experience.
        I’ve been in a bit of funk/confusion about how I want to continue my spiritual journey. Some of that I realize is confusion blowing off after the introduction of data that has rocked some of my most fundamental stable data I’d cemented down during my CofS years.
        I just want to thank you in a new unit of time for sharing your insights and having this blog with its genius commenters.

  22. Being Sunday, it is a good time to step back and do some considering and evaluation and reflection.

    My evaluation is:

    What Hubbard was actually trying to do with his bridge, was to enter the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. That is more or less synonymous with clear and OT.

    Evidently that approach has failed miserably.

    Why?

    Because Jesus said, No one entereth the Kingdom of Heaven, except through Me.

    The value of any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

    Any idea is only as good as it works.

    There is a right way and wrong way to do everything.

    Hubbard was trying to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the back door or the basement window.

    The right way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through the front door with Jesus.

    The bridge is missing the Jesus factor.

    Have a blessed Sunday,

    Dio

    PS:

    19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
    They do not know what makes them stumble.

    Security in Wisdom

    4 Hear, my children, the instruction of a father,
    And give attention to know understanding;
    2 For I give you good doctrine:
    Do not forsake my law.
    3 When I was my father’s son,
    Tender and the only one in the sight of my mother,
    4 He also taught me, and said to me:
    “Let your heart retain my words;
    Keep my commands, and live.
    5 Get wisdom! Get understanding!
    Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth.
    6 Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you;
    Love her, and she will keep you.
    7 Wisdom is the principal thing;
    Therefore get wisdom.
    And in all your getting, get understanding.
    8 Exalt her, and she will promote you;
    She will bring you honor, when you embrace her.
    9 She will place on your head an ornament of grace;
    A crown of glory she will deliver to you.”

    10 Hear, my son, and receive my sayings,
    And the years of your life will be many.
    11 I have taught you in the way of wisdom;
    I have led you in right paths.
    12 When you walk, your steps will not be hindered,
    And when you run, you will not stumble.
    13 Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go;
    Keep her, for she is your life.

    14 Do not enter the path of the wicked,
    And do not walk in the way of evil.
    15 Avoid it, do not travel on it;
    Turn away from it and pass on.
    16 For they do not sleep unless they have done evil;
    And their sleep is taken away unless they make someone fall.
    17 For they eat the bread of wickedness,
    And drink the wine of violence.

    18 But the path of the just is like the shining sun,[a]
    That shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.
    19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
    They do not know what makes them stumble.

    20 My son, give attention to my words;
    Incline your ear to my sayings.
    21 Do not let them depart from your eyes;
    Keep them in the midst of your heart;
    22 For they are life to those who find them,
    And health to all their flesh.
    23 Keep your heart with all diligence,
    For out of it spring the issues of life.
    24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth,
    And put perverse lips far from you.
    25 Let your eyes look straight ahead,
    And your eyelids look right before you.
    26 Ponder the path of your feet,
    And let all your ways be established.
    27 Do not turn to the right or the left;
    Remove your foot from evil.

    • martyrathbun09

    • Dio, you wrote: “Hubbard was trying to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the back door or the basement window.

      “The right way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through the front door with Jesus.

      The bridge is missing the Jesus factor.”

      I think you may be on to something here…i.e., this “Jesus factor.” Which, by the way, I interpret as being a metaphor. “Jesus” isn’t an identity outside of ourselves. Jesus, but not the Jesus as depicted in the Holy Bible (that’s an ego version of Jesus), is a symbol of who and what we really are. Jesus is us, we are Jesus. I would also include the Holy Spirit, Christ and God as being metaphors for who and what we really are.

      Speaking of Jesus…I often read the Q&A section regarding the Course in Miracles as presented by the FDn for a Crs in Miracles and I. just last night , read a question that had to do with ghosts. I found the answer to be most interesting. For me, this is an example of the “Jesus factor” you speak of Dio. The answer to the question about ghosts follows. Note: the single quotes are to denote quotes from the crs i.e,. quotes, supposedly from Jesus himself.

      ……………..

      “One of the more common deceitful tricks of the ego [aka Bank, Case, Reactive mind, Devil Lucifer, etc.] is to take an aspect of its thought system and give it a more circumscribed definition within our experience so that we don’t see it as a pervasive part of our “reality” under its malevolent reign. And so it requires someone outside of this thought system, or at least not completely identified with it, to see beyond the veils of deception and confusion that have been interposed between this false “reality” and our true Identity.

      “So, for example, we seem to experience differentiated states of sleeping and waking, with dreaming apparently an accompaniment of the sleeping state. And so we believe we know the difference between sleeping and waking, and dreams and reality. We never question whether the various states of mind we experience in the world might not be meaningless shifts within a single continuous dream, while we sleep on and on. Because we think there is a difference between our waking state and our dreaming state, we never question our assumption that we know what it is to be awake. But Jesus does..

      “We also have definitions of insanity and mental illness that apply only to some people, but not to others, believing that we know and experience sanity within this world. And so, because we think we know what insanity is, we never even consider the possibility that all of our thinking here is insane. But Jesus knows otherwise.

      “And then we believe we know the difference between life and death, which to us are obviously mutually exclusive states of the body. We know we are alive and we can identify by very objective criteria who is dead. And so we never question whether our entire existence may not be a form of death predicated on the belief that we can separate ourselves from Life. But Jesus can lead us to a different conclusion..

      And of course, we think we can tell the difference between love and hate, because we believe we can recognize the forms of each so easily. And so we never question whether what we call love may not simply be a disguised form of hatred. But Jesus is not fooled.

      “And so, yes, ghosts become another distraction of the ego — are they real, is there individual life after death? — hiding a deeper truth. After all, ghosts, were they to exist, we know would be something other than what we are — alive and solid and real. And so we never consider whether in fact the self we think we are is nothing but a shadowy ghost of our real Self. And again, Jesus knows otherwise, and he tries to help us see the ghastly nature of this ghostly existence we call life.

      “And so he notes the consequences of our choice for the ego, against our true Self:

      ‘Deny your own Identity, and you will not escape the madness which induced this weird, unnatural and ghostly thought that mocks creation and that laughs at God. Deny your own Identity, and you assail the universe alone, without a friend, a tiny particle of dust against the legions of your enemies. Deny your own Identity, and look on evil, sin and death, and watch despair snatch from your fingers every scrap of hope, leaving you nothing but the wish to die.’

      Yet Jesus does not leave us caught in that ego trap, but recognizing how like small children we are, he reassures us:

      ‘Children perceive frightening ghosts and monsters and dragons, and they are terrified. Yet if they ask someone they trust for the meaning of what they perceive, and are willing to let their own interpretations go in favor of reality, their fear goes with them. When a child is helped to translate his “ghost” into a curtain, his “monster” into a shadow, and his “dragon” into a dream he is no longer afraid, and laughs happily at his own fear.

      ‘You, my child, are afraid of your brothers and of your Father and of yourself. But you are merely deceived in them. Ask what they are of the Teacher of reality, and hearing His answer, you too will laugh at your fears and replace them with peace. For fear lies not in reality, but in the minds of children who do not understand reality. It is only their lack of understanding that frightens them, and when they learn to perceive truly they are not afraid. And because of this they will ask for truth again when they are frightened. It is not the reality of your brothers or your Father or yourself that frightens you. You do not know what they are, and so you perceive them as ghosts and monsters and dragons. Ask what their reality is from the One Who knows it, and He will tell you what they are. For you do not understand them, and because you are deceived by what you see you need reality to dispel your fears.

      ‘Would you not exchange your fears for truth, if the exchange is yours for the asking? For if God is not deceived in you, you can be deceived only in yourself. Yet you can learn the truth about yourself from the Holy Spirit, Who will teach you that, as part of God, deceit in you is impossible.’ “

    • Dio, I find myself in the unfortunately place of saying, “I don’t get it.” Are you implying that Hubbard was wrong in his spiritual pursuits simply because he did not contextualize his path by invoking the will and assistance of Jesus Christ?

      I see your biblical quote, but I cannot divine reason from it, only the demand for obedience. Are you advocating the abolishment of reasoned discourse?

      Nancy

  23. Marty,
    I got it. It is sort of difficult for me to articulate what I want to say.

    I do not mean to invalidate the very powerful auditing processes, which allows for a very fast removal of the blocks to those experiences.

    But it is the subsequent spin of Scientology and the ensuing confusion as to the ultimate causation of those experiences from Scientologists that ultimately sort of cancel out the benefits in my view.

    I’m fully aware and very happy about the benefits available from the Tech that LRH developed. That is why I haven’t given up on it.

  24. gretchen dewire

    Amen brother

  25. One word: shill

  26. This story was told to me by my sister after an experience she had at a seaside park in Laguna Beach, CA about a year or so ago. I recount it here for you.

    Bhagavan Das has finished speaking and performing bhajans and kirtans about the “Cosmic Dance” of Shiva.

    After we return from lunch, the yogi introduces his consort and informs those in attendance that she will now perform the dance of Shiva-Shakti and bestow a blessing upon them. He quietly retires to the side and assumes a meditative posture.

    The consort, beautifully but modestly arrayed in traditional costume, begins to perform the dance of Shiva-Shakti. The movements are slow and elegant in the afternoon light. The scene takes on a timeless quality and although no music is played, my mind is soon filled with ephemeral notes of sitar music that have no discernable pattern. The dancer’s moves have an unearthly precision. She is hypnotically beautiful, suggesting a connection to the divine.

    What is this? Is she in a trance? Am I in a trance?

    No matter, the thoughts come and go without taking root…

    Clearly the dancer has undergone a transformation. She is now holy and radient, assuming the aspect and attributes of Shiva-Shakti – a godess incarnate.

    The dance ends and as she approaches each audience member in turn, I can sense their astonishment as they look up to meet her gaze. One after another they look up to her and begin a most curious behavior – they begin to move as if scooping up water from in front of them with their cupped hands, pouring it over their heads. I am puzzled at this behaviour. Is it a ritual gesture? Should I do it too? What if I don’t want to? I am somewhat anxious yet excited with anticipation as she approaches me.

    Suddenly, the moment has arrived. The dancer – now become Shiva- Shakti – is before me. I look up to meet her gaze and am taken aback. The sight before me is terrifying. There are no eyeballs in her eyes!

    Before I can react, I am instantly calmed by the love, bliss and sheer joy radiating on to me from her beautiful countenance. It is so far beyond anything I have known this life that there can be no doubt that I am indeed in the presence of the divine. Her eyes are the portal to infinity from which all things come. I too find myself greedily scooping up the substance of her gaze and dumping it over my head as if it were the most precious, warm, healing and loving water of life – and it is.

    She moves on to another and I am left with the warm afterglow of serenity. This feeling, although diminished occasionally, has never left me. My path is set, I have witnessed and experienced the divine. I shall never be the same again.

    As the presentation ends and we meet and greet the Guru and his consort, I thank them and briefly gush over the profound experience. They are gracious and self-effacingly loving in response. As we talk, I notice that they are not gods, but ordinary humans like myself – and yes, the consort’s beautiful eyes are now back where they should be for all to see. Somehow these beings are different though, they have a humor and love about them that belies the unfathomable power at their fingertips. They are truly benevolent beings. And they are here to help us – reassuring us that we are all of the same nature and that it is only practice that separates our understanding and ability.

    As we leave the venue I look at my phone only to realize that 7 hours had passed! The dance of shiva and blessing alone had taken over 4 1/2 hours.

    It seemed like only minutes…

    No one has re-invented the wheel here, not God, not Buddha, not LRH. This shit has been around for a long time and there are may paths leading to it. May all of our paths be unobstructed.

    • martyrathbun09

      May others be blessed with friends of such wisdom and understanding as you.

      • Thanks Marty. I’m sending you a book title about someone who did not follow this path in life, but discovered it’s destination after death. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.

    • What a wonderful story, Scott. Thanks to you and your sister, and for your conclusion: “No one has re-invented the wheel here, not God, not Buddha, not LRH. This shit has been around for a long time and there are many paths leading to it. May all of our paths be unobstructed.” It has so little control and so much power.

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      Scott

      Beautiful story
      It reminds me of the greatest win I’d in a Session on OT 4. After I’d experienced something out of this world and universe. After the exam I just sat on the floor in qual and was laughing for 2 hours. I was so exterior that I’d to handle my body very carefully to not break it. The experience was full of love and aethestics. I never I experienced something similar again !

      Would be nice if we find a path to …….I don’t know any word that would describe it. Still today I can’t describe it with the vocabulary I’ve ……:)

    • Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Scott.

    • Scott, I think you would really like to read a book by Lyall Watson titled “Gifts of UnknownThings”. It is about a dancer of the old Indonesian culture, on a small obscure island of Indonesia. Among other things. That dancer could also do what your sister experienced. The book is a personal account of Watson’s time on the island and his observations.

  27. Should have said “many paths leading to it.” in the last paragraph of my comment above.

  28. gretchen dewire

    That was beautiful.That and Mahalia gives us a feeling of love and spirit that no intelect can touch.

  29. Marty, thanks for this. Provocative blog posts is certainly one of your signatures. I like this excerpt: “Indeed, these ‘serious’ people are coming so close together as to suggest that they are becoming a single party of mankind, the earnest ones, the seeking, the questioning, probing ones, the ones who are not sure, the ones with a ‘tragic sense of life’, the explorers of the depths and of the heights, the ‘saving remnant.’ The other party then is made up of all the superficial, the moment-bound, the herebound ones, those who are totally absorbed with the trivial, those who are ‘plated with piety, not alloyed with it’, those who are reduced to the concrete, to the momentary, and to the immediately selfish. Almost, we could say, we wind up with adults, on the one hand, and children, on the other. ”

    Currently, I am one of those who is ‘not being sure.’ I used to view the condition of ‘not being sure’ as being a flaw. I moved past that. I now very much appreciate the many rewarding ramifications wrapped up in the condition of ‘not being sure.’

    ‘Children’, as I interpret Maslow to be indicating, are the attention units who are still at the bottom of the ladder. Being children, they require copious amounts of specifics. In other words, they need, perhaps demand, many, many, many, details. The children are all focused on specifics of the fantasy they truly believe to be reality. The children are very complicated. The ‘adults’, on the other hand, have climbed high enough up the ladder that they’re more concerned with the bigger picture than they are the specifics.

    IMHO, with regards to the path of religion or the path of science or the marrying of the two…the purpose (the content) is always senior to the means. At some point both will let go of their exploration, investigation and categorization of “the dark” i.e,. the illusion aka mest universe and turn to “the light” (turn within), to Spirit. And eventually, the illusion will be let go of and all, regardless of former illusory labels and deeds, will return home.

    Please, keep in mind, I am one of those who is not sure.

    • martyrathbun09

      Your point is very eloquently covered in the Tao. And the Tao of Physics demonstrates that the tolerance, and even virtue of maintaining, of healthy uncertainty is validated by science as the road to greater understanding.

      • Yes, ‘the road to greater understanding’ where progress, I think, is evidenced by awareness of our lack of understanding. For quite sometime I have had the goal of gaining and increasing my understanding. However, I recognize now that this was a misgoal. Pip, in his comment on your next blog post “Why Bother?”, articulated this beautifully when he wrote: “When applying understanding to the MEST universe one uses JUDGEMENT, but when applying it to the THETA universe one uses NON-JUDGEMENT and hence UNDERSTANDING becomes STANDING-UNDER. What changes understanding to standing under is when FEAR IS REPLACED WITH LOVE…”

        My goal is to ‘stand-under’ not to understand. This makes sense to me where I’ve come to recognize that indeed, LRH, was correct in describing the mest universe as having a reverse vector. It does appear that everything in and about the mest universe is the reverse of what actually is.

        In my reading/studying of A Course in Miracles I have come across more than a few places where this idea of not having to understand is actually a path to ‘understanding,’ although using different words, is addressed. For example:

        “When every concept has been raised to doubt and question, and been recognized as made on no assumptions that would stand the light, then is the truth left free to enter in its sanctuary, clean and free of guilt. There is no statement that the world is more afraid to hear than this: I do not know the thing I am, and therefore do not know what I am doing, where I am, or how to look upon the world or on myself. Yet in this learning is salvation born”

        “You are still convinced that your understanding is a powerful contribution to the truth, and makes it what it is. Yet we have emphasized that you need understand nothing.”

    • As a thetan member of CoS I chose to go under the spell of certainty that the church cast upon all its flock. I was captivated (by choice) by this SC ‘certainty!’ It was so empowering, so validating and made me feel superior. I was “in the know.” When I eventually decided to come out from under the spell an experience the world outside of the SC universe, I, at first, was both fearful and exhilarated. Once I realized I wasn’t in the church’s cross hairs, I became like a pent up hound dog that had escaped his enclosure and was running totally unrestricted in a enormous field literally covered in rabbit holes. After about two years of going down every rabbit hole I happened upon, it suddenly occurred to me….I didn’t know shit! I didn’t understand. I was completely uncertain. I was instantly afraid. I asked myself, “What exactly are you searching for? Do you think that knowledge, truth and understanding were busted into a zillion tiny bits and pieces and scattered throughout the universe and now it’s your task to go and find each and every particle in order to reassemble them all back into a whole? Do you really think that’s the only way you’re going to get out of here? Btw, where exactly are you going anyway?

      Well, I took a year off from searching rabbit holes and just let the dust settle. And, little by little, I came to not only embrace my uncertainty but also venerate it. I discovered that I was actually empowered through my willingness to be uncertain. And in the embrace of my uncertainty I became certain of where it was I wanted to go and where it was I was going. I am returning home. And, oddly enough, through not understanding, I now understand that ‘home’ is not a structure or a place.

      Once I was searching but did not really know what for. Yet, in my journey through space and time, I was being informed, through many channels, what I was dealing with. For example, in this song….

  30. Whar is the difference between CHILD LIKE and CHILDISH? Jesus said “Lest you become as a little child no way will you enter the kingdom of heaven.” To be childlike is to have an enquiring mind, to be interested in all of creation. To be childish is to be self obsessed. Unfortunately being an adult does not exclude us from being childish, but equally fortunately it does not exclude us from being CHILDLIKE, presupposing we never loose our LOVE OF UNDERSTANDING.

  31. Ivro Jackrikon

    Interesting. I just happened to be reading that very same passage from the book when I saw this posting! Have you read the book “The Master Game” by Robert S. De Ropp? I think it too very succinctly points out the potential problems with “the religious game”, for instance that it tends to get perverted into one of the lower games mentioned in the book called “Cock on the Dunghill”, the goal of which is to become more famous or stand above others not necessarily because of any factual valuable accomplishments (such as in the Patron game of IAS). The book is available as a pdf: http://selfdefinition.org/gurdjieff/Robert-S-De-Ropp–The-Master-Game.pdf

  32. Hey Oracle, I like that you would “drive to LA ” to have it out! If you do come to LA let us know as there are a lot of Indies there who want to meet you and admire you.

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