Why Bother?

Some hard-core ‘independent’ Scientologists have ruminated  among themselves lately the idea that I am somehow trying to bring down L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.  Otherwise, they reason,  ‘why wouldn’t he just move on and let it be?’   I am going to try to address this concern as directly and succinctly as I can.

L. Ron Hubbard developed a number of unique, aggressive methods for tackling problems of the human psyche.   Used intelligently there is nothing that compares to their direct, predictable effectiveness in intensifying present awareness.

However, there is a potential trap in the fields of therapy and spiritual practices discussed by Ken Wilber in his Kosmic Consciousness interview series that applies in spades to Scientology.  In segment eight of the series, Wilber speaks of people attaining ecstatic, exalted altered states in their particular discipline that they consider to be so miraculous as to be without compare.  They are convinced that they have found the only way, which results in a sort of tunnel vision and puts a figurative ceiling on their own continued growth and development.  Such people become opinionated, exclusive and intolerant – ultimately repelling others from experiencing the transcendence they experienced and losing whatever they gained in the process.

This trap is particularly acute in Scientology, because along with the peak and plateau experiences it delivers, its scripture is saturated with reinforcement of this sense of only-one way and superiority to mere mortals.  As intensively and effectively as Scientology can focus an individual’s attention and concentration, it just as intensively and effectively conditions those new found abilities onto worshipping and defending to the death the construct that made them possible.

In an ironic way, the zealous, judgmental, super egoic, ‘I will save you if I have to kill you’ mentality of the advanced Scientologist serves as testament to the effectiveness of that which they are hell-bent on defending and promoting.

Just as assuredly, it is evidence that somewhere along the line the science of ‘knowing how to know’ is converted into the practice of ‘knowing so best that we had better not be exposed to learning anything else and not allow anyone else to either’.

The observation I am trying to share is that it is this vicious cycle that is at the root of the demise of the methodologies of Dianetics and Scientology.  It is the cause of every other ill – disconnection, fair game, Simon Bolivar, violence in management, money is everything,  image is everything, you name it – every other ‘situation’ that folk continually mistake for the ‘why.’

I have witnessed tremendous relief, rehabilitated ability to learn, and renewed capacity for transcendence by getting this ‘why’ understood by many who have devoted their lives to Scientology.   I have also effectively helped a number of people with Hubbard methods by using them – sans the only-one religious indoctrination;  people who knew little to nothing of Dianetics and Scientology when they came to me.

It is for this reason that I believe the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard are doomed to the extent they are not used in an integral (integrated) fashion.   The whole package – taken as the whole package requires it be taken – leads inevitably to all of the ills ex-scientologists, those effected by Scientologists, and Scientologists (including and especially independent ones) seem to make a pastime out of clamoring about.

Why do I bother?  Because I want to help free those who are stuck in this Scientology dichotomy, and because I don’t want to see the demise of ideas and discoveries that can be effective in helping people in the future.

233 responses to “Why Bother?

  1. “…it just as intensively and effectively conditions those new found abilities onto worshipping and defending to the death the construct that made them possible.”

    Very astute observation. What exacerbates this condition is the often imaginary or embellished “threats” against Scn. While LRH is certainly guilty of rallying the troops against the “enemies” of Scn, RCS has institutionalized it to the point where it is no longer questioned.

    “Such people become opinionated, exclusive and intolerant…”
    The church could recognize this phenomenon as a case manifestation that will get sorted out with auditing or training, and/or possibly with age and maturity. Unfortunately, this has become the accepted norm, even desirable. Witness the Tom Cruise/Matt Lauer confrontation: most Scnist I know applauded Cruise’s performance and conduct as “ballsy” and “tough” for setting Matt straight and “telling it like it is.”

  2. Hi Marty

    I loved your post and some great responses. This phenomenon that Ken Wilber speaks of I am well aware of having experienced in The Church of Scientology and then in Christianity as a “born-again” believer. In fact I found the phenomenon so debilitating that I finally gave up both the label of Christian and Scientologist. I had for some time been aware that the essence of Jesus’s teaching was unconditional love and that the essence of Scientology was understanding, my problem was how to harmonise LOVE and UNDERSTANDING. My breakthrough came with the cognition that I did not understand understanding.

    There are two ways of understanding understanding. One, when applying it to the MEST universe, and an entirely different way when applying it to the THETA UNIVERSE. 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, 8008, the goal of auditing.

    • martyrathbun09


    • Hi Pip,

      I am intrigued by your mini-exposition of Theta/MEST theory. Would you be able to give any further references on where to look in the materials for coming to this understanding?

      • Hi Rainbodhi

        I think my starting point would be on the study tapes where LRH says “I developed scientology because of my love of understanding”, again in another tape he explains that because he is approaching the mind from an engineering viewpoint every word must be definable. As a result he says I am removing the word LOVE from the subject and in his own words “putting it into the waste paper basket along with all the ‘pulp novels’ written on the subject”.

        He then goes on to say he is replacing the word love with the word affinity which he defines as “consideration of distance” and from there we get the ARC triangle. However the resulting UNDERSTANDING is a limited understanding bound by the MEST UNIVERSE.

        This word LOVE can in fact be defined as “co-existence of Static” and I think somewhere LRH says as much. However co-existence of Static cannot exist in the physical universe because Static is a NO-THING and no-thing by definition must be quite different to MEST. Just off the top of my head one might say LOVE-COMMUNION-HEAVEN=STANDING UNDER. This could be termed the THETA triangle or maybe it should be the THETA TRINITY. The only thing wrong with the Holy Trinity is it does not include thee and me. Our rightful place is IN THE SON. This is the essence of Jesus’ message. Just as the eight dynamics start with the first dynamic – lots of mest and not much theta, they finish with the eighth – lots of theta and no mest. The dynamics were never intended to be seen in isolation apart from checking them over. If you have an eight cylinder motor car and run it with one of the cylinders not firing it is only a matter of time before the whole engine self-destructs. Better to have all eight working in balance even if not very efficiently, than one not working at all.

        Ron wrote an article in an O.T. magazine once pointing out that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, or as he put it “just because you know the parts of a ‘Buzz Saw’ you don’t necessarily know its BEINGNESS. Right there is the difference between UNDERSTANDING and STANDING UNDER.

        • Hello Pip.
          Additionally to what you have already said, LRH in the “Admiration-Lectures” (The Factors) had a nice and interesting talk about “love”.
          I also think that like the word “soul”, the word “love” has so many different meanings, and as you said, he wanted to have good definitions.
          In the lecture he spoke about love and admiration and there he pretty much summed up the reason for the seldom use of the word Love in his writings.

          • Hello SKM,

            I was only just thinking of The Factors in where to look for the relationship between what is defined as love, and affinity – thanks for the extra pointer.

            In relation to using the word love:

            “Get that first word that he used: ‘I was in love.’ Right at that moment take your choice. It’s down here below 2.0 on the Tone Scale or it was way up. And if it was way up he wouldn’t be sitting there talking to you. You get that? With what clarity you should get that.”


            ” [...] all of a sudden the sympathy and admiration will merge as an emotion and you’ll get what’s known as love. And he will feel that and he’ll say, ‘My God, I haven’t felt that since I was fifteen.’ That’s real love.”

            So perhaps the term love could still be used, at least in a colloquial sense?

            Also, I personally find The Factors to be an amazing series of lectures, and really got me to truly take notice of what LRH is teaching. It’s acted as a starting point for me and I don’t know why it’s not more widely recognised outside of Scientology as being such an important discourse.

            • Right, the Admiration lectures are great, as a lot of Lectures from the 50’s.
              Given your Buddhist background, there is one specific lecture I’d like to suggest to you. It’s name is: Granting of Beingness. Great stuff, really – got to love it.

              I was into Buddhism for a time myself and while in Scientology I never lost my view on other Religions. Metta is a great term in Buddhist scripture. Much better than the trivialized love.

              Have fun with Scientology. For me personally, it helped me to connect many dots in different religions. Not because it is superior, but because it has some unique approaches for data comparison.

              “So perhaps the term love could still be used, at least in a colloquial sense?”
              Well, I use this term often. LRH used it also, even in his private communication and in some HCO Issues. You will often find: Love, “ML” (for Much Love) or just an “L” (for Love) before his first name.
              The terms ARC and admiration are “precision” tools, kind of, for the auditor. There have been some admiration processes at the time of the lectures (around 52/53) and ARC itself is used not only by the auditor to make auditing possible (part of the Auditors Code) – it’s used in auditing all the time.

              • SKM,

                Thanks for the lecture recommendation… I’ll track it down and give it a listen.

                It seems to me that the lectures from the 50s form the true foundations of the philosophy, and most anything afterwards are expansions arising from that experience.

                I really think that something quite magical was emerging at that time.

                It makes me wonder why there has been such a feeling of restriction when it comes to studying other scriptures and philosophies.

                As an example, LRH pretty much equates Nirvana with Serenity of Beingness. So why not also study the meanings of Nirvana are according to Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain philosophy? Marty has also been speaking of a similar identification of being able to attain realisation through the Tao.

                These teachings clearly exist in Scientology. I do understand the purpose behind keeping things on track and in focus. But equivalencies have already been made, and they exist within the most important parts of its body of knowledge.

                I personally wouldn’t worry too much about “superiority”. It’s possible (perhaps necessary) to make a case for differentiation, while also keeping in mind a fundamental unity where it occurs. And it’s better to be honest on both counts.

                • Good questions.
                  I can’t give any satisfying answer to them.
                  Maybe this personal thought of me will give you a hint: I consider Scientology (and other schools) as a help to find my own truth. There is just no way to show someone else the absolute truth.

                  Let’s be happy, at this time we have access to so many different materials and we can talk to people of any walk of life, any ethnic or cultural or religious background – it was not always that case, at least not so easy.

                  It seems to me that the lectures from the 50s form the true foundations of the philosophy, and most anything afterwards are expansions arising from that experience.
                  Yes, very much so.
                  My favorite materials are from late 52 through 62. After that time LRH did not give public lectures anymore (only to students).
                  However, there have been technical breakthroughs and further codification of processes all along the way.

          • Hi SKM

            I don’t think I have ever listened to these “Admiration Lectures” so I am not really in a position to comment on them.

            I do have a particular issue over how the Factors begin as it seems to me there is a fundamental flaw at the onset. They start with “Before the beginning was a cause”; well that makes no sense to me, there has to be something or someone to cause the cause. Causes ultimately cannot cause themselves, they have to be caused by PERSONHOOD, at which point causes becomes effects.

            Baring the above in mind the Factors would now start – “Before the beginning there was personhood, and the sole purpose of personhood was the creation of effect. In the beginning was the decision and the decision was TO BE”.

            Now I know this challenges the fundamental “holy cow” of Scientology, and turns the whole technology upside down although I would suggest it turns it right side up. I am personally satisfied that PERSONHOOD PRECEDS BEING as this article points out http://www.leithart.com/archives/003435.php

            Personhood is not a term that most people are familiar with it is quite different to the word PERSON. Personhood is ONENESS – SPIRIT. Person is separateness – SOUL. Person comes from the word PERSONA which is a mask that an actor wears, in Scientology speak A VALANCE. Personhood is your very essence which is undifferentiated INDIVIABLE verses INDIVIDUAL. SPIRIT is to SOUL as LOVE is to AFFINITY.

            The Bible is the only writings I know of that differentiates between SOUL and SPIRIT, in Hebrews 4:12 it says “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword piercing even to the division of Soul and Spirit ……”

            • Interesting questions, Pip.
              What could that “cause” be?
              And what is meant with “beginning”?
              Note that there is no speculation about what the “cause” did before the beginning. It just says “Before the beginning was a Cause…”.
              The dictionary (google) says: Cause (Noun) : A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
              There may be different definitions.

              Thanks for the article, btw.

            • “The Bible is the only writings I know of that differentiates between SOUL and SPIRIT”
              I understand. However, it lacks definitions in the Bible. Later scholars philosophized about the different meanings of biblical terms.
              It doesn’t make the Scriptures less vital in my life. It just means, that at different times, the same words in your Bible translation could have been used for different phenomena. The Bible was written in different languages (different books of the bible like Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek ). It is a pretty much inconsistent piece of work. This may be one of the reasons why so many different sects emerged from it. So many interpretations.

              • Hi SKM

                Thanks for your reply. Whether man has both a SOUL and a SPIRIT has been hotly debated in Christian circles over the centuries. Those that hold that man is composed of BODY and SOUL are known as DICHOTOMISTS and include such groups as Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists. Those that hold that man is a three part being BODY, SOUL and SPIRIT are known as TRICHOTOMISTS which would include Evangelicals, Charismatics, and most Pentecostals. The bible does say “May your body, soul and spirit …” I feel comfortable with the idea that Soul and Spirit are two separate concepts in the same way that A THETAN and THETA are not one and the same. It is my conviction that only “THE WORD OF GOD” can truly discern the “WORDS OF GOD”, however much scholars philosophise about the different meaning of biblical terms, but then I would say that because I am a “bible believing believer”.

        • Hi Pip,

          I love your response. ;)

          Seriously, thank you. In many ways, with explanations like that, it becomes clearer why I am finding certain elements of Scientology to really put me in a particular space – there’s so much potential.

          I remember reading in one book (can’t remember which) where LRH says that energy doesn’t actually exist. It is reasons such as this which invites a comparison to Buddhism. I wonder if this applies to static as a whole? That would be interesting.

          In The Factors, I notice that affinity is defined as “co-beingness”:

          “Admiration and sympathy. Where they exist in unbounded quantities you can have co-beingness. And when you’ve done that you have described the force of life or the pool of nirvana, or anything else you want to call it, for this universe.”

          He goes on to say that when one falls away from this, individual characteristics become apparent. Would this be the beginning of MEST?

          Having a look at these references again, I see a little bit more at what you’re saying.

          It makes me wonder – where is all the scholarship?!

          p.s. I like your equation of us, as individuals, being The Son and I agree with your definition; it doesn’t make any sense to me for only one being in the universe to hold that privilege forevermore. In fact, could there be an analog of the Trinity in the presentation of Space, Energy and Matter?

          Thank you again.

          • Hi Rainbodhi

            Thank you. But seriously don’t get too serious because “Seriousness equals mass” (joke). Energy exists by postulate for the definition of energy is “Postulated particles in space”. This is perfectly compatible with Buddhism and the idea of Maya. Incidentally I hadn’t come across the word Metta, what a beautiful concept, The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love – http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html

            A static does not exist for the simple reason IT IS EXISTANCE in the same way God doesn’t exist HE IS EXISTANCE that which causes everything that exists to exist. As someone with Buddhist persuasions you might enjoy this http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bt_52.htm

            MEST is the result of the CONSIDERATIONS OF THETA and exists solely because the viewpoints consider it exists.

            “It makes me wonder – where is all the scholarship” please explain, I don’t understand this statement.

            The “Course in Miracles (ACIM) which is very Buddhist in nature says in truth there is only one SON and we are all that Son, but have been fragmented into countless beings but as with a hologram we each retain that fundamental image. When God looks at you He says “this is my son in whom I am well pleased”.

            Yes Space, Energy and Matter could well be seen as analogous with theTrinity. Space would be The Father, Matter would be The Son and Energy would be the Holy Spirit (just a thought)

            • Hi Pip,

              By scholarship, what I mean is, where are the independent studies of Scientology philosophy?

              Sometimes the philosophical statements seem straightforward enough, and at other times, perhaps not so much, and they can have idiosyncratic meanings (such as “static” itself).

              And furthermore we have detractors on one hand, who dismiss practically all of it as being ripoffs or ramblings, and true believers on the other, who often accept things blindly. Unfortunately, aside from the indies, there’s nobody really in the middle. However, it would be useful to really scrutinize thoroughly what is being said and taught.

              I studied ACIM a while ago and find it a very helpful book, and great for many people, especially progressive Christians. It does have a mildly Buddhist flavour, although it does teach some particular distinctions in terms of a higher power. I think that ACIM is intended to bring people to a certain point, and as it states, there is more beyond the scope of its curriculum.

              • Hi Rainbodhi

                “By scholarship, what I mean is, where are the independent studies of Scientology philosophy?”

                I have asked myself the same question for the past 30 years and have come to the conclusion they don’t exist. After I was expelled from the CofS I longed to find someone who could view Scientology objectively but no one can. It was when I was in despair of ever finding a terminal that understood what I was going through that I met Jesus. The cognition I had was “Jesus is alive today” and as such he knows Scientology inside out, in fact after that cognition I went straight down to St. Hill and saw the examiner. I said “Jesus is alive today” he replied “Thank you your needle is floating”, so that must be in my folder. Who says the tech. does not work?

                I am in the middle, I am neither a Christian nor a Scientologist, I am a ChristianScientologist.

                Interesting you have studied the Course. In the preface it says “Forgetting all our misperceptions, and with nothing from the past to hold us back, we can remember God. Beyond this, learning cannot go. When we are ready, God Himself will take the final step in our return to Him”.

        • Pip, you wrote “This word LOVE can in fact be defined as “co-existence of Static” and I think somewhere LRH says as much.”

          Believe it or not that’s a definition of affinity, as per Axiom 25:


          By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The
          original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale

          • Hi Marildi

            Wow! That’s such a beautiful axiom, but don’t you see it is not defining LOVE it is defining AFFINITY. It has been mentioned recently on this blog, that to evaluate a datum one needs a datum of comparable magnitude. There is no datum comparable to LOVE. Affinity is a scale of attitudes, LOVE IS – period. In ACIM the central thought is “GOD IS” this is theSINGULARITY that science longs for and the missing datum in Scientology. The datum that changes UNDERSTANDING to STANDING-UNDER.

            • “LOVE IS” “GOD IS” …impossible to conceive from a universe of perception yet, ironically, progressing through the seeming myriad gradients of perception is the way we return to LOVE IS, GOD IS.

            • Hi Pip,

              Yes, that axiom is defining affinity, but as I recall LRH used the word affinity instead love to avoid confusion in meaning – with affinity being a much broader term. In Axiom 25, it seems to me that the word “love” as you are using it would be at the highest level of affinity where there is a “co-existence of static”. From that highest level, which is the “Knowingness of complete identification”, it descends “down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication”, including all the negative levels of affinity.

              Possibly related to the idea of “co-existence of static” was something I saw on a website for the book *The Magic of Quantum*. On one page of that site there are two kirlian photographs. The first is of the fingers of 2 people thinking negative thoughts about each other. The second is of the same 2 people thinking positive thoughts about each other, and in that second one the “energy” around each finger overlaps with the energy around the other. It’s about midway down the page: http://www.themagicofquantum.com/review.php

              Btw, on that same page there is mention made of scientific evidence of emotional vibrations – basically talking about the tone scale. It seems that LRH was way before his time in yet another way. Here’s an excerpt:

              “Emotions have unique vibrations just like colors and physical objects do. These emotional vibrations also go from higher/faster to lower/slower. When you are laughing and having fun, your body’s vibrations are lighter (higher and faster). When you are tired and sick your vibrations are heavier (slower and lower). You know how when you are in love, you feel “energized”, “high”, like you’re “walking on a cloud?” That’s because your emotions are literally adding voltage and power, lightening your body. And when you’re negative and depressed, you feel sluggish, “feeling low,” “heavy”. “I’m down today.” Your emotional vibrations are giving your body a slower, lower vibration. This is not speaking metaphorically. This is scientifically measurable. (Molecules of Emotion by Dr. Candace Pert and HMI http://www.heartmath.org ) “

          • Marildi, this is a great axiom! Thank you for posting it. I find it to be quite viable. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that, while it can be most useful, it is a symbol of a symbol of a symbol and so on….

            Shortly after I read your comment I read lesson 184 in the Course of Miracles and, for me, there was an integration that occurred between the content of your comment and the content of the lesson. Following are excerpts from that lesson.

            “You live by symbols. You have made up names for everything you see. Each one becomes a separate entity, identified by its own name. By this you carve it out of unity. By this you designate its special attributes, and set it off from other things by emphasizing space surrounding it. This space you lay between all things to which you give a different name; all happenings in terms of place and time; all bodies which are greeted by a name.

            “This space you see as setting off all things from one another is the means by which the world’s perception is achieved. You see something where nothing is, and see as well nothing where there is unity; a space between all things, between all things and you. Thus do you think that you have given life in separation. By this split you think you are established as a unity which functions with an independent will.

            “What are these names by which the world becomes a series of discrete events, of things ununified, of bodies kept apart and holding bits of mind as separate awarenesses? You gave these names to them, establishing perception as you wished to have perception be. The nameless things were given names, and thus reality was given them as well. For what is named is given meaning and will then be seen as meaningful; a cause of true effect, with consequence inherent in itself.

            “This is the way reality is made by partial vision, purposefully set against the given truth. Its enemy is wholeness. It conceives of little things and looks upon them. And a lack of space, a sense of unity or vision that sees differently, become the threats which it must overcome, conflict with and deny.

            “Yet does this other vision still remain a natural direction for the mind to channel its perception. It is hard to teach the mind a thousand alien names, and thousands more. Yet you believe this is what learning means; its one essential goal by which communication is achieved, and concepts can be meaningfully shared.


            “It would indeed be strange if you were asked to go beyond all symbols of the world, forgetting them forever; yet were asked to take a teaching function. You have need to use the symbols of the world a while. But be you not deceived by them as well. They do not stand for anything at all, and in your practicing it is this thought that will release you from them. They become but means by which you can communicate in ways the world can understand, but which you recognize is not the unity where true communication can be found.”

            • Thanks, Monte. I read the excerpts you quoted and it seems to me that all of it aligns with LRH data. Would you agree?

            • Hi Monte

              I had to look up Lesson 184 to find out what it was saying. On page 346 paragraph 7 lines 4 and 5 it says “Learning that stops with what the world would teach stops short of meaning. In its proper place, it serves but as a starting point from which another kind of learning can begin, a new perception can be gained, and all the arbitrary names the world bestows can be withdrawn as they are raised to doubt”. Axiom 25 is talking about affinity which as ACIM says is “but a starting point and falls short of meaning” since this “scale of attitudes” is about appearances. Co-existence of static is this “new perception” that the Course is talking about. “The truth of GOD IS BUT LOVE, AND THEREFORE SO AM I” Lessons 171 to 180. Here it seems to me is the true answer to the Enemy Formula – “Find out who you really are”. I am God’s son and God is love, therefore – I AM LOVE. I have the feeling that this answer would not be acceptable in the CofS and would be considered theety-tweety!

              Whereabouts in the world are you from – I am in Portsmouth, England.

              • “Find out who you really are”. I am God’s son and God is love, therefore – I AM LOVE. I have the feeling that this answer would not be acceptable in the CofS and would be considered theety-tweety!

                LOL! I was just imagining informing an ethics officer that I had competed the Enemy formula and then hand over my answer…”I AM LOVE.” The head lifts from the page and the expression that comes over that face…priceless! Then, the EO says, “What’s love got to do with it?” Yes, LOVE, in the CoS is considered theery-tweety!

                Thanks for that Pip. Btw, I agree… “Lessons 171 to 180. Here it seems to me is the true answer to the Enemy Formula…”

                I reside in Fort Smith, Arkansas, US. Here’s where you can reach me (and please feel free to Pip): monterock@yahoo.com

    • Wonderful integration and articulation Pip! Thank you much.

  3. Marty,
    Your posts are getting closer and closer to As-is-ness.

    You are masterfully threading on that very fine line of pure considerations.

    My two cents on this, is that before anybody launches Dharma III, they should thoroughly complete the evaluation of the subject at hand.

    The main areas to be reviewed and hopefully solved, I think should be:

    It is the approach to the subject going to be scientific or religious? Apart from any legal necessities.

    Is the idea of Source going to be debunked and/or properly assigned its correct importance and place?

    Will the idea of Scientology as a servomechanism to the mind be finally assigned its exact importance and role within the rest of the humanities?

    Will the study and application of Scientology occur within the context of all other fields of human knowledge?

    Those questions should also be tackled personally by anybody who is practicing the subject right now, whether as a pc or practitioner.

    Just my thoughts.

  4. Marty, Geir,

    2 wonderful posts. Written by 2 very dedicated former Scientologists, who went all the (orthodox) way through for many years, until finally came the other side, gaining and actually practicing the ability:to kick it all to pieces, throw it all to hell, and now look at it all again with new eyes: as Masters,not students any more. Seeing what they are seeing, and knowing what they are knowing. Any chance that was part of the plan? The plan without which you 2 could not have risen to where you are now? Am I going too far? Too fantastic? May be.

    Has it ever occurred to you that all this bad, negative blended with the good and positive, installed in the system by Ron, that you consider a series of mistakes – that this was part of the grand plan to really get beings free? Sounds crazy? May be it is.
    But consider: For you, Marty, Geir, or anybody, being dedicated scientologists for many years, having to compromise your reality countless times in order to survive and continue with your wins and ‘eternity’, – to finally notice,see, overcome incredible inner struggles to admit what you saw and get back your integrity, and shout it loudly, come what may, this was and had to be an awesome OT task to accomplish. A task which marks the death of the student and the birth of a Master, of a Free Being. Independent thinker, and creator of thought.

    And not being for sale any more. Is that not the ultimate test of an OT? To see truth where it is so difficult or impossible to see it? When it is so well hidden by heavy indoctrination, when it is extremely risky to go for it, when it seems there is an ultimate price to pay for it?
    I know you both went through the above, each in his own way. You described those in detail. I know I did too. And it was Hard and soul shaking. Could anybody be real OT or real Being, or real anything, by just having always knowledge given to him on a silver plate without finally
    getting him to go find the most difficult parts of it himself? No more Ron, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Guatama, Gurdjieff…around to hold his hand.

    You 2 and quite a few others, have cut loose, only AFTER you went through the orthodox way. Now, you have come up one more step, you can cut loose the teacher’s cord, and become teachers yourselves. Marty, Geir, how would you have gotten to where you are today, Free
    thinking Beings, if you did not have to confront this amazingly difficult situation, risky, heavy, where devoted, believing beings, accepting everything Ron said for years and years, having to confront the observation that your own sacred teacher and his system, are not only not perfect, but also strewed with negative elements? And risking losing everything, by confronting and stating. You had to go through huge integrity, observation, honesty, and yes: Strength tests, to be able to
    survive and go higher.
    It is well known that the greatest teachers, while indoctrinating heavily for long periods, than KNOWINGLY made the right situation for the prodigy student, to kick their teacher’s asses, tell them, SHOUT at them, that however great they are, they are also wrong and he, the student can do
    better now, and then GOES ON AND DOES BETTER!!! this happens in any masterful teachings in any subject.
    It is more than likely that great teachers, including Ron, have planned this, if they were worth anything. THEY HAD TO PLAN SUCH TOOL, SUCH DEVICE. Is that not much more probable than assuming these clever teachers, were so stupid as not to see this coming? You really believe Ron would say one day:
    “You have to follow anything I say blindly or you are a criminal andbe declared”,
    and the next day say:

    Those things I tell you are true are not true because I tell you they are
    true. And if anything I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation (be it a good observation), then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter whether I said it was true or not. Do you

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. Too easy. I think I buy the next one as more likely what Ron really intended:

    If you will just stay with me on this line, up to the first milestone in Scientology, and bring yourself up to a high level of ability and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free from me and from Scientology too!

    This existence IS quite a trap. Ron’s Tech gets you out of many traps, in a big way. You both know, experienced and stated it. But that is not enough, because HE was there guiding all the time. That is the Tech. But to get us to become real trap destroyers and detectors, he, YES HE, set up the ultimate trap, in the most unexpected way and against all
    odds and left us to get out of this one without help, and most importantly: ALONE, guided by nothing but ourselves. The ULTIMATE OT level. Or better to stay humble: the NEXT OT level.
    Isn’t that more likely, than thinking this guy was so dumb not to have seen the dichotomies and contradictions he was setting? So dumb not to have seen how truth, freedom, kindness, theta, were mixed with ruthlessness, fanaticism, making the whole world wrong?

    Life is a game. I think Ron (and others) got that one right. Ron stated clearly that he did not intend to dismantle this game. Getting everything and everybody good and positive and sacred and eliminating all bad and negative would have ended the game. No dichotomies – no game. He stated his intention was just to get beings to play better game. That’s all. And here we are, playing a great game..! Look at these blogs! God… full of brilliant posts, countless ideas, original thinkers, so many of them,
    some sheep, some wolves, many rebels, but mostly beautiful beings. It has been similar with all great religions: new system/way put forth, very enlightening yet containing contradictions and seeds for both positive and negative. And some beings use these tools and transcend and others fall deeper into the trap, and have to go back to the end of the line and start all over again….

    Good luck to all,

    with love,


    • martyrathbun09

      Interesting thoughts. Because Scientology by firm policy includes the harsh punishment of putting any of its results to any objective test, all we have to judge it by is our subjective observation and evaluation of the conduct and behavior of its products. One of my observation is that the ingrained, automatic justified thought mechanisms that make Scientologists assign any good to Source and any bad to being ‘off Source’ or misapplying Source, makes Scientology strikingly similar to any number of religions that demand love, devotion and surrender. And like any other religion, fundamentalist Scientologists are as dangerous as any other religious zealot.

      • Hemi — what a wonderful world this would be IF all the great teachers truly did build in this type of fail safe to ensure their followers would grow up and not be dependent on them.

        To me — part of the proof of a teacher is how did the teacher die? Alone? Unloved? Disgraced? From over indulgence in liquor? etc.

        IF we are to believe Marty’s book — very sadly LRH died quite alone (except for a few), unhappy and without his family.

        Not my idea of someone who PLANNED it all so that WE would aha … rise above it.

        No — I believe I gained tremendously from what LRH did — even the much maligned Sea Org was a great asset to my life.

        And then when I left — it took years to sort through what had been 20 years (at that time) of my life — almost 1/2 of my life at that time.

        I’m STILL sorting through stuff — working whether things I adopted as ULTIMATE truth are indeed true. It’s a daily process but I don’t for a minute think that LRH brilliantly planned all of this AND MY OWN SUFFERING so that one day I would stand on my own two feet.

        IF he planned my own suffering — much of it caused by the auditing I received, the group belief surrounding divorce and how that should be handled etc etc — then I saw he’s absolutely someone I would never ever recommend HIS technology to.

        No — he didn’t plan all this. It happened AS A RESULT of various things built into the technology that Marty (and Isene and others) are trying to tease apart. SO THAT the good doesn’t die with the bad.

        In conclusion, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy a long time ago — although I will admit to believing in unicorns :)


        • Unicorns then, will be our point of agreement. Great beings. As to teachers/masters, how about Jesus and HIS disgraced death? Yet he was a great teacher with huge impact. Good and bad impact…What you say has truth in it too. I am not saying Ron planned it ALL, just the general design/principle and the final graduation option from a cult HE KNEW AND STATED might rise. Please observe, so many people are seeing and learning this great lesson and graduating. We believe that there are more Indies than people inside. And the trend grows. And we become stronger than before. And we did suffer greatly to earn this freedom which we will cherish more than ever. But we all needed a MAJOR lesson: receiving gifts of truth and freedom (which we all did while in CoS), should never shut our eyes and put us to sleep ever again. A lesson truly learned through exactly what happened. Sure, I might be wrong on that one, the only always right person seems to be Dave… But a plan like this is potentially incredibly smart, in getting high level results. And passing the cult test, the indotrination and implants tests, can only be achieved genuinely, coming from each individual using his own observation and integrity against all odds. Cannot be passed verbally and casually to the ones still indoctrinated, they won’t listen…cannot be achieved by a valence. has to be seen by self to be believed..
          Best of luck in sorting things out!
          My best,

          • With unicorns on our side, I’m sure we can have a closer meeting of minds.

            A few things I disagree with :

            While I’m sure there are many more indies, under the radars, ex’s, critics than those still heavily drinking kool-aid —

            I have *trouble* with this line : “We are stronger than before”

            Stronger for what? Some sort of take over and *showing* the world our wonderful tech? :) I think we would do well to work at eliminating any kind of — we are stronger, better, smarter, more helpful, more in tuned, etc thinking. It can lead to elitism in a New York minute … or hour.

            As for the death of Jesus — I believe he was at peace with himself at the time of his death – according to the stories. Otherwise – why would he say “father forgive them etc.” LRH on the other hand felt he had failed and was apparently wanting to kill himself. Not very comparable.

            I was also talking about other *respected* lamas whose deaths were brought about by an overindulgence of alcohol and other things.

            All in all, Hemi — the very fact that we are striving to wake up and are aware that we are, at least, not FULLY awake is a good start.


    • Crashing Upwards

      Hemi. I think you touch on some fundamental truths. When the student is ready, the teacher will come, as the saying goes. One such teacher was L. Ron Hubbard. And the information he laid out was a part of the spiritual journey for many thousands. But for most, its only one leg of that journey. Something we passed through for various reasons. Each person has their own reason. They each now know what it is and could tell us if we asked them. But I don’t think the parts of scientology that are a challenge or a trap were put there by LRH intentionally as some sort of final exam or test. But they are there as a test or a hurdle to be overcome as part of each persons spiritual awakening or growth who felt so trapped or challenged. What I believe is that those persons who needed such a learning experience in such a setting and in such a place are the ones who found scientology at the time they did. I don’t think any of this is by accident. Likewise it is for those who never leave it or hear of or know of it . They are experiencing challenges that suit their own growth. For most of mankind it does not include scientology.

      • Well stated Crashing Upwards!

        It does appear that we each are following curriculums or scripts tailor made to suit our specific needs. In reviewing my life as Monte, it is obvious that I always have gotten, and continue to get, the exact lesson I need exactly when I need it. However, that said, I don’t always fully understand the lesson at the time I’m receiving it. On numerous occasions I have not been willing to receive an experience I was having as the lesson it was. But, as there really is no such thing as time, space or distance, no lesson ever goes wasted.

        • Crashing Upwards

          I agree, Monte. At the time I am receiving the lesson, I usually do not understand how the piece fits in with the larger plan, except that its a lesson I have yet to learn, or else I would not be receiving it. With some distance, I can better see how the parts all relate to my own spiritual progression. And once the lesson is learned, balance achieved, feelings or desires held in check, or whatever occurs which constitutes progress, it does not have to be repeated. This applies to L. Ron Hubbard as well. And with all due respect to his achievments and contributions, he will, like most of us, be challenged on a lot of things again. The physical body is one of the more important tools we have for making progress. At some point, the need for it is no more. But I am 100% sure I will be back at least a few more times.

          • CU: “And once the lesson is learned, balance achieved, feelings or desires held in check, or whatever occurs which constitutes progress, it does not have to be repeated.”

            But, until that moment when the lesson is learned, it is repeated and repeated and repeated. This, I suspect, is why we have time. The constant repeating of the lesson not learned gives us countless scenarios of probabilities that, through our choosing, we manifest as present time experiences. Once, the lesson is learned, though, it (as you point out CU) does not have to be repeated. Thus, in the learning of a lesson, myriad possible and probable scenarios are removed from one’s curriculum and time collapses. I do not think it far fetched to say that in learning just one lesson, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of lifetimes of learning scenarios could be swept from the board.

            CU, you wrote: “The physical body is one of the more important tools we have for making progress.” I agree. The physical body is an efficacious device for both communicating and learning. However, in this physical universe everything has a flip side. The flip side of the physical body, because it is never not lacking, is that it’s an incredible ‘tool’ for keeping one encapsulated in all manner of distractions. Distractions that keep one from recognizing experiences as being the lessons they are. Distractions that perpetuate time.

            Like you CU, I too am 100% sure that I will be back for more. While this ‘Monte’ lifetime has been a major leap forward in my journey home, I sense there is much more to recognize before I transcend the desire, need, want or compulsion to have a physical form.

            • Crashing Upwards

              Well said, Monte. Its certainly not a once and done for this pilgrim. The issues can be addressed from many angles over many lifetimes if needed. Male bodies and female bodies are picked up as needed. Different familial situations are likewise entered into. One can come under particular influences over and over if needed. Of course I cannot prove any of it. But some things very much indicate as being true and one can see the reality at work in a limited sense. I enjoy Harold Waldwin Percivals 1950 work Thinking and Destiny. One can read it online at the Word Foundation. I wouldn’t be surprised if your not already familiar with it. Best to you.

  5. roberttroutman

    I just finished reading Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. That was a great read. I finished it in two sittings. I understand where you’re at, and look forward to walking with you to where you’re headed. Have you considered writing some fiction? I think there’re some good spy and adventure stories inside you.

  6. Hemi: I’ve read s lot of fiction along these lines and the reading is never repeated. The great designer creating traps for his followers.in order to improve them is extremely cruel. Sequels have to deal with the hero’s sense of betrayal and guilt . Not a good story idea–worse to consider in real life.

  7. Nice to see a diverse array of viewpoints enjoying a reasonable discourse.
    In Scientology we gained,or believed we gained,admiration not from being or doing right but from toeing the party line unquestionably and vociferously denouncing any opposing viewpoints.
    Even after leaving it took me a while to shed this operating basis in my day to day dealings. The inclination to sarcastically call out opposing points of view with straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks can be a difficult one to shed, but is vital if one wishes to progress on the journey of enlightenment.

  8. ” I am going to try to address this concern as directly and succinctly as I can.”

    Nicely done.

  9. I am still not sure.

    There are many justifications for overts. “Certainty” would be one justification. So would any of the Deadly Sins, such as Jealousy, or Greed. So would affection, as in “All’s fair in Love and War”. An Overt is still an Overt.

    The excesses of the Church are justified by “Certainty”?. I am not sure about that.

    Seems to me that excesses are justified by the fun of excesses. Stealing is fun, drug use is fun, disrupting others relationships is fun, harming children is fun. Overts against the Dynamics prove that one is strong.

    I call this the “Dark-side of Scientology”, just like Star Wars. Committing overts against the Dynamics to achieve personal success.

    Registrar-ing some fool into maxing-out his credit to pay for a bronze plaque results in overt harm to the fool. Is Certainty involved? The thrill of causing harm is enough. The confidence that the group supports this activity is helpful. The “Certainty” that Scientology is valid, does not seem very close to being a significant motivator.

    Perhaps I am not thinking this through.

  10. Thank you for bothering Marty. This article hit homerun for me!!!

  11. maxim46zbitnoff

    I offer up this book for consideration, by Sheldon Kopp. If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! The pilgrimage of psychotherapy patients. The tittle says it all. The meaning seems obvious to me… don’t be attached to the guru/therapist but find your own truth…. but I was amazed at all the different interpretations people came with on Yahoo Answers.


    I read it a couple of years ago. And it has added nuance when you consider that Hubbard implied he was Maitreya… the Buddha returned.

    • Hi,

      I find it interesting to see the different interpretations too – and I think this is something that Zen sayings are great at evoking in us.

      I interpret it similarly: “the path itself can become an obstacle to realisation”.

      On the subject of LRH’s relationship to Metteyya (Maitreya), I agree that he implied a very close identification (“Address me and you address Lord Buddha. Address Lord Buddha and you then address Metteyya.”), but it was carefully posed in the form of a question, perhaps intended to leave a little bit of room.

      It’s interesting how the Buddhist narrative was subtly woven into Scientology at a very early stage. In fact, I find the early editorial propaganda surrounding this to be strangely hagiographic. This was clearly played down by the church over a period of time, but I don’t think they’ve ever found a way to address or present it sensibly.

      I find your mention of the Zen koan to be very pertinent at this time, thank you for sharing it. :)

      • Rainbodhi :”I think this is something that Zen sayings are great at evoking in us”

        Zen Koans, as I’m sure you know and for the sake of brevity called them sayings, are given to a student by their Zen Roshi to contemplate – sometimes for YEARS.

        They aren’t just interesting pithy saying but the heart of a certain type of Zen practitioners practice.

        As for Maitreya — this is often mis-understood but the Buddha (that we are aware of — Shakyamuni Buddha AKA Siddhartha Gautama — the buddha that buddhists follow his teachings is supposedly the last of 1,000 buddhas who came before him.

        MAITREYA is the future buddha who has not yet appeared (to our knowledge) in the world.

        Some are even positing that Maitreya will not be in the form of a human body but perhaps as some sort of technology — ie the internet.

        Rumors abound :)

        IMHO LRH was definitely NOT the buddha of 2500 years ago reborn. And I don’t think he was saying that exactly but pointing to Maitreya – the future.

        *Could* he have been foretelling of a future buddha, Maitreya and *could* his workable technology be part of that …

        Interesting thoughts to ponder.

        As Marty and others slice through the BS — to the gold — it will be interesting to see what arises …


        • Hi Christine,

          Good to hear from you. :)

          Yes, koans are used as a practice leading to contemplation in and of themselves. However I do think that reflecting upon their meaning as a saying is beneficial in its own right, and is perhaps in fact part of the same process.

          The whole speculation and movements surrounding Maitreya has become so loose and varied that I wonder if the real one would ever turn up in a form that’s recognisable in that fashion at all.

          It’s interesting to look at the Tibetan mythology too, whereby actual texts are considered authored by him, or through his blessings. Actually I don’t see why this can’t be the case, but it’s hard to verify (as many other Maitreya claims are) so in the end it’s best to look at the quality of the teachings.

          The same principle should apply to the Tech and its attendant philosophy.

  12. You are too polite Marty.

  13. Marty: “The whole package – taken as the whole package requires it be taken – leads inevitably to all of the ills ex-scientologists, those effected by Scientologists, and Scientologists (including and especially independent ones) seem to make a pastime out of clamoring about.”

    Spyros: And as per KSW1, it also leads to anti-SCNists attacking SCN as well :)

    (but “no, we are perfect, it’s just that there are SPs out there”) :P

  14. According to my research .Scientology has been altered by the church of scientology since at least the early seventies.
    I think the church of scientology has been used to bring down L.ron Hubbard and scientology.

    • Yes, I don’t know about specific dates (I think probably 70s too), but evaluating texts compared to practices, the Church and LRH seem like opposites. It answers my ‘why is there so much nonsense, like setting people free by forcing them to obey?’.

      • *a thing which makes me a pro/anti-SCNist :P

      • One just cannot accept the whole 3D package of SCN without being glib. It’s full of contradiction. It’s nice to be (self determinedly) loyal, but if you think you can whip people into being self determined, that’s dumb, to speak lightly. Of course, self determinism is no longer in fashion in the 3D at large. Now, it’s about ‘ethics’ which is no longer self determined either…ahh don’t get me started :P

  15. Marty, this post describes the paradigm in which the tech could potentially catch fire with public and even go viral in the future. Fabulous post.

    Private note not to post: just a final thought thats pressing on my mind as a follow up to my comment about common sense protection of DNA and fingerprints. Where I grew up, my family and everyone around had what we called a “burning barrel” on our property. It’s a 50 or a 100 gallon steel drum that has its top lid cut off. We all burned everything that we didn’t want going out in the trash. You can get years of use out of a drum. ;)

  16. Grasshopper (Mark P)

    Marty/Mark (which do you prefer, by the way?)

    I just finished your latest book. Masterpiece. Incredible food for thought, and absolutely a must- read for anyone who is it was immersed in Scientology. Thanks. I will write more later, but I had to say that it is awesome. Thanks for writing it.


  18. Note to Theo: Having private messaged with you several months ago — an experience I found so frustrating that I ended up leaving the private facebook group. I threw up my hands and said “why do I bother”

    The fact that Marty continuously tries to communicate with you is … IMHO … almost saintly.

    To that end — I’ll leave you with these words by a renowned Tibetan teacher:

    “Unless you become free of conceptual thinking, there is absolutely no way to truly awaken to enlightenment.” -Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

    Please do not respond to me unless/until you can tell me exactly what you think Tulku Urgyen is saying. Even if we disagree — at least I’ll know you are willing to make an effort to be communicating with me – instead of dodging the issue or making me wrong.


    • Windhorse, sorry I cannot answer. Marty is delaying to say at least my posts. Sorry, buddy.

      • martyrathbun09

        I am publishing his lie about me to demonstrate in real time the dangers of hardKore KSWdom.

    • Christine thanks for all the “kind” words and the public labeling of me once again in this forum. Actually there is too few who have done this here, namely Marty and you. Nobody else did that to me here.

      So, with all your saintly Tibetan wisdom I hope we can finally communicate. What Tulku Urgyen is saying to become free of conceptual thinking, is actually a gradient above what I have been trying to do, become free of symbols. And I attained that through the humble technology of L. Ron Hubbard. And I can have conceptual understandings.

      But I guess I am not up to the point of what dear Tulku Urgyen said. But I will try and have that in mind. And hopefully through symbols (words) and the internet one day we are gonna reach a better understanding of who is who really with less labeling.

      thanks a lot for the quote.

  19. “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” – Mahatma Gandhi

    Thanks for bothering, Marty.

    While grace shone upon me with a marvelous time in Panama with my Dad and friends, I had a chance to read your Memoirs.


    Among other factors, it was a trip through an amusement park house of mirrors. Not me, but boy, the reflections were unmistakable.

    Thank you for the opportunity to see something I would not have seen otherwise.

    Brings me back to truth in this universe and my appreciation for your bother.

    Truth is an absolute and as such does not lend itself to comparable magnitudes, which from this wonderful level of existence are usually essential for some understanding.

    Your experience has aided me to separate LRH the man from his philosophy and the consequences of incorrect or inappropriate application, regardless of my agreement with your position, that of M2 or any other.

    Dichotomies are a bitch. Fortunately they are much less so when one gets somewhat exterior to them and can identify them as such as opposed to individual terminals.

    Oh, yeah, thank you my friend. Thank you and that powerhouse Mosey.


  20. My problem with Scientology and Scientologists, in and out of the church proper, is that they seem to have to have enemies. And where enemies don’t exist, they mock them up. It seems as though, in order to stay motivated, there has to be a perception that they are “under attack” at all times.

    So it doesn’t surprise me that the independent movement is fracturing and turning on itself. I guess the Church proper just isn’t putting up enough of a fight so everyone has decided to mock up so new enemies to take on.

    Face it indies: you may not be in the Church anymore, but until you stop fighting everything (including the Church) you haven’t changed one bit.

  21. Old Secretary

    Rick: Don’t you sometimes wonder if it’s worth all this? I mean what you’re fighting for.
    Victor Laszlo: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we’ll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
    Rick: Well, what of it? It’ll be out of its misery.
    Victor Laszlo: You know how you sound, Mr. Blaine? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart.


  23. A few might want to know what a blog is and the purpose of a blog:

    What’s a blog?

    A blog is a personal diary. A collaborative space. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world.

    Your blog is whatever you want it to be. There are millions of them, in all shapes and sizes, and there are no real rules.

    In simple terms, a blog is a web site, where you write stuff on an ongoing basis. New stuff shows up at the top, so your visitors can read what’s new. Then they comment on it or link to it or email you. Or not.

    Definition of BLOG

    : a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site


    • blog = web log or…borrow the ‘b’ from ‘web’ and join it with ‘log’ to get ‘blog.’

      Oracle, way back in 05′ the concept of a ‘blog’ was quite a mystery for me. Then, on an online forum I was participating in one day, I finally asked what the hell a blog was. The answer I received is what I began this comment with. The clarity that answer brought launched me into writing blogs. And I’ve never been the same since. :) While I smile I am not joking about that. Writing blogs and commenting on the blogs of others actually became a very rewarding process for me to get in touch with a lot of things I really needed to get in touch with. Also, the process, although it took a while, helped me to exorcise the LRH insanity I had become attached to and had been so adamantly identifying with. Of course, I didn’t recognize that until after it was gone. Btw, the sanity of LRH has remained. No need to jettison what is real. Indeed, it is impossible to jettison what is real.

  24. blog [blawg, blog] Show IPA noun, verb, blogged, blog·ging.
    1.a Web site containing the writer’s or group of writers’ own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.


    Definition of BLOG

    : a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site.

    Definition of blog
    a personal website or web page on which an individual records opinions, links to other sites, etc. on a regular basis.

  25. Joe van Staden

    I believe this post to be appropriate and relevant in terms of a trend in thinking, which is observable in recent posts on Marty’s Blog and a recent post by Jonathan Hyslop.

    A point made by me, on the odd occasion, is that there are truths beyond the truths of Scientology. I have been asked by some; what do I mean by that? My complete answer to that question is contained in my book – Mastering Mindset. Nonetheless, put concisely and in the simplest of terms, this is what I mean. .

    The “ball game” as I see it.

    Consider the phenomenon of H2O being transformed from steam to water and then to ice as the temperature drops. In a way, this transformation from steam to ice may be equated as steam collapsing into ice. Such a collapse would be dramatically evident if the temperature in a steaming sauna were suddenly to drop to minus 100oC.

    In science there are various theories regarding waves and particles. A comment by Stephen Hawking on the subject is revealing. He says, ‘Waves and particles are concepts created by humans which aren’t necessarily concepts which nature is obliged to respect by making all phenomena fall into one category or the other’. Nonetheless, the concept of waves and particles is conveniently descriptive of certain phenomena. For instance, the idea of a wave collapsing into a particle, works well to make the point of something insubstantial, undefined and uncontained collapsing into something much more solid, defined and measurable.

    Note that for various reasons the word consciousness is used here in preference to theta.

    Using these two analogies – steam collapsing into ice and a wave collapsing into a particle – now imagine “pure” consciousness collapsing into a point of view – a particular identity, a sense of self, a fixed location, me, I – ego. What we essentially wind up with is two fundamental states of consciousness – un-collapsed consciousness and collapsed consciousness. The former is consciousness maximally oriented in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value. The later is consciousness minimally oriented in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value.

    Also note that consciousness (theta) being maximally oriented is not the same as being well oriented. The former denotes being pinned down by all kinds of physical, mental and emotional baggage – ice-like characteristics – an inability to express full potential. The later describes physical, mental and emotional flexibility – steam-like characteristics – the ability to function and operate at full potential.

    It should be self-evident that between these two extreme states of consciousness (maximum and minimum orientation) are many shades of grey – many degrees of greater or lesser orientation. (The nature of consciousness beyond these two extremes is not under discussion here).

    What we wind up with is a scale, where consciousness at the top end of the scale is virtually unlocatable, immeasurable and unpredictable and, at the bottom end very locatable, measurable and predictable.

    And the point is? A useful criteria by which to determine the merits of any teaching, doctrine or belief-system promising the way – a bridge, to heaven, nirvana, OT or any other desirable state, is the extent to which it un-collapses consciousness (theta). In simple terms; the question is whether the teaching results in a less fixed viewpoint, less definable identity, less concern about me, I the self – less ego, or not.

    Many teachings, which promise “salvation”, when initially encountered satisfy expectations. When initiates first discover “The Way” or “The Bridge” it allows them to let go of their earlier orientation (viewpoint) in which they felt stifled and trapped. The new lease on life they are experiencing is due to them un-collapsing from their previous orientation, which was perceived and experienced as unacceptable. Otherwise why would they have moved on to something new? Nonetheless, it is inevitable that the shift to lesser orientation is accompanied by a sense of freedom, being less fixed and located by time, space, meaning, relevance and value.

    Here is the thing, however; also inevitable seems to be that sooner or later, the individual, begins to identify with the doctrine of his or her salvation – the teaching which promises total freedom now totally determines orientation. And guess what; this sets in motion a new cycle of collapsing into a fixed point of view and identity – an uncompromising self- centered me, I, ego. And once again, before the individual realizes it, he or she is orientated by “truths” in accordance with which they analyze and categorize everything. Consequently the new belief system takes over as the deciding factor as to what is true and real.

    This cycle of something un-solid (subjective) collapsing into something solid (objective) is evident throughout history in the evolution and development of religion and science, and is obvious in human relationships.

    Whatever the original awareness; be it the awareness of being aware, a sense of wonder or simply the feeling of love; the instant the need to hold onto that unique experience comes into play – the moment fear of loosing it sets in and survival becomes the primary focus, that is when fluid consciousness collapses into a fixed viewpoint – that is when the “eternal now” collapses into linear time of past, present and future.

    Feelings collapse into words and language – symbols. That inexplicable all embracive sense of being aware of being aware, is collapsed by scientists and philosophers into millions of words and formulas (symbols) in their efforts to explain existence, which is far better understood when directly experienced. In an attempt to explain (capture) the wonder of love it is collapsed into the language of chemistry or symbols like ARC.

    This collapse of potential (the un-manifested) into reality (the manifested) is a natural phenomenon. It happens in nature all the time – it is the source of existence. What is being suggested here is not that the collapsing of consciousness into denser states should be avoided. The point here is that becoming enabled to let go – to change one’s mind when required is a prerequisite for un-collapsing any undesirable state. .

    With reference to Scientology the cycle goes something like this. Initially there is the creation of knowledge – all knowledge is simply created. .Then along comes L Ron Hubbard and gives us “Knowing how to Know”, which is a collapse of the original state into something more defined. To begin with this worked well for many. It was a step up – an un-collapse from where they were when they first encountered Scientology. Scientology provided a more acceptable orientation – a new game, requiring related points of view. With the passing of time certain choices and decisions were made by LRH and later by C of S management, which resulted in a further collapse of the original state. Viewpoints became more fixed. It seems that at this point Scientology has collapsed into – to quote Marty Rathbun; – “knowing so best that we had better not be exposed to learning anything else and not allow anyone else to either”. : .

    By the way, you may have noticed similarities between what has been written here and other teachings and philosophies? This brings us to an interesting point. In fundamental terms, should we look at what a mystic thinks about existence compared to what the physicist thinks, the two will be miles apart. Now cut out the language and symbols in accordance with which each is oriented and ask them how they “feel” about existence. In other words, ask each at a less collapsed state how they each experience existence. You will be surprised at the extent of agreement. The point being that as mindset opens up – as consciousness begins to un-collapse, we become less restricted in how we interpret what we encounter.

    On the one hand, functioning mainly at a level of intuition (feeling), rather than logic (thinking) we will be able to read the Christian Bible, Dianetics, the Koran, Bhagavad Gita and the latest journals on quantum mechanics and sense the connectedness. On the other hand, restricted by logic and reason, which is collapsed intuition, we see no connection at all.

    In my book an entire chapter is devoted to a scale of consciousness, going from being minimally oriented to being maximally oriented – from an all pervasive view of existence (a birds eye view) to a restricted perspective of existence (a worms eye view). Several chapters cover the nature of consciousness to be found beyond the characteristics depicted on the scale.

    Joe van Staden.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for this. This is why I believe that Scientology – or Hubbard methodologies – are best applied in an integral fashion. Used intelligently they can lead to the recognition and better realization of these broader truths. Used as prescribed – requiring devotion and surrender of curiosity – the deny such realization. To those who think what Joe wrote is ‘out there’, a once-through of the Tao of Physics will give you the grounding to see that it is, in fact, right on the money. Perhaps his book approaches it on a gradient that would bring that same understanding – I don’t know that because I haven’t read it.

    • Hi Joe

      What you say in your post makes a lot of sense. I was in Scientology back in the ‘60’s and although I could see the sense in what LRH was saying I never allowed my identity to be collapsed into “group think”. When I eventually got thrown out I continued to study the subject from the outside, having accepted the datum of knowing how to know through study.

      I did not know it at the time, and your post has helped me see it, that whereas I wanted to be IN Scientology the folk in the org. were OF Scientology. It was this solidity in the CofS that finally allowed me to let go of the organisation, but to do this involved a larger truth and that’s when I had my Damascus Road experience. For a while I was a “born again Christian” but it soon became apparent that to satisfy the dictates of fundamental Christianity I would have to let go of Scientology. This I was unwilling to do and for a while I considered myself both a Christian and a Scientologist. Eventually this caused me to embrace a higher truth and both these identities disappeared. About this time I had the revelation I was a DIVINE SCIENTIST and embraced the New Thought movement. I now have no label and instead endeavour to practice LOVE and UNDERSTANDING, which I express symbolically as ChristianScientology. I took a look at you book on line, it appear very readable.

  26. Marty, I am grateful that you have the certainty to consistently walk your talk. Thank you so much.

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